Intellectual Property Right Holders and IP Users in Collision Course

John Logie’s “Parsing Codes: Intellectual Property, Technical Communication and the World Wide Web” raises some salient issues about the conflict between intellectual property laws and public in general and IP holders and users in particular. He argues that with the revision of Copyright law and enactment of new IP Acts like The No Electronic Theft Act of 1997, The digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, The Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act of 1998, and The TEACH Act, the IP laws have become more stricter and insular than ever before and general public’s access to artifacts of knowledge has become more and more limited. This has put the copyright holders and the general public in a collision course. The former is campaigning for more stricter laws for infringement cases while the latter is demanding for more flexible or ‘thin’ IP provisions.

Regarding the implication of new Acts to technical communicators, Logie says that “in the past decade, the penalties have grown exponentially, and technical communicators now face a creative landscape loaded with legal landmines” (232). In fact, anything creative under the sun is copyrighted now. So, for technical communicator who works often times with existent models, templates, images and other resources, the stakes are really high. Technical writers therefore should campaign for more porous and flexible IP laws that foster new creativity while also ensuring enough protection for the creators.

But current IP laws are more favorable to the copyright holders. Logie quotes Gurak in this regard who contends that “current trends in copyright legislation is very much out of balance, favoring the author or creator…over the public” (234). So general public including technical writer is deprived of the sources of information and education. This, for Logie, is a horrible state. Therefore, he calls on technical writers to use their rhetorical skills and technical expertise to fight for people’s access to artifacts of knowledge and information thereby ascertaining the formation of informed citizenry. Technical writers are in a better position to do that because, as Logie thinks, “With the advent of the Internet and the World Wide Web, the opportunities are manifold for communicative practices to move several steps ahead of the law of institutional policy” (240). Since IP laws always chase the technology, the Technical Communicators can reap the benefit of their skills to make the resources available to the public before the state enacts new law tp contain the loopholes at the least. Are we ready to fight what Andrea Lunsford calls ‘hyperprotectionism”?

Future Work Model: Distributed Work

Reading Clay Spinuzzi’s “Guest Editor’s Introduction: Technical Communication in the Age of Distributed Work” and excerpts from Tapscott & Williams’ Wikinomics gives the sense that the workplace is seeing paradigm shift from modular work model towards distributed work model i.e. from “the stable, rationalized, modular work structures that characterized the Industrial Revolution’ (266) towards “coordinative, polycontextual, crossdisciplinary work that splices together divergent work activities (separated by time, space, organizations, and objectives) and that enables the transformations of information and texts that characterize such work” (266). The readings also present wonderful instances of distributed work model in action, such as in Geek Squad and Best Buy and few others where bottom-up and horizontal approach appears to be working more innovatively than conventional up-down or vertical approach. More interesting to see in these readings is the workers’ use of Web 2.0 technologies in the workplace and the administration’s exploitation of their rhetorical skills and analytical power for policy making and work execution as opposed to conventional up-down communication, executive and decision-making system.

Basically, the readings are highlighting the fact that the traditional hierarchical working system is collapsing and more egalitarian networked trend is emerging which has implications for both the industries/organizations and the workers including technical writers. A permanent staff, job and static/physical workplace is increasingly becoming the thing of the past and job switching, multiskilling/deskilling and virtual, collaborative work patterns are characterizing the workplaces and workers. Spinuzzi thus describes the emerging distributed work pattern in the workplaces:
Control over organizations is just as distributed as ownership is
in managerial capitalism; digital technologies play a vital role in
forming, interconnecting, and even dispersing nodes; consumption is
individuated,taking the form of the desire for unique identities and
unique experiences;relationships between customers and businesses
become more important,even as the distinctions between them become
unclear; and customers look for stable beneficial relationships among
consumers and producers that support these individual experiences (cf.
Sless, 1994). These needs are supplied not by large, vertically
integrated companies but by temporary federations of suppliers for
each individual transaction. These federations are endlessly
recombinant. Lifelong employment is replaced by what Zuboff and Maxmin
call “lifelong learning” —what Donna Haraway calls continual deskilling
and retraining, and Castells calls multiskilling—as workers cope with
continually changing arrangements" (271).


Similarly, Tapscott & Williams offering the case of Geek Squad whose employees use “blogs, wikis, and other new tools to collaborate and form ad hoc communities across departmental and organizational boundaries" (240) argue that “openness, peering, sharing, and acting globally [are the] fixtures of the future
workplace” (240). Another climactic moment for Robert Stephens, the CEO of Geek Squad that authors present here and that impressed me is his moment of epiphany at the discovery of the fact that his staff is not using Wiki that he set up as much as the Battlefield 2 Online game for sharing information and experiences in the workplaces: "Instead of trying to set an agenda," he said, "I'm now going to try and discover
their agenda, and serve it." (243). Stephens made Battlefield part of the Geek Sqaud.


No doubt that the work environment is in transformation and that integration of new technologies in the workplaces are indicating that distributed work model is sure to dominate the work places soon and TC needs to be ready to face the challenges but few questions are gripping my mind as I meditate over this transitional phase in the workplaces:

1. The authors have talked mostly about the service sector whose major target is customer satisfaction and profit-making and the distributed work model seems to fit them well. But I wonder if the same model works for military and similar cases where strong chain of command and physical presence of individuals in, for instance, camps/battlefield is required for the execution of their duties/work.

2. The authors project that the future workplace will see the increasing use of Web 2.0 technologies, workers’ rhetorical/analytical skills and interpersonal communication skills. I here wonder again how realistic is it to expect every worker to be technologically proficient and rhetorically savvy?

Annotated Bibliography: CCR 760 Technical Communication

Santosh Khadka
CCR 760: Technical Communication in the Digital Age

Annotated Bibliography

1. Hunsinger, R Peter. “Culture and Cultural Identity in Intercultural Technical
Communication”. Technical Communication Quarterly 15.1(2006): 31-48. Print.

This article draws from the critical cultural theory of Arjun Appadurai and discusses how culture undergirds the intercultural technical communication research. Hunsinger argues that theoretical concepts of culture and cultural identity are yet to be fully explored for their implications for the study and research in technical communication. He observes that oversimplification, essentialism, or ethnocentrism and limited theoretical reflection on the concept of culture are the major stumbling blocks for the critical intercultural technical communication. He also critiques the predominant heuristic approach to researching and teaching intercultural technical communication that overlooks the crucial aspects of cross-cultural communication, and neatly explains how Appadurai's insights can enrich the theory, research, and pedagogy of intercultural technical communication.


2. Sam, Dragga. “Ethical intercultural technical communication: Looking through the
lens of Confucian ethics”. Technical Communication Quarterly 8.4 (19990): 365-81. Print.

Sam believes that understanding of differences in ethical behaviors across cultures is crucial for ethical intercultural technical communication. Since the ethics of Confucius (including the virtues of goodness, righteousness, wisdom, faithfulness, reverence, and courage) inform the communication patterns in China, the technical communicator must take that into consideration while communicating with Chinese individuals. Chinese culture, according to him, is indirect, high context, and collectivist but many fail to understand the ideals underpinning these manifestations. Unless the underpinnings are fully examined and understood, there is high possibility that intercultural technical communication with China fails. With the Chinese case, Sam believes that today’s technical communicator should learn to be multicultural, intercultural communicator and should also engage the issues of translation, interpretation, and localization. But he laments the fact that there is very little research to enable technical communicators to perform the changed role. Following an outlining Confucian thought and ethical behavior, Sam concludes his essay by analyzing a salient artifact of intercultural communication according to Confucian ethics thereby highlighting the ethical differences between China and America and implying that unless we develop a comprehensive understanding of such ethical differences, effective and ethical communication is unlikely to happen.




3. Barnum, Carol M, and Huilin Li. “Chinese and American Technical Communication:
A Cross- Cultural Comparison of Differences.” Technical Communication 53.2
(2006): 143-166. Print.


Barnum and Li compare the cultural values embedded in documents in China and the United States as well as the ways documents are viewed, created and used in Chinese and American cultures. They also observes how a variety of documents reflect those cultural differences and explain those differences in light of the historical, economic, and education influences that have shaped both countries' need for technical communication. Along the way, they also review the reasons for the need of technical communication in China and obstacles for integrating it in the academic system. They hope that their comparative approach can benefit ttechnical communicators in the United States and other Western cultures, technical and professional communication teachers of students from China as well as EFL (English as a Foreign Language) teachers in the U.S. and in China in various ways including getting the resources to explain and understand the differences in the composition and reception of technical and other writing genres in China as well as in the United States.
4. Mirshafiei, Mohsen. "Culture as an element in teaching technical writing.”
Technical Communication 41.2 (1994): 276. Platinum Periodicals, ProQuest. Web. 12 Mar. 2010.

Mirshafiei interviews non-native students in the upper-division technical writing courses asking whether their native cultures affect their technical communication ability and gets positive answers from almost all of them. He says that his research was inspired by his observation of cultural interferences in technical communication of his students. He therefore wanted to find where the problems his students confront in technical communication lie and what the solutions could be. In the process of research he studies, in addition to differences in style and tone, the problems that his students with different cultural backgrounds faced in technical communication. His major concentration, however, is on the impact of culture in technical communication. Finding the influence of culture in his students’ technical communication ability, he recommends that cultural problems be differentiated from those of language interference while teaching or training the non-native technical communicators and/or workers. In addition, he suggests instructors to make non-native students aware of the differences in cultural thought patterns between them and the native students and teach them to adapt their styles to intended audiences. Finally, he ends by mentioning directions for further research on the problem of cultural influence in technical communication.


5. Topf, Mel A. "Job application correspondence: integral to the technical
communication course." The Technical writing teacher 14(1987):114-17. Print.


