86 College English

College English, Volume 80, Number 1, September 2017

Co m m e n t & Re s p o n s e

A Comment on CAsey Boyle’s “Writing And rhetoriC And/As PosthumAn PrACtiCe”(article available free at https://goo.gl/HH3Oir)Matthew Overstreet

Like fashion or financial markets, it seems that trends in rhetoric and composition are subject to periodic correction. If mid-90s cultural stud-ies, embodied by, say, James Berlin, is the most concerned our field has ever been with consciousness-raising critique, Casey Boyle’s “Writing and Rhetoric and/as Posthuman Practice” (July 2016) represents the opposite pole. Twenty years on, critique is most definitely out: practice is in. Professor Boyle’s essay is to be praised, I think, for capturing the nature of this swing and thoroughly articulating the in-vestments and ideas behind it. Like a driver on an icy road though, I worry that Boyle, and the field as a whole, may be engaged in something of an overcorrection.

As Boyle sees it, rhetoric as post-human practice “unfolds . . . as an on-

going series of mediated encounters” (534). It foregrounds the codependence of texts, bodies and things, acknowl-edges the “betweenness” of the hu-man and nonhuman (540). Ultimately though, such practice is less concerned with cultivating awareness of our em-beddedness “and more concerned with inventing techniques . . . with which we exercise that embeddedness” (538). These techniques—the moves that define the successful writer—largely operate on an unconscious level. This means that doing and doing and doing again is favored over analysis, practice over critique.

In a provocative move, Boyle po-sitions rhetoric as posthuman practice against rhetoric as reflective practice. Viewed from a posthuman perspective, he argues, metacognition and reflec-tion, privileged terms in rhetoric and composition, “have the potential to become bad habits,” because they en-courage the “writer to separate herself from all those things with which she is codependent” (533).

Boyle also accuses “current critical rhetoric” (E.G. Berlin’s consciousness-

J86-91-Sept17-CE.indd 86 8/28/17 3:14 PM

Co m m e n t & Re s p o n s e 87

raising kind) of focusing on reflection purely as a means of increasing human agency. Again, this suggests distance and difference, which is problematic.

Admittedly, there is a lot to like about Boyle’s vision of posthuman practice. Sitting at my desk, simultane-ously embedded in Microsoft Word, new materialism, a Beatles track, and a “heat dome,” it’s impossible not to feel the codependence he privileges. Likewise, raised on post-process, I recognize that many, if not most, of the moves a successful writer makes are unconscious, lying beyond the reach of either language or reflective thought. That said, should writing teachers re-ally classify reflection as a bad habit?

I think not.To buy Boyle’s dismissal of reflec-

tion, we must deploy a very limited notion of what reflective practice en-tails. In short, we have to understand reflective practice as nothing more than the discovery and exploitation of causal relationships. I admit that viewed in this way, reflection takes on a regressive, positivist tint. Reflection means (should mean/has meant) more than this though. In its strong sense, reflection—thinking about think-ing—implicates self and world in equal measure. As such, it becomes, over and above a source of agency, a way to limn the boundaries of one’s agency. It draws our attention, for example, to the extent to which our interests and experience shape things “as they are.” In this regard, thinking about thinking—reflection, critique, analy-sis—helps foster the humility and sense

of connection that is so important to posthuman practice.

To illustrate my point, I’d like to turn to one of the high points of mod-ern humanism, William Perry’s Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years. Published in 1970 and drawn from a survey of Harvard undergrads, this book seeks to chart just what exactly liberal education, in its mid-century, classically liberal form, does to students. As expected, Perry puts a strong emphasis on reflec-tion. The “liberally educated man,” he concludes, “is one who has learned to think about even his own thoughts, to examine the way he orders his data and the assumptions he is making, and to compare these with other thoughts that other men might have” (44).

So here we see reflection pre-sented as the very essence of liberal education. According to Boyle’s post-human critique, the result should be a rejection of codependence, an alienat-ing Cartesian separation of subject and object, self from other. Interestingly though, Perry holds that the opposite is true. Reflection fosters connection, not division. From a position of self-evaluation and awareness, he writes, a thinker “can take responsibility for his own stand and negotiate—with respect—with other men” (44).

