Brodkey's "On the Subject of Class and Gender in 'The Literacy Letters'"

I chose to read this essay, hoping that it would relate well to my topic. While it does look at the issue of voice, it really looks at it more from a teacher's perspective. Brodkey discusses the anger students must feel when they think a writing assignment has limitless possibilities, but the evaluation notes only value their limitations. While I could identify with this idea, it is not exactly what I had in mind for where I wanted to go with my research. Still, I guess this is an example of asking a writer to conform, and therefore limiting the voice they are trying to develop. According to Brodkey, "each institutionalized discourse privileges some people and not others by generating uneven and unequal subject positions as various as stereotypes and agents" (679). The idea that some people are given more privilege in discourse was interesting to explore, yet somewhat confusing. Still, I agree that some people are more privileged in their subject position, depending on the topic at hand.

Brodkey looked at several examples of classroom situations and student/teacher relationships. I didn't really get as much from those as I had hoped. I want to discuss how students develop their own voice, the problems they face, and what happens when they must assume a voice that is not their own, as many classroom situations will ask you to do. Brodkey explored the extent of classism, racism, and sexism that schools legitimate while asserting that they are trying to eliminate it.

One thing I think will relate to my topic, is the idea that the ideology that class, race, and gender differences are present in American society and the assertion that they are absent in the classroom is being challenged.

Overall, I hope to get a variety of sources which explore this idea so that I can synthesize them and come to my own conclusions based upon the mixture of arguments that I am able to find about how voice is formed, developed, and even possibly mimicked. I think that we have already read a few essays that might prove more helpful than this one that I chose to read. Particularly, I want to take another look at Bartholomae and Royster in this context.

Class Questions about my Inquiry Topic

When the general public considers my topic, issues they might think are important to discuss could include how people take into account other peoples’ voices when writing and even in discussion and more specifically, when trying to develop their own voice. I think the scholarly discourse community would probably have similar questions.

Some of the status quo assumptions might be that everyone has their own voice and they develop that voice in writing through practice and learning from others.

I think that texts about my subject expect people to realize that they create their own voice and to be more aware of the voice they develop through their experiences. They take different approaches to how voice is developed, but all get readers to really analyze their own voice in writing. I think writers about the subject of voice expect readers to at least consider their approach, even if they may not agree with the author’s assertions.

Inquiry Contract

Developing Your Own Voice

1. The issue I am thinking about researching is that of voice; specifically the implications and results of people oftentimes having to assume authority in situations in which they cannot or do not actually have that authority. What I want to know about this topic is how voice is developed and how it can be used in the most beneficial manner possible. The motivating factor for me to know more about this topic is that I think voice is the key to writing. It gives it style and personality, but when someone takes on a voice that is not theirs to assume, I believe many communication errors occur and that creates dissonance between the writer and audience. I want to look at the repercussions of doing just that. How does one feel when they must assume a voice in a certain discourse community that is not particularly their own, and how do the people of that community feel as a result? I also want to try to decide whether this is unnecessary, or a necessary part of the learning process.

2. I think that when someone assumes a role that is not theirs already, they end up coming to conclusions based upon stereotypes and generalizations because we tend to fill in the unknown with our own perceptions based on past experiences. Therefore, everyone’s view is uniquely their own and might be based upon or influenced by misconceptions. Based upon my own past experiences in classroom settings, I know that when someone makes a comment which is not the majority view of the rest of the class, it oftentimes tends to create a lot of tension within the classroom and some people feel provoked to talk and defend their own views, while others become quiet and do not want to communicate their feelings with the rest of the class, even though they may have strong opinions, nonetheless. Furthermore, I believe that we are constantly asked to assume another’s voice, as students, trying to fit into an academic discourse community in which we might not feel as accustomed to.

3. Two questions I would like to answer in my paper include: When one assumes authority of a discourse community in which they are not a part, does it create unnecessary tension, or is it a necessary part of the learning process? Also, how does one really develop their own voice, given that we are asked to assume the position of another so often in the learning process?