Referring to many textbooks of technical communication as failing to treat job application letters as integral to technical communication and lamenting the fact that even ones that have discussions on them treat that genre as static form with definite rules and features, Topf calls for rhetorical approach to job application letters. “Missing in the texts are exercises in treatment of context—the nature of the audience, company, and position, through which students develop and apply substantive rhetorical strategies” (114), says Topf. According to him, the textbooks fail to point out the fact that job correspondence should address a special rhetorical situation and urgently require the deployment of rhetorical strategies. Given this vacuum, it falls on the shoulder of instructors to discuss the rhetoricity of job application letters. The courses should include discussion of strategies to deal with audience traits such as clarity and conciseness in style and format as rhetorical strategies to affect the audience; correctness to impress the audience; analysis of data to define audience; selection and inclusion of information from the writer’s background that is most pertinent to the job in question and strategic organization of the letter to the audience’s interests. Such discussion, claims Topf, will highlight the rhetorical nature of technical writing genres and therefore be instrumental in changing the current view of technical writing as a product of prescribed and inflexible rules.

6. Andrews, Deborah C, “Forum: Teaching international technical communication”.
Technical Communication Quarterly 7.3 (1998): 329-339. Print

In this article, in response to guest editor, Deborah C. Andrews’ request, three experienced teachers-Jan H. Spyridakis, Linda P. Driskill, and Nancy L. Hoft- describe how they integrate research on international technical communication into their classroom: a graduate seminar, a high-tech course in engineering communication, and an introductory course on creating world-ready information products. Their descriptions show that communicating internationally is complex and even frustrating but can be exciting in the sense that thinking internationally can transform a classroom, a discipline and/or a career.

7. Amant, Kirk St. “ When cultures and computers collide: Rethinking computer-
mediated communication according to international and intercultural
communication expectations”. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
16.2 (2002): 196-215. Print.
Advent of online communication technology has made globe even smaller and intercultural communication has been faster and direct than ever before, observes Amant in this article. While he claims that, he is also aware that with the greater facility of intercultural communication, the risk of cultural misunderstanding and communication breakdown has also increased. Therefore, the more investigation on the part of communication scholars on the potential areas of conflicts and misunderstandings in online communication is necessary to resolve complications if they were to arise. Amant also ask the scholars to compare the patterns in CMC (computermediated communication) and intercultural communication to see where these patterns collide.




8. Starke-Meyerring, Doreen, Ann Hill Duin, and Talene Palvetzian. “Global
Partnerships: Positioning Technical Communication Programs in the Context
of Globalization.” Technical Communication Quarterly 16.2 (2007): 139-175.
Print.

Given the fact that global partnerships in academic programs are in rise in this era of globalization, technical communication (TC) in both the workplace and higher education is undergoing powerful change as a result of globalization and TC programs now are finding themselves positioned in an altered environment, the authors, in this article, examine the changes in workplace and education brought about by the forces of globalization. They begin the article with the analysis of globalization trends and their influence on TC in the workplace, focusing on the type of literacies necessary for technical communicators for global work and citizenship and then highlight the need of program partnerships that facilitate the interaction of students with people and professionals from across cultures and places. The authors also examine a case study of Council for Programs in Technical and Scientific Communication (CPTSC)-supported study of program partnerships and explore how TC faculty and programs position themselves amid globalization. They end the article by providing insights for those interested in developing global partnerships of TC programs and offering directions for further research.

9. Andrews, Deborah C, “Guest editor's column: “Internationalizing”.” Technical
Communication Quarterly 7.3 (1998): 245-247. Print

This is an introduction from the guest editor Deborah C to an issue of Technical
Communication Quarterly where he highlights the issues raised by the contributing authors. Surprisingly, he finds that all the articles in that issue have a common point that “an increasingly global economy is changing how professionals in science and technology communicate” (245). According to him, six of the seven articles are about the study and work in the changed working environment. “Integrating”, he says, is the key word across articles which he interprets as calls for integrating international perspective into the technical communication classroom. Critiquing what he terms the international coating in technical communication classroom, he argues that international perspective should run deeper than that. Integrating international perspective should make students aware of the rhetorical situation of technical writing and the articles in the issue, he claims, have insights that foster such awareness.

10. Amant, Kirk St. “Online Education in an Age of Globalization: Foundational
Perspectives and Practices for Technical Communication Instructors and
Trainers.” Technical Communication Quarterly 16.1 (2007): 13-31. Print.

This article provides resources for online courses and instructors. Online instructors are now faced with the challenges of designing courses that can address the needs of the students located around the globe. Keeping in view the increasing access and interest in online technical communication courses across the globe, this article presents the information and approaches for designing the online courses for those students and preparing instructors both in US and elsewhere to teach courses in changed environment. In short, the article outlines the new developments particularly in internet technology that have facilitated the increasing interest in online courses across the globe and then presents the potential approaches to formulate effective online instruction for global students.


11. Paretti, Marie C, Lisa D McNair, and Lissa Holloway-Attaway. “ Teaching Technical
Communication in an Era of Distributed Work: A Case Study of Collaboration
Between U.S. and Swedish Students.” Technical Communication Quarterly 16.3
(2007): 327-353. Print.

This article discusses the need of new framework for the technical communication faculty to train students for new roles in the workplaces characterized by distributed work. The workplaces now are increasingly networked and globalized therefore global collaborative skills are prerequisite for the potential technical communicators. Therefore, faculty has to keep up with changes in the work places which means that they need to develop courses that addresses and corresponds to the complexities in the workplace. To that end, this article reviews current scholarship on collaborations as well as presents a case study of collaboration between U.S. and Swedish students as an example of how class should be taught and what kind of working condition students should be prepared to work in the era of distributed work.

12. Pascale, Richard Tanner. “Communication and Decision Making Across Cultures:
Japanese and American Comparisons.” Administrative Science Quarterly 23.1(1978): 91-110. Print.

This article observes the communications and decision-making practices of Japanese firms operating in Japan and the United States versus American firms operating in the United States. Contrary to popular conceptions that there are differences in Japanese and American management and decision making systems, the investigation finds more similarities than differences between the two. The implication of the finding is that some kind of universalistic organizational theory should precede the particularistic factors like culture while examining and analyzing the cross-cultural practices. This data-driven study reminds that sometimes hasty generalization, cultural essentialism and stereotying could be grossly wrong. It further implies that special care should be taken while talking about managerial characteristics both within and across cultures.

13. Ulijn, Jan M, and Kirk St. Amant. “A Mutual Intercultural Perception: How Does It
Affect Technical Communication? Some Data from China, the Netherlands,
Germany, France, and Italy. Technical Communication (2000): 220-237. Print.
IED RESEARCH
This paper examines the intercultural differences in the perception of questioning and pausing. Beginning with the premise that different cultural systems and practices get reflected in people’s writing and spoken style, the authors contend that for the effective intercultural communication to take place, an understanding of those cultural factors is imperative on the part of professional communicators. The paper then provides insight into these cultural communication factors by presenting the results of an experiment involving how individuals from China, the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Italy perceived a videotaped example of intercultural business negotiations. By comparing
cultural perceptions of the same event, the paper demonstrates that culture plays a big role in how different people perceive and interpret the same situation. The experiment, claim the authors, can have implication for the professional communicators. For instance, they argue, “[B]y realizing how different cultures might perceive and interpret the same nonverbal cues differently, professional communicators can begin to understand how intercultural confusion could occur, especially in the context of a business negotiation. And this increased understanding can help communicators anticipate and reduce the degree of confusion that could occur at such negotiations” (Ulijn and Amant 235).

14. Orlikowski, Wanda J, JoAnne Yates, Kazuo Okamura, and Masayo Fujimoto.
“Shaping Electronic Communication: The Metastructuring of Technology in the
Context of Use.” Organization Science 6.4 (1995):423-444. Print.

This article contends that adapting electronic communication technologies to the contexts of use is the way to facilitate ECT in changing organizational forms. As a case study, the article presents the findings of a case study of a computer conferencing system in Japanese R & D project group. Through what the writers call technology-use mediation, effective communication was achieved in new context of use. About the metastructuring process and its implications, the authors say: “This mediation serves as an organizational mechanism for facilitating the ongoing adaptation of technologies, their use, and organizational contexts to each other and to changing conditions. The identification and articulation of the metastructuring process and of technology-use mediation have a number of implications for research and practice” (Orlikowski et.al 440)



15.Varner, Iris, and Linda Beamer .Intercultural Communication in the Global
Workplace. Chicago: IRWIN, 1995.

A coauthored textbook Intercultural Communication in the Global Workplace includes chapters on culture and communication, business language, nonverbal language in intercultural communication, intercultural negotiation etc. and therefore can be a valuable resource for the technical and business communicators. Together, the chapters provide much needed insights and skills for successful intercultural technical and business communication. It is a blend of theoretical discussion and practical tips for approaching and interacting new cultures. A number of instances and cases of cultural values and their manifestations in or implications for technical/business communication abound the textbook. In short, this textbook suggests that the explanation for any behavior should be sought in particular cultural values and worldviews that the communicator holds. That’s why this resource is valuable for workers in today’s globalized workplace.

16. Amant, Kirk St. “Online Ethos and Intercultural Technical Communication: How to
Create Credible Messages for International Audiences.” Technical Communication and World Wide Web. Eds. Carol Lipson and Michael Day. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005. 133-166. Print.

