Critics of Global Rhetoric Converging and Diverging in the Sky: A Network of Concerns

Exploratory 4 was not really easier to do than the other exploratory projects, but it was the most helpful for me, because it helped me get a better sense of how to go about tackling the dense texts we have been reading for Global Rhetorics. The critics from our readings (Lisa R. Arnold, Marilyn M. Cooper, and Saba Fatima) did not all have the same goals (diverging), but they were all wrestling with similar global rhetoric concerns (converging).

In our "network of concerns," Meghan Dykema and I identified several topics from the Global Rhetorics course and mapped out how the different critics were pursuing those topics, along with critics from last week: Pal Ahluwalia, Kermit E. Campbell, and Richard C. Marback. For this blogpost, however, I will stick to only talking about this week's critics. Our network map was designed like a 2-D model of what could potentially become a 3-D layout of concerns for global rhetoric. Each concern (represented in cloud bubbles) is broad on the surface, but we added notes to make them more clear. We noticed that certain critics were more concerned with certain topics, so not all the critics connect directly to all the topics. Also, just because two critics may connect to the same topic does not mean that both critics have the same goals in mind for said topic.

For instance, for the "Multilingual/Multiliterate Pedagogies" topic, we had both Arnold and Cooper connecting to the cloud bubble. But because of the note boxes on the lines connecting them to the clouds, we reveal they don't necessarily have the same goals for that topic. Arnold's goal is to look into the historical contexts of how the use of different languages has been incorporated in the past to further learning:

"Armed with a sense that composition has a global and multilingual history, we will better be able to provide writers with the rhetorical tools necessary to gain economic, political, cultural, and social power in the places where they live and work.” (Arnold 296)

Cooper's goal is to show how using multiple languages in the classroom might be a better tool for writing composition in the classroom, and enrich student identities:

“[P]edagogy of multiliteracies . . . requires us to rethink the notion of identity, how it is enacted in language use, and also what teachers of college writing tell students about choosing correct or appropriate languages.” (Cooper 87)

These divergences in specific goals do not, however, stop these two critics from converging in thought. Although Arnold's focus is more on looking into the histories of schools (specifically the Syrian Protestant College, 1866–1902) and their multilingual practices for learning, she also recognizes the importance of multilingual learning, like Cooper:

“‘[D]ifference in language’ might be a ‘resource for producing meaning’ rather than an impediment to it[.]” (Arnold 290)

So, the network map we constructed successfully shows how the two critics are both different and alike at the same time. The specific goals of critics set them apart from each other; otherwise, nothing significantly new would come from their research. However, where they converge shows where the globally rhetorical conversation of multiple critics is forming.