“Aha,” says the posthumanist, “other men. Perry is both sexist and blind to the universe of things.” Per-haps. I’d argue, though that without some awareness of how we “organize our data,” it’s impossible to truly respect things. As embodied, embed-

J86-91-Sept17-CE.indd 87 8/28/17 3:14 PM

88 College English

ded thinkers, we always approach the material world on terms shaped by our interests and experiences. Reflection helps us recognize this. It helps us see how we see, how others see, and to therefore, get a clearer (and more respectful) picture of the world.

Zooming out a bit, we can say that Perry, with his expansive vision of reflection, represents the humanist educational paradigm. His A+ student is one who is able to position herself, with her singular set of experiences, values, and biases, among a field of objects and others. While positing a plurality of (separate) entities, these entities are in no way self-contained. Instead, through the mediating ef-forts of rhetoric and reflection, they are capable of entering into (mutually constituting) negotiation.

As we’ve seen, rhetoric as post-human practice seeks to supplant the humanist paradigm. Instead of a plural-ity, such thought stresses unity. Instead of conscious negotiation, framed by a sense of one’s limits, it seeks to utilize “practice’s repetitions to become at-tuned to and help foster the repetitions, rhythms, and relays that emerge across different media ecologies” (Boyle 543).

What would an A+ student look like under such a scheme? A particu-larly able Twitter bot comes to mind. Through “practice’s repetitions,”—sending a lot of tweets and blindly ad-justing its text based on the responses received—it could “become attuned” to the “repetitions, rhythms, and relays” necessary to garner likes and retweets. Such a rhetor could be said

to work with and through ecological af-fordances (algorithms, news cycles). It could maximize connections (retweets) and sustain affective flows (likes). But is this bot a model for the subjectivity we want rhetoric and composition to engender?

I think not.Besides feeling vaguely icky, the

writer-as-Twitter-bot is problem-atic because it will ultimately fail as a thinker and writer. Without reflec-tion and the self-awareness that arises therefrom, it will lack a “why” to its “how.” Therefore, when confronted with a novel situation—the kind that actual thinking humans face every day—it will be flummoxed. The con-nections it has created, being mindless, will be unsustainable.

As this indicates, while intrigued by Boyle’s notion of rhetoric as posthu-man practice, I worry that such a vision can too easily lapse into solipsism. In short, reflection of the humanist kind is necessary to give us a sense of our val-ues and biases (which are always there, even if unrecognized). Without this, it’s too easy to understand our version of the world as given. This ultimately impedes the sense of connection that both I, and Professor Boyle, hope to foster.

W o r k s C i t e d

Boyle, Casey. “Writing and Rhetoric and/as Posthuman Practice.” College English, vol. 78, no. 6, July 2016, pp. 532–54.

Perry, William. Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme. Jossey-Bass, 1999.

J86-91-Sept17-CE.indd 88 8/28/17 3:14 PM

Co m m e n t & Re s p o n s e 89

CA

sey B

oy

le r

esP

on

ds

Did

you

kno

w th

ere

is a

Wik

iped

ia p

age

acco

untin

g fo

r in

juri

es a

nd d

eath

s th

at r

esul

t fro

m ta

king

sel

fies?

