Cintron... this is my rant.

Cintron really stuck with me this week. His work is very cynical, but I think it reflects the attitudes of the current time. Politics has become increasingly polarized, and so has the break-room conversation. Everyone can be a critic in today's computer-energized society, and with so much knowledge comes very little responsibility. Cintron (and Rai) point out the way in which the very ideals that our society is built upon can be used with twisted and biased intent. Each side refuses to back down insisting that they have the moral high ground based on their own own interpretation of what a just society entails.

In addition, we are coming to the end of our store of natural resources, and as the "necessities" become scarce, we are left asking how long "polite society" can continue. Cintron warns that as our resources deplete, the true nature of democracy will be laid bare. 

Ecuador's Defence of Civil Liberties

While this entry is a departure from my tracing topic, I could not pass up the opportunity to reflect on this week’s reading through this article. Mr. Snowden recently confirmed that he was the source of recent NSA leaks regarding US surveillance of civilian activity. He is “on the run” from US authorities who wish to prosecute Snowden for espionage. In his bid for escape, Snowden, like Julian Assange before him, has contacted the Ecuadoran government for asylum.

What is so interesting about this bid for asylum, is the Ecuadoran response to US criticism. In the linked article below, the foreign minister from Ecuador, Ricardo Patino rationalizes their involvement saying that “Ecuador puts its principles above its economic interests.” According to Ralph Clintron, this is not how democracy functions. Democracy protects pre-existing power structures; using appeals based in democratic topoi that often mask more self-interested pursuits. According to Clintron, democracy is essentially materialistic, and democratic virtues are often sacrificed for the sake of material resources.

In reading this news report, I must ask the question, what does Ecuador have to gain by their involvement in this conflict? Are they really concerned with the common good? Are their motives really spurred by the belief that “What is being done to Mr. Snowden and to Mr. Julian Assange – for making or facilitating disclosures in the public interest – is an assault against the people?” It is interesting that on his way to Ecuador, Mr. Snowden has passed through China, Russia and reportedly will pass through Cuba, each of which has refused US requests for extradition, and yet these countries have a long and public history of restrictive state policies.

So, if civil liberty is not their reason for defending Mr. Snowden, one must ask, what power interests does their involvement reflect? As this story unfolds, the relationships between the US and the countries involved are called into question. US officials are the first to cite the affect that this incident will have on future diplomatic ventures. And this is perhaps where the truth lies. These nations may not be concerned with civil liberties, instead, they may be using this incident to react to their relationship with the US in regard to other issues that do not allow for such an abrasive stance. This incident may simply be a side plot where nations who feel restricted by US power react by exercising their power  in the only available avenue.

Lally, K., Faiola A., and  DeYoung, K. "Snowden apparently did not board Havana flight, but may leave Moscow Tuesday." Washington Post 24 June 2013, n. pag. Web. 24 Jun. 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russia-says-it-has-no-authority-to-expel-snowden/2013/06/24/325281f2-dcaf-11e2-bd83-e99e43c336ed_story.html.

Clintron, R. (2010). Democracy and Its Limitations. In Eds. John Ackerman and David Coogan. The public work of rhetoric: citizen-scholars and civic engagement. U of South Carolina Press. 98-116

Tracing the Issues Facing Institutions of Higher Education in 2013

The article cited below, which I found before completing the week 1 readings, became all the more interesting when framed with the question “what do we mean by public?” This article identifies several publics including legislators, institutional administrators, students and watchdog groups. I find myself asking whether these parties are grouped based on status, such as Habermas’ Bourgeois public, or if they are grouped based on shared ideologies, which seems to be Hauser’s argument. A group based on shared social standing would be largely static, while Hauser’s model would allow more fluidity.

Habermas’ model is easy to criticize for its simplicity on two levels. First, his discussion of the public sphere only mentions one public, the Bourgeois public. This criticism is discussed in more detail by both Hauser and Fraser. The second criticism is that (at least in contemporary society) there are publics who do not have a shared social standing. With computing technology becoming ever more accessible, we can have publics who have never met, or who have little material homogeneity. This would suggest that Hauser’s model is more applicable.

