Nicole C. Howell
Eileen Schell
October 12, 2009
CCR 691 Project Proposal Final Draft
Overview:
· Scope- In this project I intend to take a general survey of current work by and about Latinos in the field of Composition/rhetoric. I will begin with a brief general history and then transition to the current environment. Although I will begin with a broad survey of work I do intend on focusing on Chicana scholars and specifically their current representation in our field. Inevitably I would like this work to investigate why there is a large discrepancy between the number of Chicanas entering the Academy and those largely informing the field of Composition rhetoric.
· Parameters- I will focus my research by including only the most prevalent voices in Latino rhetoric, those that informed them, and those concerned with Latino rhetoric. I will also map the framing subjects of their research. In other words I will look at the fields most heralded theorists and then determine what and who they study (ex. classroom practices, communities, high theory, literature, published texts, cultural artifacts, etc).
· Key Questions-
o How have Latino/as (in general) been represented in the field of Composition/rhetoric?
o How has the research conducted so far represented Latino/a’s as a whole and/or to what cause?
o Where do Latino/a’s figure into the field of Composition/rhetoric?
o What kinds of issues/challenges arise from the several cultures represented by “Latino?”
o How are Chicanas (specifically) represented in the field?
Rationale:
· Importance- I find this work important for several reasons. First I am a Mexican-American female entering into the field and I do not “see” very many scholars that “look” like me. In other words, although “Hispanics” account for over 25% of the U.S. population the percentage of Hispanics that hold graduate degrees is much smaller. Second, because Composition is a required course at most universities our teachers are quite visible to the general student body. This point is particularly important as the university setting becomes more diverse and our teachers do not accurately “represent” that diversity. Third, because literacy narratives vary by culture and experience it is imperative to consider what kind of narratives are informing our field and if they remain exclusionary. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, this work has not been done before.
· Contribution- This research “of research” will help situate the current state of Latino scholars in the field of Composition rhetoric. As I compile information about the fractured state of Latino scholarship (fractured primarily because of the variation within the description of “Latino”) I hope to draw some conclusions about how to make our field inviting to the Chicana population. In other words, this work will help form a foundation for a call to action.
· Further plans- In addition to this project I intend at looking at the qualities of academic authorship and how it relates to the Chicana population. I see this initial mapping as a starting point for my authorship inquiry which will be explored for CCR 720. In addition, I will further situate and uncover the theories and scholars informing current Latino rhetors by creating a “genealogy” map of citations for CCR 601. Although I am only in my first year of the PhD program I anticipate this line of inquiry as one of my exam areas and therefore hope to gather as much information as possible.
Bibliography
Baca, Damian. Mestiz@ Scripts, Digital Migrations and the Territories of Writing. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Print.
Cintron, Ralph. Angels’ Town: Chero Ways, Gang Life and Rhetorics of the Everyday. Boston: Beacon, 1997. Print.
Dicochea, Perlita R. “Chicana Critical Rhetoric: Recrafting La Causa in Chicana Movement Discourse,…” Frontiers 25.1 (2004): 77-92. Print.
Enoch, Jessica. “Survival Stories: Historiographic Approaches to Chicana Rhetorics of Sterilization Abuse.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35.3 (2005): 1-30. Print.
_____.“’Para la Mujer’: Defining a Chicana Feminist Rhetoric at the Turn of the Century.” College English 67.1 ( 2004): 20-37. Print.
Flores, Lisa. “Creating Discursive Space Through A Rhetoric of Difference: Chicana Feminists Craft A Homeland.” Quaraterly Journal of Speech 82 (1996): 142-156. Print.
Galindo, Rene. “Voices of Identity in a Chicana Teacher’s Occupational Narratives of the Self.” The Urban Review 39.3 (2007): 251-280. Print.
Latino/a Discourses . Ed. Hall Kells, Michelle, Valerie Balester and Victor Villanueva. Portsmouth: Boyton/Cook, 2004. Print.
Lunsford, Andrea. “Toward a Mestiza Rhetoric: Gloria Anzaludua on Composition and Postcoloniality.” Journal of Advanced Composition 18.1 (1998): 1-27. Print
Orosco, Jose-Antonio. “Neighborhood Democracy and Chicana/o Cultural Citzenship in Armando Rendon’s Chicano Manifesto.” Ethics, Place & Environment 10.2 (121-139): Print.
Rivera, John-Michael. The Emergence of Mexican America: Recovering Stories of Mexican Peoplehood in U.S. Culture. New York: New York University Press, 2006. Print.
Teaching Writing with Latino/a Students. Ed. Kirklighter, Cristina, Diana Cardenas, and Susan Wolff Murphy. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007. Print.
Torres, Edén E. Chicana Without Apology = Chicana Sin Vergüenza : The New Chicana Cultural Studies. New York : Routledge, 2003. Print.
Villanueva, Victor. Bootstraps: From an American Academic of Color. Urbana: NCTE, 1993. Print.
