Class Presentation

What have I learned about this class? What do I have to say about what I've learned?

1. Wht does Ecofeminism/Ecocriticism have to do with this class?
   I wanted to explore what teaching feminism/ecology/ecocriticism in a composition classroom would entail and why one would need to teach it?
   Pertinent Questions:What are the politics and policies that kept/keep women and minorities suppressed and how does that relate to how the environment is often subjugated?
   I see things like women's suffrage and and Civil Rights to be similar to the avenue taken to form the EPA. What are the politics of something intended to be liberatory and how does that relate to literacy? What are those politics? And what the dynamic before and after the change occurred?
   Too bad the environment is an inanimate object; otherwise, more legislation would be in effect to liberate something that is so oppressed.
   THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT THE ENVIRONMENT TO BE ABLE TO READ
   GEORGE BUSH HATES BLACK PEOPLE AND THE ENVIROMNET. (SEE BELOW)
2. Pop Culture/Film/Advertising: What does that have to do with the class?

I wanted to identify what rhetoric is and how it is defined now.

I think that Aristotle would see Rhetoric completely different if he were alive today.

I see TV/Film/Music/Advertising as definitive forms of contemporary rhetoric.

I say this due to the dynamic in which they operate (orator/audience/message form is

predominantly seen in advertising) as opposed to the rhetoric seen in something composed on

paper.

Film/Television also have product placement.

To tie it with the above, most people are subject to this rhetoric of consumerism which has

often been at the expense and exploitation of the Environment.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Finally, I wish to tie both of the above issues together with Eco composition.

Exploring practical ways to green the process of literacy. Is literacy going green?

Things like socioeconomic play a role in almost anything and definitely the politics of greening literacy

What are the pros and cons that teachers face when attempting to incorporate sustainable pedagogies?

What is the inherent rhetoric in going “green?”

Whose interest is really at hand?

What would one, ideally, wish to achieve from a no-impact sustainable English Department?

Would this improve learning?

Books:

Owens, Derek. Composition and Sustainability: Teaching For a Threatened Generation. NCTE, 2001. Print

Weisser, Christian J., Sidney J, Dobrin (eds): Ecocomposition: Theoretical and Pedagogical Approaches. Albany, NY: State University of New York, 2001. Print.

Duffy, John, Martin Nystrand. Towards a Rhetoric of Everyday Life: New Directions in Research On Writing, Text, and Discourse. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2003. Print.

Week 12 Response: Short And Not So Sweet

 

     I know it was just an opinion piece on Canagarajah, but I thought the authors should have explained their intentions with translingualism more thoroughly. The opinion article also seemed to be independent and that is another reason it should have explained itself better. The paper seemed to spend the first half of the article explaining why a translingual approach can be beneficial and the last part giving poor (and biased) examples that did not clarify anything. I'm still confused as to how a translingual approach to English should be implemented and what it would actually look like. They (pro-translingualists) had a lot of theory behind this and not much substance. Maybe my expectations for this type of approach are just too high? I was really thinking that all of these people who authored this paper would have more to say: Let the reader know how assignments will work and what topics will be covered and what exactly a translingual writing assignment will focus on. The paper suffices as a “mission statement” of sorts, but such academic theories and teaching styles need to be better explained if they want more people to buy into them.

"Language Difference in Writing: Toward a Translingual Approach:" Executive Summary

 

     This article introduces the reader to some of the issues and approaches dealt with in Canagarajah'a article in regards to trying to incorporate diverse linguistic flavors into an English-oriented curriculum. Some intial points made by the opinion article  are that even a mono linguistic, English speaker can technically be multilingual and the NCTE and CCCC encourage this type of idology. Early on, also, it is indicated that a monolingualist can achieve a certain level of "translingualism."  This is due, in part, to the many dialects and spheres in which “standard” English operates. There is also a distinction made between what “standard” English is and what “edited American English” is. The latter would be something done in an academic setting, such as an essay. Three objectives are outlined in is article as to what translingualism, in a classroom, would appreciate: (1) honoring the power of all language users to shape language to specific ends; (2) recognizing the linguistic heterogeneity of all users of language both within the United States and globally; and (3) directly confronting English monolingualist expectations by researching and teaching how writers can work with and against, not simply within, those expectations.

   The authors explain that they wish to only understand language better and not necessarily just English. They see this initiative as exploring the hows, whys and whats of language. The authors of this move in teaching plan for this agenda to infiltrate all layers of society, from the working class person to the college student. The authors of this paper see the exploring of various linguistic styles, as implemented into the classroom, to be a form of democracy and granting civil rights to all. It is intended to take traditional views of composition and bend them enough as to where this “translingualism” will become the standard in how to deal with “English” and  other (ESL) students coming into a composition classroom.

     At the paper's conclusion, a series of questions about this type of teaching are posed by the authors and it's contributors. The questions help to explore the actual utility of translingualism and what it would look like in a classroom. Questions like “How can a a monolingual instructor teach such a class? My students are all monolingual, do they need to learn a multilingual approach to composition? Doesn't one need to master his/her native tongue before trying this type of approach?” are all asked by this paper. The responses to these qustions, although slightly indirect and posed by the researchers themselves, indicated a positive response in favor of a translingual approach to reading/writing. Go figure.

Week 10 Response: Wait a second just found this really cool link, Hey, something shiny.

     I understood the premise of all of these “activity” theories, but, as with most research like this, I think it is difficult or almost impossible to really understand the whole writing process (or the activities that inform it). I found that researching the origins of CHAT to be helpful; however, I think that CHAT has totally different possibilities in the 21^st century and that the theory will have to continually evolve to adequately research many of the questions it poses. I say this due to the growing amount of “tools” that one can access at the click of a button or touch of a screen. I understand that the basic premise is based on the outside stimuli one negotiates while composing and developing a “written” document, but that's where I see that so many other things have to be taken into consideration.

