IC #4: From Post-structuralism to Multiculturalism

This is your final Intertextual Conversation of the semester, employing one of our principal course methodologies—putting topical readings into explicit and implicit conversation with each other—towards achieving new discovery (and even meta-discovery). As before, for this assignment, you'll be synthesizing the work of two theorists in order to better understand their claims, their antecedents, their positions, and their position-ing within the field, where "field" can—and should, by now—be taking some formative shape in your mind, given your experiences in and outside of the classroom.

The Task
Select any two theorists from this week's readings—one from Tuesday and one from Thursday's schedule—and describe how one of them reflects either a response to, a disruption of, a continuation of, or a reframing of the other's arguments. Note that I have opened up this task more broadly than in past weeks, but that I am still asking you to chart a critical moment reflected in what one of them does (or seems to do) with the other's work. However, note also that this raises some interesting cautions and constraints:

• are you putting them together in a relationship that makes sense chronologically?
• are you putting them together in a relationship that is viable ideologically?
• are you putting them together in a relationship that reveals nuance and dissonance, as much as (or in addition to) similarity?

If you would like to use Trimbur, et al or Hairston as one of your theorists, I'll ask you to use them together since they present an inter text already, and then select at least one additional theorist from Thursday's schedule. (You may find you need more, given the brevity of their conversation.)

As I prompted you to do with IC #3, please think about your IC as articulating an intervention that you think has been made or could be made into contemporary understandings of "language," "diversity," or "multiculturalism."

At risk of sounding repetitive, remember that IC's are brief (~2 single-spaced pages) but that in spite of their brevity, I'll be looking for depth and breadth in your writing—that is, I'll be looking for you to demonstrate that you are beginning to grasp each theorist's overarching argument while also noting its nuances and intricacies, which will inevitably surface when you try to hold their ideas accountable to someone else's. This means that you'll want to demonstrate your skill with writing an analytical summary, considering the methodology or organization underlying each of their arguments, forwarding key terms or concepts that are important to the conversation you are constructing, and providing and citing salient examples from each text. Please include the MLA citation for your readings and use in-text (parenthetical) citations throughout your IC where needed.

Submission
Please bring a hard copy of IC #4 to class on 10/23. I will make time to discuss them so that you can share some of your results with each other before I collect them.

-Dr. Graban