This is Not My Title: Mandatory Blog Post

I should start by explaining this post’s delay (insert quintessential student excuse. I typed the whole thing out and then tried to move an image and boom - entire post lost. True story).

I have tried to write this post almost ten times over the past few days, but I haven’t really “felt” compelled to say much at all. In fact, I tend to become completely enraged when I think about how heteronormative ideals affect people’s lives daily. What DiGrazia and Boucher, Alexander and Rhodes, and Yep have to say is not just about a few queer-focused assignments in a classroom for the sake of diversity and tolerance; they are speaking about the justifications “moral” people use to control, limit, and stigmatize my life. I’ve been finding it difficult to focus the reflective post on anything more than a sob story about the myriad obstacles that my queerness poses, particularly regarding same-sex marriage or at least a future that involves some legal protections. In fact, I was listening to NPR this morning and heard about Proposal One, which is being voted on Tuesday in North Carolina. Same-sex marriage is already illegal in NC, but this amendment would further ban same-sex marriages, including civil unions or any related benefits. (Wonderful Wikipedia has a stellar visual aid to demonstrate the "red" I'm seeing regarding this issue.) It’s a ban-amendment to an already-in-place ban amendment. Yep, heteronormativity!

Although the “Unpacking the Hetero Privilege Knapsack” exercise felt like a flop and I wish the discussion been more lively from the onset, I was happy our conversation gained momentum as the class progressed. Yep’s piece was a tremendous supplement to the readings and the lines Alexander and Rhodes blur in Queered. The video fit nicely with the expressivist collage-based assignments and the textual analysis DiGrazia and Boucher included in their course. If the “Writing InQueeries” class were to be remixed/revised/revisited, I think Queered would be a valuable addition. In fact, it could be used as a sample because it covers so many of their assignment goals. I am satisfied with the article I chose, but I found it difficult to balance the focus between queer theory and rhetoric and the applications of the Composition classroom. It felt synthetic and forced at times to keep pushing the discussion back to Composition, which was entirely a self-imposed pressure. On the other hand, from the start, the discussion contained threads of Alexander and Rhodes and Yep, which felt organic and comprehensive. I’m most interested in notions of non-queer and queer authority, which we talked about through different avenues throughout the class period. Even though we did touch on the violence issue, I wish we had done more there. Initially I planned to start with the opening scene of Middle Sexes: Redefining He and She, but the computer froze so I turned to my back-up plan. I sincerely hope the class members found some value in the article I chose, if only for one small reason.

One thing DiGrazia and Boucher’s article does is, hopefully, inspire readers to create assignments that capture Foucault’s focus on harmful discursive power structures that function to regulate individuals inside of their own homes and exert control and normalization processes on their physical bodies. It seems that DiGrazia and Boucher’s dream class includes assignments that focus mainly around self-reflection and transformative writing, but I’m more interested in the second assignment, the textual analysis paper. It seems that a visual analysis would be a good “foot-in-the-door” for this type of critical work. And I think our students are ready for it. My students begin the visual analysis unit by choosing a Banksy image (they are then free to move to other images for the actual essay, or they can stick with a Banksy image and find another to use as well). Every quarter, a handful of them are drawn to this one in particular (I do not/will not use Pinterest, but I encourage someone to pin this):

Without even realizing it, Banksy is a perfect example of queer rhetoric; he resists and challenges norms and he queers “art.” His ethos is questioned, his legitimacy is doubted, and he operates in a liminal, trans sort of legal area. He pushes back against authority and exposes ugly truths by disrupting the things we claim make us who we are. This queer layering could provide for some interesting discussions, so I’m going to experiment more with the queer rhetoric lens alongside Banksy next semester.

PS – if you haven’t yet read Stone Butch Blues (by Leslie Feinberg), please do so. When you read it, you’ll understand why. 

Modernism meets Theory Class: Similar Ideas 80 Years Later

Oddly, I seem to constantly find connections between the material we’re reading in Modernism and the articles we read for Theory. While I still haven’t figured out exactly what Modernism is, I do know that one of the most common themes in modern literature is alienation.