     I did find this theory to be useful as a tool to explore my own activity process. I, honestly, have more down time when it comes to my writing. Meaning that I spend more time not writing and reading than doing the former or the latter. I see writing about certain things as an enormous task that is going to take too much time and not have much pay out in the end. My papers end up being half genuine inspiration and sincerity and half filler to meet a page requirement. That is the one thing that I appreciate about journalism: Brevity. This was more of an aside, but I believe that this aspect of writing is a very large part of activity theory. It was also a sentiment shared by a couple of the people in the paper I read. Just the idea of a writing task, small or large, can make the composer feel overwhelmed. Even squeezing in this blog post can be arduous at times.

     Now, back to my 21^st century concerns. While I'm actually writing, I listen to music, break for a snack, watch a movie clip, look up something about pop culture, check my email...etc. Most of these things would not be possible 20 years ago, but they are all part of my writing process. It's hard form me to discern work/not work while doing anything. When I'm at the library or some similar “work-oriented” place, I do spend little time “wasting time,” however. It's all a matter of what is “private” and what is “work” and how the aesthetic is achieved. The work/private line is ever blurring with today's technology and I think Bazerman would agree. I think the overwhelming amount of tools one has can be counterproductive, too. For example, my computer was getting repaired a few weeks ago and I had a few days to kill with no internet access. I spent most of that time reading and working on things that I was composing. I got more work done without a computer than I did with a computer. This may not be the case for everyone, but it is for me. I find it hard to get things done when I have the internet right in front of me. On the converse of the technology issue ,however,  listening to a song or some film has ALWAYS inspired my writing. Some song that brings up an important social issue or a television show that is clever makes me think more, thus the film/music acts as a catalyst for writing and cognition. This is one reason that I have chosen pop-culture oriented rhetoric/composition as my research project.

Prior and Shipka:Chronotopic Lamination: Tracing the Contours of Literate Activity: Executive Summary

 

Okay, this was quite an interesting article...to say the least. It was a bit long and may prove to be difficult to summarize in an executive manner, but I will try.

     In this article, Prior and Shipka discuss the idea of “activity theory” and “Chronotopic Lamination” which, simply, has to do with the physical processes and social environment’s role and how they work together for a subject to produce writing. The researchers interview, interpret drawings, and analyze texts produced by a wide range of participants: Some are undergraduates studying engineering and some are doctoral students working on dissertations in Library Science and some are professors. Activity theory researchers try to understand what trajectories people are on in relation to how they write and in which context the individuals live. There are many, too, what one may call, “sub-theories” within activity theory that help expand the scope of what and how it studies information in relation to the individual and group; however, researchers have expressed concerns that activity theory heavily relies interdisciplinary discourse.

     To introduce some of the initial and fundamental concepts of activity theory, the authors describe the simple, yet complex, set of actions that take place when a psychology professional (for example) composes a paper. The professional does laundry during her writing and takes time to fold her laundry every 45 minutes and listens for the buzzer on her dryer as a cue when to take a break and reflect while she does laundry. This act, plus the fact that it is associated with women, is the other half of activity theory; this is the part that that relies on the incorporation of sociological perspectives consciously and unconsciously held by the subject. These two parts joined are what is also known as: “cultural historical activity theory (CHAT), a tale of how tools (external aids) mediate activity, altering the flow of behavior” (180) This is the basic premise for activity theory.

     The authors move on to discuss several other participants in their study. For instance, one participant that was an engineering student displayed her creativeness for a simple composition project : She was to, in 250 words, write a statement describing what her “ethics” were and how they were developed in her academic life; she was also asked to describe how she plans to employ them in her future career. This somewhat simple task was interpreted differently by the student. She created a word search puzzle with several words that indicated how she had developed ethics. This was met with resistance and she received a low score on the project. The authors of this article describe how the girl came about thinking about this type of presentation and how she developed it. A lot has to do with the context in which she already existed and what it is comprised of: Her peers, her teachers, herself. This type of context is a crucial element to activity theory and how something, as a paper or project that isn't necessarily a paper, develops and then gets constructed. What the subject wrote has a lot to with goals, unconscious goals, motives, and operations.

     There are several other concepts within activity theory, “ Sense affect and consciousness,” being the main topic that attempts to really understand the reader/writer/activity/context relationship. A lot of it deals with the actual things people do to ensure a better writing environment. Some people may light candles or turn on music and others have a completely different approach as to best suit themselves to write; These activities testify to how complex and stratified writing does become. It has roots that grow in all directions and, as the authors mentioned, becomes a sort study within a study; really understanding the the iner- workings of the human mind and how it relates to any number of outside stimuli is a phenomenon vastly misunderstood.

Week 9 Response

I will try to keep this relatively brief, since I am doing an entire presentation of the topic of activist research. I have a lot of mixed feelings about this type of methodology. I understand that people in “authoritative” positions need to engage in civic interaction with those who have not been able to achieve the level of social legitimacy of which the researcher has, but to what extent is this productive, civic engagement actually achieved?

      From what I have read, mostly Cushman, I don't know what is really occurring with this type of research. Is she really becoming friends with these people, helping them help her or is she exploiting them? I felt like activist research is based on “slumming” it for a while to get what you need to publish a book or paper; what occurred, though? One may, in fact, be reinforcing the oppressive social structure that he/she is challenging. I don't think too much exploitation is occurring , though, honestly. I say this only because all parties involved are just using each other. Cushman claims that the people she researched were aware of the dynamic and  everyone is happy and gaining a real sense of what it means to protest something oppressive by utilizing the means of which they have access.

      However, I do not see this as civic engagement that will potentially challenge a damaging hegemony: Both parties were being selfish and not really acknowledging what was really happening: Everyone is getting used. Maybe I'm being a cynic here, but I think this methodology is way too problematic to be considered as a legitimate means for social change. But, then again, hardly any form of social change is legitimate. It's all based on a power structure and a dominant class that holds the authority and dictates everything. Well, on a lighter note, the show “Welcome Back, Kotter” seemed like a legitimate form of social change. Mr. Kotter didn't come from much and went to college to become a teacher. He then came back to his roots to teach at the high school he once attended. That's change I can believe in!