**Possible Sources include: Royster’s essay in Cross Talk, Journals printed from J-Stor, books concerning the topic of voice and developing voice in writing, and even possibly interviews with students or teachers about classroom situations.

Min-Zhan Lu's "Professing Multiculturalism"

In this essay, Lu looks at the way in which good writing had been classified in the past and poses a new approach which takes into account multiculturalism. The old criteria of determining the skill of a writer depended upon their knowledge of English, and the writer's experience in writing. Oftentimes the knowledge of English was tied to them being a native speaker and their experience was tied to them being educated. Lu explained that while Gertrude Stein's works were originally criticized because they did not follow those confines, she defended her cridentials and her work was published as a result of that. Theodore Dreiser, on the other hand, was met with criticism for his work when he took on an unconventional style and he backed down somewhat, likely because he was the son of a poor German immigrant and his formal education was sporadic, according to Lu. Students also face this issue in the classroom when their work is classified as poor and Lu emphasizes the idea that we need to take into account their cultural background before being so quick to classify. Each student brings different life experiences to their writing and therefore will have a uniquely different voice.
This point made me think of how artists are oftentimes criticized when they start a new style of painting, and it is not until years later, sometimes, that their innovative genius is recognized and acclaimed. I think the same is true for writers. Stein's writing was very innovative and somewhat abstract, but not uneducated in the least. The want is to jump to the conclusion that when a work does not follow the confines of the formal rules of English that it is due to inability to do so. Really, however, I am reminded of the idea that a writer has to know all the rules before they can break them effectively. Stein, for instance, knew all the rules and felt confident in stepping away from them. When someone is from another culture, it does not mean that they do not know the rules of our language.
Futhermore, I remember once reading about a student who was having trouble in English because he never wrote in the form that was expected of him as a student of English: outline of ideas, thesis etc. Instead, he would write lofty ideas that never clearly spelled out a thesis or conclusion. Actually, this was because he was from a high context culture where circular logic is used as opposed to our linear model. In the case of his cultural background, it would be rude and undermine the intelligence of the reader to tell them flat out what the point was. Instead, he gave enough clues such that one might come to their own conclusions. The problem was not that he did not understand English, but simply that he came from a different cultural background and that is exactly the problem Lu asserts needs to be addressed.

Inquiry Project

1. The issue I am thinking about researching is that of voice, specifically the implications and results of people oftentimes having to assume authority in situations in which they cannot or do not actually have that authority. For example, in a classroom situation when a white student is asked how a black person might feel in a situation in which they are being discriminated against, they cannot actually know how it feels, but have to assume that authority and come to their own conclusions. Therefore, I want to look at the repercussions of doing just that. How does the student feel when they assume the authority of someone in that community, and how do people who are actually in that community feel. Does this create unnecessary dissonance, or is it a necessary part of the learning process?

2. My personal connection to this topic is that I have been asked to assume this particular role in a classroom situation and I didn’t know how to react. Also, I have seen other students with the same confusion because they do not want to offend anyone or articulate anything the wrong way. In my own experience it simply created tension in the classroom.

3. I already started to talk about my own opinions, but I do think it can be a very useful and necessary part of learning, but it might make people within the community feel upset at what the people outside of it are saying because they can’t really understand.

4. My knowledge of this topic comes from practical experience. So far I have mentioned classroom situations, but I also notice in workplace situations the same thing happens. Specifically, at the insurance company where I am interning, I oftentimes lead the client to believe that I have more authority about a topic that I actually have because I do not want to come off as uninformed. Also, in literature, sometimes white authors will create characters, for example, who are slaves, or Jewish, or really anything that the author themselves are not.

6. In one of the essays that we read for class, the researcher said that when she hears people who are not of her race try to assume what it is like for her, she oftentimes ends up being quiet and holding her opinions to herself, but actually feeling very offended. From a communication standpoint, however, researchers might look at why people outside of the community feel and why they communicate in the way in which they do.

