Rhetorical Sovereignty by Lyons

"This forced replacement of one identity for another, a cultural violence enabled in part through acts of physical violence, was in so many ways located at the scene of writing" (1129).

The significance of this quote is the fact that so many cultures have been violated with violence to conform to a certain identity when it came to their writing and their style of writing.

We should care because our readings today are greatly affected by this, especially academia readings. Historically the writings we read are from white men and other cultures, races, and genders are not represented.

This is very important to the classroom because we need to start teaching our student that other cultures writings are just as important as the white man's writing. Also, it is important that women understand that they need to be heard as well.

In order to do composition justice we need to find ways to go back to archives and pull out different races and genders writings, even if they are extracurricular writings, or personal writings. We need to understand how other cultures view writing and what was important to them in their writings.

My personal blog for those who are interested!

http://ajourneyofheartandsoul.blogspot.com/

Thank you to everyone for your support and encouragement this semester!

Community: Joseph Harris

After the discussion we had last Monday night in class, I have not been able to stop thinking about how our classrooms are not teaching about all cultures, so reading Community I find myself asking even more questions and thinking on an even different level.

The first point that I want to bring forward is, "We write not as isolated individuals but as members of communities whose beliefs, concerns, and practices both instigate and constrain, at least in part, the sorts of things we can say. Our aims and intentions in writing are thus not merely personal, idiosyncratic, but reflective of the communities to which we belong." I had never really thought of writing in this sense. Just reading this point help me to understand why voice is such a struggle for so many writers. I had never thought through the fact and/or idea that a person's community truly affects what they say and more importantly what they don't say. Especially if a person is considered to be someone of importance in that particular community they are definitely going to make sure what they say reflects their community in the way they want the outside to see this collective group of people.

The second point I am bringing forward is, "The task of the student is thus imagined as one of crossing the border from one community of discourse to another, of taking on a new sort of language." I had never thought about how much during my university career I always would focus on certain communities when writing papers. Also, when looking at papers from my years prior to college, it is amazing how much my language has changed. It is very much so like I have taken on a whole new language and sometimes I do not even recognize my language in current writings. I am beginning to realize that I do not use the same language I learned while growing up. This is making me question (like is brought up in this section of the book) how do I combine my university language with my natural language? How do I make my voice stronger by connecting these languages? Can I write some of my papers in my voice/language I learned and used while growing up or must they all consist of this new university voice/language I have learned?

All in all what I am saying is this chapter has brought some very strong points to my mind. These points have thus led me to question my own writing. Secondly these points have also made me question communities I belong to and how would they want me to use my voice and language when I write or speak of them.

Updated Rough Draft Paper 2 (Dialogue between Feminist Pedagogy Authors and Rene)

I am following in bell hooks footsteps and making a playful dialogue about feminist pedagogy. This dialogue takes place between myself, Rene, and several authors of the feminist pedagogy articles read. I will be looking at how each author defines feminist pedagogy or what traits each say are a part of feminist pedagogy and then will link them together with my own voice. I agree with bell hooks and feel that by doing a fun dialogue like such will allow me an opportunity to examine the articles closer then I would be able to in a traditional essay. I also feel this will allow me the freedom to be able to possibly come up with a whole new definition of feminist pedagogy by combining aspects of each one. This will also allow me to critique in a way that I feel comfortable as a student learning from these influential scholarly authors.

 

Susan C. Jarratt: From my view feminist pedagogy does not necessarily entail an overt discussion of feminism as a politics or movement, although some teachers do include such discussions in their class. Feminist pedagogy can be described as a practice, but defining this practice is vexing because of feminists' desire not to reinscribe an orthodoxy, disciplining those who fail to subscribe. We can note that the basic practices of feminist pedagogy are ones it shares with the pedagogical innovations of the process revolution in writing instruction: the decentering or sharing of authority, the recognition of students as sources of knowledge, a focus on processes (of writing and teaching) over products. However, what makes feminist pedagogy distinctive is its investment in a view of contemporary society as sexist and patriarchal, and of the complicity of reading, writing, and teaching in those conditions (115).