Cushman: Ch. 2: Executive Summary

     In chapter two of Cushman's The Struggle and the Tools: Oral and Literate Strategies in an Inner City Community, she introduces the reader to an exploration of what “activist methodology” or “activist research” actually entails. It does share some of its defining qualities with ethnography, but the nuances and overall objectives differ. Cushman asserts that activist research is not one -sided, as in where a group of people are being observed from a tower or behind glass, but that there is a certain level of reciprocity that occurs during the research: Both the researcher and researched are gaining some form of benefit from the research, whether it be scholarship for one or literacy for the other. Cushman explains this as she notes her experience with some of the people she was researching in a primarily African American community: For example, she was able to gain entry into a Muslim place of worship due to the report she had built with some of these people she was “getting to know.” Normally a white woman wold have not been able to participate is something such as a Muslim worship service. She, in turn, allowed them to gain access to the computer lab owned by the University she was working for. Things like this are, Cushman claims, are important to what activist research is aiming to achieve.

     She also does address some of the things that make this form of research problematic: Some people would claim that there really isn't much reciprocity occurring and that people are being exploited, but Cushman argues that the people in such studies are aware of the dynamic between themselves and the person who is “doing the work.” In other words, the “researched” do not feel that they are being exploited and understand that it is a form of sociological study. Being engaged with people in a community on a personal level like this, Cushman also states, is the only way to imbed the social change that is also part of activist research. She claims that the people participating in these studies are actually given a sense of agency through their participation.

     Cushman goes on to explain other ways in which activist research is based on give and take by both parties involved: Some participants in the research wanted to sharpen their verbal skills, pronunciation and execution of language to sound “white.” Cushman helped them to do so and learned that some people switch to a different dialect or vernacular to achieve a form of legitimacy from white people who may work at banks, housing authorities or any such place where a lack of command of the English language could possibly put them into jeopardy. This is called “code switching” by Cushman and it was a practice of which she had been unaware.

     Overall, Cushman claims that activist research, and what it may yield, can be an integral tool in challenging social heirarchies and the hegemony in which is the backbone of such a hierarchy. The ideas may be considered quixotic and fluff to some, but the challenging of these hegemonies is an admirable and noble cause, Cushman argues. She claims this due to the aforementioned premise of activist research in which the dynamic of who will benefit is equal.

Week 8 response

     I really enjoyed this weeks reading in that it challenged what I thought I knew and brought several things to my attention that had been neglected. The article by Greene really helped sharpen my historical knowledge of North America. Maybe I just forgot the history I had learned, but I was fascinated by how much Spanish writing was taking place in 17^th century North America. It also made me realize how biased the European (English) perspective of literacy is. It seems that everyone knew there were literate people outside of North America and in North America, but, for some reason, they didn't count as much. I guess this explains why the man in which Greene wrote had such a difficult time finding certain ancestors.

     This is a large problem I see, even with the current academy. It is a question of who counts and who doesn't? I find myself falling into this trap. If I know someone is an English professor at Harvard who has a Phd, I will approach the text assuming that the person is well informed and he/she is an authority on whatever issue they have chosen to expertly delineate. I guess a part of me knows the rigors of earning such a degree and the research that it entails that gives some credibility to the author, but someone who has no formal training can be just as informed on 19^th century British literature as the Phd; It's just the Phd who took the time to prove to others he knew what he was talking about.

      I also see a lack of diversity in the English department. If you look at all the graduate students in Auburn’s English Department, I'd say about 90 percent are of some Caucasian descent. There are people of different ethnic backgrounds, but as a general rule, English is associated with white people. It really bothers me, too. I feel like I don't even want to be part of academia anymore. I know it's not like we don't talk about other cultures and ethnic groups, but it's almost like we're patronizing them and turning them into a spectacle. I feel like the world is so much bigger than what I am told to study and sometimes what I study and write about is “not seeing the big picture.” By that, I mean the scope of which I use see the world and am told to see the world leaves out a lot of important things. I know we talk about the patriarchy, feminism, oppressed peoples and related subjects, but sitting around writing papers on obscure topics that not many people will understand even further separates people from the discipline of English. That's how I feel right now, anyway. I think scholarly writing in the English department is meant to only be understood by your peers and others in your discipline. The way in which I have written has put up walls not brought them down. A person would need at least an MA to understand some of the articles and books I have read in graduate school. There should be a disclaimer on some texts: “Non-English scholars need not apply.” This isn't always the case, but, as said before, this is the sort of stigma that is attached to the English department and leads to its alienation. Well, I kind of got on a rant there, but Greene's text made me think even more about the biases of the English department.

Ch. 4: Wells: Learning to Write Medicine

Due to my research and work on a proposal, this might not be that executive or detailed of a summary.

     In chapter 4, Wells discusses some of the initial problems with 19^th century medical colleges in relation to what texts they were composing and the overall ability for the physician to adequately perform his or her duties. There were also some concerns expressed about basic composition skills; some leading physicians of the time feared this lack of skill in composition could possibly lead to an inadequate treatment of a patient's condition. It was also a concern and belief that certain standards and practices needed to be in place to ensure the integrity of the medical college and the physicians it graduated.

   There, then, was a large focus put on the overall composition of the medical students theses. This was one way to gauge the student's knowledge of the discipline of medicine as well as his/her composition skills. There were some developments as to what constitutes a good thesis and what said thesis should contain, though; developing an authoritative voice and transferring that voice into scholarly writing that was sound, coherent and valuable became as important as knowing diseases and proper treatment. This was just the beginning to what would later spawn more sophisticated and developed writing practices of medical students and physicians.