7. Research could include interviewing students, professors, etc…possibly even taking a survey of students.

Creating a "Scene" as Royster does

In my blog for Royster's essay, I mentioned one experience in a class. For this "Scene," I was reminded of another experience from that class in which I witnessed a "cross-boundary exchange." Our professor had us fill out surveys in which you circle a number corresponding to either end of the scale for specific races. For example, one of the opposite pairs was "rising in society, or declining in society" and another pair was "athletic, or intellectual." We filled out this survey according to what we thought of Whites, Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics. Afterwards, we went through the results that most of the class had in common and discussed why we might have those perceptions.

Our professor, who is African American, asked one person in class what she put for the question of “athletic versus intellectual” on the survey. She, like most others, put athletic. Our professor then asked “why can’t a black person be intellectual?” This completely put the girl in a corner and created much dissonance in the classroom. This was a “cross-boundary exchange” because the girl, who was white, was trying to make inferences about the race to which her professor belonged. She was trying to belong in a discourse community without being able to have all of the holes of knowledge filled in, since she was not actually a member of the race being talked about.

Everyone in the class knew exactly what stereotype our professor was trying to dispel, but the fact of the matter is that “athletic vs. intellectual” is a leading topic because, truly, those are not opposites. Black can be both and the fact that our professor was asking why we did not believe that created much tension in the class. It was not that we did not believe that, but rather that it was not a choice on the survey. The effect of this lecture and those leading questions were not beneficial to the class because it pushed us into a corner of saying things that we did not necessarily believe, but had to answer for the sake of completing the assignment. While I can see how some activities like this could lead to a better learning environment, I believe this simply discouraged many people in the class from speaking up with their own voice in the future, for fear of being pushed into saying something they do not believe.

Royster

Jacqueline Jones Royster's "When the First Voice You Hear is Not Your Own" looks at the problem of hearing others voice views which pertain to a category to which you belong and how to cope with the feelings that is brings about. She explains that she is often compelled to listen as others claim authority on a topic that concerns her, as an African American. The others are assuming the authority, which many of the researchers we have read thus far assert is necessary in order to become a part of an academic discourse community. Still, as Royster listens, she explains that she gets impatient because the outsiders do not really understand what they are talking about. I think this is a problem that works on many levels, with outsiders claiming a subjective position, but because they are not an insider, they cannot completely understand that position.
In one of my other classes, we were talking about the issue of racism in American and watched a clip where a white man and a black man did a series of errands in St. Louis, including car shopping, shopping in a music store, and trying to get their keys out of their locked car. The black man was treated completely differently than the white man. Our professor, who himself is black, posed the question to a girl in the class who is white, as to whether or not she believed the was the salespeople treated the black man was on purpose, or subcontious. When the girl said she believed it was subcontious, our professor sounded shocked and retorted "really, you believe that?" This created tension in the classroom, but after reading Royster's essay, I think the reason this happened was in part because our professor, like Royster, was listening to an outsider try to take an authority position on an argument in which they had no real experience or complete understanding. Royster asserted that "when the subject matter is me and the voice is not mine, my sense of order and rightness is disrupted" (613). Our professor went further, explaining instances that he had experienced in which he felt discriminated, othered, or simply profiled. He clearly felt a need to "right" this outsider's perspective, or at least fill in the gaps in understanding. According to Royster, the challenge is to teach and speak with the Others with the intent of understanding their interpretation and that is just that - their interpretation.
Royster also looked further at the idea of "voice" and made the claim that all of her voices are "very much authentic voices, even when it's difficult for others to imagine a person like me having the capacity to do that" (619). Everyone enters discourse communities with their own subjective views and their voice might surprise you, but is nonetheless, their voice. Furthermore, Royster got at the idea that we need to acknowledge the voices of others and really bridge those gaps with others. We should not talk for, about, or around the boundaries, but rather embrace them. I think Royster was trying to assert that we need to really listen to others when they are professing their interpretations, so that your reaction might be better formed. Royster concluded her essay with the idea that "voicing at its best is not just well-spoken but also well-heard" (622). I agree with that statement, and have learned in many communications classes the power of listening, and that listening is even more important in communication than speaking. If you are not listening, but rather just waiting to talk, you will get nowhere and a true, productive discourse cannot take place.
Overall, the ideas that Royster was getting at were easy for me to relate to my experiences and I think she makes a good point that we need to bridge the gaps between those who are simply assuming a role of authority within a discourse community and those who actually have some claim to that role in a particular discourse community.

