activist teaching

week 10: comparison (okawa)

i’ll begin by stating that both of the assigned readings for the week dealt with the relevance of including culturally diverse perspectives within academia. that’s where i will stop the comparison and begin showcasing the biggest distinction between the two articles. the first, which was my last post (cushman and monberg), discussed the importance of the researcher conducting their research in a socially reflexive way. that means that in order for the researcher to gain credible and inclusive authority as a cultural informant they would have to establish a respectful relationship with a given cultural agent.

okawa’s article discusses the value of multiculturalism in academia. however, okawa focuses on the composition teacher as the cultural agent, rather than as the informant attempting to gain access to the cultural agent. she points to an increasing problem of “minority underrepresentation” (295) in academia as a big reason why students from various backgrounds feel isolated in the university. to combat this problem, okawa advocates collaborative projects among educators of color who become autoethnographers , or representatives of their own histories “in the context of absence and underrepresentation” (299) in the university.

i agreed with cushman and monberg’s assessment of the value of socially reflexive research, and i also agree with okawa’s advocacy of building a community of educators of color that work with students of color in order to help them acclimate and succeed in an academic setting that posits them in the minority role.

“the medicine is worse than the disease”

week 10: degree (cushman and monberg)

good article.

i agree with the authors and their take on the value of responsible socially reflexive research. within academe, social reflexivity is especially important because it, ” [..] can inform and facilitate the dialogue and negotiations that take place in this intersection of competing perspectives,” (166). basically, including a perspective from the “other” point of view adds dimensions to scholarship that a solipsistic perspective on culture will exclude during research. “social reflexivity demands that the researcher and participants openly negotiate their interdependent relationships using dialogic interaction,” (172). in other words, a socially reflexive approach to research validates the experiences of groups on the periphery of academe while simultaneously highlighting the connectivity between that group and the group at the center of academic studies (i.e. whitey).

however, even the open-minded approach that social reflexivity offers can be taken to a detrimental degree when cultural informants are exoticzed. the example that cushman and monberg present on page 169 supports this idea. their discussion centers on denny taylor’s polyvocal ethnographies, which showcases cultural informants in museum-like exhibits that bring them out of their comfort zones and into the academic contact zone, which is a comfort zone for scholars. why is this problematic? well, when this happens, the “performed ethnographies” (169), become just that — performances rather than legitimate studies where academics gain the authority to inform on, or with, a cultural group via interconnected interaction with the cultural informants within their contact zones.

on going research conducted this way will probably lead to the misrepresentation of various cultures as the dominant group (i.e. whitey) interprets what they observe through uninformed lenses.

“[...]a continuity of resistance[...]“

week 9: comparison: syncrisis (donadey and seitz)

diverse and multiplying studies are being created in the institutional mold. donadey presented various lenses by which feminism can be viewed in her discussion of the social influences that create each lens. the correlation between academia’s interpretation of feminism, race, colonialism, gender, and sexuality that donadey mentioned in her introduction foreshadowed her description of the different epochs and mediums that  feminisms exists in. like other theoretical frameworks, the different approaches to feminism are determined by cultural relevance.

similarly, seitz presents a discussion of composition studies and how composition theories are rarely informed by practice, or to rephrase it, not certifiably credible. if theories aren’t informed by practice they seem to be even less valid, as the are just untested hypotheses. i said, “similarly,” because — as seitz found out from the results of an ethnographic study he conducted using three composition students from different cultural backgrounds — the impact of the discussions in the classroom on these students was determined by the cultural relevance of the information they were learning, and vice versa.

what exists is a pedgogical hierarchy based on any given theory’s relevance to the dominant culture.

going global: americana for sale (this is mokey poo)

week 8: friedman (advantageous/disadvantageous)

“[...] its utopian possibilities and its dystopic realities,” (friedman, 2007, p. 261). great quote regarding friedman’s take on globalization. i’m feeling it.

