ABSTRACT
Not surprisingly, I guess, my invited “response” to Rubén’s essay has turned into a form of what Spivak (2008) calls a “familiar essay,” where the writer’s life-details are always shadowily present, because the familiar essay is neither autobiographical nor impartial analysis, though it courts both. It is certainly not disinterested (p. 9); Obviously, my musings here are not at all disinterested. My “writer’s life-details”—or at least how I construe those details in relation to the initial reconceptualization of the U.S. curriculum field and to a possible post-reconceptualization—are more than just shadowily present throughout.
