histories....

One thing I have inadvertantly learned this term is that history, and one's position in it, is really bloody important. During my MS, I learned that I had to "define terms," and that I couldn't just toss out *easy* words like rhetoric without explaining exactly what I meant. These days I define everything that I personally feel I need to, and that not only adds to page length and makes those 10-20 page papers seem a lot less daunting, but it also gives any argument I make a stronger theoretical background because, of course, I have to usually call upon other people to define any term I choose.

I was reading Berlin, and reading yet another version of composition history, and realized that nearly every text I've read gives, at some point, a historical standpoint on its topic. On one hand, this was an "oh shit" moment, as I also realized that this was something I was going to have to do relatively soon and I don't feel particularly prepared. But I also began to realize that that stating what is really important to you from a field's history, or what arguments you think are still valid, or arguing about what has shaped a field or position is just as important as going ahead and stating why you think those things should change. History is necessary, and even when I'm beginning to wonder exactly how many more histories of composition and rhetoric there could possibly be, I'm beginning to think that the answer is infinite.

So yeah, historically grounding my approach to my dissertation is something that I will potentionally have to do. Nifty. I couldn't do that now, so that could give me a place to go to when I need to start thinking qualifying exams--niftier. Having any sort of direction is a down home martha stewart style good thing.