“In
our review of this body of work
(see
Alexander and Wallace), we argue that although confronting homophobia and
including the perspectives of LGBT people remain important strategies for
making our discipline more inclusive, these strategies often do not
challenge the underlying presumption of a hetero/homo binary that continues
to privilege heterosexuality in our society and in our disciplinary
practice.” (793)
|
From
this I now have a basis of what to be expecting, but what interests me is
the mention of “hetero/homo binary.” We have talked about binary thinking a
lot in class and I’m interested to see how these authors explain this double
think in writing.
|
“A
set of powerful controlling discourses, heteronormativity effectively
divides people into two distinct categories-homo and hetero-and clearly
privileges hetero- sexuality and what has come to be called the
"nuclear family" as the normative mode and venue of intimacy and
basic social organization.” (794)
|
The
introduction of the word “heteronormativity” is interesting- part of their
addition to the conversation. This also exemplifies the actual binary they
mentioned. Smitherman and Delpit would argue along the same lines as it
pertains to Blacks and Whites, Flynn between men and women, and certainly
Malinowitz (who also discusses this discourse).
|
“…rhetoric and
composition needs to more fully queer the exercise of its
own agency to become more cognizant of LGBT
people, as well as others who are systemically marginalized in American
culture.” (794)
|
This
argument has been recurring during this part of our class. The last part of
this sentence strengthens my nothing that Smitherman, Delpit, Flynn, and
Malinowitz would more than likely agree with this work.
My
own note: Why is it that so many minorities are “systematically
marginalized”? Is this not the land of the Free?
|
“Put
more provocatively, queering rhetorical agency allows us to account
substantively for the operation of heterosexist and heteronormative
ideologies within rhetorical agency.” (796)
|
The
thought that simply practicing their suggestions would help to prove the
existence of such ideologies seems kind of odd to me, but nonetheless true.
If we do not explore this “modified” type of rhetorical agency- how can we
research its operations? Interesting.
|
“As
Brian Street argues, ‘Researchers dissatisfied with the autonomous model of
literacy ... have come to view literacy practices as inextricably linked to
cultural and power structures in society and to recognize the variety of
cultural practices associated with reading and writing in different
contexts.’” (797)
|
This
quote is so true! All of the authors we have read do not look at writing
practices as simply JUST writing practice. It always has to do with
societal views of the groups of writers being studied. Groups write the way
they do and are criticized as they are based on the positive or negative
stigma attached to them in society.
|
“Further, each [New
Literacy Study and Queer Theory] also recognizes that engaging with the
discourses of power has important
consequences for individual and collective identity.” (798)
|
The
authors’ reference to Gee and Delpit in explaining this identity- which
made it easy to understand. However, I think it would have been interesting
to mention Wardle and her explanation of identity is formed via discoursal
practice as well. Wardle discussed identity and authority. This would’ve given a whole new element to this
argument.
|
“For
example, when people of color gain fluency in dominant discourses, their
agency may be challenged, but they are at least visible as people of color in
making such a challenge. Too often, a queer person who exercises fluency in
a dominant culture can only do so while hiding or disavowing his or her
queerness.” (800)
|
Smitherman’s
article does a great job of helping to prove this. Just the simple fact
that one uses Black Idiom can identify a writer as being from the Black
community. But a gay or lesbian writer can write in Black Idiom, White
English, or jibber jabber and not be identifiable as homosexual. I think
this point is fantastic.
|
“…while
Gee certainly understands the difficulty of gaining fluency beyond one's
primary discourse, his model of literacy learning and its attendant
negotiations of identity does not sufficiently consider how one's identity
may be problematically represented within one's primary discourse or that
one's primary discourses may share fractured, inaccurate, or otherwise
discriminatory values that make it impossible to articulate an identity
that allows one to act on such basic issues as gender expressions that cross
normative female/male boundaries or physical attraction to one's own sex.”
(801)
|
First
of all, this sentence is extremely long and wordy. However, it is important
to this argument. As the authors point out flaws in Gee’s argument (as
Delpit also did), it becomes apparent that the explanation we have for
Primary Discourse so far is not complete. Personally, I took Gee’s
explanation and accepted it- then after reading Delpit, I questioned it.