     Wells goes on to explain how both men and women in the discipline learned to use tropes such as satire in their writing and how different styles of writing were adopted by different genders. An evolution of sorts occurred within the medical discipline that produced many diverse styles of writing by both men and women; this evolution helped facilitate the growing medical college's developing persona and what is was concerned with in regards to its internal publications and external publications. Wells also describes how the development of the woman writer and the woman physician in 19^th century America helped create a new idea as to what the practice of medicine entailed. In some regards, the woman doctor allowed for the softening of the medical college's edges. Although medicine was still part of a highly patriarchal construct in which men were held in higher regard, the woman writer helped develop a different audience and negotiate identities for themselves and other women in society. This negotiation was also in development for the African American, female medical student. Being that it was 18th century, who and what a black woman should be was a burgeoning conversation, so the African American woman had a dual conflict in defining herself.

Week 7 Response: Cintron/Gangs/English Department

     When reading this chapter, I remembered something from last semester's Literary Theory class: A discussion about authority and legitimacy of graffiti was discussed one day. Who is to say if a streetcar tagged with graffiti is a more or less legitimate form of art than a Van Gogh painting? Also, who is to say that a poem of sorts scribbled on the side of an abandoned building in New York is less important than one of Shakespeare’s sonnet?  I think the question of authority and legitimacy runs deep into a lot of reasons and causes for a gang to be formed in the first place. I think that is the most important thing to try and understand. Cintron, basically, says it is for respect. For example, a person of Latino origins growing up in an American society will not feel like he is respected nor will he respect others not of his background and shared belief system. It is more about a power struggle than anything. Cintron addresses this idea of a power struggle and how the ones in power and the ones trying to  subvert said power are actually on the same team; They need each other to, ultimately, identify themselves. This concept made me think of Foucault and his idea of there only being one power at be and the constructs and the subverts are actually on the same team, both tangled in the perputual illusion that each are at odds with another; I digress. So, what does separate a gang member from a Phd? Nothing, really.

     Looked at in an askew manner, one could equate the gangs of L.A. to individuals in the academic community; The English Department has certain words and phrases that only a few really understand and could be considered a “gang.” Of course, there isn't any violence or criminal activity, but the underlying structures are comparable. A rhetoric/composition person(s) wants respect and to be legitimized so he/she creates a paper (graffiti) that may “call out” the literature people or, perhaps, show flaws in a certain school of thought he/she doesn't agree with. It's all about the underlying structures and how responses to these structures manifest themselves. To some, it is a subtle symbol spray painted on a wall; to others, a paper delivered at an MLA panel. If you deconstruct the gang symbol and the formal rhetoric and composition paradigm, one can see how they are actually one in the same. One utterance heard in the vast distance of the universe, both struggling to convey meaning and find like minds to seek some form of identity.

Executive Summary: Chapter 6: Angels' Town: Chero Ways, Gang Life, and the Rhetorics of Everday

     In Chapter 6 of his book, Cintron explains to the reader the ways in which gang members identify shared ideas about their own gang as well as sentiments held towards other gangs. Most of the communication is a series of symbols that are unique to each gang and each symbol can be manipulated and expressed to convey positive and or negative remarks about any number of gangs. These gangs have also appropriated certain symbols which have meaning outside of their gang to use as a means to express ones affiliation with a gang. For example, someone wearing a L.A. Kings hockey jersey may be wearing the apparel to distinguish himself as a member of the Latin Kings street gang. Other ways, specifically related to the composition of graffiti, gangs will show disrespect to other gangs is to write the rival gang's name in a certain manner. For example, writing a gang's name with a “K” beside it means that you are a “killer” of that gang. Also, to show disrespect for a gang, a member could spray write a rival gang's name with the first letter upside down. Making subtle alterations to another gang's name and the symbols themselves are all part of the lexicon and syntax that the gangs have learned and adopted.

     The graffiti is also seen as a narrative of sorts and to understand it would be to understand the constructs of power that have birthed ideas and ways of life that lead to gang life. It is understood that a certain level of the gang life is to garner respect in a society that shuns them. The anti-society, as Clntron uses the phrase do describe gang life, is actually contingent and adherent to a hierarchy of produced by a normal society; without gang life being subjugated to something of criminal status, much of the respect gangs obtain would be moot. It is a symbiotic relationship that gangs and non-gangs have. Cintron finds looking and gang graffiti as a narrative to be problematic, though. A lot of what he calls “common sense” ( criminal activity) ways at looking at

Week 6: Duffy, Hmong, Internal Rhetoric

 

As I was reading my last post about Duffy, I noticed a phrase that I used: “Internal Rhetoric.” At the time of the post, I didn't know what it was and I actually just used it as a catch phrase to best describe what I was discussing about the reading. Well, upon investigation of the phrase, I discovered it had already been used and there was actually a book written on the subject: Internal Rhetorics: Toward a History and Theory of Self-Persuasion ( Neinkamp, 2001). The notions expressed in Neinkamp's book focus on “self-persuasion” and how something as such will produce the “rhetorical self.” She explains that the rhetorical self develops rhetoric to "maintain a fragile equilibrium of personal identity and to resolve ambiguous or conflicting imperatives for attitude, decision, and action" (128).

Based on this, one can see how the rhetorical self relates to the Hmong . The fact that Hmong language is not an exact one, but is created by different forces ( governments, missionaries, other races), one can see how personal identity became paramount during the conflict that occurred in Wausau. I guess I am trying to make the connection between the internal rhetoric of peoples, like the Hmong, and how it worked with other literary forces to inspire literacy and social change. My definition of “literate,” in this context, means being aware of something and how to manipulate and utilize it to some advantage, e.g., letter writing:

Some of the Hmong who wrote letters as a form of self-defense and self-preservation were becoming literate of a form of public discourse. Duffy explained how they became literate of how to construct arguments, effectively use diction and how to concisely express their thoughts. Now, how did all of this occur? How did a race of people looked down upon and against great odds come to define themselves and develop something that could be called “Hmong Rhetoric?” My opinion is that the rhetorical self, traditional rhetoric (learned, erudite persuasion) and literacy were all interwoven to create this phenomenon. Again, this is one isolated case that was studied, but similar occurrences can show how internal rhetoric, traditional rhetoric and literacy frame how people learn and make change. For example: The internal rhetoric of Egyptians, coupled with the traditional rhetoric of what ignited all the writing about their revolution and the literacy many of them had toward technology (facebook), created another interwoven phenomenon similar to that of the Hmong.

