September 5th, 2017
In Yood’s article, she goes into depth about the history of literature and English studies, about what the disciplines did back then compared to what they do now. She also discusses a great deal about new genres in English studies. One such genre is experience, not exactly focused on history, but the perspective of someone experiencing something, which I thought was interesting. She says, “We are no longer teaching the conflicts, we are experiencing them, as they evolve, in print. The genre of disciplinary discourse has created a new kin scholar-one who searches for deep relations and connections between system ways of knowing and experiential realizations of knowledge. ‘Experience’ is not a category of knowledge but a genre, a discourse and an activity” (Yood 538). I do think this is true, as not only are we learning about the histories of literature and English studies, we are also living the evolution of those disciplines as well. Furthermore, she discusses “collaboration” and how it seems to be at the forefront of the contemporary culture of English studies. I also agree with this, because writing has always seemed like a personal task but now we have writing centers in which we can go to another person and have a conversation about writing.
I thought Fish's articles were kind of whiney and they really made Fish seem full of himself. I wasn't sure about the point he was trying to make in his "part two" articles, but in his other one, he really doesn't seem to be an advocate for humanities. He actually believes that there is zero use for it, which we all know is sorely incorrect. Humanities are extremely important nowadays, especially in the workplace. Donoghue was in the same boat as Fish- he doesn't think that humanities will last through the 21st century. He also doesn't think there's much use of it either. In contrast to Yood's argument for the important use of humanities, I found the different stances quite interesting. Of course, I'm still with Yood on this.
Comments
Post a Comment