Patricia Bizzell

Patricia Bizzell's essay, "Cognition, Convention, and Certainty: What We Need to Know about Writing" looks at the "the writing problem" from two different standpoints: that of inner-directed theorists (such as Flower and Hayes), and that of outer-directed theorists. Inner-directed theorists argue that the structures of thought and language can be taught, while outter-directed theorists believe that they cannot. They argue that thinking and the use of language are never completely separate from their social context. Bizzell affirms that in order to really get the whole picture, we have to look at both inner and outer-directed theories.

Bizzell points out that Flower and Hayes have been refining their process model of composing. According to them, "translating" refers to putting ideas into visible language and Bizzell thinks it is the emptiest box in their model. On the other hand, the "planning" box is the fullest because it is how the writer gets at the solution to the writing problem. Bizzell points out that the social context due to the dialectical relationship between thought and language is missing from their argument. They do not address the role of knowledge in the writing process. I think he is getting at the idea that Flower and Hayes overlooked the outer-directed approach to writing and therefore do not have the whole problem addressed. I found this particularly interesting because while I was reading Flower and Hayes, I easily related it to my writing process and could identify what they were getting at (even though I had never put it into quite those terms before). When reading Bizzell's argument, however, I agreed that Flower and Hayes did probably overlook some things that go into the writing process. I have found this with many of the authors we have read so far. I can relate to what they are saying, but then when it is refuted, I can also see that point, which only makes the "writing problem" seem that much more complex to me.

Bizzell affirms that no scientific research can have the type of authoritative certainty that inner-directed theorists are looking for. Bizzell goes on to address the idea of the "hidden curriculum" which she describes as initiating students into a world view that addresses daily classroom tasks without actually being examined by the teacher or students. By calling what is being taught, "universal," the hidden curriculum is even further hidden since we are ignoring any historical circumstance. Finally, Bizzell reaffirms the idea that there is no way to stay out of all discourse communities and judge them. We need to look not only at the discourse, but also the community.

I think this is an interesting argument and it seems as though Bizzell was able to really look at the problem of writing on a holistic level. She looks at different approaches, anticipates problems, and discusses how to get a better idea of the whole problem. It seems as if Bizzell is doing exactly what some of the earlier readings would use to classify her writing as "expert" rather than "basic." She presents a complex idea and synthesis of others' ideas, and I'm not sure if it is right to agree with what she was saying as well as what other theorists have asserted because some ideas seem inherently contradictory, but I see validity in both Bizzell's and Flower and Hayes ideas.

