“What Wants to be Said (Out Loud)?: Octalogs as Alter/native to Hegemonic Discourse Practices”

by Eric Reid Hamilton | Xchanges 14.1, Spring 2019

Walking the Walk by Talking the Talk: Alternative Manifestations within a Weekly Doctoral Colloquia

Within the doctoral program of Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design (RCID) at Clemson University, a formula somewhat similar to the original Octalog and each subsequent re/manifestation transpires on a weekly basis. Each Monday morning for over two and a half hours, a variety of symposium-like gatherings occur in a single location with attendance that is mandatory—or, at least, highly encouraged—for all doctoral students of the program (both residential and online), but particularly the first and second year cohorts. The events that fill up this allotted time include a research forum with a faculty member from different departments—demonstrating the usefulness of cross- and transdisciplinary interaction(s)—throughout the university, offering a half-hour presentation on current works in progress. The second half of their presentation is dedicated to Q & A from doctoral students, as well as any faculty members who may attend.

Following this intellectually stimulating starting point of each school week is a theory-criticism colloquium in which an RCID-affiliated faculty member leads a discussion based on an assigned reading—usually an academic article with an accompanying piece of biographical information pertaining to the author as well as background pertaining to the historical context surrounding the piece during its initial publication. There is relative freedom within this academic setting since there is not the added pressure of having to turn-in a written response or conduct an examination for a grade. Those types of standardized assessments usually promote narrow, nearly-prescriptive forms of hermeneutical investigations. Instead, the discussion includes questions posed throughout by the appointed faculty member, and then all students in attendance are granted nearly free rein to respond and discuss whatever matters happen to arise within the conversation, without the added weight of attempting to formulate the correct answer or response. A year of experience participating in these colloquia has already had a profound impact on my own scholarly training, and I have witnessed the stimulation and catalyzation for current and future academic undertakings for my colleagues.

It should be noted that the inclusion of RCID’s weekly colloquia is not intended to merely promote an individual institution or program, but rather to demonstrate a current manifestation of the Octalog process in action, carried out on a similar scale, yet with far more regularity, so that others may be inspired by this forum for their own institutional/scholarly purposes. The relatively formal setting of conversing with colleagues in a conference room offers an excellent venue for beginning and aspiring scholars to develop their academic voices through verbal modes.

The significance of defending and perpetuating similar spaces and/or venues is reinforced by Janet M. Atwill: “Reflecting on more than two decades of these colloquies, I am impressed by two things: the importance of relationships and the need to protect spaces where such colloquies and relationships can flourish” (Agnew et al. 249). Octalogs, colloquia, colloquies, symposia, verbal and contemporaneous discourse—regardless of what one labels the process—all offer an invaluable resource and tool for academic practices. Additionally, such activities provide insight into the embodiment of the discipline: “The Octalogs bear witness to the extent to which disciplines are embodied—handed off from mentors and shared among students and colleagues” (249).

Paradoxically, by extending and opening the parameters of the disciplines of historiography, rhetoric, composition, communication, and such, the Octalog helped to reinforce and define such alternative modes of study, whereby “these relationships were an open network, not a closed circle.” Rather, “they created connections that provided referees for journal articles, books, and tenure decisions. By being open to what is ‘outside,’ these relationships created a contingent ‘inside’—perhaps a discipline as Möbius strip” (Agnew et al. 250). Therefore, regardless of where one stands in relation to the current educational hegemony, as a traditionalist or progressive, there is endless merit for an opening up and letting be said what wants to be said—particularly in the kind of oral setting the Octalog provided.