Jake Anderson

I found Cassandra Woody’s “Re-Engaging Rhetorical Education Through Procedural Feminism” to be very intersting in showing how feminist rhetoric can be applied in the classrom. I enjoyed the way that she broke down the ways that feminist theory was implemented and the ways that it shaped the minds of first year students through course assignments. 

As Woody broke down procedural feminism, I appreciated the way that she related each aspect of her theory to the classroom. In particular, I thought it was really interesting that she created tasks that used students’ experiences to relate personal ideas to the perspectives of others. I have seen and participated in various asignments like this that prompt students to relate personal ideas to those of others, but I had not thought of this as feminist theory in practice. I think it is great that Woody outlines this practice and applies theory to this tenet of first year writing. 

One particular passage that stood out to me relates to her inclusion of the comment that “any theory that cannot be shared in everyday conversation cannot be used to educate the public” (484). As I read through her theories on procedural feminism, I paid special attention to her comments on how students can reject theory. I understand why this was a focus, as theorization in general may be too much for first year students to understand and may generate opposition. While I realized this challenge, I had not really thought of a way to easily mediate this problem. Her comment in urging to only implement theory that can be put in layman’s terms was very helpful in identifying what theory can be digested and what could be too much. I think this is a great concept to consider when working with theory and communicating theoretical ideas to others. I think all theorists should try to break down their ideas to a more basic level to provide foundations for others to learn and listen more effectively to their ideas. 

While I appreciated the way that she identified procedural rhetoric as feminist theory working in the background, I also thought that it somewhat did students a disservice to not give them a breifing on theory after their use of it throughout the semester. While the ideas that the students learned will be beneficial in shaping open mindedness and academic listening skills, I think that students could benefit from knowing how they learned and the mechanisms behind this learning. I think this could be done following the implementation of theory throughout the semester, as this would avoid opposition and students would be more ready to understand how their work fits into theory by reflecting on their own personal progress. 

While I felt that Woody was very descriptive and used great examples to highlight procedural feminism, I also thought that this piece was extremely repetitive. While Woody included great sources to back up her claim, many of these sources were followed with repetitive discourse that reinforced points that had already been made. I think that she did a great job at laying foundations for her theory, but the repetitive manner that she used to drive her points made this article hard to get through. 

In all, I think this was a good and insightful article, but I can’t say that I enjoyed reading it. Even though it was tough to get through, I think the ideas and theories presented by Woody are strong and can be used impactfully in the classroom. I look forward to discussing this reading in class and coming to a better understanding of Woody’s theories and ideas.

Foss & Griffin’s “Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric” was an interesting introduction to the idea of invitational rhetoric. I enjoyed reading about this non-combative form of debate, and it was interesting to read about the ways I could be applied to communications. 

In general, I found their work to be very interesting in applying new ideas and reshaping pre-existing thoughts on rhetoric. I thought that their application of feminism in defining invitational rhetoric as “rooted in equality, immanent value, and self determination” (4) to be very interesting and unique. When I approached this article, I was not sure how they would apply these principles. I had not thought of blending this feminist perspective and rhetoric, so I appreciate their considerations in highlighting rhtetoric in this way. 

One of the most interesting aspects of this article relates to the concept of change. Foss and Griffin establish change as a result rather than a purpose of invitational rhetoric (5). I found this to be very interesting, as one often thinks of rhetoric as a means to address an audience and influence change. In establishing change as a choice, I think they effectively re-structure rhetoric and allow for equality and participation from all. I think this establishment of change as a result rather than a purpose is one of the best ways that they separate their invitational rhetoric from traditional debate. As one thinks of traditional rhetorical debate, the clear goal is to convince the other, but by establishing change as a result rather than a purpose, both parties can contribute and understand as a result of a choice

While the concept of invitational rhetoric is very interesting, I found myself critiquing the way that the authors established traditional rhetoric as the standard in the real world. I think that invitational rhetoric is practically used more frequently in today’s world. In everyday life, individuals cannot go about social interactions and maintain a level of social normalcy without using invitational rhetoric. If one was to go about every difference of opinion with the intent to change the other’s mind, I think they would find themselves quickly ostracized from society and cast out from many social interactions. I have even noticed this firsthand while observing certain individuals that I used to know who would get into political debates with others for fun. I have personally seen the way that their constant drive to debate with others led to many individuals hesitating to participate with them. I think one of the most basic things people need to learn is the ability to understand other perspectives, and without this, no level of open mindedness or flexibility would be present in our communications. 