My connection this week comes from the following two authors:

Theory: Victor Villanueva’s  “On the Rhetoric and Precedents of Racism” (1999)

Modernism: Randolph Bourne’s “Trans-National America” (1916)

Some background on Bourne:

Bourne was a social critic who analyzed American culture and life. Deformed at birth, he was always an outsider. Bourne was opposed to the forced assimilation under the guise of patriotism during WWI. He wrote “Trans-National America” as a rejection of this “war fever” (Molesworth 1956). This piece criticizes the melting pot metaphor and suggests that immigrants should define what “American” means, not the government.

Below are some of the concepts I connected to the two authors.

(Although Villanueva discusses the danger of confusing the terms ethnicity and race, Bourne seems to treat them interchangeably. I, therefore, am going to treat my mentioning of the “other” as both the racial and the ethnic other.)

On colonization:

·      Bourne suggests Americans cannot let go of their homeland: “The truth is that no more tenacious cultural allegiance to the mother country has been shown by any alien nation than by the ruling class of Anglo-Saxon descendants in these American States. English snobberies, English religion, English literacy styles, English literacy reverences and cannons, English ethics, English superiorities, have been the cultural food that we have drunk in from our mothers’ breasts” (1959).

·      Villanueva questions why academics and scholars value European philosophies but fail to acknowledge (or study or teach or even know about) other voices. He says “we must break from the colonial mindset and learn from thinkers from our own hemisphere as well” (659).

On what the “other” offers:

·      Bourne on native cultures: “They are more valuable and interesting to each other for being different…” (1965).

·      Villanueva suggests more journal publications should publish people of color, suggesting that if these people write about racism, it will encourage more “others” to join in both the conversation and our field.

Call to action:

·      Bourne

o   States multiple times that the younger generation needs to carry the idea

o   An intellectual sympathy could embrace cultural expression

o   Accept dual citizenship

o   Give voice to the other

o   “It must be a future America, on which all can unite, which pulls us irresistibly toward it, as we understand each other more warmly” (1968).

·      Villanueva

o   More than giving voice to the “other” in publications

o   “I remain tied to the belief that we must break from the colonial discourse that binds us all” (656).

Obviously this is a conversation that I cannot fully tackle, nor can I offer groundbreaking ideas. I do have a few comments though:

I believe both authors would hate that I reference the “other” so frequently, but I also think both understand that it is part of the problem they present: the other is alienated because there is a white ruling class that extends from the country’s founding (or, I should say, the whites who drove away and killed the “others” that already lived here.) The problem seems to have changed very little in one hundred years—the others are still a different group of people than the rest of the country. We need to assimilate as one—not as one “American” ideal—but as one group of people without the stigma of the “other.”

Despite Bourne’s disgust with the concept, I believe patriotism is an important bond for the country’s citizens who must appreciate their freedoms and ability to suggest change. So how can the concept of “American” be changed to embrace these freedoms while valuing individual histories?

Perhaps changing the concept of patriotism to actually embrace the “melting pot” is a start. On a professional level, what is valued in the academy and what is canonized would also need to change. This, of course, would then alter educational practices.

If Bourne thinks the younger generations can start this change, what practices can instructors adopt in order to inspire this change? How is this concept problematized when (1) looking at the rhetorical competencies composition classes require or aim to achieve and (2) preparing students for other writing experiences in the university? 

Works Cited

Bourne. Photograph. Today’s Autonomedia Jubilee Saint—RANDOLPH BOURNE. Arthur Magazine Archive. Web. 7 May 2012.

Bourne, Randolph. "Trans-National America." The Heath Anthology of American Literature. Ed. Paul Lauter. 6th ed. Vol. D. Boston: Wadsworth, 2010. 1957-68. Print. 

