There was a job talk today from Jeff Pruchnic who is applying for a position in Rhetoric/ Composition but more specifically the “computers and writing” sector of this field. The talk itself was nothing exceptional but there were some interesting “professionalization moments” that concerned me.

First, and most superficially, he was wearing a black pin stripe suit with brown shoes and cream socks: WTF??

Now then; it was interesting to note other features of his physical presentation that, to me, played a lot of different angles simultaneously. Pruchnic had thick black hair, the majority of which, except for the sides, was prominently spiked up; his facial hair was deliberately unshaven in strategic locations; thin rimmed black glasses rested on the precipice of his face which, quite nicely, always wore a slight smile even when under faculty interrogation.

I begin with Pruchnic’s physical appearance because there are so many intersections and disconnections with my own wardrobe project. Where I choose to be cleaner in appearance (shaved, fairly conservative hair), he chooses to play, what seems to be, on the look of a young, hip, radical intellectual who, while understanding the standards of ‘a professional appearance’, plays on these codes to foreground simultaneously his understanding and deliberate subversion. Moreover, his appearance provides energy within any setting, especially a drab conference room, and plays well when juxtaposed to his quiet voice and playful jokes.

The talk:

Although other professors with whom I spoke after the presentation felt that he handles question fairly well, especially when compared to the last candidate, I felt that these were his weakest moments. One instance was particularly disquieting.

Pruchnic offered a model that he called “humorous politics,” wherein the engagement with arguments not based on reason, but on affective appeals, is accomplished through, quietly literally, circuitous logics/ methods. The energy contained in these appeals is rerouted in interesting and unusual ways (i.e. like electricity circuits); he offered Wikis as one such space. Regardless, when asked about the distinctions between this approach and work already under way in the field. After a few minutes of deflection, he conceded that perhaps the two approaches are not really that different after all.

The moment stands out because 1) there seemed to be little awareness of the model already deployed and more importantly 2) because he hadn’t fully carved out his space in the field, which in turn demonstrated the first point, a lack of familiarity with the specifics of the field. During conversation after the talk amongst other Compositionists and Rhetoricians, I raised the same point and received by their own admission, generous responses. One professor offered that the current academic climate, his institution like ours, demands so much attention and awareness of critical theory (Marxist, Derridian, et al.) that there is little time to familiarize with the vast, but less glamorous, field of Composition/ Pedagogical theory; (He was able to cite Deleuze and others easily) Perhaps, but not knowing about a theory that seems to have already done your work seems irresponsible at best.

A later conversation was also generous pointing out that the day long interrogation had clearly left him weary. I was rather surprised with the generosity and expected that faculty would be much more critical; one voiced their critiques in our conversation as the candidate was only few feet away – this is more inline with what I would expect.

All that said, he was clearly a very intelligent person who would be able to take in and resolve critiques; hopefully with better success than matching a black suit with brown shoes.