While I found Foss & Griffin’s work to be interesting, I also found Pinker’s “The Moral Instinct” to be fascinating. While I sincerely enjoyed reading about the links between morality and basic human nature, I found the concept of moral spheres to be the most interesting. I still am not completely sold on the concept of different moral judgements being categorized in different spheres for different cultures, as this seems to go against the innate physical morality that the author touched on earlier in the text, but I greatly enjoyed talking about this in our group discussion. 

In all, the readings this week were very interesting and enlightening. I look forward to reading more about invitational rhetoric and morality and applying the concepts I learned from these texts.

As I read Inoue’s “How Do We Language So People Stop Killing Each Other,” I found myself reflecting on my role as a white male in the academic world as well as in society. Inoue presented a variety of very bold ideas, but I felt as a whole they were provocative and thoughtful. 

While Inoue presented a strong argument that highlighted the imprisonment of people of color by the academic system, I would have liked to know more about what he would like to do to change it. I felt like a lot of the text discusses the problem rather than how to adapt to it. Additionally, I felt like it was somewhat contradictory for him to ask people to stop pointing out the problem and act while ending on a note pleading for people to think about their actions. 

Additionally, I was not the largest fan of his overgeneralizations. While it may stem from the fact that I am a white male, it was not the best feeling to be accused of being racist just by being white. I think it is extremely important to remove prejudices from learning, so I understand his issue with imprisonment within white academia, but I felt like it was counterintuitive to be accusatory to white people in this manner. While accusatory, I felt it was very powerful and forced a white audience to reflect on their actions (or lack thereof) and how they affect people of color in ways they had not previously understood. 

While I felt this piece was very inflammatory, I also felt that it drove home important points that we must discuss to be inclusive and supportive within academia. This topic must be a focal point in academic circles. While Innoue may have addressed the issue in an inflammatory way, the concepts he highlights are important to discuss, and further discussion will allow us to advance as scholars and for the academic system as a whole to develop. It was difficult for me to read without being defensive, but I understand that is what Inoue was trying to get at. I look forward to hearing the ideas of my classmates about this and how they felt while reading it.

At this point, I have shifted my essay topic to focus on the rhetoric of place and memory. I am planning on focusing on one collection of essays to explore this topic and come to a conclusion about the rhetorical relationships between place and memory. This collection is “Places of Public Memory : The Rhetoric of Museums and Memorials” by Greg Dickinson, Carole Blair, Brian L. Ott, and John Louis Lucaites.

Below I have written my essay focus as well as some questions I plan to answer while I explore. Additionally, I have created a rough outline of how I plan to structure this essay. At this point, I am reading through the collection and exploring the best articles to apply to my discussion, but I have also highlighted the texts I have in mind at this point. 

If anyone has any suggestions, I would be happy to hear them! I am in the early stages of outlining and I would appreciate any feedback. 

Thanks!

Focus: How do places function as rhetorical actors that shape memory? What can museums and memorials show us about how place influences memory? 

What can we determine by comparing and evaluating the varied opinions presented in Places of Public Memory: The Rhetoric of Museums and Memorials? In particular, what evaluations can we make by analyzing the expert perspectives on place and memory found in Smith and Bergman’s “You Were on Indian Land: Alcatraz Island as Recalcitrant Memory Space,” Brian C. Taylor’s “Radioactive History: Rhetoric, Memory, and Place in the Post-Cold War Nuclear Museum,” and Gregory Clark’s “Rhetorical Experience and the National Jazz Museum in Harlem” in ​Places of Public Memory​? What can we determine about the rhetorical relationship between place and memory though our analysis of these varied perspectives? 

Outline: 

1. Initial questions and introduction of texts

2. Focus on Text 1: Smith and Bergman’s “You Were on Indian Land: Alcatraz Island as Recalcitrant Memory Space”

3. Focus on Text 2: Brian C. Taylor’s “Radioactive History: Rhetoric, Memory, and Place in the Post-Cold War Nuclear Museum”

4. Focus on Text 3:  Gregory Clark’s “Rhetorical Experience and the National Jazz Museum in Harlem” 

5. Discussion and evaluation of perspectives

6. Major takeaways

7. Conclusion

In reading Smith and Bergman’s “You Were on Indian Land: Alcatraz Island as Recalcitrant Memory Space,” I found myself enthralled with the concept of space and memory and the relationship that physical places have to the memory of the past. I found Smith and Bergman’s points to be very interesting in the way that they used the tour itself to highlight specific relationship between the Native American Occupation and Alcatraz and the way that the tour uses the physical space to transform public recollection and perspective on the place.