A lot of these ideas are borderline cultural studies, psychology, anthropology...etc, but within the lens of the internal rhetoric connection, one can understand the value and gravity rhetoric has. This is also not meant to be taken too seriously, as I would have to do much research to refine and make clearer examples of what I mean by internal rhetoric, but I hope this post sufficed as a jumping off point for conversation.

Thoughts for week 5: Duffy

Amazon has yet to deliver the book we were to have read for this post; however, I improvised and blogged about Duffy:

     I was confused by this article, but I was also inspired. It's nothing new for some Americans to be prejudiced and racist, but I was surprised to see that there was this public outrage against a minority group in Wisconsin. A lot of the American, anti-Hmong rhetoric was similar to that of what gets voiced about African-American communities. It seems that people want to blame crime, exploitation of government systems and use of resources on minorities. I have always found this idea flawed: Sure, statistically, minority groups may use more government assistance and such, but it is the system that has disenfranchised them that is the root of the problem. I think the government likes giving minority groups stipends for being unemployed and also making it difficult for them to get jobs. This may be for another discussion, though.

     As far as the Hmong people, this is where the inspiration came. It was expressed in Duffy's paper that freedom of speech only applies to those that can use it. This means that our freedom of press can be used against a non-English speaking group and that seemed to be the case for the Hmong people. However, those people used their freedom of expression to take the offensive and use the very means that were keeping them condemned as an agent of liberation: This is the constitution at its best. It also shows how rhetoric can engage and encourage literacy. As Duffy addressed in his paper, there are several different rhetorics going on at once: “For example, the languages of governments, schools, and media I think of as offering diverse rhetorics” (226).

     This made me think of the rhetorics I am studying or just exposed to on a daily basis. Everything has a rhetoric: The media, pop music, government, the English department, etc. I know this is nothing new to this class, but it made me think of how all rhetorics and what they have in common. I'm not sure as to where all the connections are, but there are plenty. I think my own conscious has a distinct rhetoric that is a creation of all the things I've heard, read and been exposed to throughout my years. I'm curious as to what each person's individual rhetoric is and how that applies to the separate rhetorics in which we are all exposed. Is my internal rhetoric different than each person's in class? Could you classify a rhetoric as biology classifies kingdoms and species? I know that is the aim of the rhetoric/composition discipline, but do we adhere to a rhetoric that blinds us and keeps us from being able to discern certain truths from not? (I swear I'm not high) I just got these thoughts all the sudden and thought I may as well document them. Sorry if this post took a tangent. What a curious notion: Rhetoric.

Duffy: "Letters from the Fair City: A Rhetorical Conception"

Amazon has yet to deliver the book we were to have read for this post; however, I improvised and blogged about Duffy:

     In this article, John Duffy explores the different rhetorics that were learned, interpreted and utilized by immigrants of the Wisconsin town, Wausau. The Hmong people of Southeast Asia began immigrating to this town in the 1970s and most were political refugees due to their assistance of CIA efforts in Vietnam. After being assimilated in the town for a decade or so, their population began to increase and non-immigrants of the town (US Citizens) began publicizing their opinions in a local newspaper that the Hmong people were exploiting welfare and other government assistance programs. It was also a large issue that a lot of the Hmong people didn't speak English and the townspeople thought they should learn: “Our American society . . . can no longer support a segment of the population that is under-educated, unskilled and ultimately nonproductive.” was common sentiment help by the townspeople. Articles like this and with similar themes surfaced in the 1980s and 90s in the Wausau Daily Herlad.

     Duffy, intrigued by the resistance the immigrants were receiving, conducted dozens of interviews with the people in order to understand how they learned to read and write. It was through the opinion letters that a certain level of literacy was achieved by the Hmong's. What started as a denunciation of the whole people for exploiting government systems and “promoting” criminal behavior gave the Hmong people a chance to defend themselves: “This rhetoric, however,did not silence Hmong residents of the city but spurred a literate response as some Hmong writers took up the themes and forms of the rhetoric to present alternative conceptions of themselves and their place in the city” (232). By engaging with the anti-Hmong rhetoric, it gave the people a chance to develop their own rhetoric and create a “civic identity” (Sandra Stotsky). The opportunity to have their voice heard and use constructs of the English language also helped the Hmong people gain a certain level of legitimacy and, somewhat, subvert the rhetoric that was speaking against them. This development of literacy among the Hmong people is Duffy's key notion of “the rhetorics of literacy.”Duffy believes that the dynamic rhetoric and literacy shared can be used to dissect and learn about the dissemination of literacy by use if rhetoric.

Overall Response: Week 4

     After reading some of Brandt, I started trying to analyze my own writing process. How I write depends on what I'm writing, actually. If I am composing something scholarly, I will write not to keep the reader engaged, per say, but write what “needs” to be written. By “need,” I mean that structure has a lot to do with something scholarly. One needs to expertly place this subject in this paragraph and this topic sentence above this paragraph in order to make the paper, overall, appear more sound and coherent. I'm not sure if this means I am placing more value on the end product rather than the process or if it ,actually, is all about the context. I need to better understand the processes that are a cause of any form of composition. At times, I feel that I am making corrections to my own writing and not really knowing why I corrected it; This all applies to structure, syntax, diction...etc. I'm trying to trace the cord back to the wall and better understand the processes that have caused me to think the way I do. I think that understanding these processes, and I believe Brandt would agree, is the best way to understand how one composes. Like I said before, context means a lot, too, but context is a generic word at this point and understanding context leads to a perpetual cycle of tracing the cognitive processes. A lot of what Brandt was getting at made sense, but some was just too subjective and could have been refined a little more. I could be wrong, though; That's just my opinion.

