Journal no. 5

In discussions of  the problems of specialization in English studies, one controversial issue has been the value of "corporate compromise" as a potential means of curricular reform. Corporate compromise generally involves one English studies discipline asserting managerial powers over the others in a democratic fashion. On the one hand, Brantliger and Eagleton argue that cultural studies should assume the leading position. Their rationale is that cultural studies "recognizes all texts as falling within its scope, and its methods of analysis are better suited to making the knowledge produced in [the disciplines of English studies] useful to a larger public." On the other hand, Berlin contends that social-epistemic rhetoric should take the helm. He claims that because rhetoric is the study of signifying practices, and because signifying practices define all English studies disciplines, rhetoric is best able to assume a managerial role. Others even maintain that literacy should be designated leader, as it is not in itself an English studies discipline yet is, however, a unifying term for all other English studies disciplines and would thus uphold an unbiased administration. It is the view of the authors of "They Say/ I Say" that these "equally specialized managerial disciplines" do not represent the needs and wants of the other English studies disciplines and that an assertion of dominance is only a political maneuver to marginalize them. The authors find corporate compromise to be the wrong option for reforming the English studies curriculum.