Molesworth, Charles. "Randolph Bourne 1886-1918." The Heath Anthology of American Literature. Ed. Paul Lauter. 6th ed. Vol. D. Boston: Wadsworth, 2010. 1955-57. Print. 

Villanueva, Victor. "On the Rhetoric and Precedents of Racism." College Composition and Communication 50.4 (1999): 654-61. Print.

Rural "Othering"

Ever seen the show “The Big Bang Theory”? One of its running gags is the character Sheldon's strained relationship with Nebraska-native Penny. At one point, after Penny has tried to illustrate an argument using her teen years in Nebraska, Sheldon remarks that he'll remember her speech if he's “ever nominated for the hillbilly peace prize.” That Penny's home state is part of the Great Plains is irrelevant; the understood merging of her (un-intelligent) rural background with Appalachia is understood.

Kim Donehower argues that rural stereotyping in America is traceable to stereotypes of Appalachia, in that “the American people cut their teeth on stereotyping rural regions through the demonization, and celebration, of Appalachia” (39), the result of which is that rural becomes equated with a stereotyped Appalachian culture. She roots much of the cultural stereotyping of Appalachia—and by extension, rural America—in the positive/negative paradox: either the angelic Waltons or demonic psychos of Deliverance, Appalachians are positioned as the “other” against which mainstream America positions itself. Literacy sponsors from outside the region have, in Donehower's view, approached the region as a “problem” to be solved in one of three ways: modernization, preservation, or urbanization.

I was interested in Donehower's theory of rural othering as connected with perceptions of “'pure' Anglo-Saxons living in the style of their Scottish and Irish forebears” (42). She connects this perception with an essentializing, preservation-based move on the part of outside literacy sponsors struggling with their own identities. However, I don't think she necessarily problematizes, or historicizes, this perception enough. The Scottish and Irish (who did make up part of Appalachian settlement though were, as she notes, by no means the sole cultural group to do so) were neither ethnically or culturally Anglo-Saxon, a status recognized by the early, largely English-descended populations along the east coast (the University of Tennessee’s Encyclopedia of Appalachia project offers extensively researched explorations of early class and cultural dynamics in pre- and post-colonial America.) In fact, the Scottish and Irish Celtic cultures that these early immigrants brought with them had endured centuries of oppression by the Anglo-Saxons and their English descendants. The initial “othering” in pre-American European society was an othering of the Celts by the Anglo-Saxons, an “othering” that was maintained in the early settlements of what became the United States. While Donehower raises the racializations of Appalachia, she neglects to consider the early racializations of the Celtic “others,” a system that continues to trouble relations between modern day English and Irish, Scottish, and Welsh cultures. Additionally, much of Appalachian culture emerged from amalgamations of Scotch-Irish, Cherokee Federation, and African-American peoples and cultures, making Appalachian peoples and cultures more unique among American cultural groups; Donehower does little to consider the othering of modern Appalachia as rooted in these dynamics, not just in any mistaken impressions of an Anglo-Saxon cultural root. While this perception, if truly widespread outside the region, could account for preservationist desires on the part of Anglophiles, I'm not convinced of its role in the region's initial othering. There are simply too many candidates. Donehower perhaps simplifies the roots of Appalachian othering too much, and seizes on an explanation that isn't necessarily a singular historical cause.

I also want more consideration of Donehower's arguments against “preservation” based approaches to “solving” the Appalachian issue. My concern with this is her silence regarding traditional rhetorics in many Appalachian regions that are in some ways preservation-based, intended to preserve family history and promote the sustenance of cultural values. I'm unclear as to whether Donehower's issue is with preservation itself as a way of life (which, if this is the case, could lead to negative cultural disruptions) or with the concept of outside voices choosing what should be preserved.

This confusion is compounded by my confusion as to how Donehower is positioning herself in this essay. She doesn't seem to position herself as Appalachian (which she is), and writes instead from a position of an academic (“us” as she says on page 46). Why? I would like to know Donehower's reasons for her subject position choices in an essay that could well have benefited from this clarification.

