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.