     The Heath text made me think of how people outside of the English department think about English. I noticed that a lot of the townspeople Heath was studying valued reading, but didn't necessarily see value in acquiring knowledge from reading. I see this as somewhat of a paradox: You don't do the very thing you value. I guess I can relate, though. I haven't read some texts because of how dense they appear. I didn't think the text was too hard to read, but ,rather, the time taking to read and understand the text wouldn't translate into something of value. I think of time and energy as a resource, just like anything else. For people in these mill towns, reading isn't going to yield something the same way a day of working will. I think this is a sentiment held by people, even within academia. I could spend days on end reading a book about farming, but actually doing it and seeing results is what is tangible and needed in an agrarian (or industrial) society. I'm still trying to figure out how to actually spend my time and energy towards something that will yield and intellectual crop of fruit. This is done by trial and error. I see the inherent value in reading and literacy, but the extent to which I am supposed to understand it can be overkill, even for an English major. This, again, brings to mind what it means to be literate. Being literate of the written word is one thing, but being literate of how to accomplish a task such as farming/building is another. A person can be illiterate of the written word, but through oral tradition and observing elders, one can be literate of how to do things ( like working in a mill). I believe there has been much revealed about literacy, but it is still changing and lots left to be learned.

Brandt Ch. 2: "What Now?" The Process of Involvement

 

In chapter 2 of this text, Brandt explains some different methods of understanding the writing process. In some attempts to explain these processes, Brandt takes the reader through a journey of what the writer is actually thinking at all stages of the writing process. Although not an entirely new attempt to further understand writing, actually saying aloud what is going on in one's mind can offer several perspectives as how that translates to what is written. This has been challenged, though, as many critics claim much more, i.e., context plays a large role in understanding the writing process: “Understanding what writers do when they compose, critics argue, requires a wider view of both writers' social identities and the cultural resources sand constraints that they contend with” ( 34). Brandt uses two writing models, “Mark” and “Paul,” to dissect two different types of writers. “Mark” represents the “expert” writer and “Paul” the novice and Brandt explains how each approaches a composition task.

One of the best ways to understand the oral process, within a limited context, comes from analyzing what the writer attempts to write when they have two different outcomes in mind. There is the what “to say”( novice) plan of writing and the what “to do”(expert) plan of writing. The “what to say”model makes sense as far as structure goes, but the “do” is when a writer attempts to keep the reader engaged, regardless of what may make sense to write. What the writer is thinking will keep the reader engages or what should come next, say chronologically, has social implications as well. The two oral protocols of “Mark” and “Paul” display this idea that writing is more than an individual process. Brandt explains that “expert” writing is part of a social act in that writers are part of something that is moving and evolving. It is in understanding the social implications and seeing writing as a force of nature that can, hopefully, be harnessed by the writer in order to write more effectively.

Brandt makes several arguments that display cognitive abilities for the expert to be superior due to his being able to perceive the meta narrative and see writing as part of a social context, but doesn't explain how to bridge the cognitive gap between the two. Also, this chapter doesn't bring to light and new ideas, but addresses them in a different way. This is where the value of this text actually is. Looking at two different writers and considering what exactly makes one “good” can be confusing, but placing the writing within the social context helps one better understand just how much social context of a writer plays.

Overall Response: Week 3

From this weeks readings, well, all of the readings, actually, I get a sense that educators in the discipline of English can't seem to agree on much. From reading Berlin, I see that decades and decades of research in rhetoric and composition lead to theory after theory and learning model after learning model. I feel that if I arrive at teaching composition courses, I will have to do mass amounts of research to define what I am teaching. I see all of these theories as promising, to an extent, but think some can be counter productive. I think politics does play a role in all of this, though.

I saw that some people mentioned politics as a contingency as to what is taught and why it is taught. I'm not sure how well new ideas flourish in a system that is reliant on old politics, but I doubt every idea is nurtured—to say the least. This also goes back to what we talked about in class as the “economy” of literacy. It does seem that literacy, if looked at within the context of an economy, will bring a new understanding to what literacy means. Teaching what a student “needs” to learn is also part of this economy. It is practical to teach a student of engineering differently than someone who is going into English, but each is taught the same. I think that, maybe, writing courses should be more diverse and serve different purposes. I know that the basic premise of English 101 is to serve as a blanket for all skill level, but changing the curriculum may offer new jobs or new concepts into learning and teaching composition. I know they have technical writing and the such, but dividing composition a little further may be useful.

On a slightly different note, now, I would like to discuss Trimbur's article. I know that we live in America and the dominant language is English, but I would like to see some diversity. This calls to mind something that I remembered from the first day of class: I believe the statistic was that 100 percent of all college graduates from India speak some English. This is kind of embarrassing, but it does put emphasis on how important it is to know English. It is almost that English is imperialistic. I think Trimbur's ideas are ambitious, but definitely not lofty. It would take decades of work to achieve a mulch-lingual composition class, but it is possible.

Each week, these readings continue to raise my awareness of literacy in its several different contexts. I am now becoming literate of the many facets that define literacy—hope that made sense. I would also like to bring up the fact that lot of what we read is also very old. Now that we've finished Berlin, there is 26 years in which are unaccounted—at least from he. I feel like, as noted before, there is a large disagreement as to what and how to teach composition. I am curious to see where this class is going and how it can help define rhetoric and composition in the 21^st century.

