Discussion
(An Anti-Explanation)
"Study
results demonstrate that" (Wysocki & Lynch, 2014,
407) just as dreams help us with individuation, so too do technologies.
According to Jung, dreams show us how to become ourselves (1971, p. 324). The
results of the gameplay predominantly suggest that the "students" must journey
through fierce combat, unreal competition, strange, uncanny, and beautiful
lands, and a series of unrehearsed obstacles in order to become themselves
while fulfilling cultural obligations. This would imply that in our composition
classrooms, "students" play the part of the
critic, the critical thinker and writer who writes criticism by the book,
but, as the results indicate: conformity keeps students from becoming who they
are. In other words, conventional writing practices might be damaging, and yet
how could we reach that conclusion without conventional thinking? What can the
theme of the battlefield teach teachers about composition pedagogies? What can
it teach us about the relationship between technology and the construction of
our identities and the role educators play in mediating that? It is possible to
conclude that
"Study
results demonstrate that" (Wysocki & Lynch, 2014,
407) critical thinking, reading, and writing are predominantly the persona
whereas post-criticism, artistic creation, an aesthetic education have all been
the shadows. This is not a binary, the sorts need not negate each other; rather,
they necessitate each other. Echoing the value for individuation, Marie-Luise Von Franz says: "The shadow is not the whole of the
unconscious personality. It represents unknown or little known attributes and
qualities of the ego—aspects that mostly belong to the personal sphere"
(1972, p. 114). Her point,
and perhaps all of the aforementioned interpretations, inevitably reverts us
back to Calloway's call to raise awareness about the relationship between "the
interrelation of rhetorical awareness, writing, and writing technology" and
also literacy, the book antiqua: "literate practices
are not just applied skills; they are engaged practices. Students do not only
need instructions on how to use or apply technology, but also the need
instruction on how to critically engage technology" (p. 272). While literacy
led the students to the personal associations found through Jung's techniques,
I would argue that participants were given simple instructions; their
engagements were contingent upon their own ingenuities, their own interests in
individuation, in their avoidance of playing the role of the student, the
writer, and so on. Literacy is symbolic of control, professional minions, and
their need for instructions. All of the students' efforts, and their design
choices even, are symbolic of their own war tactics in the battle toward
individuation. The struggle could even be aggravated by technology, or
technology could relieve us from such conditions. According to Hicklin, the game mechanics of The Contra are symbolic of the battlefield:
The interpretations return us to Calloway's
call to raise awareness about the relationship between "the interrelation of
rhetorical awareness, writing, and writing technology" and also literacy, the
book antiqua: "literate practices are not just
applied skills; they are engaged practices. Students do not only need
instructions on how to use or apply technology, but also the need instruction
on how to critically engage technology" (p. 272). While literacy led the
students to the personal associations found through Jung's techniques, I would
argue that participants were given simple instructions; their engagements were
contingent upon their own ingenuities, their own interests in individuation, in
their avoidance of playing the role of the student, the writer, and so on.
Literacy is symbolic of control, professional minions, and their need for
instructions. All of the students' efforts, and their design choices even, are
symbolic of their own war tactics in the battle toward individuation. The
struggle could even be aggravated by technology, or technology could relieve us
from such conditions.
"Study
results demonstrate that" (Wysocki & Lynch, 2014,
407)
The fundamental
question this study asked was how do technologies and individualities work
dialectically to form identities in the composition classroom? I argue that
play and aesthetics animate the dialectic between technologies and identities.
More specifically, I ask, where do we draw the line/s between composition
instruction and technology's impact on the self? I argue that lines should
point toward individuation. At an institutional level, to what extent should we
be concerned with the individuality of our students? No answer. Should we
perceive our students as something other than "our students"? Yes. "Our
students" are individuals, artists, gamers, players, heterogeneous, and, and,
and. Must we be "serious faculty
members"? Ha. The topic of lines within and beyond the academy has its presence
in the history of composition studies (Derrida,1974;
Ulmer, 1985)
"Study
results demonstrate that" (Wysocki & Lynch, 2014,
407)
"Study
results demonstrate that" (Wysocki & Lynch, 2014,
407)
In conclusion, despite his efforts, Calloway insists that documents
such as the WPA OS are by nature problematic: "Any time that one document is
used to shape a field, some concerns will not be addressed, and those omissions
resonate as thoroughly as the included content" (p. 271). Similarly, I imagine
if perhaps what's most problematic is the sense that "faculty" operate within
and for "a field" that they're responsible for maintaining and sustaining. If
that sense is true, then future research is critical.
"Study
results demonstrate that" (Wysocki & Lynch, 2014,
407)
"Study
results demonstrate that" (Wysocki & Lynch, 2014, 407) EDI points educators
to post-critical objects that can individuate. For example,
for example,
for example,
example: