After
some initial struggling to find an article which related to theory, pedagogy, and
sex/gender and writing, thankfully Dr. Rouzie recommended Rebecca Moore Howard’s
“Sexuality, Textuality: The Cultural Work of Plagiarism.” Admittedly, I was
reluctant to “buy into” RMH’s gendered notion of plagiarism, but if absolutely
nothing else, this article is fascinating. Further, it can have valuable
implications to our discussions of gender, sex, and writing.
If
you have not read RMH’s article yet, take a moment to think about your
definition of “plagiarism.” If you have read her article, then take a moment to
think about your previously held definition of the word. In class, I’d like to
discuss how our own definitions of plagiarism might have gender/power/sex
implications (according to RMH’s article). Is there a possible definition of
plagiarism without these constructs? RMH would say “no.” Nor does she believe
that a better metaphor than the bovine metaphor from page 476 exists: “metaphors
of gender and sexuality are part of our economy of authorship because our
economy of authorship is part of our cultural regulation of gender and
sexuality” (487). Do any of you have a metaphor for plagiarism and/or
authorship free from gender/power/sex constraints?
RMH
asserts that we cannot have a concrete universal definition of plagiarism
because “teachers cannot possible formulate and act on a definition of
plagiarism that articulates both its textual and sexual work” (474). While
these sexual implications of “plagiarism” are interesting to read about, do you
buy into it? Since the word “plagiarism” has such a prominent place in
academia, how realistic is RMH’s call to use the words “fraud,” “excessive
repetition” and “insufficient citation” instead?
I’d
like us to think about how RMH compares to our other authors for Tuesday. What
does her call to action regarding plagiarism do for the feminist pedagogy that
Sanchez/Casal & McDonald discuss? In terms of Reynolds, how can we think of
re-defining plagiarism as "interrupting" the gendered notion of the
term? Does freedom from “plagiarism” give women writers the agency to practice
their gendered position as Bridwell-Bowles suggests? Are there other
connections you noticed?
I also felt RMH was laying it on a little thick when I realized her argument posits plagiarism as gendered, but after tapping into my Rhetorical Traditions background, it made much more sense. The gendering of strong vs. weak language is striking, and we tend to use these terms without even noticing how horribly gendered they are. Describing a text as "seminal" and "penetrating" should stand out to us as noteworthy, yet it doesn't seem to turn many heads -even in academia.
ReplyDeleteWithin the first week of ENG 151, we talk about what makes "good writing" and what makes "bad writing." After drawing two columns on the board, we list adjectives that describe "good writing": strong, assertive, structured, firm, serious, logical, credible, and so on. Then, the same for "weak writing": incoherent, weak, emotional, confusing, questionable, etc. Then I ask students if they notice any patterns, which gets us talking about some of the very things RMH discusses. I also like to mention to them that back in the day, plagiarism was compared to an STD - they seem horrified and amused by that.
And I continued to buy into what RMH was selling until she deemed plagiarism not only as rape, but homosexual rape. This was too far for me. Between a host of friends who were sexually assaulted as young children (one as young as 5), friends who work daily with rape survivors, and a lot of trans friends who fear rape on a daily basis when they enter a bathroom, I can't accept this analogy because the overuse of the word "rape" in RMH's article serves to desensitize the reader to its damage and horror in reality, outside of writing papers.
Some will say I'm being too sensitive, but I find the overuse and misappropriation of the word to be disturbing and offensive, similar to the comeback of the R-word and "that's so gay." 1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted; that's 1 in 4 readers, at least, who will cringe as they read this text. Perhaps using rape as a synonym for stealing was acceptable a century ago, but in my opinion, it isn't anymore.
Was anyone else put off by this use?
I agree with Hillery here. I was also thought RMH was a bit over the top. However, her ideas are certainly worth considering. I didn't really have a problem with her call to use other words: "fraud" "excessive repetition" and "insufficient citation." Some of these terms might more accurately describe the different kinds of plagiarism. If someone who commits plagiarism is demonized then they must have committed something really serious, but not all forms of plagiarism are intentional cheating. I'm looking forward to the discussion in class on this article.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first taught this essay I felt the same way, that it "went too far." But this time around I feel differently. I see her making a very carefully articulated argument about the discursive formation of plagiarism. She uses gender theories to reveal the associational linkages between how plagiarism has been represented and heterosexist oppression.
ReplyDeleteHillery, you wrote that RMH uses "rape as a synonym for stealing" but I do not think she is doing that at all; quite the opposite: she is revealing how male writers (including contemporary ones) use that metaphor for plagiarism and she unpacks it in terms of her argument. She is not simply using it or endorsing it; rather, she makes this point to further warrant rejecting the term altogether so that this use of rape is seen for what it is.
Her linkage to homosexual rape clarifies for me the degree of fury and panic that accompanies plagiarism. Perhaps it comes down to her assessment of the power of metaphors. She directly raises the question of whether the concept is beyond the pale because of the history of its representation in language, and of course she asserts that to use it as if this did not matter is to be complicit with it. Perhaps.
I hope to get to this discussion of the rape metaphor in class today. When I first read the text I also thought "whoa there, this is just too far." It took a couple more readings of the article to really get what she was saying. She is not trying to apply the rape metaphor to the writers of texts, she is just describing how that inherently happens, how teachers feel "violated" when they receive plagiarized work. She also uses the discussion of rape to, as Dr. Rouzie said, describe how the term "plagiarism" reinforces a "heterosexual, binary gender" (486), which we all know is not representative of culture. RMH *has* to go there in order to complete her argument, if she left out her "homosexual rape" assertions, her argument would have holes. Besides, the connection between homosexual rape would certainly explain the "fury expressed by many commentators on plagiarism" (484). I'm not saying we have to buy into it, believe it, or even support it, but she does go there as part of her argument on metaphors. As RMH said, not using the term "plagiarism" would make moot any reference to rape that we see here.
ReplyDeleteBrianna,
ReplyDeleteJust wanted to say I thought your leadership of the conversation today was really productive. We got to both the strengths and the dangers of the article--and there are plenty of both!--in a way that generated interesting (at least for me) tensions/interrogations of both the article and the construction of plagiarism. Yeah, you!
Sarah
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteThank you so much! :) I had a great article to work with, too.
-Brianna