some folks say, “hey, what’s wrong with globalization? look at the chinese. nike is providing those kids jobs. we make economies better.” yes and no. okay, so maybe there are some advantages to globalization. for one, a lot more people around the world will be speaking english, so i won’t really have to learn korean if i make a trip there in about 15 years. also, if i want my mcburger and i’m in new delhi, i’ll be able to score one. how cool is that?

boom! let’s burst that fairy tale bubble. here’s why globalization is disadvantageous — call me crazy if you’d like to: slowly, but surely, our world will no longer be made up of many different countries, but a large one world government. we will all have the same currency. international borders will not exist. so, no, you won’t need a passport to travel to france, but there are drawbacks to this. namely, the absolute control over just about every facet of our lives that we will be handing over to a conglomerate that really only cares about maintaining their position at the top of the pile.

skeptics, be skeptical. a couple of years ago in an economics class, a classmate gave a presentation on an upcoming oil crisis that was being predicted by economists. he claimed that by 2010 gas prices would reach $7/gallon. some classmates laughed. i cried quietly, realizing that i would see some serious shit go down in my lifetime, after already witnessing 9/11 and the unjust war that ensued.

*in case you’re wondering, my allegiances are beyond left. i’m in outer space. on the fringe of the cosmos looking for god so i can ask her some questions.

here we are, back on earth, in a romanticized existence, still chasing utopia, drowning in dystopic muck. sucking and swallowing it all. not one drop spilled.

for us, the average folk; the other 90% that isn’t wealthy; the people, there is nothing really advantageous about globalization. why has the cost of living gone up, and our wages gone down? why are we fighting terror? how do you fight terror? what is terror? is it an atomic bomb, like the two we dropped on that one island that makes reliable cars? is it scaring  the public into handing over their civil rights? is it lies?

we had a discussion last week about the significance of scholarship in the humanities that made me question studying in this field. i know better, but when you’re faced with an uphill battle against a savage beasts like transnational corps, the federal reserve bank, our evil empire, what do you do? do you buck it all until you croak, or do you simply just give in?

race: good, bad, ugly

week 8: injustice (warren)

“race is a social construction,” (warren, 2007, p. 245).

yes. nothing new to me here. arguably, created to keep the dominant group in power and the subordinates subordinated; implemented institutionally to disenfranchise, marginalize, categorize, and emphasize the different; the “other”.

here is something new to me: take race, and all of the injustices that exist because of institutional racism, flip it and use it as a tool of deconstruction; tear down the house of cards from the foundation up. i feel relatively lame for not considering what warren mentioned in his article regarding race, and the potential good that can come from using the idea of race as a method of uniting and organizing racial minorities, rather than succumb to its tradition of division.

i read the article and had an epiphany: “oh, shit! that’s why right wingers want to tear down programs like affirmative action. it’s not about making it harder for white people to go to college (quite laughable). it’s about removing socially conscious programs because of fear. the powers that be are afraid that if non-whites, women, and the aware white people get together that change might result. the power structure might collapse and be rebuilt, and progress might be made.”

interestingly, this movement to nip the problem of unity at the bud isn’t limited to different races. it extends to issues of gender equality, and the right that everyone has to choose who they want to love and marry.

insider/outsider/the “other”

week 7: rumors (chiang)

“the ivory tower”. “white privilege”. i’ve heard these two terms come up a few times throughout my prolific college career. usually, the response to these terms is mixed. on one hand, non-white people, both men and women (white women can also be included here) tend to agree that we exist in a society that caters to this notion of “white (male) privilege”, and that the university is an “ivory tower” that ultimately reinforces institutionalized notions of white privilege. on the other hand, most white people — and about 99.9% of white men — believe that this is just another attack by non-white people on the white man for things done many, many (yet not so many) years ago, and that it is the white man who is in fact facing marginalization and discriminatory practices as he is being devalued in american society. white folks, at least those that aren’t really paying attention, believe that racism ended already, and that any talk of it still existing is based on rumors, usually spread by non-white contingencies that want to bring the white man down.