So

freq

uent

and

no

tabl

e ar

e th

ese

acci

dent

s—ca

tast

roph

es, r

eally

—th

at w

e ha

ve fo

und

a ne

ed to

mai

ntai

n a

curr

ent l

ist o

f the

inst

ance

s in

w

hich

peo

ple

have

bec

ome

inju

red

or h

ave

peri

shed

whe

n tu

rnin

g th

eir

cam

era

upon

the

mse

lves

in a

mom

ent

of t

echn

o-lo

gica

l refl

ectio

n. T

he se

lfie,

like

the

self-

port

rait

befo

re a

nd th

e lo

ngst

andi

ng r

eflec

tive

essa

y, a

re a

mon

g th

e m

achi

natio

ns

born

from

a h

abitu

al in

sist

ence

of t

urni

ng b

ack

a w

orld

, ove

r an

d ov

er, t

o en

fram

e an

indi

vidu

al a

nd/o

r a

grou

p of

hum

an

selv

es. N

ow, s

elfie

s an

d es

says

are

not

inhe

rent

ly b

ad in

and

of t

hem

selv

es, b

ut t

hose

tec

hnol

ogic

al p

ract

ices

exa

cerb

ate

a se

lf-ce

nter

ed h

uman

ist o

rien

tatio

n w

hose

eff

ects

hav

e es

cala

ted

to g

loba

l pro

port

ions

. The

ant

hrop

ocen

e is

occ

asio

ned,

in

larg

e pa

rt, b

y th

e hu

man

over

-tur

ning

a w

orld

bac

k on

to it

self

form

ing

a lo

op th

at e

lides

and

con

solid

ates

mul

tiple

and

var

ied

rela

tions

dow

n to

a u

nifie

d po

int

not

unlik

e th

ose

seen

in t

he e

ver-

narr

owin

g ar

cs o

f a F

ibon

acci

spi

ral.

Kel

ler

Eas

terl

ing

follo

ws t

he im

age

and

func

tion

of th

is sp

iral

ing

thre

ad to

find

the

hum

an’s

“stu

bbor

n se

lf-re

gard

” w

hose

“ba

d ha

bits

of m

ind”

ne

cess

itate

des

igni

ng fo

r the

“m

ore

than

hum

an”

in w

hich

we

com

pose

our

selv

es o

utsi

de o

f tha

t nar

row

ing

spir

al. E

choi

ng a

ne

ed fo

r an

extr

a-hu

man

ori

enta

tion,

Ros

i Bra

idot

ti pr

opos

es th

e po

sthu

man

as a

way

to “

thin

k di

ffer

ently

abo

ut o

urse

lves

,”

a di

ffer

ence

that

, I p

ropo

se, r

equi

res

prac

tice

in p

uttin

g ou

rsel

ves

side

-by-

side

with

our

rel

atio

ns a

nd n

ot a

bove

them

.

Alm

ost e

very

thin

g el

se in

the

soft

ass

embl

ies o

f mos

t org

anis

ms

wor

ks b

y en

dles

s ite

ratio

n, m

ultip

licat

ion,

or t

rial

and

err

or. Y

et

this

str

ay s

ympt

om o

f stu

bbor

n se

lf-re

gard

hol

ds s

way

ove

r th

e en

tire

orga

nism

, ca

usin

g it

to c

onst

antly

cir

cle

a ve

ry l

imite

d re

pert

oire

of

beha

vior

s. O

bser

ving

the

fac

t th

at t

here

do

not

seem

to b

e ot

her c

reat

ures

who

sit,

with

fins

and

flag

ella

tes l

imp,

tr

ansfi

xed

in t

houg

ht a

bout

som

ethi

ng li

ke d

iale

ctic

and

tel

os,

hum

ans

even

mak

e th

e m

ista

ke o

f thi

nkin

g th

at t

his

rest

rict

ive

habi

t of m

ind

is a

gift

that

sets

them

abo

ve th

e re

st. (

Eas

terl

ing)

[M]y

inte

rest

in t

he p

osth

uman

is d

irec

tly p

ropo

rtio

nal t

o th

e se

nse

of fr

ustr

atio

n I

feel

abo

ut t

he h

uman

, all

too

hum

an, r

e-so

urce

s an

d lim

itatio

ns t

hat

fram

e ou

r co

llect

ive

and

pers

onal

le

vels

of i

nten

sity

and

cre

ativ

ity. T

his i

s why

the

issu

e of

subj

ec-

tivity

is s

o ce

ntra

l . .

