Project Description
A Bit about James A. Berlin
From his Wikipedia page...
James A. Berlin (1942–2 February 1994) was a theorist in the field of composition studies known for his scholarship on the history of rhetoric and composition theory.
Berlin was born in Hamtramck, Michigan and attended St. Florian High School. He earned his BA from Central Michigan University and his Ph.D. from the University of Michigan in Victorian literature in 1975. He served as a professor of English at Wichita State University, at the University of Cincinnati, where he directed first-year English from 1981–85, and at Purdue University from 1987-1994. Between Cincinnati and Purdue, Berlin served as visiting professor at the University of Texas and at Penn State University.
Along with other leading figures in contemporary rhetorical theory such as Lisa Ede, Robert Inkster, Charles Kneupper, Linda Flower, Janice Lauer, and Victor Vitanza, Berlin participated in an NEH fellowship-in-residence to work with Richard Young on the topic of rhetorical invention. It was at this stage in his career that Berlin invested heavily in the work of Karl Marx, which it was said was perhaps one of the most joyous periods in his professional life. Later, Berlin would draw upon Göran Therborn's version of Marxist ideology, particularly because Berlin found in Therborn a comrade who recognized the power and function of rhetorical principles.
On the evening of 2 February 1994, Berlin suffered a fatal heart attack shortly after completing a five-mile run.
James A. Berlin (1942–2 February 1994) was a theorist in the field of composition studies known for his scholarship on the history of rhetoric and composition theory.
Berlin was born in Hamtramck, Michigan and attended St. Florian High School. He earned his BA from Central Michigan University and his Ph.D. from the University of Michigan in Victorian literature in 1975. He served as a professor of English at Wichita State University, at the University of Cincinnati, where he directed first-year English from 1981–85, and at Purdue University from 1987-1994. Between Cincinnati and Purdue, Berlin served as visiting professor at the University of Texas and at Penn State University.
Along with other leading figures in contemporary rhetorical theory such as Lisa Ede, Robert Inkster, Charles Kneupper, Linda Flower, Janice Lauer, and Victor Vitanza, Berlin participated in an NEH fellowship-in-residence to work with Richard Young on the topic of rhetorical invention. It was at this stage in his career that Berlin invested heavily in the work of Karl Marx, which it was said was perhaps one of the most joyous periods in his professional life. Later, Berlin would draw upon Göran Therborn's version of Marxist ideology, particularly because Berlin found in Therborn a comrade who recognized the power and function of rhetorical principles.
On the evening of 2 February 1994, Berlin suffered a fatal heart attack shortly after completing a five-mile run.
Project Overview
In spring 2014 we plan to commemorate James A. Berlin's work in Rhetoric and Composition by using his teaching and mentoring materials to develop a project spanning multiple sections and iterations of ENGL 106 at Purdue University. Simply, we plan to teach one of his assignments across multiple sections of the course, including 106i, and meet to discuss the challenges, breakthroughs, and more subtle results. We are still in the early stages of planning this project, but we see a number of important questions being investigated by such work:
1. How does Berlin's approach to composition stand the test of time? We'll consider this in relation to broad cultural, social, and political changes since 1994
as well as examining how Purdue University has changed. For example, the number of international students for whom English is not a first language has grown exponentially. How does this complicate Berlin's approach? We hope to incorporate Berlin's assignments and readings into our own approaches to 106. This necessitates a historical reconstruction of his curricula as well as decisions by participating instructors regarding how "orthodox"/adaptive he/she/they intends to be with this work. Will the instructor try to recreate the assignments by using the same descriptions, readings, calendar, etc., or will he/she/they make changes? Where and what kind of changes? Why?
2. How do we remember/commemorate scholars from our field who have passed away? From our preliminary work, we've found hat our field has done a good job in eulogizing colleagues within our journals, but a poor job in addressing the lasting impact of their work beyond personal narratives. Of course, these personal narratives are valuable and important, but as a field, we've done little to address lasting impact. Some of us feel a general anxiety toward innovation in academia because the pressure to "innovate" is almost always translated into making a profit or making a greater profit by abandoning traditions and embracing the next big thing despite any qualms about its impact and cost. Some of us are also afraid that all too often this rush toward innovation might include abandoning and devaluing work from deceased colleagues. Anecdotally, we can't count how many times folks in passing have made comments like, "We're past Berlin now." Our project raises questions about whether we're ever really past our predecessors and their impact, and the mere fact that we're undertaking the project probably tips our hand. We say no. We are not past Berlin. But, we also wonder how this work might mean something different today. We use the anniversary of James Berlin's death in order to pause and reflect on his work, and--hopefully in a move that he'd approve of--to raise questions about how our field approaches tradition and innovation. To us, Berlin worked between the two spheres, between revisionist history and radical, pedagogical change. Any engagement with his work needs to approach both, and our project needs to adopt a framework that adds to Rhetoric and Composition as a complex field.
Amelia Chesley
Sherri Craig
Jeff Gerding
Daniel Liddle
Nick Marino
Don Unger
Kyle Vealey
Jon Wallin
1. How does Berlin's approach to composition stand the test of time? We'll consider this in relation to broad cultural, social, and political changes since 1994
as well as examining how Purdue University has changed. For example, the number of international students for whom English is not a first language has grown exponentially. How does this complicate Berlin's approach? We hope to incorporate Berlin's assignments and readings into our own approaches to 106. This necessitates a historical reconstruction of his curricula as well as decisions by participating instructors regarding how "orthodox"/adaptive he/she/they intends to be with this work. Will the instructor try to recreate the assignments by using the same descriptions, readings, calendar, etc., or will he/she/they make changes? Where and what kind of changes? Why?
2. How do we remember/commemorate scholars from our field who have passed away? From our preliminary work, we've found hat our field has done a good job in eulogizing colleagues within our journals, but a poor job in addressing the lasting impact of their work beyond personal narratives. Of course, these personal narratives are valuable and important, but as a field, we've done little to address lasting impact. Some of us feel a general anxiety toward innovation in academia because the pressure to "innovate" is almost always translated into making a profit or making a greater profit by abandoning traditions and embracing the next big thing despite any qualms about its impact and cost. Some of us are also afraid that all too often this rush toward innovation might include abandoning and devaluing work from deceased colleagues. Anecdotally, we can't count how many times folks in passing have made comments like, "We're past Berlin now." Our project raises questions about whether we're ever really past our predecessors and their impact, and the mere fact that we're undertaking the project probably tips our hand. We say no. We are not past Berlin. But, we also wonder how this work might mean something different today. We use the anniversary of James Berlin's death in order to pause and reflect on his work, and--hopefully in a move that he'd approve of--to raise questions about how our field approaches tradition and innovation. To us, Berlin worked between the two spheres, between revisionist history and radical, pedagogical change. Any engagement with his work needs to approach both, and our project needs to adopt a framework that adds to Rhetoric and Composition as a complex field.
Amelia Chesley
Sherri Craig
Jeff Gerding
Daniel Liddle
Nick Marino
Don Unger
Kyle Vealey
Jon Wallin
General Outline
Phase 1--Nov. 2013-Jan. 2014
1. Piece together Berlin's materials through archival research, email interviews with former mentees, and descriptions of his teaching in published texts.
2. Recruit additional participants, particularly from 106i.
3. Provide a shot list of readings from Berlin for participants (2-3 chapters/articles)
4. Toward adapting Berlin's materials to our classes and course goals:
Conduct a group meeting with a presentation that addresses the structure of Berlin's projects, and provides project participants with his teaching materials (syllabus, calendar, and assignment sheet), packets with readings from his classes, and examples of student work to participants, and having discussion over participants' approaches to the project. Set a deadline for adapting these assignments. Circulate everyone's materials to the group prior to the focus-group meeting. Set a date for the assignment [2nd or third unit of the semester (Feb.-March?)].
Phase 2--Feb-March 2014
1. Plan structure for focus group meetings. Schedule meetings.
2. Focus group meeting mid-Jan. 2014. On adapting Berlin's materials and the choices that went into that.
3. Focus group meeting in early-March 2014. On carrying out the assignment (how it's going and challenges arising from the project)
4. Focus group meeting late-March 2014. Reflecting on the assignment overall
Phase 3--March-May 2014
1. Code the data.
2. Write the article.
3. Submit the article? CCC? Comp Studies? Microhistories in Composition cfp?
1. Piece together Berlin's materials through archival research, email interviews with former mentees, and descriptions of his teaching in published texts.
2. Recruit additional participants, particularly from 106i.
3. Provide a shot list of readings from Berlin for participants (2-3 chapters/articles)
4. Toward adapting Berlin's materials to our classes and course goals:
Conduct a group meeting with a presentation that addresses the structure of Berlin's projects, and provides project participants with his teaching materials (syllabus, calendar, and assignment sheet), packets with readings from his classes, and examples of student work to participants, and having discussion over participants' approaches to the project. Set a deadline for adapting these assignments. Circulate everyone's materials to the group prior to the focus-group meeting. Set a date for the assignment [2nd or third unit of the semester (Feb.-March?)].
Phase 2--Feb-March 2014
1. Plan structure for focus group meetings. Schedule meetings.
2. Focus group meeting mid-Jan. 2014. On adapting Berlin's materials and the choices that went into that.
3. Focus group meeting in early-March 2014. On carrying out the assignment (how it's going and challenges arising from the project)
4. Focus group meeting late-March 2014. Reflecting on the assignment overall
Phase 3--March-May 2014
1. Code the data.
2. Write the article.
3. Submit the article? CCC? Comp Studies? Microhistories in Composition cfp?