Rene: Ms. Jarratt, I love the way you discuss what makes feminist pedagogy distinctive. I whole heartedly agree that feminist pedagogy is very invested in the view of contemporary society as sexist and patriarchal, plus the complicity of reading, writing, and teaching in these conditions. From personal perspectives it is very difficult being a female student in writing classes because society still holds a strong view of being patriarchal and very sexist language usage within reading materials. To take a further look at this idea and maybe get a deeper understanding we will discuss this idea with Elizabeth Flynn and her writing of Composing as a Woman."

Elizabeth Flynn: Feminist research and theory emphasize that males and females differ in their developmental processes and in their interactions with others. They emphasize that these differences are a result of an imbalance in the social order, of the dominance of men over women, arguing men have chronicled our historical narratives and defined our fields (field of composition) of inquiry. Women's perspectives have been suppressed, silenced, marginalized, written out of what counts as authoritative knowledge (245).

Rene: Ms. Flynn, after hearing what you have to say about feminist research and theory I see how it builds on what Susan C. Jarratt feels as the distinction for feminist pedagogy. From this if I was to develop my own definition I would combine the two of you and add more. One possibility would be feminist pedagogy is about embracing differences in developmental processes and interactions of men and women with others, looking at how the societal order is imbalanced because of the patriarchal view and use of sexist language in different writings, and finding ways to balance what was historically men chronicling narratives to define the field of composition studies. This definition can go further and include the fact that women have been suppressed, silenced, and marginalized, but with this knowledge feminist pedagogy can now work with composition studies to find ways to allow women to be heard with their voice and not having to be held to the patriarchal voice found in so many writings, especially scholarly works.

However, Eileen E. Schell needs to be brought into the discussion with her article, The Feminization of Composition: Questioning the Metaphors that Bind Women Teachers.

Eileen E. Schell: "Feminization" has a double-edged meaning for women in composition, simultaneously signifying their presence as part-timers, adjuncts, while also signifying their absence in positions of power and influence. Yet "feminization" does not necessarily correspond with a move toward feminist positions. Instead, it defines the work of women composition teachers as both literally "female" and "feminized" in the pejorative sense (552).

Rene: So looking at the idea of the definition I created for feminist pedagogy after talking with Ms. Jarratt and Ms. Flynn almost seems to be thrown out the window with what you just said, Ms. Schell. After reading this small part of the article, I feel that people, especially women should be questioning why there is an absence of a woman presence in power. Granted many universities are not as lucky as Texas Wesleyan University whose English department is comprised mostly of women professors, but as was voiced in a discussion in a recent Composition Theory and Pedagogy course over your article, do women not keep themselves in these lower positions. Since the majority of women teaching composition courses are part-timers or adjuncts, it is because of the scheduling that they chose to teach these courses. For there to be a change in the dynamics discussed in your article, more women need to choose to not allow themselves to be put in a place that is a never ending cycle so to speak. If women refused to teach these courses, then who is left to teach them? Men. Women have made great strides in changing how they are looked within academia, but at the same time they continue to hold themselves within the tightly bound world of being without power. As one person said during this discussion, women are giving up pay because they enjoy teaching this course and also it allows them the freedom they need in order to be with their children. Another part of defining feminist pedagogy has to come from how women assert their authority in the classroom. So, next I will be talking with Michelle Payne about her article, Rend(er)ing Women's Authority in the Writing Classroom.