One of the most interesting aspects of this piece was the manner in which the authors walked the reader through the tour itself and created an experience through their discussion. In using the walkthrough to highlight how Occupation history has been hidden and placed in its own segregated areas, the authors vividly show how the physical experience of Alcatraz shifts public perception towards focusing on the role of the space as a penitentiary. I found it particularly interesting when they used specific locations to discuss the varied history of the island. In particular, I found the discussion of the cell basement to be illuminating towards their points. In noting how the basement, where much of the physical evidence of the Occupation still exists, is blocked off from public view, Smith and Bergman highlight how visitors are shifted towards viewing the space as a correctional facility rather than as the space of civil disobedience and a turning point for Native American civil rights.

While their tour was illuminating, I also felt it allowed the authors to highlight their most important concept relating to the shifting memory of the space. Smith and Bergman highlight that visitors come to understand Alcatraz as a place that has constrained the behaviors and thoughts of both inmates and visitors through the physical locations invitation to the sensation of discipline, control, and surveillance that overwhelms messages about liberation and social dissent. In controlling all aspects of the tour, including audio and activities, the tour itself shifts the visitor’s focus of the place towards correctional memories rather than as a place of protest. I found this to be very profound in showing the rhetorical significance of the tour itself. 

While I enjoyed their perspectives, I found myself wrestling with the concept of where Native American civil rights history should be placed on Alcatraz and how it would not conflict with the memory of the place as a correctional facility. I have always seen Alcatraz as a place of punishment and correctional history, and feel that this is what most visitors seek to see when they visit the island. I found myself struggling with how to encompass both histories in the same place with the same level of focus and respect. Only towards the end, where they note the potential opening of the spaces that were inhabited during the Occupation did I understand how they planned to create the dual physical memory space. 

In all, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this piece. I enjoy the concept of memory and space and I look forward to discussing this concept more in class.

In our readings for this week, I had the pleasure of reading Dr. Werry’s “Imagined Electronic Community: Representations of Online Community in Business Texts.” As I read, I found myself fascinated with our professor’s conceptualization of internet communities and the corporations and individuals that inhabit them. 

One of the first things that stood out to me was the concept of the “Natives” and “Pioneers”. In Canter and Siegel’s conceptualization of the early days of commercial online communities, they presented the idea of the internet user as the “Native” that was a nuisance to the conquering and controlling “Pioneer” corporations and their commercial marketplaces. I found this interesting in the way that Dr. Werry started with this concept and used this as a basis to explain development over time. I found this “Native” metaphor to be further interesting with the discussion on how commercial sites were originally founded in the mindset of “if you build it they will come.” In today’s world, we are constantly reminded of the commercialization inherent within the internet, so this passive idea was a much different perspective. 

Another part of this piece that stood out to me was the context on the emergence of marketing and advertising in commercial internet communities in 1995-1996. It was interesting to read about the ways that corporations found value in involving their communities and the various approaches they took towards constructing online spaces for community interaction. I found the commentary on creating inviting digital embodiments of physical stores to be very relatable in the context of design and visual rhetoric, as visual design still plays a huge part in how we interact with a site. One particular excerpt that was a great reflection on the emergence of these types of communities was the example of Cafe Herpé. It was bizarre to read about this corporate construction, but also I found it fascinating to think about the way that this corporation sought to create a community space and an interactive area for their consumers. 

I also enjoyed the way that Dr. Werry used Hager and Armstrong’s alternate perspectives to show the way that commercial sites began to adapt to internet community factors. I felt that their inclusion in the piece and their collective perspectives were important in balancing Canter and Siegel’s previous ideas. Additionally, their perspectives on the “ecosystem” of the internet were valuable and relatable in the context of our modern day constant interactions with the internet and the commercial communities on it. 

While I found this piece very interesting, I also felt that it could benefit from some updates. As this was written at the end of the 90s, I think that some of the perspectives on online community exploitation could benefit from some modern revisiting. In particular, the segment on volunteering with AOL was somewhat beyond my scope of understanding. I have some familiarity with the beginnings of the internet and the way that AOL transformed the platform into a nationwide and worldwide communication web, but I did not fully understand the way that individuals volunteered for the service at this early stage. With that said, the commentary on taking demographic information and market samples from unaware participants still rings true today, as we often hear stories about data collection and market analysis on subjects like children. 