 Donehower's raises a need to consider the “problem” of Appalachia from inside, and well as outside, points of view. How do Appalachian peoples position themselves? What are their thoughts on the ways they have been defined by outsiders? How would they like to see education and literacy working in the region? Very few other scholars have done any work from an insider view of these issues, Katherine Kelleher Sohn being a notable exception, and I'm wondering how much the reason for this might have to do with a fear of what the insiders might say. [I'm thinking here of the section in Sohn's book-length study, Whistlin' and Crowin' Women of Appalachia, in which she points out the many Appalachian women who, having had academic literacy “touted” to them as a way of changing their lives--”solving” the Appalachian problem—decide that “what they have is better” (14)...thanks but no thanks.] The implications of Donehower’s argument, for teaching rural students to appropriate other literacies without being assimilated by them, are worth considering.

*What are your thoughts on Donehower's choice to not position herself as Appalachian? What are the effects of this choice? How could this essay have been different if she had claimed positionality as Appalachian?

*Is it problematic to her argument that Donehower poses academic “culture” (singular) as a force in the othering of Appalachia? Does this potentially silence academics who consider themselves also part of Appalachian culture?

* Do you read Donehower as finding the positioning of Appalachia as culturally distinct to be problematic? Do you agree that it is problematic? Problematic for who? What are the alternatives?

* How would you define the discourse on Appalachia at OU?

*In what ways have rural cultures/literacies been merged with Appalachia?

*What effects can Donehower's work have on the experiences Appalachian students encounter in our classrooms?

*Donehower recalls having to encourage and convince rural students to write about their home knowledges in the college classroom. Thoughts? Is there a point at which this encouragement risks becoming a sort of reverse prescription?

*What are the potential risks and benefits inherent in cultural outsiders acting as literacy sponsors to underprivileged groups? What are the potential risks and benefits of cultural insiders acting as literacy sponsors?

*Along the same lines as Anzaldua’s mestiza rhetoric, what might Appalachian-influenced academic literacies be like? 

The Best Rape Prevention Poster Ever

(Simone, I couldn't find the YouTube video you mentioned.  Could you edit this to include a link.  THANK YOU!)

Post-Discussion Reflection Language Ecology

Even though I tried my best to search for a good article that might fit our discussion on complexity, I was kind of scared that my selection of Hornberger and Hult's article might not be interesting to discuss. However, I think that was a nice discussion and  have to thank everybody for their enthusiasm in the discussion.I found several points particularly interesting in the discussion and may connect to the discussion on complexity.

First, I learned how there has been a 'segregation' in the teaching of composition in US where native and nonnative speakers are separated. I completely understand the reason why such a segregation has to be done. However, I also think that there are some problems with that, especially regarding the phenomenon of World Englishes. The fact that there are more nonnative speakers speaking English than the native speaker will entail that whenever we communicate globally, it is more likely that we communicate (both orally and in written form) with non native speakers. Thus, there may be some problems not only in the level of structure (grammar) but also in the level of discourse, that is, how different cultures are building their discourse. I am glad that some of composition teachers start to think about this and adopt this approach to their class by teaching the differences in how text in different language background.

Second I also remember we discussed briefly about pidgin and lingua franca. I guess they are good examples of language ecology. They are some instances of how languages interact with each other, influence each other and at a certain time reached an equilibrium and developed into a new system. I think that what I understand as complexity and ecology. What amazes me about pidgin is that after the discussion I realized that in the interactions between languages, even a minority language will somehow survive and try to reach its stability by assimilation with other components (languages).

I guess there are a lot that I need to learn about complexity especially regarding complexity in writing. I hope there will be more discussion on this.