. we

need

to d

evis

e ne

w s

ocia

l, et

hica

l and

di

scur

sive

sch

emes

of s

ubje

ct fo

rmat

ion

to m

atch

the

prof

ound

tr

ansf

orm

atio

ns w

e ar

e un

derg

oing

. Tha

t mea

ns th

at w

e ne

ed to

le

arn

to th

ink

diff

eren

tly a

bout

our

selv

es. I

take

the

post

hum

an

pred

icam

ent a

s an

oppo

rtun

ity to

em

pow

er th

e pu

rsui

t of a

ltern

a-tiv

e sc

hem

es o

f tho

ught

, kno

wle

dge

and

self-

repr

esen

tatio

n. T

he

post

hum

an c

ondi

tion

urge

s us

to th

ink

criti

cally

and

cre

ativ

ely

abou

t who

and

wha

t we

are

actu

ally

in th

e pr

oces

s of b

ecom

ing.

(B

raid

otti

12)

J86-91-Sept17-CE.indd 89 8/28/17 3:14 PM

90 College English

As

we

repe

ated

ly e

mbr

ace

hum

anis

t refl

ectiv

e pr

actic

e as

a d

istin

ctiv

e gi

ft to

the

wor

ld, w

e sn

ap o

urse

lves

eve

r cl

oser

to

cat

astr

ophe

(kat

astr

ophe-

, ove

rtur

ning

). P

rofe

ssor

Ove

rstr

eet h

as d

eem

ed m

y pr

ojec

t a “

dism

issa

l of r

eflec

tion”

and

met

a-co

gniti

on, b

ut it

seek

s not

that

end

. Ins

tead

, the

pro

ject

aim

s to

refr

ame r

eflec

tion

and

met

acog

nitio

n to

war

d ot

her

poss

ible

co

nnot

ativ

e as

soci

atio

ns. I

n fa

ct, h

avin

g w

ound

our

selv

es in

to t

ight

er a

nd t

ight

er lo

ops

via

hum

anis

t re

flect

ion

and

met

a-co

gniti

on, o

ur o

nly

way

out

of o

ur o

wn

self-

orbi

ts is

to r

ever

se th

e sp

iral

’s c

ours

e an

d st

rive

tow

ard

esca

pe v

eloc

ity. T

o do

so

req

uire

s so

me

form

of t

he v

ery

mec

hani

sms

that

got

us

here

. Tow

ard

this

unw

indi

ng, w

e m

ight

beg

in b

y ne

ither

cal

ling

for m

ore

refle

ctio

n no

r rej

ectin

g it

but b

y re

artic

ulat

ing

it as

a p

roce

ss a

kin

to ru

min

atio

n. U

nlik

e th

e se

nse

of th

e te

rm th

at

deno

tes

an in

divi

dual

in d

eep

thou

ght,

rum

inat

ion

here

wou

ld c

onno

te th

e co

w’s

dig

estio

n in

whi

ch s

omet

hing

is c

hew

ed,

swal

low

ed, (

part

ially

) dig

este

d, r

egur

gita

ted,

and

che

wed

onc

e m

ore

as th

e pr

oces

s co

ntin

ues.

Eac

h st

age

in th

e pr

oces

s is

no

t adv

ance

men

t tow

ard

a cl

eare

r or

mor

e co

mpl

ete

unde

rsta

ndin

g, b

ut it

pro

ceed

s as a

seri

es o

f inc

orpo

ratio

ns. T

his s

erie

s w

ould

not

con

solid

ate

a se

lf as

muc

h as

rep

eate

dly

build

and

ero

de th

at s

elf b

y m

ultip

lyin

g its

rel

atio

ns a

s em

bodi

ed it

era-

tions

, an

ongo

ing

exer

cise

of b

ecom

ing

diff

eren

tly b

odie

d.

