ALT: Response/Concerns....

"It is necessary early on to distinguish between responding critically and being a critic" (8). Ponder this alongside this statement: "Activism expressed through academic journals is not likely to effect significant change" (19). Is this a contradiction? Responding critically entails utilizing all available information to form a subjective position around a particular text. Being a critic, on the other hand, involves a greater commitment to this practice, tapping into research methods, analysis, plowing into the immeasurable stream of discourse which has served as the foundation of academic scholarship. The critic is "responding critically" but on a grander scale, achieving this position (a status obtained by tenure) when they themselves become a viable source for further academic criticism. This viability is often evaluated by the degree of objectivity exhibited by the critic-turned-rhetor, and by how well they are informed of traditional standards. However, the maneuver of a subjective position, through which one "responds (and interacts) critically" to a text, never leaves this equation, it only enters into a political dimension. Therefore, it can be construed that "activism" is a constant undercurrent of the academic press.

[What then of "significant change"? This provides the fuel for another discussion.]

[This discernment between "responding critically and being a critic" reminds me of a creative writing instructor I had years ago. She always made the distinction between a writer and a person who writes. A "writer" is someone who has been published, whereas others merely "dabble" in prose and poetry. Her dis-acknowledgment of active student writing frustrates me to this day, though i do consider this experience to be a valuable lesson.]