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