RR #24 Anzaldua

Summary

            With “Tlilli Tlapalli: The Path of the Red and Black Ink” Gloria Anzaldua stresses the importance of identity in writing. Anzaldua’s writing is then analyzed and dissected by Andrea Lunsford. Through Lunsford, Anzaldua reveals that writers should write without restraint, with freedom and narrative. If all writers chose to write freely, Anzaldua argues “White Writing” would become less and less prevalent.

Synthesis

            This article shares commonalities with the other readings concerned with identity that we’ve discussed. Facets of identity are explored. Various types of identity are explored. Cixous focused on gender, as did Alexander. Gee and Wardle examined discourse identity. That is the common thread.

Applying and Exploring Ideas

1. “The aesthetic of virtuosity, art typical of Western European cultures, attempts to manage the energies of its own internal system such as conflicts, harmonies, resolutions, and balances. It bears the presences of qualities and internal meanings. It is dedicated to the validation of itself” (221). This is what I think best explains Anzaldua’s take on Western Art.  I believe that art is becoming more and more of an individualistic process, but I am only largely familiar with American culture, and British culture peripherally. I’m not sure if individuality speaks to or means. I feel like communities have been strengthened and grow and grow as technology evolves. I cannot say.

2. The way Anzaldua writes is intentional. It is there to strengthen her argument. If she had written this article clinically, or at least with a suppressed voice, her point would’ve come off as theoretical or suggestive. With the use of individual voice, she’s able to substantiate her promotion of individuality.

Personal Response

            This article was all right. Voice will always be interesting to me. I don’t know. It gets hard to carry on for so long. It was smart of Anzaldua to channel her argument through her own voice. It makes the article far more convincing. If this had been straightforward and objective, it would’ve been much harder to stomach.

RR #23 Cixous

Summary

            With “VIEWPOINT The Laugh of Medusa” Helene Cixous argues, strongly, that the future of writing should NOT be dominated by the male perspective. Cixous suggests that even though the past holds much weight in regards to our future, it should not be repeated, but instead learned from. Women should write as women, through their own eyes. Restraint should not be employed; honesty is paramount.

Synthesis

            This article is most closely related to work from Flynn and Alexander, primarily because all three deal with the issue of gender and how its affect on writing. It’s likely safe to say that Cixous is the most extreme and unmovable in her viewpoint. There is blatant finger pointing, explicit placing of the blame, etc.

Personal Response

            Though I do not agree with Cixous, I will give her the benefit of the doubt, to an extent. This article was written about thirty-five years ago, meaning that its version of gender equality would be next to unrecognizable in today’s society. I did enjoy Cixous’ passion. It’s impossible to ignore. I would strongly denounce this article if it was written in 2012, but it isn’t. So I cannot say for sure.

QDJ

1. Personally, I was never made to feel uncomfortable while reading this article. Its views were extreme, but I tend to read with as little bias as possible. Its content, to be sure, is cause for outrage. However, I found this to be intentional. A “certain level of discomfort” may have seemed necessary in 1976; something radical may have needed to be done.

2. I think that Cixous is trying to provoke her female audience to write without restraint. To Cixous, honest is the best policy. In the opening paragraphs, Cixous says that the effects of the past do exist, but that she refuses to strengthen them through repetition. To me, this is what she means when she encourages women to write themselves. 

RR #22 Alexander

Summary

With “Transgender Rhetorics: (Re)Composing Narratives of the Gendered Body” Jonathan Alexander attempts to show the capabilities of transgender theories and how they can help shape gender as social constructs. Alexander goes on to suggest that looking at gender through a new perspective will help us view gender as potent subject matter and, ultimately, accepted reality.

Synthesis

I’m reminded of Smitherman here. Both Smitherman and Alexander examine minority cultures and how they can affect writing, rhetoric, life. The discourse community is also touched on. You can see strands of Gee, or at least a community he would label impenetrable. Also Wardle, and her concept of identity.

Applying and Exploring Ideas

3. “Normally” gendered students are given a perspective that is far from common. Examining the transgendered human being, I think you’re able to really dissect gender and ask yourself what it means to be a male or a female. There are obvious differences: physical, social, economic. I’m not really sure if this discourse is more substantial or eye-opening than some of the other minority discourses we’ve examined this semester. It’s certainly less common. So in that sense, maybe.

4. I think Alexander describes gender as a construct because it’s used as a platform for writing. It is both a personal and political construct because everybody’s sex is something no one else can experience. Yes, there are billions of men and women, but the way gender affects every human being is different. Gender is political because mouths must be watched when discussing it. Blatant disregard for either gender will likely come off as sexist. We should discuss gender in the classroom because, in my opinion, it shapes so much writing, whether consciously or subconsciously.