_____.“On the Rhetoric and Precedents of Racism. "College Composition and Communication 50.4 (1994): 645-661. Print.
_____.“’Memoria’ Is a Friend of Ours: On the Discourse of Color.’” College English 67.1 (2004): 9-19. Print.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Spinuzzi The Conclusion...or is it?
Spinuzzi's conclusion to Network, is a strategic summary of his book. He not only returns to the keyterms and concepts iterated in his book but also provides evidence from his case studies to support his call to action. His call to action is what I find most relevant. In the last lines of his book he states, "Only by taking a strategic stance will we be able to identify objectives, set goals, take action, and retain the dynamism and flexibility necessary to cope with net work--whether we're workers, managers, researchers, or theorists. Others can bite ankles; let's concentrate on strengthening hands, making right and left equally dextrous, and teaching them the cunning they need for performing net work" (207). I am compelled to "sign-up" and consider how this will inform my work and my methods.
However, in light of yesterdays colloquium and the call from Margaret to consider the classroom I couldn't help myself from considering how ANT/AT could inform classroom practices. When I think of adopting or adapting ANT/AT I think about methods as they relate to teaching more so than research (although I see a great deal of overlap). How could I provide space for students to---as Spinuzzi states in regards to study participants--"consitute their work, what's a tool, and what is an action?" I feel there is something valuable to bringing students into the negotiation but how that can happen is something I'll have to continue to consider.
However, in light of yesterdays colloquium and the call from Margaret to consider the classroom I couldn't help myself from considering how ANT/AT could inform classroom practices. When I think of adopting or adapting ANT/AT I think about methods as they relate to teaching more so than research (although I see a great deal of overlap). How could I provide space for students to---as Spinuzzi states in regards to study participants--"consitute their work, what's a tool, and what is an action?" I feel there is something valuable to bringing students into the negotiation but how that can happen is something I'll have to continue to consider.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Spirtual Literacy Ch. 1
Executive Summary:
In chapter 1 Tolar-Burton introduces John Wesley, outlines her argument and defines key terms.
Wesley is situated as a man who clearly understood the power of language and therefore encouraged "ordinary Methodist men and women" to become "readers, writers, and public speakers" (1). Tolar-Burton is primarily interested in the role of Methodist women primarily because their work has gone largely unstudied regardless of their importance to the development of Methodism. Although the introduction provides an overview for subsequent chapters, the majority of the chapter provides contextual information and analysis surrounding the early development of Methodism. In total Tolar-Burton uses eight sections to separate and identify relevant traditions of the time which informed, supported and complicated Wesley’s approach to religious practices.
Questions/Challenges:
Maybe it’s just me and my very “unreligious” background but I found myself enjoying Tolar-Burton’s prose and condemning the content. I very clearly appreciate the inclusion of “ordinary” people as promoted by Wesley and am thankful for literacy artifacts that were created by followers. However, in describing the typical rhetorical elements of the Church before Wesley Tolar-Burton states, “The printed sermons of famous preachers were used liberally by the lazier or less gifted Anglican clergy as a way to avoid the burden of having to write their own sermons week after week, year after year” (15). I’m struck by the description of Church clergy as being “lazy” or “less gifted” if they utilized sermons from “famous preachers.” Perhaps it’s my new found interest in “authorship” but I wonder if drawing from and delivering “famous” sermons would be nothing more than a literacy practice or a method for keeping consistency in the doctrine?
In chapter 1 Tolar-Burton introduces John Wesley, outlines her argument and defines key terms.
Wesley is situated as a man who clearly understood the power of language and therefore encouraged "ordinary Methodist men and women" to become "readers, writers, and public speakers" (1). Tolar-Burton is primarily interested in the role of Methodist women primarily because their work has gone largely unstudied regardless of their importance to the development of Methodism. Although the introduction provides an overview for subsequent chapters, the majority of the chapter provides contextual information and analysis surrounding the early development of Methodism. In total Tolar-Burton uses eight sections to separate and identify relevant traditions of the time which informed, supported and complicated Wesley’s approach to religious practices.
Questions/Challenges:
Maybe it’s just me and my very “unreligious” background but I found myself enjoying Tolar-Burton’s prose and condemning the content. I very clearly appreciate the inclusion of “ordinary” people as promoted by Wesley and am thankful for literacy artifacts that were created by followers. However, in describing the typical rhetorical elements of the Church before Wesley Tolar-Burton states, “The printed sermons of famous preachers were used liberally by the lazier or less gifted Anglican clergy as a way to avoid the burden of having to write their own sermons week after week, year after year” (15). I’m struck by the description of Church clergy as being “lazy” or “less gifted” if they utilized sermons from “famous preachers.” Perhaps it’s my new found interest in “authorship” but I wonder if drawing from and delivering “famous” sermons would be nothing more than a literacy practice or a method for keeping consistency in the doctrine?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
