Higgins, Long, and Flower: Defining Literacy

Higgins, Long, and Flower believe that "literacy should be defined not merely as the receptive skill of reading, but as the public act of writing and taking social action" (9).  Their definition requires a turn from the idea of "cultural and critical literacies" (9); an idea that I found refreshing after reading Jack Goody and Ian Watt's obnoxious article, "The Consequences of Literacy," this past weekend.

I find that when Higgins, Long, and Flower attempt to include both "personal and public inquiry" in their approach, they are tapping into an interesting gap within literacy studies as a whole--the gap between the public and private spheres; in other words, the gap that is not a gap.  Public and private literacy collide constantly, but researchers tend to privilege one over the other; Higgins, Long, and Flower are attempting to reconcile the privileging tendency within most research--a tendency which extends into the division between local and universal literacy (there is, most likely, an actual term for this, but I have no idea what it is).

Ultimately, their goal is to provide a "rhetorical model" which "would guide the development of new practices of collaboration, argument, and problem solving  across hierarchical and diverse publics" (11).  I do, however, find this to be a very optimistic goal.  When discussing the issue of "assessing the rhetorical situation," they also tackle the issue of recognizing subgroups.  Unfortunately, it is not always easy, or even possible to identify those subgroups.  Higgins, Long, and Flower admit to the fact that this is "the rhetorical situation" as the researcher is able to "perceive" it (12).  This issue of researcher perception reminds me of one of the presentations I saw at the SWCA conference:  In a writing center, there are specific perceptions of ESL students, but the ESL students do not always think of themselves in that way.  So, how do you tutor students who you believe are ESL but who do not think of themselves as ESL?  I feel that the same can be applied to this issue of rhetorical situation.  In other words, how do you interact with a subgroup filled with people who do not consider themselves to be a part of that subgroup?

I certainly enjoyed this particular article.  I found the idea of "supporting personal and public transformation through the circulation of alternative texts and practices" to be a laudable goal.  However, since I am only just beginning to read literacy research, I will continue to view this piece with skepticism until I am more informed.  

Gary A. Olson's Ideological Review

I found that Olson's article served as a thorough literature review, providing a practical guide into "the tradition of ideological critique." However, the section which I found most fascinating concerns what he calls "perhaps the most original and substantive contribution to the intellectual work on ideological critique" (86); this is, of course, in reference to Lynn Worsham's theories concerning the role of emotion and "pedagogical violence" (87).  I find it particularly interesting that she is referring to all of pedagogy and not just what occurs in the classroom.  Thus, the pedagogical violence has invaded all aspects of society and does not exist solely within one sphere.  Likewise, it never occurred to me that even the way we feel emotions is dictated by the ideological duo of "family and the educational system, working in tandem," implying that, like Worsham's definition of pedagogy, she is describing an all-encompassing thing rather than something of limited reach (87). 

If this is an adequate representation of Worsham's work concerning pedagogical violence, then I am greatly impressed with her work and will definitely read "Going Postal: Pedagogic Violence and the Schooling of Emotion."  I feel like her work may greatly impact my thesis work--especially the idea that "pedagogy refers to the power to impose meanings that maintain and reinforce the reigning social, economic, and political arrangements as legitimate when in fact they are entirely arbitrary" (87).  I feel like this really describes the complicated situation in Cajun Louisiana where the Cajun population were taught not only to speak English, but also to feel strong emotions of shame and hate for their non-literate first language, Cajun French.

Genre and Practicality

Miller's discussion of genre seems to be rooted firmly in what is practical.  In fact, she claims that "a useful principle of classification for discourse, then, should have some basis in the conventions of rhetorical practice, including the ways actual rhetors and audiences have of comprehending the discourse they use" (152); this is a point that I particularly enjoyed because it would make the use of genre in classrooms far easier.  Also, I respect her awareness of the point at which theory meets use--an awareness that is often forgotten by theorists.  In addition, Miller answers the arguments against genre with a gesture of practicality: "the urge to classify is fundamental, and although it involves the difficulties that Patton and Conley point out, classification is necessary to language and learning" (151).  Thus, she has, in a very simple way, addressed the concerns of language and restriction that would necessarily arise from genre divisions/classifications.

Miller also provides examples as context for her argument; she claims that "inaugurals, eulogies, courtroom speeches, and the like have conventional forms because they arise in situations with similar structures and elements and because rhetors respond in similar ways, having learned from precedent what is appropriate and what effects their actions are likely to have on other people" (152).  And, in order to provide some guidelines for the construction of genres, she gives not only a bulleted list of "features" but also explanations that what would eliminate certain potential categories (163).  Clearly, she has developed a well thought out system for recognizing and establishing genre.  In fact, it is this thoroughness and adherence to practicality that lends itself so well to Devitt, Bawarshi, and Reiff's "Materiality and Genre in the Study of Discourse Communities." However, I still feel hesitant to commit myself to this idea of genre.

My hesitation lies mainly in the idea that there will always be rhetorical spaces that don't exist within/are excluded from a genre.  Also, if a rhetor acknowledges a genre and then intentionally subverts the conventions of that genre, would he still fall within that genre?  I, admittedly, can think of no examples off of the top of my head, but I'm sure that this will come up in class discussion.     

"Remapping" Dark Spaces

I had to read Cheryl Glenn's article for another class as well this week, Archival Research.  So, I have just recently come from a discussion of it from another point of view, the view of an archival researcher.  The problem that we faced with this particular text involved issues of ethos and evidence.  In other words, how do you "remap" a territory that you have only little proof exists.  The same problem occurs when discussing the sophists because we only have a very limited view of their writings.  Therefore, attempting to reclaim classical women like Aspasia or even shadowy male figures like the Sophists is a difficult proposition.  It requires an adjusting of our preconceived notions of rhetoric, allowing us to broaden our definitions and understanding of the areas previously thought to house "monsters" (3).

According to Glenn, "until recently, we could pull a neatly folded history of rhetoric out of our glove compartment, unfold it, and navigate our course through the web of lines that connected the principal centers of rhetoric...we ignored the boarders of our map, the shadowy regions" (3).  However, now there are new territories that exist within the umbrella term of "rhetoric." These new territories have been brought into view by the lack that has become apparent as race, gender, economic status, and even geographical position becomes an issue within the field.  Thus, remapping becomes a transcendent action, encompassing all of the problematic spaces within the field.

For instance, in addition to being able to "regender" rhetoric, we are also able to reconsider the Sophists as Susan Jarratt does in our other reading, "The First Sophists: History and Historiography."  Jarratt discusses the Sophists as "a dark shadow" (1).  Clearly, Glenn pulls a great deal from Jarratt's discussion of rereading the Sophists.