Composition Forum 52, Fall 2023
http://compositionforum.com/issue/52/

Review of James Rushing Daniel’s Toward an Anti-Capitalist Composition

Kerry M. Smith

Daniel, James Rushing. Toward an Anti-Capitalist Composition. UP of Colorado, 2022.

James Rushing Daniel’s timely work Toward an Anti-Capitalist Composition is aimed at scholars in composition interested in resisting neoliberal and capitalist systems in higher education. Daniel’s consistent dedication to addressing counterarguments speaks to an audience that may be resistant to his arguments for anticapitalist pedagogy in composition classrooms. This book is helpful for those interested in learning more about the historical context of collaborative writing in higher education, the origins of student loans, debt’s impact on students, labor conditions for contingent faculty, and the importance of acknowledging digital capitalism in digital writing courses.

This book is the start of a complex conversation about anticapitalism in higher education in North America and its role in the discipline of composition. Daniel addresses the impractical and unsustainable nature of anticapitalist pedagogy without the larger structural changes in the current economic systems. He contends that teaching students how to critique, resist, and form coalition through collaborative writing to imagine change is, or should be, a core goal for composition. However, the book is not intended for practical application. It offers the theoretical underpinnings of anticapitalist composition in hopes of creating and sustaining a coalition of composition scholars to share in anticapitalist work. In doing so, the book contributes to ongoing discussions in the discipline regarding equity and labor. The goal of this book is to put forth a compelling case for anticapitalist work by situating itself among current and ongoing social justice scholarship on the topic of anti-racism.

The book is organized into an introduction, a brief conclusion (titled “Coda”), and five chapters: “Gathering,” “Debt,” “Work,” “Data,” and “Action.” Daniel offers historical context for each chapter’s main topic and begins each chapter with an example that illustrates the key themes. The example in the introduction, a juxtaposition of the rapid industrial development (a real estate project called Hudson Yard) with a community rife with financial instability (Newark, New Jersey) sets the tone for the book. Daniel argues that both composition and higher education are embedded in capitalism. A claim reiterated throughout is that composition scholars, with the exclusion of a few (Bruce Horner, Tony Scott, and Nancy Welch), have disregarded or only briefly touched on capitalism in scholarship. His core claim centers on a call to action for programs, faculty, and higher education writ large to take on an anticapitalist approach in composition.

Both “Gathering” and “Debt” cover the aim of teaching students critical awareness and resistance through collaborative writing and critique of the student loan industry. “Gathering” outlines the value of collaborative writing as a pedagogical tool for anticapitalism, relying on Jodi Dean’s (2019) discussion of “the comrade,” which is a model of common, collaborative writing rooted in equity, community, and shared political subjectivity. In “Debt,” Daniel discusses ways to implement an anticapitalist pedagogical approach to the topic of student loan debt that allows students to resist and critique. He does so using Jean-Luc Nancy’s framing of debt and Chase Bollig’s argument that it is in the writing classroom that students can learn and prepare for capitalist workplaces to “resist and thrive.” Building off of his discussion of collaborative writing and explicit discussions of debt, Daniel argued that the goal of composition is less to prepare students, which he argues is impossible, and more to “present students with the value of collective solutions” (70).

“Work” and “Data” address the ecosystem of capitalism—the workforce and digital data. “Work” covers the capitalist workforce, focusing on the plight of contingent faculty and the role of unions, using theoretical frameworks outside of composition (contemporary critical theory and philosophy) to offer insight into the cultural ideology of “work.” Specifically, Daniel situates the discussion of work in Isabelle Stengers’ concept of “stupidity,” which is an active feature of capitalism that directly challenges free thought and ideas that counter the status quo. Concurrent with Dean’s concept of the “comrade,” Stengers argues for collective citizen resistance to capitalism. Part of that resistance is to develop a critical awareness of the technology industry. Data outlined digital capitalism in the technology industry, arguing that students in digital writing courses should receive instruction on the foundations of the digital profit model.

“Action” and “Coda” offer more clear and direct calls to action for higher education to address its capitalist entanglements. “Action” relies on the work of Erik Olin Wright’s discussion of how “capitalism limits the possibilities for dissent” (149). In “Coda,” Daniel outlines the goals he holds for his students: to live happy lives and to want to want to fight back against the evils of capitalism. He addresses the critique of what benefit this anticapitalist approach is to students, arguing that the value of “critical orientations in the writing classroom have been well made” (Daniel 181). The book ends with a final commentary on capitalism and call to action: There is no path to avoiding capitalism; instead, “The only way forward, then, is by facing it” (Daniel 183).

Daniel’s work offers an overview of composition’s contributions, and lack thereof as he argues, to the anticapitalist framework for composition. This book is a significant step toward reintroducing anticapitalism explicitly into composition scholarship. Keeping that in mind, it is clear that with that broader goal, some issues and complexities are left unaddressed in this book: anti-racism and anticapitalist pedagogy.

The discussion of anti-racism, especially Asao Inoue’s work, is contentious. I found the positioning of anti-racism as a sub-issue to capitalism to be ironic. The idea of needing to compete with other frameworks in composition in order to establish the relevance of his own seems to operate by the very same logic of the economic system he critiques. Daniel expresses the value of anti-racism but still frames anti-racism as a subsidiary concern to anticapitalism. Daniel argues that capitalism holds responsibility for creating and perpetuating inequity. He claims that capitalism deepens racial inequality and deserves equal attention. Daniel states, “I further argue, controversially perhaps, that anticapitalism offers the most significant and emancipatory potential for marginalized populations and, accordingly, should occupy a much more central position in composition’s social justice efforts” (22). His discussion of capitalism is missing an essential aspect, one common in social justice scholarship (Crenshaw, Jones, McKoy, et al., and Walton, et al.): intersectionality. The discussion of capitalism becomes unproductive when framed as an “either/or” issue rather than a complex issue that intersects all aspects of social justice.