In this chapter, Amant provides technical communicators and instructors with resources to handle the misunderstanding or conflict, if any, during cross-cultural online communication. As such, the chapter is full of discussion about potential problem areas, solution and strategies and teaching tips concerning intercultural online communication. Amant believes that awareness of the potential conflict areas and strategies to resolve them can help technical communicators immensely as teaching tips do to the instructors. With the awareness, both the groups will attempt to develop international and/or cross-cultural perspective in the design of their materials or instructional activities. One thing to note here is that Amant employs ethos-based approach while discussing problem areas as well as offering solutions to resolve them. With a range of strategies, solutions, teaching tips and heuristics all across, Amant concludes the essay by recommending an array of online resources for TC, instructors and students to turn to as they design the materials for international audiences.


17. Thatcher, Barry. “Understanding Digital Literacy Across Cultures.” Digital Literacy
for Technical Communication: 21st Century Theory and Practice.New York and
London: Routledge, 2010. 169-198. Print.
In this chapter, Thatcher critiques the ethnocentrism characterizing U.S. digital media and communication and proposes what he calls a global or cross-cultural approach for understanding them across the globe. He maintains that we need four competencies in order to avoid ethnocentrism and adopt a global/cross-cultural approach such as understanding the rhetorical characteristics of the digital medium itself; adapting those characteristics to rhetorical situation of the culture in question; assessing cultural variation in target culture and finally appropriating rhetorical strategies to fit the expectations of the target culture (Thatcher 169). The chapter is divided into four parts. The essay begins with a case study highlighting the need of cross-cultural approach to digital media and communication. The following part discusses why a different approach is necessary to make sense of digital literacy in the U.S. and around the world. In the third section, Thatcher list five strategies of adapting digital media and communication for cross-cultural contexts and finally the essay ends with a case study of digital literacy adaptation to fit cross-cultural needs.

18. Sample Job applications from Nepal.
http://jobs.classifieds1000.com/Nepal/Resume/COMPUTER_RELATED_OR_FINANCE_AREAS_JOBS_NEEDED
A Nepali web site for posting job opening announcement by the employers and job application letters and resumes by the potential candidates from around the world, this site has a number of actual job applications letters and resumes of Nepali job candidates that can serve as samples for research projects in cross-cultural technical writing/communication practices.

19. Lannon, John M. Technical Communication. 11th Ed. NY: Pearson Longman, 2008.
This is a technical communication handbook designed for a class with students from across the disciplines, cultures and places. Rhetorical principles undergird the technical genres presented in the book. Published in the U.S. it could be a good source for sample job application letters and resumes for research projects in cross-cultural technical communication practices.

20. Heytze, Ingmar, and Rene Weijman. “Intercultural Technical Communication: No
Problems for Technical Writers?” Communicator 5.9 (1997): 18-19. Print.


The DOE-STIC evening held on 17 June 1996 in Utrecht, the Netherlands and devoted to intercultural communication discusses whether or not there should be different versions of documents in different cultures for one and the same machine. The questions like: Will Eskimo treat instructions for a video recorder differently from an Australian? How should a technical writer deal with differences in his products? Is the conversion of manuals for different cultures really the job of the technical writer? (19) were also considered. A number of technical communication experts expressed their views on these crucial questions. Carl Jansen (Professor of TC, Eindhoven U of Technology) deploys Hofstede (1984) and Hoft (1995) and demonstrates that the role of culture is very small while writing good technical pieces. For him, individual factors like age, sex, and education, have a greater influence. So he does not see any meaning in investment for document alteration to fit a different culture. But another expert, Gerry Gentle mentions that there are vast differences in the ways people use technical documents across cultures and languages. So employing experts from different cultures and languages for the design, composition and alteration of those documents to fit the cultural expectations could be a good idea.

Endangered Technical Writer

Santosh Khadka

Endangered Technical Writer

Among other things, essays on the special issue of Technical Communication Quarterly on content management discuss the merits and limits of content management as a system. On the one hand, “Content management provides a process of answering for questions by encouraging you to categorize and organize information for future retrieval and development. Grounded on a vision of the user experience, content management focuses not only in keeping track of information assets and making them accessible to users, it also focuses on finding new ways to deliver information to customers, employees, and business partners who need it” (JoAnn Hackos qtd in Clark 38). On the other CMS also has serious limits and problems. “One common problem facing content management systems is the disproportionate ratio between cost and effectiveness….a large percentage of such systems fail to yield the kind of effectiveness that is even remotely acceptable by industry standards. As Stephen Jeffrey-Poulter (2003) has claimed, CMS implementations have rarely successful (p. 159)” (Pullman &Gu 2). The contributors seem to imply that given the current situation of CMS, problems outweigh the merits.
Another even more shocking fact that the contributors highlight is that “technical communicators, are “often the worst served by a new content management system” (Robertson, 2002)” (Pullman & Gu 3). Since content management is a big investment, usually the entrepreneurs and managers make decisions about CMS for their enterprises which put technical writers in a precarious position. They therefore are in a do-or-die battle now as Anderseen states:
Technical communicators, whose work is situated the intersection of technology and people, will experience profound changes and thus must be prepared to either help steer the future of the development and implementation of ECM solutions or be forced to work within the confines of these systems and their enterprise-wide content and metadata models that fail to address the unique needs of rhetorical work” (68).
Therefore it is imperative that technical writers should either carve out space for themselves in the changed workplace scenario or they will become irrelevant forever. Not to wonder that software engineers and programmers have already endangered their positions. That is the reason why technical writers should find ways to combat the threats including CM to their survival. I just wonder what could those ways be. This leads me to consider the pedagogical Question: How can we prepare our students to deal with content management in the workplace, a world apart from the academia? “What does all this discussion about content management issues mean, then, for our curriculum design?” (Pullman & Gu 7).

Dave Clark: “Shaped and shaping Tools: The Rhetorical Nature of Technical Communication Technologies”

"We are Right but They are Not!

“We are right and they are wrong!” is the tendency prevalent in academia. This is true mostly in disciplinary conflicts. Each discipline tends to claim that its research outcomes and methodologies are superior and that its scope and scholarship is more comprehensive and inclusive than those of other disciplines. Similar tendency is manifest even in the old versus new scholars and their researches/scholarships within the same discipline. Some could interpret this tendency as the tension that keeps the scholarship and research alive or makes possible the evolution of knowledge and learning but I don’t know why I don’t see it that way.
I am raising this issue here for general discussion because I can see similar tendency even among some rhetoricians and technical communicators. While doing that, I am not passing any judgment but definitely saying that speaking only with and within the discipline might not change many of the things going on in the other corners of the academy. So, some kind of communication across disciplines for sharing the perspectives and approaches is indispensable if disciplinary misunderstanding and stereotypes are to be removed.
I am in fact talking about some of the rhetoricians and technical communicators I encountered recently. Look at I.A Richards’ definition of rhetoric. He defines rhetoric broadly as “the study of misunderstandings and their remedies.” (Qtd. in Wayne Booth’s Rhetoric of Rhetoric 7) or more specifically as “the art of removing misunderstanding” (Qtd. in Booth’s preface x). Similar strain is evident in Wayne Booth’s declaration that “Rhetoric is employed at every moment when one human being intends to produce, through the use of signs or symbols, some effect on another- by words, or facial expressions, or gestures, or any symbolic skill of any kind” (preface xi). He even celebrates “rhetoric as our primary alternative to violence” ( preface xi). In short, rhetoric, for him, is the “entire range of resources that human beings share for producing effects on one another: effects ethical…, practical…, emotional,…. and intellectual…” (preface xi-xii Italics original). Basically, Booth weds rhetoric with quality of life stressing the fact that the “the quality of our lives, especially the ethical and communal quality, depends to an astonishing degree on the quality of our rhetoric” (xii).
I am not being cynical here but just wondering what the folks in other disciplines might think of this characterization of rhetoric. Will they agree that the quality of our lives depend so much on the quality of our rhetoric? Do they even know that rhetoric has so immense a role and how?
Another significant point to note about Booth is that he sees rhetoric everywhere, across all disciplines. For him all the disciplines are rhetorical and knowledge production and dissemination no matter what is necessarily a rhetorical process. He argues that rhetoric is integral to all disciplines ranging from hard sciences to arts and philosophy but the question arises again whether scholars and general population in other disciplines think along the same lines?
Booth’s is the exact way Dave Clark argues about the epistemology and ontology of technical communication technologies in his essay “Shaped and shaping Tools: The Rhetorical Nature of Technical Communication Technologies” collected in Rachel Spilka’s collection Digital Literacy. He argues that technology is inherently rhetorical and “shows how understanding “the rhetoric of technology” can help us understand better the relationship of technology and our work in technical communication” (“Introduction”, Digital Literacy 12). While doing that Clark critiques many scientists and their scholarship both on science and technology as well as older technical communicators who assume technology as value-free or arhetorical/pragmatic mechanism instrumental in enhancing human life.

Calling such a view “instrumentalist” and maintaining that technology is essentially rhetorical, Clark does something unprecedented in the essay. He for the first time systematically divides technical communication theories and approaches into four categories: classical rhetorical approaches, technology transfer theories, genre theory, and activity theory and describes how they are useful in analyzing the rhetorical nature of technologies and tools being used in the workplaces.
I appreciate him for raising a number of questions including how the technical communicators learn about and assess the “broader implications” and “potential influence” of technology and what it means “to be rhetorically savvy user of technology, as opposed to uncritically allowing tools like word processors, social networking, and content management systems to structure our work?” (Clark 88) and trying to address them. But I still have the concerns expressed at the beginning. Do the folks in science believe that scientific knowledge is rhetorical? Do the innovators of technology acknowledge the rhetorical nature of their tools? If they do not, how can the rhetoricians and technical communicators communicate with them this paradoxical “truth”: there is no absolute truth, truth is provisional and knowledge is rhetorical but the knowledge that all the principles and theories including those of science and technology are rhetorical is absolutely true? How can cross-disciplinary/interdisciplinary communication be made possible and effective?