Hauser advocates a view of public that builds upon the work of Habermas, but that deviates by his addition of many fluid publics. This model seems, on the surface, to have it all, but when you try to apply this theory to actual publics, the waters muddy. If Hauser is right, and publics form based on shared values, how does discourse occur within the group? If the definition of a public is like-mindedness, then wouldn’t debate within the public cause members to leave, rather than encourage discourse?

Answering the question “what do we mean by public?” will be instrumental in understanding why these issues are considered the most important for 2013. It will also affect how messages to these groups should be interpreted. 

"Top 10 Higher Education State Policy Issues for 2013." American Association of State Colleges and Universities, n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2013. <http://www.aascu.org/policy/publications/policy-matters/topten2013.pdf>.

Key Words

Audience	This refers to the intended recipient of the author’s message. Aristotle recognized the importance of audience in rhetoric in ancient Greece. He advocated appealing to the audience through ethos, pathos and logos. Ede and Lunsford also write about the importance of audience how the two schools of thought on audience (addressed and invoked) fail to grasp the complexity of the rhetorical situation. Ede and Lunsford suggest that the audience is addressed when the composition is edited to meet their expectations and they are invoked when the author imagines the role that the audience will play and builds prompts into the writing for the audience to recognize their role.
David Bartholomae	Author of “Inventing the University,” Bartholomae writes about the difficulties that students face in their attempt to enter academia. Students must learn the language, customs, and “codes” of the academy in order to become part of a discourse community that they are somewhat ignorant of (at least to begin with). Bartholomae indicates the student’s work can be analyzed to ascertain where the students are within this discourse community and society as a whole.
Patricia Bizzell	Talks about contact zones as a new way to approach composition studies. The contact zone is defined as a meeting place between cultures where conflict occurs. According to Bizzell, literary study should be divided and studied based on contact zones in order for students to have a true multicultural understanding of how knowledge and power was constructed.
Critical thinking	Critical thinking is the ability to analyze and reflect upon an idea and understand the relationships that the idea has with the world around. Ira Shor and James Berlin are proponents of pedagogies that encourage critical thinking. In their writings they state that students should be taught about how knowledge is formed and the social nature of knowledge building. Understanding that knowledge creation is a social function allows the student to explore beyond the façade of the concept, and to join in the academic discussion as a peer within the discourse community.
Peter Elbow	Elbow wrote about the “mother tongue” and the academy’s past record of trying to eradicate all but Standard Written English from formal composition. Elbow suggests that allowing students to identify and use their own dialects will enrich the world of composition by allowing a range of voices to be heard that had previously been suppressed. The students would benefit from using their mother tongue because they would no longer be marginalized, and would be able to establish their own identity in their work.
Freewriting	Peter Elbow wrote about the benefits of freewriting. Freewriting is when you begin writing whatever comes to mind and you do not stop to edit. Elbow suggests that writing is often encumbered by simultaneous editing that detracts from the rhythm of the composition. Freewriting allows the student to focus on what they want to say, and to spend less time focusing on how they say it. By freewriting, Elbow suggests that students will be able to find their “voice” as writers.
Richard Fulkerson	Fulkerson wrote about the four philosophies of composition which he identified as formal, expressive, rhetorical and mimetic.  Formalist composition values internal forms such as spelling and grammar and good writing is measured by the writer’s ability to write correctly. Expressionist composition values personal exploration rather than formal structures and the author’s “voice” is seen as a key component of “good” writing. Mimetic composition states that good writing is a reflection of good thinking and that logical, well-reasoned and factually substantiated writing is good writing. Rhetorical composition measures good writing by the author’s ability to achieve the desired effect on the desired audience.

Keywords and my Syllabus

James Berlin describes the major pedagogical theories of composition, which include Classicist, Current-traditionalists, Expressionists and New Rhetoricians. Berlin is an advocate of the latter theory and describes this as a theory that embraces the changing nature of rhetoric in the face of political, social and economic forces that shape accepted knowledge.
The writings of James Berlin greatly affected my course design. I believe that my teaching philosophy falls under the title of social-epistemic rhetoric, which Berlin advocates as a form of New Rhetoric. According to this theory rhetoric is a political action involving the interactions between the  material world, discourse community and writer. My course assignments attempt to have students question the role of politics in knowledge creation, and to see how this can affect composition.