Executive Summary: Ch 7: Rhetoric and Reality

In chapter 7, Berlin introduces the composition rhetorics that had developed out of the 1940s and 50s to birth the writing styles/models of the 60s and 70s. The two main rhetorics delineated are “Objective Rhetoric” and “Subjective Rhetoric.” The first is comprised of “positivistic theories that locate reality in the reality in the material world” and the second “locates reality within the individual, the lone agent acting apart from the material or social realms” (139). There is, also, a third mentioned ( transactional) that is a product of three schools of rhetoric: classic, cognitive and epistemic.

     Objective theory is heavily steeped in behaviorist psychology; it relied on theorist and psychologist observing how composition is“taught" in order to understand how one also "learns." Some of these theorist believed that “grading” or placing corrections on a paper may not be the best way to teach; they (theorists) believed that grading was only one small peace to an entire sequence of events in which a student is actively learning and comprehending how to write. This model was largely based on what a student considers “rewarding” about the writing process. Understanding what a student considers "rewarding" about writing can be applied to developing a learning model. Other ideas introduced were by virtue of Zoellner's model of teaching composition. Zoellner explains that previous models to teaching composition were “ product oriented rather than process-oriented” (143). Zoellner argues that writing being too thought oriented has lead to problems and it (writing) should shift to more “talk” oriented styles as it is more accessible.

      Subjective rhetoric ,also known as expressionist, focuses on the notion that the writing process is something that is individualistic and each person develops internally. This put more emphasis on the process rather than product. Subjective rhetoric is aligned with the thought that writing is an art that is experienced; they, too, beleive composition can be learned, but not taught.

     Lastly, there is “Transactional Rhetoric” that includes: classical, cognitive and epistemic rhetoric. These all are different, but each does inform the other; they are not all independent, existing as an island. Classical, as Berlin mentions, is concerned with Aristotelian concepts of rhetoric: “interlocutor, audience, reality and language” are the integral parts to this model. This camp also sees persuasion as key in understanding the nature and purpose of writing. Cognitive Rhetoric has a stance that the mind develops thoughts and ideas in a chronological sequence and deciphering that sequence will serve to understand writing; This group also believes the relationship between language and thought is one of the most crucial elements to understanding the composition process. There is, then, Epistemic Rhetoric; this group believes the discovering of “truth” is achieved, highly, by virtue of rhetoric. These are all considered to be transactional and part of a dynamic process of obtaining knowledge and, subsequently, truth.

Overall Response: Week 2

I would like to focus my response on Berlin. I have to give it to him, he performed a thorough and exhaustive interrogation of the discipline of English. I, for some reason, though, thought I should have known some of this stuff. I feel like I have been blindly studying English and not really understanding why I was taught what I was taught. As far as progress and comparison, I'm not sure how well current programs of English fare against those of the early 20^th century, but I'd like to think we've ( anyone who has taken English courses) have made great strides. One thing I noticed about progress in the study of English, though, was how Berlin explained that high school composition holds a lot of gravity as to what a college composition course needs. When I was in high school ,you could take English Composition I if you were able to meet certain requirements; many students opted to take the composition course, too. However, the United States is still falling behind at the high school level. I don't know why that is, though. I'm not sure if it is that we are living in a society that is less dependent on the ability to write, schools lack the resources to adequately teach children or if we are just living in a society that has lost sight of the importance basic composition holds. I think that this deficit of composition skills is also reflected by lack of concern. It is no secret that colleges are facing a similar plight as the American high school when it come to these issues of learning composition. The humanities are facing a crisis at the current moment and I'm not sure if there is anything that will occur to put emphasis back on English; I would like to think something should occur since, from what I've read, rhetoric and composition are the tools one needs to discern the truth from all of the stimuli and information she perceives. Maybe people prefer not to think as much because  finding out truths can be frightening. It seems that there should be an equal amount of time spent on art as is science. I would like to know what the golden mean between science and the arts is, too. I think that an overabundance of anything isn't good and that one need to attain copious amounts of science with their art, but art has been on the downside of academia’s priority and I'm sure this is reflected by the freshman writer and high school writer. I think this humanities crisis has caused students and society at large to develop a composition deficiency. People are having a difficult time developing the ability to fully articulate themselves. It's hard enough articulating the metaphysical by virtue of words as a student of English so I'm sure others may find it harder. As Berlin explains, English had it's heyday decades ago and has went through a lot to get to where its at now; actually, 1985. I'm sure English isn't going anywhere, but it is evolving. It is almost at a point to where actual English (Composition) skills aren't needed. I guess orality studies shows that some cultures can sustain themselves without a written language, but most would agree that this is counter intuitive. It's an interesting dichotomy that is occurring now: As the rate of technology increases, the actual need to learn composition decreases. I'm not sure if this is a regression or there is some development in communication that I am missing that makes the formal composition obsolete; I don't know.

"Rhetoric and Reality:" Executive Summary Ch. 3

When reading chapter 3 of Berlin's book and other chapters, too , I thought I should have been more informed on the origins of the discipline I am studying; that was the initial reaction I had and I believe others will have similar reactions. Chapter 3 of his book chronicles the proliferation of the discipline of English in the college institution between 1900-1920: There were several varying definitions of what exactly the end English studies should serve. The NCTE had, by 1911, designated scholarship to be the virtue of English, but others had alternate and, arguably, better ideas. Some of the things revealed in this chapter showed how bureaucratic college can be and still is today, actually. The book is, also, very informative on how to analyze and structure the study of English in the future as it provides a rigorous interrogation of its past: Similar to today, a lot of what drove the formation of college writing courses was by the education received or needed to be received at the highschool level.