Iswari Pandey: “Researching (With) the Postnational “Other””

Iswari Pandey’s chapter “Researching (With) the Postnational “Other”” reflects his interest and investment in transnational, global as well as literacy issues and concern with research ethics and methodologies. As a self-reflexive ethnographer, Pandey explores “the limits and possibilities of researching digital literacy practices through the lens of a postnational perspective” (107). Building on the theoretical framework of postnationality and postnational literacy practices occasioned by the transnational move of people, capital and cultures or phenomena of globalization, he further explores and illustrates the complexities-excitement and challenges- involved in researching with postnational subjects and their digital literacy practices.
As does he in his own digital literacy narrative elsewhere, he tracks ideological underpinnings in digital literacy practices of postnational subjects here too and also attests to what Cynthia Selfe and Richard Selfe have characterized digital spaces as being, apart from sites for literacy practices, also “sites where different forms of oppression are reproduced: sexism, racism, colonialism, and homophobia” (qtd in Pandey 113). He finds digital space/s highly contested as are they fraught with competing set of ideologies vying for manipulation and exploitation of the postnational subjects.
Though Pandey’s major aim here is to explore gamers’ literacy development in a cultural context, his self-reflexivity towards the end is very revealing and insightful. Spotlighting his research experience with the postnational subjects, the moments of conflicts of objectives and interests between him and his research participants despite their supposed common ground and his misreading of hybridized cultural and linguistic signs produced in them (postnational subjects) by the postnational condition/s, he confesses that researching postnational participants in digital environments is fraught with risks and challenges. Such stakes and challenges lie among others in attracting research participants, understanding and interpreting their responses and representing them in the final research product. He gains a lot of insights from this research experience such as the need of creating reciprocal and collaborative research relationships between the researcher and his/her researcher participants; being more aware of the possibility of conflicts of interests and objectives between and among them despite the shared identity; defining explicitly one’s location as a researcher and understanding the participant-researcher relationship based on a clear understanding and interrogation of location, which, he deems, are instrumental to “ethical inquiry in digital writing research” (124). Similarly, he realizes that the issues of inequity, positionality or cultural/national situatedness of the researcher and research participants are equally important to understand the postnational “Other” better. Thus, for him, constant interrogation and understanding of the location/positionality of the researcher is the most prominent ethical issue while researching the postnational “Other”.
I mostly agree with Pandey’s reflections on digital writing research. Since this chapter is based on his experience as an ethnographer, his ideas and reflections are/should be to a great extent true save the potentiality of spatio-temporal variations. Though I myself align with Pandey’s stand on (post)nationality/nationalism, there are number of ways to complicate his key concept: (post)nationalism. For the purpose of debate/discussion, and since I am reading them all for my final project, I am deliberately putting Pandey and Eileen Schell/ Wendy Hesford face to face. While doing that I am not implying that Schell and Hesford are the advocates of nationalism. Not in kind, but I see between them a difference of degree in their beliefs in nationalism/postnationalism.
I am talking about Wendy S. Hesford and Eileen E. Schell’s introduction to special issue of College English on feminist rhetorics and transnationalism where they argue that the discipline of rhetoric and composition, US-centric and built around the narratives of nation, nationalism, and citizenship, would
benefit from a more critical engagement with its use of transgeographical concepts (displacement, transculuration, translocality), transnational constructs such as Paul Gilroy’s “Black Atlantic” (Sandars 812), and transnational ethnic configurations (African, African-American, West Indian people; Chicano, Puerto Rican, and Latino/Latin American people; Native American and indigenous people; Asian, Asian American, and Pacific Islander people), and consideration of the epistemological and historical ties between disciplinary formations and U.S. imperialism. (463)
If I rightly discerned, Hesford and Schell’s call in this special issue is for expanding and opening the discipline’s hitherto closed borders to transnational phenomena and experiences, insights and knowledge systems and discourses thereby extending/expanding the range and scope of “Composition Studies…constructed, indeed disciplined, as a sovereign state” (464) and particularly the feminist rhetorics. Their move is towards incorporating in the curriculum of U.S-based composition programs the ideas and contents about “how composition instruction is taught and engaged across the globe” (464).
My initial impression is that Schell and Hesford stand opposed to Pandey in their views on nation states and their subjects. Pandey terms nations postnations and their subjects postnational/transnational throughout his essay. For him every individual no matter where and how s/he is, is already transnational/postnational given the context of the demise of nation-states as distinct political and cultural unit. Schell and Hesford, however, reject this kind of characterization of nations and their subjects as: “[A]lthough some scholars claim that we live in a psotnationalist state, we align ourselves with those who account for the global reach of nationlist discourses and, more specifically, the power of U.S. policy, media, and military” (463). It may be because Pandey and Schell/Hesford stand in different discourse locations. But questions still linger: what is the role of discourse locations or ideological baggages in research? Do they affect the research methods/methodologies, analytical approaches and outcomes?

CCR 691 Annotation: Horner, Bruce and John Trimbur. “English Only and U.S. College Composition.”

Horner, Bruce and John Trimbur. “English Only and U.S. College Composition.” College Composition and Communication 53.4 (2002): 594-630.
Summary:
Bruce Horner and John Trimbur trace the pedagogical and cultural developments that have led to the conception of English writing in the United States as a unidirectional and monolingual acquisition of literate competence. While these assumptions have been motivated by the modernist ideology of "one language/one nation," the authors envision that postmodern globalization may require us to develop in our students a multilingual and polyliterate orientation to writing. They outline the shifts in curriculum, policy, and research that will promote such a broadened pedagogical orientation in the future.”

Some striking quotes:

“We argue that a tacit language policy of unidirectional English monolingualism has shaped the historical formation of U.S. writing instruction and continues to influence its theory and practice in shadowy, largely unexamined ways” (594-5)
“As we have argued, this tacit language policy weighs heavily on our work studying and teaching writing. This largely unexamined language policy has made it difficult to see that U.S. college composition, from its
formation to the present day, operates for the most part within national borders…The task…is to develop an internationalist perspective capable of understanding the study and teaching of written English in relation to other languages and to the dynamics of globalization”(623-4).

CCR 691: Annotation: Canagarajah: Geopolitics of Academic Writing

Geopolitics of Academic Writing is A. Suresh Canagarajah’s ambitious work, where he critiques the western academic journals’ insularity to non-western scholars, knowledge and/or scholarship. The non-western scholars are usually rejected on grounds of deviant discourse conventions such as awkward constructions or personal style. Canagarajah connects this gesture of western journals and publications to larger issues like west’s hegemony over and domination of east in knowledge construction, production and distribution as well as long-standing economic, social, cultural or political inequalities between the “center” west and “periphery” east. His critique of western publishing conventions, gate keeping practices and tendency to marginalize the “periphery” scholars and their knowledge/scholarship is grounded on his own experience as a Third-world scholar (at U of Jaffna, Sri Lanka) struggling to get published and recognized from the “center”. Now, a canon in ESL, Linguistics and Rhet. Comp. in US (“center”), Canagarajah, here, meticulously recounts how he managed to negotiate differing discourse conventions of his own (periphery) and the west (center) and get access into western media and thus get published from the “center”. In the text, he encourages his fellow scholars from “periphery” to implement similar coping strategies (negotiation) to get access to knowledge making process in the “center” partly because of his conviction that "it is a necessary evil that periphery scholars should use center publications even to resist their domination" (Canagarajah 12).
Canagarajah views the academic journals (primarily at the “center”) as “contact zones” in the era of globalization, where different discourse conventions from both “center” and “periphery” encounter and grapple with one another. But he is dismayed to find that unlike in other “contact zones,” grapple at the academic “contact zones” is far from fair as publishers in center have intervened and gate kept by imposing discourse conventions blind to periphery differences. He tracks a lot of economic, political and other vested interests behind the “center’s” imposing arbitrary publishing requirements and discriminatory practices of excluding, disciplining, appropriating or exploiting periphery scholarship. He then quickly links all these practices with center’s academic imperialism or domination and deems some kind of actions urgent or interactions, at the least, between scholars in the “center” and “periphery” to take stock of the existing situation. Such an interaction could be mutually beneficial. He claims that periphery scholars can benefit largely from critical engagement with center knowledge and center too can not be representative or inclusive of the global knowledge without insights or critiques from the periphery.
In a nutshell, as Canagarajah himself puts it, his argument in this book is:
academic writing holds a central place in the process of constructing, disseminating, and legitimating knowledge; however, for discursive and material reasons, Third World scholars experience exclusion from academic publishing and communication; therefore the knowledge of Third World communities is marginalized or appropriated by the West, while knowledge of Western communities is legitimated and reproduced; and as part of this process, academic writing/publishing plays a role in the material and ideological hegemony of the West. (6)
This being the overarching argument, the text, however, is divided into eight chapters. In the first chapter “Contextualizing Academic Writing,” Canagarajah prepares the context for his inquiry by highlighting center-periphery inequality of research articles and connecting it with center’s hegemony or domination over periphery knowledge and scholarship. In the second, “Communities of Knowledge Construction,” he analyses the discourse communities in the center and periphery through historical-materialist framework and maintains that “knowledge… [is] interested and, therefore, ideological" (57). He finds conflicting discourses and disciplines or discourse communities in the center too but negotiated for the purpose of benefit, power and influence. In the third chapter, “Conventions in Knowledge Construction,” he explores how knowledge is constructed in the center by enacting academic gate keeping conventions which are politically and economically motivated. In short, chapter two and three “introduce the theoretical constructs that help conduct the inquiry” (Canagarajah 4). Canagrajah discusses the differences in textual conventions in the writings of center and periphery scholars in chapter four, “Textual Conventions in Conflict”. As opposed to general tendency of associating center-periphery disparity in conventions and styles of writing with cultural or linguistic differences, he analyses the differences along the lines of material disparities. With material, he also couples ideological underpinning behind adopting certain kind of rhetorical convention or style as, for instance, in the center’s case, says Canagarajah, “there are profound ideological implications in adopting a rhetoric that is detached, neutral, and uninvolved" (153).
Similarly, in chapter five, “Publishing Requirements and Material Constraints,” Canagrajah “explores the publishing conventions established by center editorial circles and the ways in which periphery scholars attempt to meet such requirements in the context of limited resources” (4). Recounting and based on his own experience as a periphery scholar hard faced with poverty and material constraints and yet struggling to meet the publishing requirements set by the center, he infers that western publishing requirements choke the periphery scholars and their scholarship as majority of them lack enough material resources to meet the publishing requirements. Chapter six, “Literacy Practices and Academic Culture,” presents the political economy of literacy in periphery. As an insider, Canagarajah here presents the academic culture of periphery scholars shedding light on how it functions as the cause and consequence of their exclusion from the mainstream publications at the center. Chapter seven, “Poverty and Power in Knowledge Production,” deals with the center-periphery inequalities as is reflected in publishing practices and knowledge construction. This chapter also demonstrates how production inequality translates into power inequality between the center and periphery. Finally, in chapter eight, “Reform, Resistance, Reconstruction,” Canagarajah declares his goal in writing this volume. He maintains that his attempt is to” deconstruct the bases of “excellence” in published scholarship and knowledge construction. This is an argument for changing the relationships in the publication networks so that we can reconstruct knowledge- and presumably conduct international relations-in more egalitarian and enriching terms” (305). He therefore calls for some visible changes in publishing world and practices in order to "democratize participation" (276) of scholars from both the center and periphery. This, according to him, can be ascertained by forging a relationship between the center and periphery academic communities, “based on respect for the local knowledge of each community,” which “would serve to democratize academic communication and knowledge production” (4) as well as by accommodating multiple modes of literacy and textual practices.