Michelle Payne: One of the most powerful discourses that has influenced my identity as a writing teacher—and that is often ignored in theoretical and pedagogical discussions—has been my experience as a woman from an emotionally abusive childhood home. Many, though not all, of us seem to value students writing about their family life and care about our students not just as writers but as people, yet we seem reluctant to share publicly the various ways our own private lives have influenced us as scholars and teachers. We are only beginning to understand how our students' family experiences may influence their learning and behavior in our classes, and it seems equally important that we begin to understand what may be influencing us. (403-04)

Rene: I know for many of you reading this dialogue are probably wondering why in the world I am bringing this into the discussion of feminist pedagogy and trying to define it. After discussions with Schell and Payne I would like to look at how to further the definition of feminist pedagogy. So far the definition states: feminist pedagogy is about embracing differences in developmental processes and interactions of men and women with others, looking at how the societal order is imbalanced because of the patriarchal view and use of sexist language in different writings, and finding ways to balance what was historically men chronicling narratives to define the field of composition studies. Plus, women have been suppressed, silenced, and marginalized, but with this knowledge feminist pedagogy can now work with composition studies to find ways to allow women to be heard with their voice and not having to be held to the patriarchal voice found in so many writings, especially scholarly works.

 

Conversations with Various Authors about Feminist Pedagogy

This is a very rough draft…just a start to paper 2.

 

I am following in bell hooks footsteps and making a playful dialogue about feminist pedagogy. This dialogue takes place between myself, Rene, and several of the articles read in this section. I will find essential questions within the articles and then respond to them within my own voice. I want to be able to speak about what I find important and what I feel may be lacking within these articles. I agree with bell hooks and feel that by doing a fun dialogue like such will allow me an opportunity to examine the articles closer then I would be able to in a traditional essay. I also feel this will allow me the freedom to be able to critique the articles in a unique fashion.

Susan C. Jarratt: From my view feminist pedagogy does not necessarily entail an overt discussion of feminism as a politics or movement, although some teachers do include such discussions in their class. Feminist pedagogy can be described as a practice, but defining this practice is vexing because of feminists' desire not to reinscribe an orthodoxy, disciplining those who fail to subscribe. We can note that the basic practices of feminist pedagogy are ones it shares with the pedagogical innovations of the process revolution in writing instruction: the decentering or sharing of authority, the recognition of students as sources of knowledge, a focus on processes (of writing and teaching) over products. However, what makes feminist pedagogy distinctive is its investment in a view of contemporary society as sexist and patriarchal, and of the complicity of reading, writing, and teaching in those conditions (115).

Rene: Ms. Jarratt, I love the way you discuss what makes feminist pedagogy distinctive. I whole heartedly agree that feminist pedagogy is very invested in the view of contemporary society as sexist and patriarchal, plus the complicity of reading, writing, and teaching in these conditions. From personal perspectives it is very difficult being a female student in writing classes because society still holds a strong view of being patriarchal and very sexist language usage within reading materials. To take a further look at this idea and maybe get a deeper understanding we will discuss this idea with Elizabeth Flynn and her writing of Composing as a Woman."

Elizabeth Flynn: Feminist research and theory emphasize that males and females differ in their developmental processes and in their interactions with others. They emphasize that these differences are a result of an imbalance in the social order, of the dominance of men over women, arguing men have chronicled our historical narratives and defined our fields (field of composition) of inquiry. Women's perspectives have been suppressed, silenced, marginalized, written out of what counts as authoritative knowledge (245).

Rene: Ms. Flynn, after hearing what you have to say about feminist research and theory I see how it builds on what Susan C. Jarratt feels as the distinction for feminist pedagogy. From this if I was to develop my own definition I would combine the two of you and add more. One possibility would be feminist pedagogy is about embracing differences in developmental processes and interactions of men and women with others, looking at how the societal order is imbalanced because of the patriarchal view and use of sexist language in different writings, and finding ways to balance what was historically men chronicling narratives to define the field of composition studies. This definition can go further and include the fact that women have been suppressed, silenced, and marginalized, but with this knowledge feminist pedagogy can now work with composition studies to find ways to allow women to be heard with their voice and not having to be held to the patriarchal voice found in so many writings, especially scholarly works.

However, Eileen E. Schell needs to be brought into the discussion with her article, The Feminization of Composition: Questioning the Metaphors that Bind Women Teachers.