Post-Discussion Reflection

Looking back, I think (hope!) that discussion went well. I feel we did a good job unpacking various parts of Rebecca Moore Howard's article, including some gender/sex/power metaphors associated with plagiarism and how some are accurate while others are problematic. To be quite honest, I was worried discussion would stray at various points (like literary property and the rape metaphor), but all of us very maturely handled discussion. Yay! I wish we could have spent longer discussing this powerful article. If I could go back, and have more time, maybe I would have put us into groups and assigned each group a metaphor from RMH's article. Then, each group would unpack the metaphor, talk about its strengths and weaknesses, and present their discussion results to the class. I also would have liked more time to brainstorm about other terms that would be more free of political, ethical, and cultural concerns than plagiarism (like most in the class, I think "fraud" is a loaded word). Also, more time would have enabled us to make more connections between RMH, Bridwell-Bowles, Reynolds, and Sanchez-Casal & Macdonald before moving to discussion on them. Luckily we have a forum to keep discussing the article! What are your continuing thoughts on discussion and RMH's article?

How Queerious are You?!

        I chose “Writing InQueeries: Bodies, Queer Theory, and an Experimental Writing Class” because the intersections between Rhet/Comp and Queer Studies, although crucial and generative (for ourselves as our students), are often overlooked and considered questionable. DiGrazia and Boucher’s article also serves as a sort of Quick Queer Field Guide for those who do not identify as queer, are not familiar with the terminology, and/or do not have the theoretical framework to inform a queer approach in the Composition classroom. This of course will also help acclimate students to the discourse community, considering, “the privileged site of academia that is their [queer theory and queer pedagogy] birth place” (41). My hope is that we will all (continue to) consider the ways we invite heteronormativity in our classrooms – as both teachers and students, and, in response, the ways we might be able to create queer, safe spaces in and outside of academia.

       The article, and the experimental class DiGrazia and Boucher teach, address the weight of our identities both in and out of the classroom, and they present the tension between community and essentialism well. Through critical self-reflection, exploration, expressivist modes of writing, and performance, students were able to better understand and shift their identity categories, seeing them as more fluid than static. Sure, the outcomes were transformative and liberating, but as Composition, Cultural Studies, and Communication teachers, assessment will always be an issue. I’m interested in your thoughts on this.

      As much as they seek to break through boundaries and uncover the marginalized voices/narratives, courses such as these run the risk of creating a new set of Truths (I’m thinking back to Deborah from Reynolds). DiGrazia and Boucher ask an important question, “If queer is indeed a theory and form of activism which is mean to subvert social norms and to show how authority is produced in our society as a way to underpin social and economic privilege, then what do we do with tissues of authority in a queer classroom setting?” (31). Furthermore, how do we ensure non-queer students have a chance to develop voice and authority?

Questions to Guide the Conversation:

1.     How does this article and the Writing Inqueeries course engage with Elbow’s discussion of voice?

2.     DiGrazia and Boucher’s class truly sounds like a dream, but we don’t have that opportunity; how can we integrate queer writing and queer pedagogies into our classrooms and assignments?

3.     What does the Composition classroom offer Queer Studies, Queer Pedagogies, and Queer writing? And how might other articles we’ve read add to this discussion?

4.     How can Cultural Studies respond to the intersections of race, class, and gender the authors acknowledge were not fully integrated in the course? How might we bridge this gap?

5.     How can Communication enhance the effects of performance and visual representation the authors claim worked so well for the students?

6.     The article covers queer content and style: how are these modes represented in Alexander and Rhodes film Queered?

Get Queer!

1.     Play the “Unpack the ________ privilege knapsack” game with students so they name and acknowledge the different modes of privilege they enjoy. They will then be better able to situate their positionality in relation to the conversation.

2.     Watch a string of commercials and look for instances of heteronormativity and hegemonic identity constructions. Invite critiques and explore the social and political implications using outside texts.

3.     Aim for what I call Queer+ approaches: ground an “inqueerie” in another field or theory. For example, it is easy to make connections between the queer and civil rights movements based on DuBois’ notions of the “double veil/consciousness.” (This also helps to address those complicated axes the authors mention.)

4.     Investigate the tension between the use of “sexual preference” and “sexual orientation.”

5.     Have students rhetorically analyze their own bodies and “remix” themselves.