Though his ambitious attempt to deconstruct the existing academic and publishing conditions and create “relatively more democratic fora of scholarly interaction,” (305) or “reconstitute discourses and structures in progressively more inclusive, ethical, and democratic terms,” (30) is far from realistic, his suggestions for periphery scholars to use coping strategies to get access into mainstream academic journals and thereby knowledge construction process are worth emulating. He suggests them to choose hybrid textuality as he does in this book: “[t]he periodic narrative sections, the self-reflective commentary, and the unabashed personal voice are interspersed with documented detached analysis to achieve hybrid textuality in this book” (Canagarajah 30). Similarly significant is his call on periphery scholars to continue interrogating knowledge produced by the center and proposal for the mainstream journals to democratize the scholarly participation if they wish to go global. He, in connection with center’s desirable gesture, says,” reforming publishing conventions to accommodate the work of periphery academics might well function as a humble beginning toward democratic processes in knowledge production and, by extension, geopolitical relations” (305). Thus, his call for some degree of compromise or negotiation from both the parties in question is timely and is much needed gesture to reduce, even if not to end, the existing disparities between them. One more thing that is of paramount importance is his speculation that “[T]hrough such processes of mediation, negotiation, and even argument, center and periphery scholars may establish mutually enriching scholarly discourses and more ethical knowledge-construction practices” (31).

Shirley Logan: “Private Learners: Self-Education in Rhetoric”

Shirley Logan: “Private Learners: Self-Education in Rhetoric”

In the second chapter of Liberating Language, Logan examines closely five private learners of “some form of self-education” (29)—Charlotte Forten Grimke, Frances Anne Rollin Whipper, Ida B. Wells Barnett, Mary Virginia Montgomery, and Charles W. Chestnut—who “spent a good deal of time on self-improvement, especially in reading, writing, speaking, and critiquing the rhetorical performances of others, and who all recorded various aspects of their private learning in diaries” (30). Through archival research and rhetorical analysis of their published diary entries and unpublished manuscripts, she presents diary keeping as a site of rhetorical acts and claims that diary-keeping also serves rhetorical education. In addition to regarding their diary keeping as literacy practices for self-education/improvement, she further argues that their diaries “provide additional insight into the complex intellectual lives of blacks in the mid-and late nineteenth century” (32). According to her, these diarists turned to different available resources from self-help manuals to local libraries; attended public speeches and meetings and undertook various literate/literacy activities from writing letters to biographies to newspaper articles in order to self-educate. The driving force behind their pursuit was their quest for respectability, independence, racial equality, rhetorical/oratorical skills, and/or “race improvement through self-improvement” (55).

Her archival and analytical work being worth emulating and her treatment of diary-keeping as a site of rhetorical action/education being innovative, I can however see few problematic issues in this chapter.

First, she makes big claims based on just five diarists though she confesses that “these five diarists are not representative of the majority of nineteenth-century African Americans” (31). When she knows that these cases neither represent majority of nineteenth century diarists/diaries nor AA people, how could or on what ground could she draw so many generalizations?

Next, her use of the term self-education seems equally problematic. None of the diarists she discusses is solely self-educated. In contrast, all of them have different degree of formal schooling/academic training. Since nowhere does she discuss these diarists’ academic courses and course components, it is really hard to determine what rhetorical/literate skills they learned from school/training and what from “self-study/ies”. It is apparent from the text that these diarists’ learning/education is occurring simultaneously at the formal and informal settings. For instance, “[m]ost of… (Grimke’s) rhetorical work took place in her writing and in her classrooms” (39). Similarly, Rollin collaborated with Richard Greener, a Harvard scholar. Rollin also “had an impressive array of associates reading and critiquing her work” (41). Almost similar is Chestnut’s case. “His own self-education project supplied much of his education, but he also had the benefit of sound training at the postbellum Howard school” (49). Moreover, she herself at one point says: “Even though they functioned singly as individuals pursuing various kinds of knowledge, these pursuits inevitably led them to external audiences and collective engagements” (56). That is why, I am hesitating to call their pursuits self-education. I would rather be content to call their endeavors something like self-initiated learning. In fact, they don’t educate themselves rather their learning is facilitated by a number of factors—internal and external—their strong motivation, their exposure to a number of rhetorical acts like public speech, public reading, writing as well as their own involvement into various rhetorical situations/actions. Once into interactions/discussions, it is actually difficult to say for sure who teaches whom and when. And it is not necessary that teaching happens only in the formal settings. At times we learn from mentors, peers and even juniors unconsciously. Even being influenced or moved or shaped by people, ideas and actions unaware is possible.

Ethical Dilemmas in Feminist Research

Ethical Dilemmas in Feminist Research: The Politics of Location, Interpretation and Publication

In chapter 2 of her book Ethical Dilemmas in Feminist Research: The Politics of Location, Interpretation and Publication, Gesa E. Kirsch examines the moments and instances of ethical dilemmas in researcher-participants relations and offers some suggestions to resolve or reduce them. She discusses the complexities and stakes involved in the interpretation and representation of research data (primarily the interview responses) in chapter 3.

Some such dilemmas that arise as a result of treating research participants as collaborators/co-researchers are:
The feminist research methodology encourages researchers to maintain a close relation with research participants but at the same time also demands critical scrutiny of participants’ interviews. Sometimes, researcher’s offering of critique and reflection might turn the existing intimacy and collaboration into “disappointment, alienation, and exploitation of participants” (26).

Ethical dilemma also arises when the participants reveal confidential information but do not want the researchers to publicize it. It could be hard for the researchers to decide whether to respect the participants’ request or break the trust and be loyal to the research project by covering the crucial information thus disclosed.

At times, researchers might realize that the participants are not being honest and providing correct information. Dilemma in such cases is whether to stick to participants’ views or act otherwise.

The feeling of being manipulated or exploited might come to researchers as well when they are dealing with the participants from culturally/economically privileged positions. In such a situation, the researcher might not feel the obligation of treating the participants ethically, rather might want to critique them.

Similar dilemma plagues researchers when they find the participants engaged in some problematic behaviors.

Kirsch also brings forth strategies to come to terms with such ethical dilemmas. First in order is to develop realistic and perhaps limited expectations about collaborating with participants while designing qualitative research (36). Readiness on both participants and researchers’ ends to critical feedback; granting participants the right to co-interpretation; simultaneous presentation of participants’ interpretation’; researcher bearing the responsibility of interpretation could be other ways of handling dilemmas. Yet another could be renegotiating the consent of participants in case the research focus or direction changes.

In chapter 3, Kirsch mostly discusses the interpretive conflicts between the researcher and participants which “range from disagreements between researchers and participants about the meaning of research data, such as interview, narratives and observations, to conflict in values and ideology” (45). She elaborates on the complexity involved in making participants the co-interpreters of research data.

Since the participants and researchers come up with different interpretive frameworks while analyzing data, the resulting conflict could have serious consequences. Deciding whose interpretation is valid could be tougher. Representation through researchers’ interpretations alone could be misrepresentation and their empowering intentions could have silencing effects on the participants.

Kirsch sees no way but negotiation, dialogue and granting participants the space in research report to reduce dilemmas or conflicts. But I have some questions and concerns with her recommendation too.

Regarding the suggestion to put participants’ interpretation side by side with researchers’, or produce “multi-vocal” research reports, my concern is that not all research participants would be capable of interpreting their experiences/stories or information. Depending on who the participants and where they are from, at times their interpretations might appear politically naïve and even ignorant. Putting their interpretation side by side with researchers’ could have ironic effect.