Additionally, I would have liked to hear some updated commentary on moderation and media control in regards to commercial marketplaces. I found the commentary on the way that sites gave incentives and punished users in accordance with their commercial guidelines to be interesting, but I would like to read more about moderation in today’s age. We often see censorship and limitation of speech in commercially run sites, and it would be interesting to hear about the way that these sites control their community and shape their thoughts through this practice. Additionally, it would be interesting to think about the different moderation practices in non-commercially focused sites versus purely commercially-focused sites.

In all, I thoroughly enjoyed this text. It was somewhat nerve wracking to read our professor’s work after being encouraged to be critical, but I found this chapter to be a great perspective on the beginnings of online communities and the manner in which users and businesses participated in this era. I look forward to talking about this text further in our discussion.

In reading Kathleen Yancey’s “Writing in the 21st Century,” I was able to explore the way that writing developed and the way that digital writing has greatly impacted composition as a whole. It was very interesting to think of her writing in the context of the term “peak digital optimism” and understand how this thought shaped her perceptions on writing in today’s world. 

One of Yancey’s points that stood out to me regards to her focus on how writing has had a negative connotation and has been often associated with testing and evaluation. Her points on how reading was often perceived as beneficial while writing was seen negatively was interesting in the context of her thoughts on digital advancement in composition. As she explained how writing has developed into an all encompassing form of both expression and networking with the advent of the digital age, I found myself thinking back to her statements on writing as a negative task. I feel that in today’s world, writing is often viewed far differently than as a purely negative task. With the connection between networking, computers, and writing, today’s writers are everywhere and perceptions on writing have shifted away from the traditional connections to evaluation and testing. I felt that it was great that she spent a good deal of time speaking about how composition has developed away from this, and her choice to discuss the skill’s beginnings was a smart one. 

Another particularly interesting point relates to the connection between visual and verbal elements with the advent of the personal computer. Yancey includes a quote from Sullivan that highlights this, noting her thoughts that desktop writing can “can inspire students to ambitious, creative projects; it can give teachers a means for teaching how visual and verbal elements of a page work together to make meaning; it can give writing classes a new and intensely social application; and it can give students useful skills” (4). I found this to be an important point that served as foundations for her later explanations on the shift of writing in the digital age. Much of the composition done with a computer in the digital world is a combination of verbal and visual elements, and even some more formalized writing blends verbal and visual elements with the advent of formatting and editing tools. I agree with Sullivan and Yancey in regards to the importance of desktop writing in giving unique skills to learners of composition. 

Another very interesting part of her piece relates to the connection between writer and audience in the digital composition realm. While I found her inclusion of examples of young people using writing in different ways to be interesting, I found her discussion on how social sites and online message boards connected writers with audiences to be very poignant. As she praised the new ways people were writing, I found myself questioning if this writing was as valuable in the digital age. As she explained the way that people were writing to social audiences and understanding the ways these audiences responded to them, I felt that she greatly reinforced her points. The idea of writers in the digital era as appealing to different audiences gives a great deal of authority to their work. 

In all, I greatly enjoyed reading this piece. I felt that Yancey did a great job explaining the fall throughs of writing in the past while also showing how digitized writing has a great scope and is transforming the world of composition. I also felt that her call to action was a solid sendoff that prompted further discussion on digital optimism. I look forward to discussing this further in class.

In reading Ornatowski’s “The Future is Ours” in The Responsibilities of Rhetoric, I was fascinated by the discussion on totalitarian rhetoric using the language of the Realist Socialists in Poland, Stalinist Communist rhetoric, and the rhetoric of the Nazi party in Nazi Germany as examples. While his discussion as a whole was very interesting and featured specific ideas and broke them down rhetorically, some specific parts stood out to me and made me think about totalitarian rhetoric in our world today. 

One of the most interesting comparisons Ornatowski made was his discussion of the V for Vendetta “The Future is Ours” slogan to the “I Like Ike” slogan. I enjoyed the way he established groundwork for his discussion by focusing on the way that the V for Vendetta phrase captured the totalitarian rhetoric in establishing a present future, forcing mass identification, and rejecting debate. I felt that this set a great groundwork for further analysis and identified core parts of totalitarian rhetoric. I also really enjoyed the way that he compared this to the “I Like Ike” slogan. I had never thought of the ways that this slogan presented individuality and choice, but after reading his discussion, I see the way that simple phrases can hold deeper messages. Interestingly, this immediately made me think of the “Make America Great Again” phrase and whether it represented individual or totalitarian rhetoric. I think that this phrase focuses on the unity of the people behind an idea and an assumed “we” that falls under the umbrella of totalitarian rhetoric. 