Praxis is described as practicing theory. I encountered the term in an article by Ira Shor. Shor discusses praxis in the teaching of critical thinking and explains that critical thinking is a theory in practice (praxis) that takes input from the students and creates dialogue and reflection. One of my mission statements is to practice theory that encourages critical thinking.

Marginalization occurs frequently in academia. Paulo Freire writes about marginalization in his article on the banking concept. In the banking concept the student is viewed as an empty vessel to be filled with the knowledge of the teacher. This style of pedagogy marginalizes the student by making them subordinate to the teacher who expects the student to memorize and then regurgitate the information that has been chosen by the dominant culture without analysis or reflection.
I have attempted to create a syllabus that can change with the interests of the students and recognize individual experience in the making of meaning. This is an attempt to ensure that knowledge creation is a collaborative process between student and student and teacher and students.

Post-process theory occurred as a reaction to the process movement within composition. Post-process denies the ability to teach a set of steps or mechanical techniques that will result in "good" writing. There is no post-process pedagogy, since much of post-process scholarship focuses on criticisms of process theory.  According to Kastman-Breuch, post-process theory advocates increased student involvement and dialogue. The post-process idea of writing as public influenced my syllabus and resulted in a focus on peer dialogue.

Expressive writing is part of the expressionist or neo-platonic theory of composition. According to this theory, truth is based on personal understanding of sensory experiences, and writing cannot convey truth, but merely remove error. I attempted to distance myself from this theory except where it overlaps with social-epistemic rhetoric. The expressionist theory places the existence of truth in the individual, and therefore underplays the role of politics and other factors in the construction of truth.

Sample syllabus assignment

Reading from previous week:

"On Audience and Composition" Lisa Ede

Assignment:

Select a newspaper article from this week's campus paper. Write a two-page analysis of the article that you have selected. Summarize what you think the author's message is to the audience. Be sure to identify the intended audience and provide specific examples of how the author has communicated with this audience in mind. Give some examples of how the article could be changed to more effectively convey the intended message to the audience you have identified.

Learning Objectives:

Understand the important role audience that plays in the rhetorical situation.

The reading will give students an overview of how audience has historically been handled in the composition classroom and introduce varyious perspectives on the importance of audience in the composition process. The assignment will challenge the student to envision a specific audience, which is a task that the article indicates is difficult for many young writers.

What is Literacy?

What a tricky question! Answering this question with any degree of specificity is to embark on a very slippery slope indeed. Literacy has had different meanings from one time to the next. It is transient and malleable. Just think about all of the different ways that the word literacy can be used. When we say someone cannot read we call them illiterate. When someone is computer savvy we say they are computer literate. We talk about cultural literacy and personal literacy, and in each of these instances the term literacy means something different. In a broad sense I would describe literacy as one's ability to make and communicate meaning.

Someone who is "illiterate" in the traditional sense (meaning that they cannot read or write) may be very culturally literate. Kathleen Yancey's article "Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key" highlights the changing nature of literacy. How literacy is defined is changing with the dawn of new technologies. Being literate can no longer be defined as one's ability to understand the written word, because there are so many types of literacy. Our definition of literacy can no longer be confined to mean someone who possesses one particular set of skills.

If literacy is one's ability to make and communicate meaning, what does this mean for our technologically advanced society? In future generations will illiterate refer to people who cannot communicate using technology? Our ability to master new modes of communication may be the key to literacy in the future, or perhaps that time has already come. Yancey gives us something to think about when she says "changes to literacy are limited not by technology but rather by our ability to adapt and acquire the new literacies that emerge" (Yancey, 816).

Yancey, K (2011). Writing as a mode of learning. In V. Villnueva & K. Arola (Eds.), Cross-talk in Comp Theory (pp. 791-826). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.