Additionally, Daniel argues that Inoue outright rejects capitalism in his discussion of anti-racism. Daniel claims that Inoue “rejects perspectives based on economic exploitation and economic inequality, suggesting that racism must be the dominant lens through which racial inequity is understood” (21). But this misrepresents how Inoue is defining race. In his 2015 book Antiracist Writing Assessment Ecologies, Inoue explains: “So when I speak of race in this book, I’m thinking in localized terms, ones that assume local racial formations’ economic and other patterns as much as I’m thinking of racial structures” (6). Furthermore, in 2019, Inoue later cites economics as an “intersectional dimension” (3). Rather than reduce inequity down to capitalism, Inoue directly addresses the intersectional, complex nature of inequity.

Another critique is the practicality of anticapitalist pedagogy. Daniel makes a strong argument about the inextricability of capitalism and higher education. He describes education as a capitalist endeavor that, despite the best intentions of some instructors, is built to create, train, and populate the competent workforce that drives modern capitalism. Further, he argues that if the goal of education is to create a critical populace, then teaching with a framework of anticapitalism is of the utmost importance; however, without the broader, systematic changes, Daniel explains that the suggestions for anticapitalist pedagogy he offers are “insufficient” (150). I appreciate his admissions to the constraints of anticapitalist pedagogy, but I was left wondering where that leaves composition instructors. Without the broader changes, the efforts of individual composition instructors are framed as futile.

With these admissions of anticapitalist pedagogy also come contradictions inherent in teaching with this approach. When Daniel discusses his anticapitalist approach in the classroom, he includes a number of caveats, contradictions, and warnings. While candid about the contradictions of teaching with an anticapitalist framework in composition, I found theorizing about the praxis of anticapitalist pedagogy troublesome. In “Debt,” Daniel advises against designing an entire course centered on debt as it is arduous and rife with student resistance; instead, he states that a “unit, assignment, or even conversation” about debt could be a productive enterprise (86). Additionally, Daniel acknowledges the contradiction in engaging in discussions of debt with students in composition courses that have already made decisions about their financial situation. Though, he reiterates the pedagogical value of teaching the rhetorical situation of student loan debt.

Similarly, in “Data,” Daniel describes a WAC composition course in which he applied the three lessons that can be taught in digital writing classrooms laid out by Stiegler. He addresses the contradiction of teaching an anticapitalist view of digital technology when the majority of content and collaboration exists within more readily available and institution-supported, for-profit platforms. He suggests an explicit approach to this contradiction and recommends using open-source digital writing platforms. This is difficult when such platforms are often inaccessible and unfamiliar to students and not integrated into institutions’ technology systems.

Overall, Daniel’s book acknowledges the tension between teaching to alter thinking, as is the goal with anticapitalism, and teaching to help students ascertain writing skills. He relies on Patricia Bizzell’s response to the tensions around social justice as a rhetorical matter, and by focusing on this students can develop an essential awareness of the larger capitalist system they exist in. This essential awareness along with the goal of assisting students by teaching frameworks for collaborating as “comrades” to form coalitions, critiquing and imagining solutions to the student loan crisis, confronting the neoliberal workforce, and being critical of digital capitalism all work toward the hope that it helps students live flourishing lives outside of systems that perpetuate inequity and harm.

Works Cited

Bizzell, Patricia. Composition Studies Saves the World! College English, vol. 72, no.2, 2009, pp. 174–187.

Bollig, Chase. ‘Is College Worth It?’ Arguing for Composition’s Value with the Citizen-Worker. College Composition and Communication, vol. 67, no. 2, 2015, pp. 150–72.

Dean, Jodi. Comrade: An Essay on Political Belonging. New York: Verso, 2019.

Crenshaw, Kimberle. Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, vol. 43, no. 6, 1991, pp. 1241–99. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039

Inoue, Asao B. 2019 CCCC Chair’s Address: How Do We Language So People Stop Killing Each Other, or What Do We Do About White Language Supremacy? College Composition and Communication, vol. 71, no. 2, 2019, pp. 352–69.

Inoue, Asao B. Antiracist Writing Assessment Ecologies: Teaching and Assessing Writing for a Socially Just Future. Parlor Press, 2015.

Jones, Natasha N. The Technical Communicator as Advocate: Integrating a Social Justice Approach in Technical Communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, vol. 46, no. 3, 2016, pp. 342–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281616639472

Mckoy, Temptaous, et al. Embodying Public Feminisms: Collaborative Intersectional Models for Engagement. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 65, no. 1, 2022, pp. 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2022.3143352

Nancy, Jean-Luc. Gratuitousness and Recognition. Translated by Michael Marder and Patricia Viera. Philosophical Salon, 2017. https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/gratuitousness-and-recognition/

Stengers, Isabelle. In Catastrophic Times: Resisting the Coming Barbarism. Open Humanities Press, 2015.

Stiegler, Bernard. The Age of Disruption: Technology and Madness in Computational Capitalism. John Wiley & Sons, 2019.

Walton, Rebecca, et al. Technical Communication after the Social Justice Turn: Building Coalitions for Action. 1st ed., Routledge, 2019. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429198748

Wright, Erik Olin. But at Least Capitalism is Free and Democratic, Right? The ABCs of Socialism, Verso, 2016, pp. 22–29.