Ornatowski’s focus on the rhetoric of “we” was also very interesting. I enjoyed reading about the ways that each regime addressed the usage of “we,” and I especially felt that his discussion of the term as representative of a tribal consciousness was illuminating. This idea of a word as unifying a tribe became more apparent as he went on, and I realized the value it had in unifying a group under the ideas of some rather than the ideas of all. Ornatowski’s continued focus on this term was a great way to introduce the idea of Totalizing rhetoric. 

The concept of “totalizing” was especially interesting to me. His use of this term to describe the idea of totalitarian rhetoric’s “sole correctness” was very illuminating and allowed me to understand his message further. Ornatowski also presented an interesting idea with this term and its focus on promoting a single party while creating an enemy out of another. I found his example of the word “Terrorist” to describe a common enemy to be relatable, powerful, and somewhat unsettling. It is both interesting and scary to think of how easy a word can enter our national dialect and represent totalitarian ideas. 

In all, I enjoyed reading this work. I feel that it is very valuable to focus on totalitarian rhetoric in today’s world where we are seeing a resurgence of nationalism and authoritarianism. It is important to understand the words that are being spoken in today’s political spheres in order to identify problems and rhetorical coercion in today’s world.

In reading Fulkerson’s Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century, I appreciated the way that composition was discussed in a way that highlighted the manners in which it shifted and changed as it developed in academia. As Fulkerson identified the different schools of thought and how they identified with the values of composition themselves, I found myself taking away many important messages. 

One of the most interesting parts of this text relates to his discussion of critical/ cultural studies and the way this theory of teaching composition came to be. As he explained the influx of social elements in composition courses, I found myself making correlations to the courses I have taken in my time at SDSU. I have noticed many of these social influences in courses like RWS 602 and 609, as we have spent a great deal of time talking about various social elements and talking about perspectives on how to address them. Additionally, these ideas became a focus of our writing and discussion and served as course materials, similar to the way that Fulkerson describes courses in this school of composition thought. 

Additionally, I was able to make further comparisons to these courses as Fulkerson talked about the democratic nature of critical/cultural composition. In these courses at SDSU, we spent a great deal of time deliberating and discussing topics with the teacher, with the instructor acting as a guide rather than as someone who leads by example. I found this to be particularly interesting as it was further discussed by Fulkerson as he highlighted some of the strengths and weaknesses of this school of thought. One such weakness that stood out to me was the idea that democratic discussion of social issues can lead to indoctrination. I can see how this idea was conceived, as I have even noticed minor instances of group indoctrination and shifting ideologies in my time in these courses. Another weakness that Fulkerson highlighted relates to the idea that these courses are based in sociology rather than writing. I completely understand this perspective, as much of the class discussion in these classes (particularly RWS 602) centered around perspectives and sociological ideals rather than traditional composition. 

With that said, another area of Fulkerson’s article that interested me was his discussion on the development of traditional rhetorical composition. I appreciated the way that Fulkerson broke down the school of thought into argument, genre, and academically based rhetoric. Similarly to his concepts on critical/cultural composition, I found myself making many comparisons to previous classes. I found the way that he highlighted this school of thought’s focus on traditional teaching methods as centered in making an argument through logos, ethos and pathos to be easily identifiable in many past graduate courses. 

While I see merit in all the schools of thought that Fulkerson identified, I also agree with him that all values in composition are interconnected. I think it is great that he broke down these concepts, but I also strongly feel that these variations depend on one another for either fundamental instruction or for social and ideological development.

While I feel that his ideas are sound, I feel that he somewhat undermined his argument by concluding that “composition is less unified” as it has developed. While it is obvious that these schools of thought are separated as he spends a great deal of time talking about how each theory for teaching composition functions differently, he also shows that they are fundamentally connected through his axiologies of composition. By ending the discussion by saying that everything is less unified, he somewhat decreases the importance of these ideas as stemming from fundamental values. 

In all, I enjoyed reading this text and I am excited to present my discussion of its ideas in class. I look forward to hearing the class discussion and further developing my thoughts on Fulkerson’s ideas.