Such

pra

ctic

es m

ight

beg

in b

y si

mpl

y pa

nnin

g th

e ca

mer

a aw

ay fr

om o

urse

lves

. In

the

earl

ier a

rtic

le, I

refe

rred

to w

hat

And

rew

Pic

keri

ng ca

lled

“tun

ing”

as an

alog

ous t

o w

hat I

am ca

lling

pos

thum

an p

ract

ice,

itse

lf cl

oser

to re

flect

ion-

as-r

umin

atio

n th

an r

eflec

tion-

as-c

onsc

ious

-tho

ught

. Tun

ing,

for

Pic

keri

ng, i

s an

act

ivity

whe

rein

thin

gs li

ke s

ubje

cts

and

obje

cts

reso

lve

from

ong

oing

rel

atio

ns w

hose

res

olut

ion

is r

egul

ated

less

by

feed

back

or

refle

ctio

n th

an b

y a

feed

forw

ard

prod

uctio

n of

dif-

fere

nce.

An

exam

ple

Pic

keri

ng o

ffer

s for

tuni

ng is

Wol

fgan

g Sc

hive

lbus

ch’s

“pa

nora

mic

seei

ng”

that

a tr

ain-

hum

an c

oupl

ing

affo

rds

(176

). T

his

orie

ntat

ion

is b

roug

ht a

bout

nei

ther

as

a re

sult

of r

eflec

tion

nor

by e

xten

ding

one

’s s

ense

s bu

t thr

ough

in

corp

orat

ing

diff

eren

tly in

the

wor

ld. I

aim

ed to

ela

bora

te o

n th

is id

ea w

hen

I pr

opos

ed th

at “

. . .

we

mig

ht b

e ex

erci

sing

a

sim

ilar

post

hum

an p

ract

ice

with

the

ris

e of

aer

ial p

hoto

grap

hy d

rone

s, t

unin

g in

to a

‘lan

dsca

pe v

isio

n’ t

hat

cont

ribu

tes

anot

her

mat

eria

lly in

form

ed w

ay o

f see

ing

(the

oria

) or

anot

her

way

of b

eing

in th

e w

orld

” (5

42).

Unl

ike

the

selfi

e’s p

ortr

ait,

the

land

scap

e m

ode

smoo

thly

mov

es f

rom

the

hum

an s

ubje

ct t

owar

d an

out

war

d en

viro

nmen

tal s

urve

y. I

t is

tem

ptin

g to

th

ink

of la

ndsc

ape

visi

on a

s bet

ter

beca

use

it ex

tend

s the

vie

w o

f the

ope

rato

r, b

ut th

at is

not

why

I am

dra

wn

to it

. It i

s not

a

“god

’s-e

ye”

view

that

Don

na H

araw

ay c

autio

ned

us a

gain

st, b

ut th

e pr

oduc

tion

of a

noth

er a

ccou

nt. R

athe

r th

an s

een

as

exte

ndin

g th

e vi

ew o

f the

ope

rato

r, th

ough

it d

oes d

o th

at, l

ands

cape

vis

ion

esca

pes t

he o

rbit

of it

s vie

wer

with

out r

emov

ing

J86-91-Sept17-CE.indd 90 8/28/17 3:14 PM

Co m m e n t & Re s p o n s e 91

her

from

bei

ng v

iew

ed. T

he s

ucce

ssfu

l lan

dsca

pe v

isio

n is

one

tha

t st

arts

in a

fam

iliar

pos

ition

(e.g

., po

rtra

it/se

lfie)

but

it

keep

s go

ing

and

goin

g an

d go

ing,

inco

rpor

atin

g ad

ditio

nal e

lem

ents

with

out t

urni

ng b

ack

on a

n or

igin

al s

elf.

A la

ndsc

ape

orie

ntat

ion

proc

eeds

by

mov

ing

itsel

f out

war

d, ta

king

its v

iew

as f

ar a

s it c

an g

o gi

ven

that

par

ticul

ar e

nvir

on—

a su

rvey

, not

on

ly fo

cus;

feed

forw

ard,

not

onl

y fe

edba

ck; p

rosp

ectin

g, n

ot o

nly

refle

ctin

g.