Kirsch is constantly emphasizing on researchers’ ethical obligations to participants, research communities, institutions and/or other stakeholders. But my sense is that at times, researchers confront hostilities or threats. My take is that researchers should choose to encounter whatever comes on the way be it hostility or threat. Some of the sensational researchers have been threatened or shot dead for their disclosure of all wrongdoings of oppressive institutions like military or totalitarian government.

The Means of Production: Literacy and Stratification at the Twenty-First Century

Santosh Khadka

The Means of Production: Literacy and Stratification at the Twenty-First Century
-Deborah Brandt

As Brandt mentions, she “explore[s] the issues of access, proficiency and reward of literacy learning” in relation to larger historical and socio-economic conditions in this particular chapter. To that end, she begins the chapter with the general observation that there is a correlation between socio-economic status of individuals and their literacy achievements by which she means to say that literacy and material/political privilege are very closely connected. She then argues that individuals from relatively well-off families have access to resources/means to gain literacy more easily and quickly compared to many other less fortunate folks. Thus, the inequitable distribution of resources/means of production and power across people, families, regions and nations, she implies, is the reason why different individuals gain different types and degrees of literacy/ies which, in turn, help/s to maintain the status quo of social, economic and literacy inequities.

Interestingly, Brandt discusses literacy in this chapter in very materialistic terms. She regards literacy in post-capitalist and information age as labor power, an input, output, a tool, an instrument and means of production, a raw material as well as energy supply of the Information Age. By doing so, she however undermines the fact that there are at least few people in the world who think that literacy is its end.

Brandt backs up her view that class stratification and literacy are closely connected as are resources of an individual’s literacy achievement and nation’s economic system with the findings from two case studies. Her first case study recounts the digital literacy narrative of a male, white American guy named Raymond Branch who hails from a relatively well-off family while the second one presents the Spanish language learning experience of a female, Mexican American lady, Dora Lopez from economically not so-sound family. Through these studies, she shows that because of their differential socio-economic/material conditions, their access to and achievement of types and degrees of literacy varied making a great difference in what they could or not achieve in job market. Raymond had access to computer technology resources at an elite school and its rich surrounding by virtue of his father being a professor. He reaped the full advantage of those available resources and developed expertise in computer programming which he could easily cash in the market. But Dora could not be in the same position because her father was migrant worker and her socio-economic situation did not let her get into a better school and gain a saleable literacy skill. With Raymond and Dora’s literacy narratives, Brandt maintains that inequitable distribution of resources across individuals, families and regions is the root cause of literacy differentials between/among them which, in turn, is responsible for continuing the existing racial, class and sexual and regional disparities /differences.

I agree with Brandt’s argument but with few reservations. Firstly, I have reservation with her methodology which is the kind of reservation people usually have with qualitative research methods. It occurs to me that just two samples/cases might not be enough to make so many generalizations about the relationship between material forces at work and literacy achievement. Granted, the argument and interpretive leaps could be made based on those cases but the question arises whether or not the cases are representative or reflective of the complexity of the issue at hand. For instance, in Dora’s case, it might not be the material forces but flaw in her individual preference/choice of Spanish language literacy over many others which could sell in the market like Branch’s computer programming that she did not succeed economically. As such nowhere does Dora say with Brandt that she regrets her choice or she thinks that she failed.

Secondly, Brandt’s take that Branch’s access to material resources made possible by his father’s education and employment is the sole cause of his success as a computer programmer/professional could also be mistaken in that it discounts Branch’s individual motivation/interest, his diligence and labor or, in short, his agency. Similarly, Brandt’s accusation on Lopez’s socio-economic status as solely responsible factor for her relatively less success as economical agent or instrument could also be flawed. This line of argument again shuts the possibility of an individual transcending or overcoming the economic barriers/hurdles.

But I agree with what she states in the later part of the essay that “access to computers and control over them is unequally distributed in the same ways that traditional literacy has been unequally distributed: by income, race, region and occupation”. While I agree with geo-political disparity in access to technology, I still can’t deny the possibility of an individual crossing the so-called digital divide. Similarly, I challenge the idea that access alone guarantees the success. It could well be the case that many with access do not master the machine while many without access manage to get and gain mastery. This is the case with countries like India which despite its late/difficult access to information technology has already managed to be one of the leading countries in that sector.

Annotation CCR 611 Feb 11

Mastuda, Paul Kei. “Composition Studies and ESL Writing: A Disciplinary Division of Labor.” CCC 50.4 (1999): 699-721.
Summary: Mastuda examines how the division between composition studies and Teaching of English as Second Language emerged specifically over the period of 1941 to 1966 due to the professionalization of TESL just when composition studies was also undergoing a revision of its own disciplinary identity that, according to him, inadvertently contributed to the creation of the disciplinary division of labor influencing the institutional practices in composition programs across the nation even today. Towards the end, he points out the need of some form of interdisciplinary collaboration between the Composition Studies and TESL to address the issue of writing in ESL since it falls under the ken of both the disciplines.

Most Valuable Citation: Allen, Bloomfield, Connor, Kaplan, Zamel.
Area Cluster: 107 Institutional and Professional
Methodology: Literature Review,
Provocative Quotes:
“Before the Michigan ELI (English Language Institute) was established in 1941, it was commonly believed that anyone whose native language was English was qualified to teach English to nonnative speakers-much as some thought any literate person could teach writing” (703).
“The creation of a professional organization (TESOL) that devoted itself entirely to ESL issues and the decline of interest in those issues among composition specialists led to the separation of writing issues into first-language and second-language components. The disciplinary division of labor was thus institutionalized” (713).


“…second-language writing should be seen as an integral part of both composition studies and second-language studies, and specialists in both professions should try to transform their institutional practices in ways that reflect the needs and characteristics of second-language writers in their own institutional contexts” (715).

Tags: Allen, Bloomfield, Connor, Kaplan, Zamel, TESL, professionalization, disciplinary identity, ESL Writing, interdisciplinary relationship, Disciplinary Division of Labor















Daniell, Beth. “Narratives of Literacy: Connecting Composition to Culture.” College Composition and Communication 50 (1999): 393-410.
Summary: Beth contends that various narratives of literacy-grand narratives, ethnographic, little narratives-over the years have influenced and continue to shape the images we in composition studies have of who we are, what we do, and how we do it. Using Lyotard as a terministic screen to examine these narratives she brings to light a number of issues: the conflicted politics of composition studies over the last two or three decades, the relationship of theory and ideology, the ethical questions of research, the problematics of separating the spiritual from academic study. And she finally maintains that literacy is a term that now "illuminates the ways that individual acts of writing are connected to larger cultural, historical, and social and political systems" (408).
Methodology: Archival, Bibliographic
Most Valuable Citation: Havelock, Ong, Berlin, Freire, Lyotard
Area Cluster: 112 Community, Civic & Public
Provocative quotes:
“Indeed the move in composition studies away from the individualistic and cognitive perspectives of the seventies and early eighties toward the social theories and political consciousness that prevail today was encouraged, pushed along, impelled by competing narratives of literacy. These days, literacy- the term and concept-connects composition, with its emphasis on students and classrooms, to the social, political, economic, historical, and cultural” (393).
“To see reading and writing as social practice mediated and regulated by institutions instead of as a free-standing, individual mental operation supplied composition with a different lens to use in looking at our students, their texts, and our own work. The idea that writing and writing instruction were deeply connected with power became, with Berlin's histories, a mainstream idea” (399).
“The problem with grand narratives is the unfortunate human tendency to overgeneralize from them: The Freire narrative has been used to support a discourse that sometimes seems to assume that all our students are oppressed” (400).
“Freire has shown that a "banking" pedagogy can support oppressive structures elsewhere in society and that literacy and literacy learning can be liberatory in some situations. But we have learned from experience that neither Freire's methods nor his critique will automatically bring critical consciousness to North America” (401).
“literacy is multiple, contextual, and ideological” (403).
Taken as a whole, the little narratives argue as well that the relationship between literacy and oppression or freedom is rarely as simple as we have thought” (403).
“…literacy, including instruction in writing, is woven into a society's structures of power” (405).

“As the little narratives make clear, literacy can oppress or resist or liberate, and the best of these studies present the simultaneity of these ideological contradictions” (406)

Tags: Havelock, Ong, Berlin, Freire, Lyotard, little narratives, grand narratives, oppression, literacy, liberatory, orality





Willians, Bronwyn T. “Speak for Yourself? Power and Hybridity in the Cross-Cultural Classroom.” College Composition and Communication 54.4 (2003):586-609.
Summary: “In this article I use the lens of postcolonial theory to reflect on my uses of a varied series of writing pedagogies in cross-cultural classrooms at an international college. Such reflection helps reveal how relations of power between teacher and students and underlying ideological assumptions about knowledge and discourse often resulted in hybrid responses of mimicry, frustration, incomprehension, and resistance. A pedagogy constructed against the backdrop of postcolonial theory might provide both students and their teacher in such a cross-cultural setting with a more complex and useful way of understanding issues of power, discourse, identity, and the role of writing” (586).
Research Methodology: sampling, interviews
Most Valuable Citation: Bhabha, Appadurai, Spivak, Pratt, Newkirk
Area Cluster: 103 Theory
Provocative Quotes:
“Though the pursuit of writing as a fundamental part of the liberal education was the goal of the course, the underlying ideological assumptions about knowledge and discourse often led to mutual frustration, resistance, incomprehension, and aporia” (587).

“To teach in a cross-cultural classroom with such terms as originality and analysis as an unexamined foundation perpetuates a disruptive epistemic violence for the students trying to come to terms with these unstated assumptions of power and the dominant culture” (589).