Eileen E. Schell: "Feminization" has a double-edged meaning for women in composition, simultaneously signifying their presence as part-timers, adjuncts, while also signifying their absence in positions of power and influence. Yet "feminization" does not necessarily correspond with a move toward feminist positions. Instead, it defines the work of women composition teachers as both literally "female" and "feminized" in the pejorative sense (552).

Rene: So looking at the idea of the definition I created for feminist pedagogy after talking with Ms. Jarratt and Ms. Flynn almost seems to be thrown out the window with what you just said, Ms. Schell. After reading this small part of the article, I feel that people, especially women should be questioning why there is an absence of a woman presence in power. Granted many universities are not as lucky as Texas Wesleyan University whose English department is comprised mostly of women professors, but as was voiced in a discussion recently over your article, do women not keep themselves in these lower positions. Since the majority of women teaching composition courses are part-timers or adjuncts, it is because of the scheduling that they chose to teach these courses. For there to be a change in the dynamics discussed in your article, more women need to choose to not allow themselves to be put in a place that is a never ending cycle so to speak. If women refused to teach these courses, then what is left to teach them? Men. Women have made great strides in changing how they are looked within academia, but at the same time they continue to hold themselves within the tightly bound world of being without power.

 

Toward a Mestiza Rhetoric: Gloria Anzaldua on Composition and Postcoloniality

To be honest I got so involved in my personal reading of Emotional Bullshit that I almost forgot to post about readings for class.

I found this interview between Andrea Lunsford and Gloria Anzaldua very fascinating. I could not believe how much she was talking about Voice. Yes, I know Voice has become this huge thing to me, but it was really fascinating to see her take on Voice. Lunsford used a quote by Anzaldua to open up with and it says, "I will have my voice: Indian, Spanish, white. I will have my serpent's tongue—my woman's voice, my sexual voice, my poet's voice. I will overcome the tradition of silence" (1401). I simply love this quote because it says so much about who she says in so few words. Yet her main word is voice. This allows us to see that Voice comes in many varieties. For example, I write from a white voice, a lesbian voice, a woman's voice, a college graduate voice, etc. Really what this did for me was to open up my eyes to see how much voice really does crossover disciplines.

If I am being 100% honest, I struggled with the idea that voice carried over into other disciplines. I am not quite sure why, but I did. After reading this interview and just that opening quote alone, I stand corrected. I now completely and totally see how voice moves. I never thought about the different communities I am associated with and how each one of these communities affects my voice.

I was having a conversation with someone tonight, who is college educated, and she never truly thought about how different voices sounded in papers. This got her wheels turning and now she says she is going to be so much more conscious of voice in different things she reads. I find it so interesting that many people do not realize how much voice truly does impact anything we read.

One thing I absolutely loved about Anzaldua was the fact that she sits on so many different boards for magazines because she is one of the few trying to push the boundaries and open up these magazines to different types of voices. It is very exciting to me to see that someone finds this so important, because I feel after many of the conversations held in our class, so many of us feel the same way. I am just giddy about the fact that she has become so popular in Composition because she does dare to push the envelope and dares to push for changes that are long overdue.

Textbook Review: Writing Today by Richard Johnson-Sheehan and Charles Paine

Alright, I know I am a couple days late posting, but here it is, a very rough draft of my textbook review!

    Writing Today, Richard Johnson-Sheehan and Charles Paine, is a textbook aimed at first-year writing students. From the very beginning this text book is definitely aimed towards a certain group of people. The cover of the book is an Apple I-phone that looks like a variety of applications that are available, but give the various titles to the sections in the book. It is pretty colorful. At first glance, looking at the cover I thought of the technology generation and how they would relate to the cover. This then made me ask the question, would a non-traditional first year writing student look at the cover the same way as a traditional first year writing student? My answer is no, because I am a non-traditional student and was very put off by the cover.

    Next, I began looking through the book and as soon as I opened the book the first thing that catches is my eye is the title page within the book, and this time it is the same photo but now the applications are coming off the phone and flying through the air. Personally, I was thinking, this is annoying looking and very childish. Then I looked to the inside of the cover and I really liked what they did here. In a very organized manner they give the "Brief Contents" of the book and it is broken down in parts. Yes, it is very colorful, but for this I find that to be okay because it makes it easier to see when the parts change.