The

diff

eren

ce i

n or

ient

atio

ns b

etw

een

the

selfi

e’s

port

rait

and

the

dron

e’s

land

scap

e m

ight

not

see

m i

mm

edia

tely

re

leva

nt t

o co

llege

wri

ting,

but

it is

. Con

side

r M

icro

soft

Wor

d. R

eally

, MS-

Wor

d. T

he d

efau

lt la

yout

ori

enta

tion

for

all

acad

emic

wri

ting,

if n

ot a

ll w

ritin

g, is

por

trai

t. H

ow m

any

of u

s ha

ve a

sked

our

stu

dent

s to

cha

nge

the

orie

ntat

ion

from

po

rtra

it to

land

scap

e? W

hat

can

a te

xt d

o fr

om a

diff

eren

t or

ient

atio

n? P

osth

uman

pra

ctic

e ca

n be

tha

t si

mpl

e. S

o w

hen

Pro

fess

or O

vers

tree

t pr

ojec

ts a

Tw

itter

bot

as

an id

eal b

ut fl

awed

ass

ignm

ent

for

post

hum

an p

ract

ice,

he

does

so

unde

r th

e as

sum

ptio

n th

at t

he q

uest

ion

is a

n ei

ther

/or

choi

ce b

etw

een

hum

an o

r m

achi

ne, t

hink

ing

or m

achi

natio

n, d

iffer

ence

or

rep

etiti

on. I

tru

ly a

ppre

ciat

e th

e op

port

unity

aff

orde

d by

Pro

fess

or O

vers

tree

t to

furt

her

elab

orat

e m

y pr

opos

al t

hat

it m

ight

be

poss

ible

to a

void

the

eith

er/o

r for

mul

atio

n al

toge

ther

and

inst

ead

exer

cise

bot

h/an

d or

ient

atio

ns. T

hus,

an

aim

for

post

hum

an p

ract

ice

is n

ot a

ttem

ptin

g to

turn

the

page

from

the

hum

an b

ut to

rot

ate

that

pag

e fr

om it

s de

faul

t set

tings

and

ex

erci

se le

ss c

atas

trop

hic

way

s of

bei

ng in

the

wor

ld.

Wo

rk

Ci

te

d

Boy

le C

asey

. “W

ritin

g an

d R

heto

ric

and/

as P

osth

uman

Pra

ctic

e” C

olle

ge E

nglis

h, v

ol. 7

8, n

o. 6

, Jul

y 20

16, p

p. 5

32–5

4.

Bra

idot

ti, R

osi.

The

Pos

thum

an. C

ambr

idge

, UK

: Pol

ity, 2

013.

E

aste

rlin

g, K

elle

r. “

No

You

’re

Not

.” e

-flux

Arc

hite

ctur

e. w

ww

.e-fl

ux.c

om/a

rchi

tect

ure/

supe

rhum

anity

/667

20/n

o-yo

u-re

-not

/ A

cces

sed

26 S

ept.

2016

Har

away

, Don

na. “

Situ

ated

Kno

wle

dges

: The

Sci

ence

Que

stio

n in

Fem

inis

m a

nd th

e P

rivi

lege

of P

artia

l Per

spec

tive.

” Fe

min

ist S

tudi

es, v

ol. 1

4, n

o. 3

, Fal

l 19

88, p

p. 5

75–9

9.“L

ist o

f Sel

fie-R

elat

ed I

njur

ies a

nd D

eath

s.”

Wik

iped

ia. e

n.w

ikip

edia

.org

/wik

i/L

ist_

of_s

elfie

-rel

ated

_inj

urie

s_an

d_de

aths

. Acc

esse

d 21

Jan

. 201

7, u

pdat

ed

2 M

ay 2

017.

Pic

keri

ng, A

ndre

w. “

Pra

ctic

e an

d P

osth

uman

ism

.” T

he P

ract

ice T

urn

in C

onte

mpo

rary

The

ory,

edi

ted

by T

heod

ore

Scha

tzki

. Rou

tledg

e, 2

001,

pp.

163

–74.

J86-91-Sept17-CE.indd 91 8/28/17 3:14 PM