And now, after reading this, I question Gee and Delpit. I guess I am
learning that I must think more critically of what I read rather than just
accepting everything to be true. With that said, the issues they have
pointed out are interesting- Conflict within a primary discourse can affect
identity and understanding of any other discourse one chooses to be part
of.
|
“Indeed,
a variety of discourses -within many families, throughout communities, and
even at the level of governmental politics- work to normalize
heterosexuality as the "desired" mode of articulating a sexual
identity.” (801)
|
I
have a problem identifying with this. It is true, I suppose, that most
believe heterosexuality to be the standard- but not necessarily the
“desired.” I personally have no problem with gays/lesbians, and neither do
a lot of my friends and family- so I wouldn’t say heterosexuality is our
“desired” preference. It is just what is more common.
|
“For example, many gay
and lesbian students growing up in this culture are still subject to
discourses that deny legitimacy to their feelings and desires, and that
position their emerging identities as gays and lesbians as second-class
citizens, not entitled to the cultural, political, and material benefits of married
family life.” (802)
|
Again,
is this not the land of the Free? On a personal note, I think it is
outlandish not to have the choice of who you marry. Whether a person is
judged or not, they should still have the choice to do so without feeling
as though they are “second-class.” The simple fact that these people need a
law to be passed just to say they can be married is discrimination in
itself. Legality should not be considered in one’s personal choice to whom they marry.
|
“Warner's second
contribution to a more nuanced understanding of rhetorical agency is
captured in his notion of counterpublics which suggests that
discourses created in opposition to the marginalizations inherent in
dominant culture serve not only as publics, as spaces for discourse, within
that culture but also as spaces for discourse about difference(s) that
suspend or perhaps even supercede normative values.” (804)
|
I’m
kind of confused here. If a public encompasses a discourse of normative
values, and a counterpublic encompasses a discourse opposite of that- what
if members of the counterpublic think their discourse is the one of
normative values? Then, is that corresponding public also a “counterpublic”?
I know that’s confusing so it can’t be correct. Clarification!
|
“A
counterpublic does not assume that its positions, views, or
investments can be "taken for granted," or that its
self-understanding can pass as "normalcy." Rather, it serves as a
potential space for critique of what otherwise passes for normative,
natural, and assumed.” (804)
|
Well,
point proven. (My previous comment is irrelevant now that I have an
explanation).
So,
counterpublics are basically a discourse or combination of that serve as a
potential method to fix problems existing in the corresponding public.
(similar to a secondary discourse being a place to explore the ways of a
primary discourse).
|
“The
discourses that many queers cultivate in queer communities constitute a
counterpublic that is not just "different," but often repugnant
to the dominant public, which routinely denies queer people and queer
communities comparable legal status on a number of significant issues.”
(805)
|
As
I said before in regard to legality- this makes me less proud to be an
American. If women and blacks have overcome this and are now widely
accepted, and if many of us are not proud of the fact they didn’t have
equality in the first place—then why, I ask, are we STILL doing
this to homosexuals, or any other disenfranchised group??? Also, I now
understand the value of including the public/counterpublic in this text.
Many of the authors we have read in this unit could have included this in
their text- as it clearly could relate to Smitherman, Delpit, Gee, and
Malinowitz’ studies and explanations.
|
“Thus,
Warner's publics/counterpublics can be seen, on the one hand, in a
heterosexually-privileged dominant culture that under-
stands
"straightness" as the desired, unquestionable norm and, on the
other,
in a queer culture that not only does not take its existence for granted
but
that, in many ways, actively tries to re-imagine relations among people.”
(805)
|
I
just thought it was important to note that this is a great way to clarify
all the referencing to Warner’s work. It’s an important piece of this
paper, in my opinion.
|
Entire
last paragraph on 806
|
Greatly
summarizes their background detail before going into implications. They
tied all mentioned authors together well, along with mentioning their own
standpoint.
|
“Composition pedagogy
that seeks to arm students with the tools to understand and address the
inequities inherent in dominant culture cannot avoid issues of identity,
and it must also enjoin questions of the
bases on which morality is defined.” (807-808)
|
I
felt the same way after reading Smitherman’s article. Composition pedagogy
should incorporate learning about inequities so that students can make
their own decisions about inequities within culture and within discourse.
|
“…we must also invite
students to see how the discursive practices that continually re-create
heteronormativity (and other systems of marginalization)
have affected them and how each of us
chooses to resist or perpetuate those practices whether we realize we are
doing so or not.” (808)
|
The
“whether we realize we are doing so or not” part is confusing to me.