“Any writing about experiences that the student in a cross-cultural classroom might do is necessarily done in ways that serve the interpolation of that student into the dominant culture no less than the overt assimilation attempted through the current-traditional assignments” (594).

“For postcolonial students in a Western classroom, this presence of the Other in the dominant culture as "somewhere between the too visible and the not visible enough," (Bhabha, "Culture's" 56, author's emphasis) is a site of ambivalence and resistance to the attempts of the dominant culture's inscription and control” (603).
“Rather than either trying to assimilate students into the dominant culture's discourse or helping them seek an ahistorical, apolitical synthesis from cultural differences, we should instead engage with them in an exploration of the cultural conflicts and power struggles often hidden in a cross-cultural writing classroom” (607).
Tags: Bhabha, Appadurai, Spivak, Pratt, Newkirk , Postcolonial, Hybridity, Resistance, mimicry, assimilation, dominant discourse, gaze, contact zone, multicultural, ideology, power, fractals














Horner, Bruce and John Trimbur. “English Only and U.S. College Composition.” College Composition and Communication 53.4 (2002): 594-630.
Summary:
Bruce Horner and John Trimbur trace the pedagogical and cultural developments that have led to the conception of English writing in the United States as a unidirectional and monolingual acquisition of literate competence. While these assumptions have been motivated by the modernist ideology of "one language/one nation," the authors envision that postmodern globalization may require us to develop in our students a multilingual and polyliterate orientation to writing. They outline the shifts in curriculum, policy, and research that will promote such a broadened pedagogical orientation in the future.”
Most Valuable Citation: Canagarajah, Crawford, Lu, Kachru, Zamel
Area Cluster: 108 Language
Provocative Quotes:
“We argue that a tacit language policy of unidirectional English monolingualism has shaped the historical formation of U.S. writing instruction and continues to influence its theory and practice in shadowy, largely unexamined ways” (594-5)
“As we have argued, this tacit language policy weighs heavily on our work studying and teaching writing. This largely unexamined language policy has made it difficult to see that U.S. college composition, from its
formation to the present day, operates for the most part within national borders…The task…is to develop an internationalist perspective capable of understanding the study and teaching of written English in relation to other languages and to the dynamics of globalization”(623-4).

Tags: Canagarajah, Crawford, Lu, Kachru, Zame, English Only, Global English, Monolingualism, Internationalist perspective, bilingualism, language policy, multilingualism, nationhood, ESL

Reflection on my MEcology over this Semester

Reflection on my MEcology over this Semester
In hindsight of the course, what I realize now is that CCR 720 worked as a catalyst to bring about a change in my personality, attitude towards technology and day-to-day activities/ecology. It is, in fact, hard to believe that someone as good as me who had limited computer technology to typing and printing, email exchanges and basic internet search for years now uses different online tools, platforms and fora for social networking, multimedia exchanges and expressing private thoughts and ideas in addition to conducting various transactions/activities online . Similarly unbelievable thing that has happened over the semester is that my teaching approaches limited earlier to traditional print literacy are being increasingly informed by new media/digital technology. It is a miracle in fact that has happened. I now can recall how ignorant and dumb I was at the beginning of 720 class. I could hardly figure out what was going on in the class because everything was so new to me (Collin uses the term “brand new”). That’s the reason why I could not actively take part in the class discussion (for which I regret now) though I gradually got hang of the things. To my own surprise, I now know how to make IMovie, webpage (beyond my imagination earlier), use Photoshop, Flash and Power point which can come handy for so many purposes from pedagogical to professional, personal to institutional. I am now a technoman; this is CCR 720’s (Collin’s) gift.
I know I am supposed to talk here how my adoption of new media, digital platforms or fora this semester changed my day-to-day activities. I am sorry though I could not suppress my feel that I learned a lot from this course and my day-to-day professional and personal activities have been influenced greatly by my new understanding and knowledge of computer technology and their increasing use in composing practices. It seems that my digital literacy that spreads across divides makes a fascinating story. Before beginning this course I had virtually no idea of what blog was or Facebook, Twitter or Tagged accounts were let alone personal webpage and maintaining them was out of question. But now I have all of them and navigate, visit, update or use them regularly/periodically for various purposes. They have already been integral parts of my life.
I have maintained a personal blog. But unlike its typical use for commenting or describing events, uploading/sharing videos/audios or expressing personal ideas or feelings in the forms of poems or short narratives, I have used the space to store my notes and completed projects. In fact, since I was also required to maintain a blog with periodical entries of notes for Iswari’s class, I am now using the same blog to put notes for all the courses as well as store all my finished projects. This has totally changed my earlier habit of jotting notes on notebook and storing my completed projects in folders in my PC. Now I have also my webpage to store the finished projects though. But the advantage of storing them in blog is that they are ever available online and anybody can just access and use them. I am also thinking of using blog to compose poems or short stories or record my thoughts on just anything but I have yet to make that move.
My God!! Facebooking!! It has totally altered my ecology. Someone like me whose digital narrative spreads across divide and who was totally unaware that social networking sites like Facebook did exist few months back now spends hours facebooking—exchanging messages, photos and videos; commenting on status update, taking quizzes and doing so many other stuffs difficult even to name. After being in Facebook, I am using other media of communication like email, messenger and cell phone increasingly less on the one hand but on the other, and sadly, I feel that I am killing my invaluable time. The problem I am facing is that I just can’t restrain myself from checking who uploaded photos; what is going with whom; what comments someone passed on my stuffs and who added me as a friend. It is frustrating at times to know that my valuable time is being wasted for “academically less significant activities” but the moment of joy quickly returns when the thought that I am just a click away from hundreds of friends, that I can communicate with all of them at once and that I can exchange and store stuffs, and of course chat and do score of other things in one platform possesses me. Since it is an integration of multiple applications and programs, I console myself saying that I am performing multiple digital/online activities from one site and my time typically spent on messengers, email and other multimedia exchanges is being saved. Upon reflection, I also find that my feel that I am wasting time has root in my changed MEcology. New media was not a part of my life until fairly recently. May be they will start becoming integral to my life as my other cherished activities once I assimilate them and make them part of regular activities.
I am also regularly updating my status in Twitter and using Tagged for exchanging messages, photos, journals and videos. But I am yet to figure out the fundamental differences in social networking sites like Tagged, hi 5 and Facebook. Facebook seems to have combined all the features of Twitter, Tagged, hi5 and such other sites though there are some surface differences like in Twitter there are people following and being followed by one another. And status updates are immediately delivered to the other users who have signed up to receive them which does not happen in Facebook. But my perception now is that it is wise and time saving to use only one or two of such platforms regularly than to maintain a number of them spending a lot of time.
My final thoughts on these platforms: because blog is interactive and also because people can comment and share ideas, it has professional, scholarly or pedagogical potential. My professors at U of Louisiana and some even here required us to post on blogs regularly. They obviously saw and there obviously is pedagogical implication of this online forum. It can undoubtedly be used for scholarly exchanges of thoughts and ideas. This is the reason why there are types of blogs ranging from professional to corporate to personal. Likewise, Facebook, Twitter, Tagged and hi5 can be used for group activities and exchanges thus can be fora for networking, relation-building and information sharing. Since these activities are central to so many organizational and personal undertakings, they also have professional and corporate implications. I can see that our students can benefit by using these sites and platforms and I plan to encourage them towards that direction. At this point, I must also confess that I am still novice and have not yet reached the stage to be able to see for the unconventional use of these media and sites. But one thing now is uncontested: Santosh now is different Santosh few months back. Santosh is new media man, a techno friendly guy who successfully crossed and is on the other side of digital divide now.

Reflection: “What I learned in CCR 601 this fall”