Flower and Hayes

In their essay, "A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing," Linda Flower and John R. Hayes explore the question of what guides the decisions writers make while writing. The essay enhances four main points. First, the writing process is best understood as a set of thinking processes that writers develop while composing. Second, these thinking processes have a hierarchical organization wherein any process may be embedded within another. Third, the act of composing is a goal-directed thinking process, guided by the writer's own network of goals. Fourth, writers create their own goals in two main ways: by generating both high-level goals and supporting sub-goals that encompass the writer's sense of purpose while writing, and even sometimes by changing goals or establishing new goals based on what the writer has realized while writing.
Flower and Hayes discuss the stage process model, of which an example would be the pre-write/write/re-write model. They also make the assertion that a model is a metaphor for a process because it is a way to describe something. Within the model, or process, are the three units including the task environment which includes everything outside the writer's skin, the writer's long term memory which houses stored knowledge, and the writing process which includes planning, translating, and reviewing. These principles are better laid out in the model on page 278 of Cross Talk in Composition, and it is easier to see how they all correlate to one another.
According to Flower and Hayes, during the planning process, writers develop and internal representation of the knowledge that they will use for writing. Then, the logic that keeps the writer going comes from the goals which writers create while composing. Oftentimes, writers will revise major goals due to what they learned through writing. They start with a high goal and then develop sub-goals and even regenerate those goals at times, which is a powerful creative process, as states Flower and Hayes. Basically, the writer uses a goal to generate ideas, then consolidates those ideas, uses them to regenerate new goals, and the learning process is in full swing. By setting new goals, the creative learning process is really developed.
To me, these ideas seem very lofty, but seem to build upon things I have already learned, or use in my writing. I constantly come up with new writing goals as I write and develop my thoughts more clearly. It is for that reason that I constantly find myself revising my writing - I can almost always restructure an idea or devise a completely new idea based on something I have explored while writing. I think that oftentimes my best arguments are not the first things I come up with, or even set up in the first draft. The "reviewing" step that Flower and Hayes explain to encompass evaluating and revising is probably where I spend the most of my writing time. As much as I try to plan and organize my thoughts and develop a thesis that shows my aim or goal in writing, I always find it necessary to go back and redevelop, or revise my thoughts into a better argument.

Bartholomae

"Inventing the University" by David Bartholomae argues that students must learn to speak the language that the University requires of them in order to succeed. Therefore, they try to become a part of that specialized discourse. In order to do that, they mimick its language while trying to mesh that language with their own ideas. Bartholomae explains that this is a trying task for "basic writers" because they have difficulty taking on that voice and often end up giving advice rather than coming to academic conclusions.
The differentiating line is, according to Linda Flower, that expert writers can anticipate the readers response and restructure their argument based on that knowledge. In order to anticipage the response, writers must, according to Bartholomae, acknowledge any assumptions and biases on the part of the reader. When the writer successfully manipulates their audience, they are above the basic writer category and entering into the expertise. Bartholomae goes on to point out that all writers need to think of themselves as 'insiders' into the specialized discourse community, and having the power to speak.
Basic writers face the obstacle of writing for the teacher, and they end up imitating what they have read, without really coming to their own conclusions about it. One way to help basic writers is to help them determine the conventions of the specific discourse community such that they might understand them and enter into that discourse community, as expert writers do. Bartholomae goes on to look at specific essays written by students and comes to the conclusion that the more advanced writers, indeed, claim an 'inside' position of privilege by rejecting the common language of the 'outsiders.' Just under those writers are those who find authority by simply mimicking the way academic prose. Bartholomae concludes that students may need to mimick the academic discourse before they can really enter into that discourse community and develop their own voice.
I agree with Bartholomae that it takes time for writers to really develop into experienced writers. As I read this essay I was thinking about my own writing techniques and questioning whether or not I really assume the position of privilege within the specific discourse community. In this instance, it feels more like simply mimicking that position, as I am writing basically a summary of Bartholomae's ideas, but then as I am coming to my own conclusions about his writing, I feel more like I am taking a position inside the community. I have experienced through my own writing that I have to first learn the style before I can really make it my own. That is true not only when trying to develop my voice in writing for the newspaper, but then also when I began writing in my creative non-fiction class last year too. With each new form of writing, I first find myself mimicking style, but then really developing my own style once I get used to it. I think the same is true for the use of templates that we discussed in the beginning of the semester in "They Say, I Say." At first, it is beneficial for writers to mimick another's style, but once they are comfortable enough, the templates become limiting and they can develop their own arguments without their aid.