|
“As openly gay
composition teachers and theorists, we are heartened by the possibilities
for change entailed in Butler's notion of agency
because our experiences have convinced us that both American society and
the practice of rhetoric and composition can
benefit greatly from an understanding of agency
rooted in an acute and critical understanding of the often
heterosexist discourses through which all of us
are called to understand our lives.” (809)
|
I
feel this is a great part of the paper but would have been nice to read at
the beginning. Maybe mentioning this at the beginning would have made the
paper a little more personal and would have made me more willing to continue
reading.
|
“Sorting out the
various discursive and rhetorical moves that are used to
marginalize homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, and trans-sexualism
in our society and in our pedagogy can be a tricky business…” (809)
|
This
would be interesting to collaborate on with Delpit.
|
“Instead,
we believe this act of aggression depended on an underlying sense of heteronormative
privilege
that
led this student to believe that LGBT people were not a likely present
audience to which he needed to attend or that even if an LGBT person read
his words, morality and "nature" were so clearly on his side that
he need not bother to explore any other points of view.” (811)
|
This
is referring to a paper written by Wallace’s student that expressed hatred
toward gays. I’ve never really thought about it, but I suppose an ideal
audience is always there when writing a paper. And I view my audience
essentially as copies of a person I imagine up (i.e. a group of people just
like Ms. May). I suppose I should begin to add diversity to my “ideal
audience.””
|
“…attempts at inclusion
must be careful to avoid limited inclusion and tokenism or the laudable
attempt to be inclusive of queer people and perspectives is undermined by a
shallow understanding of what it means to do so and by the failure
to see that including the queer in a tokenized fashion serves to reinforce
heteronormativity--often by eliding the material benefits of the
hetero-norm.” (813-814)
|
Limited
inclusion, as I take it, is only including homosexuals in rhetoric when you
know they are present- and otherwise being rhetorically heterosexist when
they are not. (Note to self).
|
“…with an awareness
that they are historically grounded, students and instructors can then ask
why we are divided into "gay" and "straight" (much less
"male" and "female"). In whose interests are such
divides maintained? What do they empower some people to do? How do they
limit the power and agency of others? How do such divides
weaken not just some disenfranchised members of society,
but all of us, keeping us ignorant about one another and
about the interlocking systems that position us as separate, divided, and
unknowable to one another?” (814)
|
The
whole quote seems rather powerful to me. The inclusion of the last question
really brings this paper home.
My
opinion: If our history has led us to be judgmental- what great stories
have we missed out on in the past, are we missing out on now, or will we
miss in the future?! If you set aside human differences, and respect each
other simply based on the fact that every human is a human- culture and
society would be much more adapt, successful, and advanced.
|
“A
concept of rhetorical agency that distinguishes between what it means to
challenge overt instances of homophobia and heterosexism from what it means
to critique and potentially unseat underlying heteronormativity is
important for our field because it illustrates what it means to move beyond
the shallow inclusion of the perspectives and experiences of those who have
been marginalized in American culture toward real acceptance oft hose who
have been ‘othered.’” (815)
|
The
distinction between challenging and critiquing is nice here. And I like how
this statement (at the end) references to all minorities or disenfranchised
groups in America. The other authors (Smitherman, Delpit, Flynn,
Malinowitz) would also agree that simply critiquing what we have would be a
huge step in the understanding and inclusion of ALL types of people.
|
“Further, we must see
that accepting responsibility for our individual and collective
participation in the discourses of oppression
is foundational to developing pedagogies that enable our students to do the
same.” (816)
|
I
think that the conclusion of this paper did a great job of summing
everything up, but this last sentence is great. It is simply saying- if you
know you are contributing to the oppression of someone through your
participation in a discourse… try to be the one to make a change.
Otherwise, how else will your students, and ultimately the future of
America, do any different?
|
Fascіnating blog! Is уour theme cuѕtоm made or ԁid you download іt
ReplyDeletefrom somewhere? A desіgn lіke уourѕ with
a few simple tweeks ωould rеallу make
my blоg shine. Ρlease lеt me know where уou got your dеѕign.
Тhanks a lot
Here is my blog - chuggington party supplies
This design is available for blogspot.com users. If you choose to use this blog, my template is "picture window" and my background image is from the 'abstract' section.
Delete