Octolog I, II, & III in 750 words? Can't be done

            In trying to explain the three Octologs to one of my buddies here in Dayton, I likened them to the Godfather trilogy: The first two are actually one story because they are intertwined and offer a progression that produces insight. The third one kind of floats off by itself and is interesting in its own way, though it doesn't seem to concerned with continuity or history. ...In fact the first two are so good, the third one looks bad in comparison. Had the third installment of each franchise not carried on the title, it might have been better received.

            I read the Octologs and was initially a little confused how all three worked together. I felt better after I read the reviews for Octolog III as I shared many of the same sentiments. The first Octolog made some important points about how we construct history—mainly the idea that history is itself a construction born of a sociohistorical rhetorical situation. With this in mind the scholars engaged in the eight-person dialogue (sorry, I find “Octolog” as a name to be all kitsch and pretension) also make some advances in the areas traditionally used to support the monolithic History. Conners makes a valid point when he notes that our hypotheses—of the empirical method—are tainted with our biases and presuppositions. Likewise, Enos calls our idea of what constitutes proof into question—a sentiment I hear repeated by Jarrett when she notes that mere text selection can reveal politics.

            All of this really asks: what should be the academy’s role in the creation of history? Crowley, in her initial statement, says that the historian’s ethos is of paramount importance. Later, in her response section, she states that the authors of history are often isolated by the academy. Unanimously it seems the panelists of the Octolog call for the forgotten texts to be re/discovered. For Swearigen this means looking at the women excluded from history and asking why they are excluded. For Vitanza this means a closer examination of embodiment—something that comes into prominence by the third Octolog. And for several panelists the recovery of the Sophists is also of importance.

            [I have to note here that my favorite part of this whole interaction is when Murphy says he will tell the audience what was said right after it was said (11). For me this just about sums up what the entire panel was saying: history is selective; history is recorded by those with power (the moderator); history is subjective and depends on ethos; history is isolated by the academy (as symbolized by Murphy). Really, it was a nice moment, whether intentional or not.]

            While the idea of constructed history doesn’t strike me as particularly original, questioning the authority and methods of academy at CCCC in 1988 must have been a big moment. The waves that it caused, and the events it must have put into motion, were felt nine years later when a second Octolog convened. This time around the conversation only glossed over the main topic raised by Octolog prime—the idea of objective/subjective histories. Instead Atwill sets the tenor of the discussion by raising the secondary concerns from the first panel: methodology, gatekeeping, and identity. Indeed this Octolog seemed to operate off the base established by the original panel to interrogate methods, methodologies, and critical gazes. Mountford notes that nine years after Enos calls for new methods and we, as a field, still do not have them. While the other panelists aren’t as openly critical of the lack of progress, the notion of institutional hegemony does seem to become a recurrent theme in this conversation. Ferreia-Buckley, like most of the other panelists, is concerned with disadvantaged voices—a problem that is compounded by the power structures in the academy (the rush to publish, the lack of methods, funding, etc.).

            To me the entire conversation is self-reflexive. As Glenn notes (both in the panel and in her article this week), history is written by “white men” (and here I mean to use white men in a more generic sense; let “white men” read here as the hegemonic force in culture. Today’s white men are the universities). In challenging the politics of historiography the boundaries between the academy and “the real world” are hardened (something Cintron makes a note of in Octolog III). Schiappa notes that the idea of “history is rhetorical” is commonly used as a trope used to cut down opposing viewpoints. Miller further problematizes the rhetorical nature of history by giving a concrete example of how history can be represented by CCCC’s work.

            Getting the short end of the stick are the folks outside the academy—or even folks from other disciplines. Atwill says that disciplinary paradigms shape experience. Mountford puts this idea into greater context when decries the constant pushback in rhetoric for writing instruction over civic discourse. Perhaps the hardest reach for historiography outside of the academy came from Welch, who advocated or TV and its constructions to be more seriously considered.

            Given the progress (and in some cases the lack thereof) from Octolog I to Octolog II, I expected to see more concrete results in the third Octolog. I expected to see the power systems of the university subverted and new methods developed. Then I realized Octolog III takes place in this universe just two years ago.
[Aside: I was disappointed that, after all the credence given to the dialectic in Octolog I (Enos) and talk of talking and telling in Octolog II (Lauer), the format of Octolog III facilitated far less conversation between panelists. Instead the session comes off as more or less a series of presentations on each scholar's research area. This could be why it seems things have stagnated--they have stopped conversing on a larger level.]

            The biggest gain in the ten years between II and III sees a rise in recovering forgotten histories—namely women, disabilities, and multicultural studies. But the theme also became significantly more focused with nearly everyone talking about embodied rhetoric. At first this seems cool and innovative, a new way of looking at rhetoric, the answer to the method(ologies) call put forth in the first two Octologs. Then I realize that the idea of embodiment is the new “white men” approach. It’s what’s in academic vogue. History is still being compiled and read using traditional methods—only the object of study is now a group the academy calls Other.

            The panelists have some neat ideas in Octolog III: Burton wants to turn archival research on its head and Dolmage wants to engage the body rhetorically. Mao’s approach of recontextualized history offers a lot in the way of re/viewing historical constructions. Meanwhile Cintron suggests perhaps to move out of the English department. All valuable ideas, sure. Many of the ideas are also missing the political part—or maybe they are too politicized. Given my reading for Lit Theory this week, I have to come at this last panel with a Marxist perspective. I wonder what is obscured. Twenty years after Octolog Prime, it seems like the white men academy owns history and its methods. The forces that shape history are too hegemonic to be reckoned with and actually end up shaping the discourse on how to change it. I’m afraid to say we are trapped in the machine of our making. The question of why these forgotten histories are in vogue (yes, I’m being flippant) needs to be examined more closely. I believe part of the answer might lay with Jarrett’s notion in 1988 when she says that histories arise out of barriers and authority (44). What barriers have we built in our quest to move beyond monolithic history? Who is the authority now and how it is constructed?