The prospect of creating a “network of concerns” for global
rhetorics sounded challenging and ambiguous from the start. The first and most
fundamental challenge I faced was how to create the network itself in an online
medium. The network I created ended up being structured more closely to that of
a grouping of concepts. The center of the grouping had four categories: Identity, Privilege, Hegemony, and Language. These categories were then
populated with textual examples from each author to support the assertion that
those categories were prevalent in each text. The second part of the network
involved three secondary charts, one for each author that contained their
central idea and critical dilemma and textual support surrounding the idea.
I approached this project
differently because I wanted to see if I could explain relational connection
without relying only on convergence and divergence. I wanted to locate these
authors’ ideas in relation to the four major concerns I chose. To work from the
inside out and come up with a new means of organizing ideas. If I could go back
and redo an aspect of the project I more clearly articulate the connection
between each author and my guiding categories. This way it would have been
easier to show exactly where each authors ideology was on the spectrum and
which of the four concerns their work focused on the most.
This assignment gave me the opportunity to consider the
arguments of these authors through the Burke-like terministic screens of, Identity, Privilege, Hegemony, and Language. This allowed a more focused
understanding of the works as they relate to the field of Global Rhetorics and
as they relate to each other. Lisa R. Arnold was largely concerned with the
pedagogical implications of language and monolingual bias. Her article read
more like a critical case study of the Syrian Protestant College (Beirut). She
adds a historical dimension to the translingual issues that exist within
rhetoric and composition studies. “The archives suggest that the issue of
language- including which language should be taught and why, the effect of
language on student identities and the power and cultural value attached to
language and education-was of central concern to the colleges founders,
ultimately determining the pedagogical approaches taken and curricular
decisions made at SPC in its early years” (Arnold 277). Because of the very clear historical and
pedagogical roots of this essay Arnolds interests fall between Language and Privilege in the network of concerns. She is primarily focused on
advocating for a de-privileging of monolingualism in the academic community and
a more fluid inclusion of language and culture.
Saba Fatima’s essay, though not
officially situated within the world of rhetoric and composition, has many of
the same themes and concerns as the other readings that accompany it in this
analysis. Fatima focuses specifically on Muslim-American Scripts and the
importance of “cultivating affective responses” to these scripts (Fatima 353). Fatima
works from within the Muslim tradition to create an awareness of scripts and
norms of depersonalization. “Our scripts are mediated by our social location
within systems of domination. In other words, our scripts as Muslim-Americans
differ when we travel abroad, when we speak on terrorism in American public
discourse, or when we see the coverage of American wars from within the comfort
of our homes” (Fatima 342). According to
Fatima’s logic the scripts that we operate on can affect the way we are
situated in society. Her ideology falls between Identity and Hegemony on
the network of concerns. This notion of scripts as guiding forces in national
discourse was something I had never considered before but really spoke to my
interests. She frames her perspective as that of a stranger in their country
who is viewed as untrustworthy and overly empathetic.
Marilyn M. Cooper is concerned with the “process of
rejecting pure identity” (Cooper 93). She is focused specifically on
deconstructing the hegemonic notion of national identity. “A nonessentials
notion of identity- often referred to as a power modern identity or self- has
been developing in academic discussion in recent years” (Cooper 91). Cooper
wants us to move our thinking away from essentialism and toward a more hybrid
understanding of identity. I found Coopers ideas the most difficult to connect
to the network of concerns because her goal was not immediately clear, however
I also found this work the most dynamic because of its ambiguity. The focus on
language in this piece locates it more firmly in the academic sphere, and gives
the article a slightly more pedagogical tone. However I found that it was
possible to separate the academic intentions of the theoretical discussion of
national identity. “It is the assumption once again that identity is a matter
of control that makes the goal of national identity seem oppressive, to leave
us with the equally unsatisfactory options of the melting pot of the tower of
babel: either we completely resolve our differences rationally and agree on the
values that ground our actions or we are incapable of any productive action or
interaction” (Cooper 100). Cooper does a seamless job of incorporating issues
of national identity and academic concerns of language and monolingualism.
These three readings strongly informed my understanding of language
and the role it plays in nationalism and academia. Looking at language from the
perspective of a Muslim-American allowed me to consider the vantage point that
they have in the United States. I framed my readings of Arnold and Cooper
through the experience of Fatima’s narrative of Muslim-American experience. Each
author brought so much of their own experience and individualized vocabulary to
that table that it was hard to read them in conversation with one another
because they were so dense and intricate on their own.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.