Personal Response

I find the transgender community very interesting. I think gender is a topic that will always hold weight and be ripe with potential material. I did find Alexander’s writing a bit difficult at times, but it wasn’t detrimental. Once again, like always, the length. But that’s enough about that. Overall, I found this interesting, as it did prompt me to ask questions and examine gender more than I usually tend to.

RR #21 Smitherman

Summary

With “”God Don’t Never Change”: Black English from a Black Perspective” Geneva Smitherman discusses the inequality and, in her opinion, obvious prejudice that favors “white” English instead of “black” English in academic writing. Smitherman describes Black English as a style of written language, and that it shouldn’t be labeled incorrect, rather given the same respect as White English instead. This wrongly labeled incorrectness leads to oppression and spurs unwarranted racism, Smitherman argues.

Synthesis

“God Don’t Never Change” is similar to Delpit’s article in that they both examine the disadvantages placed upon the minority. With Smitherman, Black English is heavily suppressed and White English is favored instead. This places Black English in a minority position. With Delpit, Gee’s concept of discourse is disputed. She claims that minorities are disadvantaged by Gee’s theory, saying that minorities benefit from education in foreign settings. This education leads to success, success that helps these minorities ascend to a member’s position in a discourse community, something Gee sees as impossible.

QDJ

1. Smitherman incorporates actual Black English into her writing, in an effort to substantiate it, thus successfully achieving the use of Black Idiom in a rhetorical context.

2. Language is controlled. It is subjective and can be questioned, rejected, debated on, agreed upon. This flexibility of language combined with racial dominance can lead to altering, editing, and changing of the language. Those who are in power can tweak language so that it benefits the way they speak, and disadvantages those who don’t speak the same way.

Personal Response

I liked what Smitherman was trying to say. I enjoyed her take on Black English. I don’t think I really agree with her, at least not fully. I do think that content is much more important than presentation or format, but there does need to be a basic standard that is adhered to by every writer. Basic grammar should never be disregarded. It would cause too much confusion, and, possibly, alienation. The same argument can be made against “White” English, but like I said, I don’t subscribe to that idea.

RR #20 Flynn

Summary

Through “Composing as a Woman” Elizabeth Flynn details an (in her opinion) undeniable sexism present in modern writing. This sexism may not be gratuitous or overtly explicit, but most of today’s writing leans toward the male perspective. Flynn presents to us a variety of excerpts from both male and female writers and looks at them through a critical, but unbiased (or maybe biased) lens.

Pre-Reading

I’ve experienced perceived moments of gender favoritism or blatant sexism. Perceived being the key word. I cannot be for sure. I was in a broadcast journalism class my junior year of high school. The class held about twenty-five kids; each fighting to get his or her story broadcasted. I wasn’t particularly interested in producing a story of my own for broadcast, but I had male friends in the class who were, and, I’d say, more often than not, if a girl and boy were fighting for a slot on the broadcast, the girl would usually win, regardless of the content (or lack of content, for that matter) of her story.

Synthesis

Approaching this article from a multitude of viewpoints is plausible. I see a little Gee in here, also some Wardle. I’m sure you could locate a discourse community, or the skeleton of one, buried within Flynn’s writing. With Gee, it goes back to his in-or-out concept of discourse. For women, sadly, they are simply out. This is to say only if academic writing is dominated by the male gender. If it in fact is, then there is really no way for a woman to fully integrate herself into that discourse community. It may not be that clean cut. I’m just speculating. In regard to Wardle, Flynn does discuss the topic of identity, something Wardle has written about extensively.

Questions for Discussion and Journaling

1. Flynn is describing the dominance of the male gender, and how far-reaching it is. She comes close to describing it as universal. What stuck out to me the most was the last sentence: “difference is erased in a desire to universalize.” To me, that sums up everything Flynn was trying to say. The male gender, and everything it represents, has been campaigned around the world since the dawn of man. It has been promoted endlessly in an effort to help it ascend from dominant to universal, unquestionable, omnipresent.

Personal Response

I found it interesting. Women’s oppression has interested me for a while now. I’m not sure it’s as dominant in writing as Flynn may suggest, but its presence is close to undeniable. I think that applies to mostly everything, if you look at it from a specific perspective. Male dominance has always existed, or perceived dominance at least. Homophobia and sexism make it much harder for nations, countries, people to operate without bias.