    Still looking at this inside cover, I will say this: for a professor this is awesome because they know that more than likely they cannot cover every single thing in this book in one semester. It is 888 pages long after all! However, since it is broken into parts and the parts have titles, a professor can choose what will be important to them and what will not be important to them. Also, it gives each chapter that is included within those parts, so again a professor can go in and choose if there are only certain chapters they want to use out of each part. Now, for a student this is also awesome because it is a quick reference guide. Personally, I am one who likes to have an idea as to where a professor is going with their syllabus and by looking at a syllabus, then looking at this, I will know.

    Third, I looked at the various pages through out the book. What I first noticed was all the colors used. Again, in my eyes this is very juvenile and reminds me of high school textbooks. So, again I am forced to ask the question, is this textbook only being targeted to traditional students? Then I noticed at the end of every chapter when the authors want to talk about Ideas for Writing, they put in these pictures of people beside the sections within this area. Are you kidding me? It looks as if they are just trying to cover up some white space and one of the authors says, "hey let's use some random pictures of people." The last thing I do not like about this textbook is the random pictures they use for the beginning of each part.

    Those are the negatives to this textbook; however, I do have to say there are some positives within this textbook as well. First, there is an introduction page to every part and it breaks down what each chapter is going to be about. This again makes it very easy for the professor and the student to know what is going on. Something else I like is there are a lot of samples of papers throughout that match what the authors are trying to demonstrate to the student, so this textbook works well for visual learners as well. Another way the authors help the visual learner is by giving a lot of charts, especially flow charts. Probably my favorite part about the textbook is the fact that they show more than one way to do things. Johnson-Sheehan and Paine really recognize that not all students can do things the same way and so they try to reach more than one student.

    Writing Today truly tries to teach first-year composition by breaking down different aspects of writing and giving different parts; Getting Started, Using Genres to Express Ideas, Developing a Writing Process, Strategies or Shaping Ideas, Doing Research, Getting Your Ideas Out There, Anthology of Readings, and Handbook. This textbook truly tries to expose a first-year writer to all different aspects and types of writing. Johnson-Sheehan and Paine teach students through this book using information that is relevant to them and very current issues. For example, in Chapter 5, Profiles, under Part 2, Genres, they show that a person can use a personal profile for such things as Facebook, LinkedIn, or Myspace. All thee of which are very current and popular at this point in time; however, it may not be something a non-traditional student is using because some refuse to embrace technology and others just have no interest in technology.

    The Preface of the book was one of the best I have probably ever seen in a textbook, especially for professors. Johnson-Sheehan and Paine give some of their background information, so a reader understands their personal experiences and it makes the reader feel connected to them. Then they go into how the book is organized and what to expect in each part, yet again giving the professor and an even better idea of what they may want to include in a semester and leave out. Third, they discuss ways this book may fit into one's teaching approach. The word that jumped out at me here was flexibility, because I think so many professors would prefer a textbook, especially for first-year composition, to be flexible to what their needs are. This part even gives some greater descriptions of what they were thinking when coming up with the different parts of the textbook and again this allows a feeling of connection to the authors and also an understanding of what they are trying to bring through the pages. Fourth, a even deeper description of features of the book, so a professor will understand know what they are encountering in each chapter. Finally, they leave us with who they are.

    This textbook is truly a great price at $66.67, especially considering is 888 pages in length. I would highly recommend this book for a first-year composition teacher at Texas Wesleyan or Tarrant County Junior College, but would give them a strong caution that it seems to be truly geared towards the traditional student crowd. I believe both traditional and non-traditional students are able to learn from this book because of the wealth of information given, but a non-traditional student will be very annoyed with how juvenile parts of it are. I believe professors would enjoy teaching from this book because they have made it very easy for professors to be flexible in what and how they teach a first-year writing course.