chiang did a great job of putting the spotlight on her attempt to “recenter herself in the discourse communities” that simultaneously accept her and consider her an outsider, or “other”. she can be included in a debate about, say, the composition practices of high school history book in the united states, but her experience as an immigrant has shaped her perception in a way that disallows her to ignore the obvious bias in the production of these types of texts. thus, while she is allowed in the discourse community, she is considered an outsider because she doesn’t share the same interpretation of the text.

mcgann

week 7: degree

“What learned people would choose is better than what the ignorant would choose.” – from the silva rhetoricae website.

to what degree does the reader determine the meaning of a text? mcgann states that, “to find flesh and blood is the ultimate purpose of reading, and its sophisticated partner, interpretation.” mcgann does not believe that even an active reader can “discover a document’s significant details and track them to their complete meaning.” according to him — and i do agree — interpretation (which is what happens after you read something) is a social act. social, political, and institutional frames of reference have an influence on an individual’s life. it molds their perspective, which can significantly impact how they interpret texts when they read them.

however, i don’t think that this means that a reader cannot make meaning out of a text. it could be argued that their interpretation is slanted, perhaps even misconstrued to some degree by misinformation, but does that negate the value of that interpretation to the reader? does the reader’s interpretation of a text, outside of academia, belong exclusively to them? i make that differentiation because it seems like once you publish an interpretation you make you interpretation public, and at this point it is the public (audience) who determines the value of that interpretation.

i’ll end with this: it has been hard for me at times to make flesh and blood out of a few of the readings in this nicholls book. i have to unpack the meaning, which takes time and energy, and leaves me wondering if i really know what the authors are talking about.

from alternet

soon, american families will be spending $6,000 a year on gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil.

copy and paste this link for the article (http://www.alternet.org/stories/85280/)

academic blogs for the week are next.

more depressing shit

 with the olympics being held in china this year a lot of people around the world are pushing for a boycott of the games. i’m torn. i definitely don’t support china’s occupation of tibet, but i’m not sure that sports and politics should necessarily mix. the olympics do provide an international platform by which the participants can express their political beliefs and have potentially billions of people see it — mexico city games are a good example. however, i’m just not sure if a boycott is going to get anything done.

 there was a cyclone that recently hit burma causing a lot of damage and death. the burmese regime is blocking aid to affected citizens, and china is complicit with the regime’s actions. the chinese government has gone as far to block efforts by france to urge the un to enforce the delivery of aid. i donated $20 to the campaign to bring aid to the region, and have written an email to un secretary general ban ki-moon asking him to step in and do something (it’s strange to me that i even had to do that, like why can’t he just see the need to do it without being coerced into it?).

 now that you have read this email i think you should at the very least write to un sec general ki-moon for the same reason i did. donate money, too. if you choose to ignore this and go on living your life, that’s fine. it’s easy to disengage with the global community and forget about the gnarly shit going on around the world when it’s happening 15,000 miles away.

bear witness

week 6: witness (dr. pilinovsky)

dr. pilinovsky is uber knowledgable. i’m disappointed with myself that i wasn’t on time to class and missed her introduction, because i felt like i was missing a piece of the puzzle and therefore didn’t get the most clear interpretation of the whole picture. despite that, i enjoyed the experience today. her input was a great compliment to the venuti reading, in that she reiterated the idea of the translator doing work with a text that was most appropriate to the receptor culture. i confused myself there. what i’m saying is that, for example, dr. pilinovsky pointed out that russian translators of fairy tales translated those texts with the intent to keep them as accurate as possible to the original work, whereas british fairy tales were translated to make them accessible to…children? i’ll run with that. russian fairy tales were not for kids, so accessibility was not an issue.  venuti  mentioned that dynamic translations of texts were translations that took an original work and reinvented it so that it was appropriate and relevant to the culture in which it would be viewed. more or less…

“what’s that got to do with ‘witness’, buddy?” well, i’m glad you asked. you see, if somebody were to challenge my claim that dr. pilinovsky was not in fact an expert in the field of russian fairy tales i would say to them, “sir, you are quite wrong. i was there to witness it. she’s legit.” it’s as easy as that.