Reflection: “What I learned in CCR 601 this fall”
Looking back at CCR 601, what flashes in my mind is Margaret’s ever smiling face and her brilliant moderation of class discussion. On top of that liveliness of the class, critical engagement with the “polemical” (Margaret’s word) texts carefully culled from the store of Rhet. Comp and thought sharing and interactions (though I was not as interactive as others in the class) are, I think, some of the things that have left indelible imprints in my mind. May be largely because this is the first time I had a full-fledged course on various issues of composition studies, I benefitted the most from this course. I had almost no idea of what composition or rhetoric was until I landed in US. First semester at U of Louisiana got spent on figuring out what rhetoric or composition as an area of study was. I got oriented towards the disciple nevertheless there. CCR 601 was thus the first course that truly introduced me to the key issues, debates, tenets and tropes of composition (studies). I must acknowledge that I learned whole bunch of things from this course. I also stole some of the teaching techniques from Margaret—particularly her way of initiating and sustaining class discussion. Similarly, I got struck by the fact that text selection makes a great difference in class activities and interactions. I obviously can not tell everything that I learned from CCR 601 here. Nevertheless I am attempting to articulate to the extent possible.
The best way to begin is to have a look at Margaret’s course plans, required readings and assignments for the course. Her plans and assignments were instituted around few distinct stages and there lay what she expected her students (us) learn from the course. She had two mappings, one each of interviewing, tracing and gesturing/locating in the disciplinary conversation, reviewing and final reflection as the activities as well as assignments for the course. I think these were also the skills she wanted us to learn. These activities and assignments accompanied by thought-provoking and controversial texts like The University in Ruins by Bill Readings, Rhetorics, Poetics, Cultures by James Berlin, Composition in the University: Historical and Polemical Essays by Sharon Crowley, Language Diversity in the Classroom: From Intention to Practice ed by Geneva Smitherman and Victor Villanueva, The End of Composition Studies by David W. Smit and couple of other contemporary and most cited articles from the field of composition not only made the class exciting but also made me aware of the ongoing debates and discussions in the discipline. They also taught me a number of skills as Margaret had ingeniously imagined her students learning from the course.
Course readings introduced and familiarized me with the key issues and debates in the field. I learned that freshman composition as required course is highly contested and that Rhetoric and Composition as an emerging discipline is defined by the centripetal and centrifugal forces. These ones are also the ones prompting the disciplinary and interdisciplinary moves in the field. For instance, Sharon Crowley’s call to abolish the freshman comp and develop a solid disciplinary composition program is undercut by David W. Smit’s call to eradicate the generic freshman comp and spread writing across disciplines as writing across curriculum or writing in disciplines. I understood that though these calls seem antithetical they are but the realities in Rhet. Comp. Bill Readings’ The University in Ruins compelled me to see how not only rhetoric or composition as a discipline but whole academia is increasingly becoming disconnected from the notion of nations and nationalism as the waves of globalization are rendering the traditional political, cultural, economic and other borders irrelevant. Thus, with the demise of nation states as the sovereign entities, Readings brought me home the state of “ruins” the postmodern universities are in. They have now been the bureaucratic corporations driven by capitalism and attendant ideologies and hardly ever concerned about the traditionally cherished ideals and values. His ideas on how we can rebuild productive academic culture even out of “ruins” if we just cast away our alibis and come to the class with open mind and heart for negotiation clicked my head. I was similarly awe-struck by Smitherman and Villanueva’s edited collection Language Diversity. I was shocked to know how complicated the issue of language diversity in composition classroom is and how something acknowledged and sanctioned as necessary and inevitable half a century ago is yet to be implemented due to the complicated nature of case at hand. I got totally divided over the issue (in fact I was divided over almost all the issues that came up in the class). At first, I was driven by the idea that students should have rights to their languages. They are to be given the liberty to use their languages (even mother tongues or English variants) in composition classroom and practices if they choose to do so. This is what democracy or equality is. This continued to be my conviction until I thought really hard the issue putting myself at times in the place of a teacher who is to handle the classroom situations with students who speak and compose in nobody knows how many languages. I could then see that the issue at hand is not as simple as thought and needs a lot of debate, discussion, exploration and research before any policy can be formulated.
Now again I am realizing that I won’t be able to tell everything I learned from this course here. Many of the things I learned are the things internalized, conceptualized or even assimilated and are therefore inarticulate. Still I can confidently say that skills I learned through activities, discussion and assignments have been invaluable. My interviewing of Iswari and reading of his scholarly projects and later reporting coupled with reading of other faculty works proved to me the most fruitful thing in this semester. I could learn from him how people pursue scholarly work/s and how much labor, devotion and perseverance such work/s demand/s from us. I also got inspired by his ongoing project of globalizing composition and composing globalisms. I could see some potential openings for my future projects in the areas he was exploring. I don’t mean that only Iswari’s projects triggered my interest. All CCR faculty’s projects provided greater insights and helped me see the range of areas they are involved in from computer technology to transnational feminism to federal coding. It was the time well spent, to be precise. Next, book review, in addition to providing me the opportunity to learn the genre, helped me see how scholars like A. Suresh Canagarajah are theorizing academic writing and composition in the context of globalization and plural Englishes. Here is where my interest to explore the issues at a little greater length was aroused which resulted into my writing a seminar paper on the same issues for Iswari’s course. In the same vein, with mapping essays, though I was little confused at the outset, I learned to look at the overarching argument/s or trope/s in the texts. These essays required of me a lot of readings and close attention to the texts. I nevertheless could produce good essays at the end.
I have not yet confessed that with Collin’s archival work and our reading of citation politics and top ten most cited articles from CCC plus one essay on discourse conventions, I learned how challenging it is to gesture to a discipline and get published in scholarly journals of our field. I also understood how important publication is to our career as writing professionals and how those most cited articles are most cited because majority of them added new dimensions to our disciple.
Thus, with all the activities, assignments, readings, research and discussions in and out of the class, I learned a lot of skills and ideas. Learned again to be patient, take challenge and see that way ahead is thorny but not depressing. Hopefully I can use these skills in my future endeavors or transfer them to my teaching career or professional life. My overall impression of the class: Margaret’s class was awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

James Berlin's Social-Epistemic Rhetoric, Ideology, and English Studies





Berlin defines social-epistemic rhetoric as "the study and citique of signifying practices in their relation to subject formation within the framework of economic, social, and political conditions." (83)





Ideology in Rhetoric





Berlin suggests us to examine the ideological predisposition while considering any rhetoric. His starting point is that "no set of signifying practices can lay claim to a disinterested pursuit of transcendental truth; all are engaged in the play of power and politics, regardless of their intentions." (83)



"Ideology interpellates subjects-that is, addresses and shapes them - through discourses that offer directives about three important domains of experience: what exists, what is good, and what is possible." (84)

"Ideology always brings with it strong social and cultural reinforcement, so that what we take to exist, to have value, to be possible seems necessary, normal, and inevitable- in the nature of things." (84)



Berlin finally claims that, "Ideology is minutely inscribed in the discourse of daily practice, where it emerges as pluralistic and conflicted. A given historical moment displays a wide variety of competing ideologies, and each subject displays permutations of these conflicts, although the overall effect is to support the hegemony of dominant group" (84)



An individual in such a situation is a site of a variety of significations, an intersection and influence of various conflicted discourses- discourses about class, race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, religion and the like.

An individual in addition to being a location is also "an agent of change, not simply an unwitting product of external discursive and material forces. The subject negotiates and resists codes rather than simply accomodating them" (85).

Social Constructionist Rhetoric

Social Constructionist Rhetoric position acknowledges the "influences of social forces in the formation of the individual" (85). This rhetoric sees the "critical examiation of the subtle effects of signifying practices as key to egalitarian decision making." (86)
example: communiction course after World War II, Rhetoric of public discourse during 1960s and 70s.

Social Constructionist Rhetoric is flawed if viewed from the postmodern perspective. "While this rhetorical approach emphasizes the communal and social constitution of subjectivity, it never abandons the notion of the individual as finally a sovereign free agent, capable of transcending material and social conditions." (Berlin 86).

In short the major flaw of this rhetoric is that "it is incapable of examining its own ideological commitments mistaking them for accurate reflections of eternal truths. It accepts its own signifying practices as finally indisputably representative if things-in-themselves." (86-7)

Social-Epistemic Rhetoric

Social-epistemic retains alot from earlier social rhetorics but its departures are not less significant.
The first is that it revived the process rhetoric that "writing is... discovery and invention, not mere reproduction and transmission" (87). The second departure is that this rhetoric used the postmodern critique of Enlightenment conceptions of signification, the subject, and foundational narratives. Poststructuralism provided a way to more adequately discuss fully the operative elements of social-epistemic rhetoric. In other words, social-epistemic rhetoric informs and is informed by the poststructuralism.

Another most important point about this rhetoric is that it is self-reflexive. It acknowledges "its own rhetoricity, its own discursive constitution and limitations. This means that it does not deny its inescapable ideological predispositions, its politicality and situated condition" (88). While it contains a "utopian moment, a conception of the good democratic society and good life for all of its members.. it is (also) aware of historical contingency, of its limitations adn incompleteness, remaining open to change and revision." (88)

This rhetoric does not hold as many other rhetorics do that "the subject of the rhetorical act is no the unified,coherent, autonomous, transcendent subject of liberal humanism. Instead for this rhetoric, the subject is "multiple and conflicted, composed of numerous subject formations and positions" (88). Similarly, a subject of a discourse is " a construction, a fabrication, established through the practices. This means that all of us have multiple selves as Berlin says, "Each of us has available a multiplicity of selves we might call on, but not all of which are appropriate for every discourse situation" (88). The point here is that we can have multiple positions and personas depending on situations and contigencies. "Each of us displays a measure of singualrity"(88), claims Berlin adding that "our own separate position in networks of intersecting discourses makes for differences among us as well as possibilities for political agency, for resistance and negotiation in responding to discursive appeals" (88). Thus "the subject is a construct of signifying practices, so are the material conditions to which the subject responds". (88). Since the reality as well as the self ar constructed in and through language, "the subject that experieces and the material and social conditions experienced are discursively constituted in historically specific terms" (89).

For social-epistemic rhetoric, language is the site of conflict and contention where different groups struggle to make certain meanings and certain ideological formulations.

so critique of ideology is at the center of this rhetoric.

Audiences are also discursive formations- formations that include race, class, gender, ethnic, sexual orientation and age designations belonging to different discourse communities. Thus, members of an audience are both members of communities and separate subject formations. That's why their responses are never predictable.

Berlin finally briefly summarizes the function of social-epistemic rhetoric as:
"The work of social-epistemic rhetoric, then, is to study the production and reception of these historically specific signifying practices to arrive at a rich formulation of the rhetorical context in any given discourse situation through an analysis of the signifying practices operating within it. Thus, in composing or in interpreting a text, a person engages in an analysis of the cultural codes operating in defining his or her subject position, the positions of the audience, and the constructions of the matter ti be considered." (90).

writing and reading, for social-epistemic rhetoric, are both acts of textual interpretation and construction, and both are central to social-epistemic rhetoric.

literary/rhetorcal binary

literary- imaginative, aesthetic, creation, indeterminate, open, sacred, priestly, beauty and truth


rhetorical- scientific, objective, practical, political, representation, determinate, profane, utiliarian, commonplace

"Language is a social construction that shapes us as much as we shape it".( 92)

Berlin blurs the rhetoric/poetic binary by saying that, "the signifying practices of a poetic or rhetoric are always historically conditioned, always responses to the material and social formations of a particular moment." (93) Berlin believes that there are no disinterested use of language as all signifying practices both reading and writing are imbricated in ideological predispositions.