Berlin introduces, early on, three of the predominant rhetorics that shaped the inchoate study of English. Berlin explains that there were the ones who thought composition skills were needed so professionals could write adequately and not embarrass themselves in print, the ones who thought only individuals with genius skill should be further taught in the disciple and the ones who would use composition skills to refine their literary palate. Another debate was when to actually teach the composition skills. Some thought that earlier was better, while some believed waiting until the latter part on one's collegiate education was most conducive to learning and comprehending composition. There continued to be conflicts on pedagogy on almost every level. Depending on who was running a school's English department at the time, this type of conflict continued. No one school, such as Harvard or Yale, could agree on the ends teaching English should serve. Most, however, did agree that some type of skill was needed. A large part of the debate, however, was whether it should be something the common man should need to survive in a nation that was becoming more literate or whether it should be studied by those who were scholars. Berlin also explains some more of the objective ways that composition was taught and evaluated. He explains the A-E grading system and how errors in grammar/syntax/structure were determined. These, too, were also debated as the old argument of the end  English should satisfy was again voiced. There was, also,  Berlin notes, a significant event that helped create a sense of solidarity in the study of English. The first great war, WWI, created a sense of urgency to learn and understand English. The war was beneficial in a sense that it allowed for the study of English and English literature to flourish and the study, as a whole, was met with more accepting arms than previously. The efforts to study English were seen as a way to be American and keep democracy safe. This was a very monumental development in how English was received and led to greater leaps in the 20s and 30s.

[ This chapter was difficult to summarize. There were so many different schools and so many detailed developments that occurred over such a brief time that one need to read the chapter and entire book to thoroughly understand them. So if my post is hard to understand and unclear, its because I didn't feel like writing 5 pages on one chapter.]

Overall Response: Week 1

     After reading all of the readings for this week, I find myself questioning my own literacy. Specifically related to language, I am literate of mostly the English language and customs related to the language; English is the norm for me. I feel that my reading and comprehension fits snugly in the box of what Western thinking and academia would condone as being conducive to learning. As I read and understood in some of the readings, though, literacy is an animal that is tough to understand. The implications presented by Daniell and Scriber, for example, are mind boggling. The mechanics of understanding language and literacy are deeply rooted in culture and societal practices of literacy define it culture to culture. A lot of what is considered "book smart" is just that: Learning from a book of accepted symbols and meaning and taking what those symbols encode. This is only one end of the literacy spectrum, though. Being literate of not only an alphabet, but the knowledge understanding a system of symbols can lead to understanding the part of life that is metaphysical. Conversely, however, as Scribner's study of the Vai people proved, a written language is not necessarily the apex of literacy, however. At least, that's what I took it to mean.
        Lastly, I would like to briefly address technology and literacy. As seen in one of the videos we watched in class, vocabulary is changing and increasing to facilitate the age of technology. There are probably vast amounts of words that a Harvard English graduate, circa 1985, would have no clue how to interpret. Does this mean that the well informed and read Harvard graduate is glib? No. The lexicon is changing and we need to adapt; Past paradigms of literacy aren't in need of an upheaval, but at least a renovation.The wealth of knowledge available to people is astonishing, but kids in America and all around the world are still illiterate. It's hard to say if this epoch in which information technology is so prevalent is degenerative to traditional, reading and writing literacy or if it can serve as a savior of sorts. There is so much to be said on all of these topics and I will have to further my reading and knowledge to understand the topic to further understand literacy.

Executive Summary 1: Literacy in Three Metaphors

Scribner, Sylvia. “Literacy in Three Metaphors.” American Journal of Education 93 (1984): 6-21. Print.

     In “Literacy in Three Metaphors” Sylvia Scribner attempts to define what the integral parts of literacy actually are and how they can be understood and applied to the education of people, domestically and abroad. She uses the word “essence” to describe what she is trying to define about literacy, but each context she places literacy in has its own essence. The three metaphors she uses are 1. Literacy as adaptation 2. Literacy as power and 3. Literacy as “state of grace.” Within these contexts, literacy takes on several different meanings and implications as to how to define literacy and what defines it. One common bond she claims all three metaphors have is that each entail a certain amount of social achievement and much needed social analysis is needed to fully understand them.

     She begins her exploration of this notion, beginning with “literacy as adaptation.” Scribner shows how literacy as adaptation is also literacy needed for driving an economy: “The necessity for literary skills in daily life is obvious; one the job, riding around town, buying groceries, we all encounter situations requiring us to read or produce written symbols....”Within the United States, as in other nations, literacy programs with these practical aims are considered efforts at human resource development and, as much, contributors to economic growth and stability” ( 73). Scribner is implicit that, within the adaptation metaphor, literacy is gauged by some aggregate of what is needed to function to do the aforementioned tasks. This, however, can be too uniform and individual literacy is neglected. The scale of determining literacy can't be based on a third grader nor a college professor.

     Scribner moves on to defining literacy within the context of power. She notes that, historically, literacy has been used to reinforce social or political hegemony. Scribner also explains how literacy has been a liberating agent for disenfranchised groups of society. Scribner goes on to mention Paulo Freire's progressive and influential philosophy that spreading literacy is crucial for social transformation. Scribner does, however, see this as being problematic. Her problem is with creating the aesthetic for spreading any given literacy program. What will work for one society may not necessarily work for another.

     Scribner's third metaphor, literacy as a “state of grace,” she admits, has religious overtones, but she places more emphasis on how literacy separates certain people from others. She notes how religions have always assigned a certain level of superiority to those who could read and understand their holy text, but she also explains that the same notion has ancient, secular roots: “Plato and Aristotle strove to distinguish the man of letters from the poet of oral tradition” (77). Scribner calls both the religious and secular versions of this superiority “book knowledge.” The questioned needed answered, she argues, is “how widely dispersed is this admiration of book knowledge?” The answer to that within the context of the “state of grace” metaphor will, somewhat, define literacy.

Getting Started

 If you are in  ENGL 7050 at Auburn University,  you already know the purpose of this blog. It (the blog) will serve as a database for all of my executive summaries and informed responses for readings in ENGL 7050: Special Topics in Composition . The blog may also evolve and hold other information related to my graduate studies and other areas of interest.