Response for 3/18

First, I would like to apologize for my late response, but I was extremely ill and while I could have posted during my “normal” posting times, I was just not functioning in a coherent manner. Now, I will present my blog.

This week’s readings immediately brought me back to my studies in Shakespeare in that reading from the perspective of woman, but more importantly, as the “other” (I believe Tony mentioned this in his blog). Now here is me being a bit self conscious about my post because not only am I the only female in the class, but also the only biracial female. How will this affect my writing, or how has it already affect my writing, I cannot be sure. Nevertheless, this week’s theme/theory naturally runs deep with me and has allowed me to do some thinking in regards to my voice in academia that perhaps I have pushed aside for quite some time.

So I begin. Flynn’s article focuses on Feminism and, as her title suggests, composing as a woman. Flynn discusses the similarities and significant differences in feminist inquiry and composition studies. She stresses, however, that the two have not completely involved themselves with one another. Flynn points out “Feminist research and theory emphasize that males and females differ in their development process and in their interactions with others. They emphasize, as well, that these differences are a result of an imbalance in the social order, of the dominance of men over woman” (P. 573). What we are dealing with here, then, is women’s perspectives/voice that has been marginalized, dare I use the term subjugated. Flynn emphasizes the notion that narratives written by female students are stories of “interaction, of connection, or of frustrated connection” (p. 576). On the other hand, narrative by the male students are mainly stories of “achievement, separation, or of frustrated achievement” (p. 576). Flynn examines narratives of a variety of students, not nearly enough to make a proper assessment, however. But the point that I honed in on was the notion that women’s experiences are not necessarily other version of a male reality. That female writers need to focus on the self and being more aware of their experiences and what those experiences have generated. Then, female writers should write from these experiences and not necessarily that of reading like a man.

Ritchie and Boardman’s article provides a glimpse of the history of feminism in composition. We are presented with the gains made through feminist study in composition, but Ritchie and Boardman point out that there is still much more work that needs to be done. I agree that there isn’t much to be said for the “students’ and teachers’ gendered, classed, or raced position in the academy” (p. 605). As a biracial female composition instructor, I must admit that I have not fully considered how these factors have affected my pedagogy. However, gender roles and racial conditioning in my family probably has left me a complete mess, but on a positive note, I think that I would make a great participant in a study I am sure. But all kidding aside, there needs to be more of examination on the limitations of pedagogy because of these factors.

Royster’s article was a rather interesting article as it focused about discovering “voice.” After I read the article, I immediately returned to the part where the following question was raised: “How can we teach, engage in research, write about, and talk across boundaries with others, instead of for, about, and around them?” (P.620). Quite frankly, the pessimist that I sometimes am, I just don’t see that happening at a large scale. Perhaps I am jaded by my experience in the School District one in which I completely felt who I was was something they did not want present. I wasn’t the “face” nor the “voice” of education. It was a place where multiple perspectives wasn’t the business so to speak. Royster emphasizes the need to work together across boundaries. I can safely say, for now, I have found my “voice” in higher education one in which, and I am thankful, working across boundaries is highly encouraged.

In Villanueva’s article (I must admit it is strange enough in itself to see this last name in an English Composition Theory text), we are presented with the notorious notion of racism. What quickly caught my attention (not that the entire article didn’t) was the numbers/statistics he presented regarding those who are in higher education of specific ethnicities. Apparently, I might be in the 2% he lists. But even then I cannot even say that for sure. As I mentioned earlier in my post, I am a biracial kid. Yes, it is true that I am Hispanic, but it is also true that I am of North African (Tunisian) decent as well. You don’t see that too often so you can imagine how I struggle with identification. Perhaps than, I can be of my own category…or not. Nevertheless, Villanueva emphasizes what I believe will need constant emphasis and that is to “break precedent.” He emphasizes the need to essentially hear what those that are different of the “continent” have to say as they are scholars too. It makes me wonder with my future work for dissertation, will I be taken seriously because I am not the “face” of education.

Silva and Zamel focus on a critical issue that is overwhelming many post-secondary educators, particularly in the composition course. There seems to be this notion that L2 learners will learn how to speak and write English correctly through these composition courses. The issue that Zamel particularly points out is the notion that higher education instructors are battling with the shift in how they once knew how to teach a few years ago. Essentially, the frustration lies as Zamel points out that faculty “feel like strangers in academia, that they no longer understand the world in which they work” (p. 519). As for myself, my own frustrations with L2 students (And for personal reasons I emphasize those that particularly speak Spanish as their first language) may not be the same frustrations as other instructors deal with. The L2 learners that speak Spanish as their first language tend to look at me as their saving grace because their first assumption is that I speak Spanish. When I informed them that I barely speak Spanish, two things happen: 1) they either think that I am lying and I have become a Hispanic who denounces her heritage or 2) What kind of Hispanic am I. It really throws them for a loop when I tell them I speak French. Go figure. Nevertheless, yes it will continue to be frustrating for many instructors as ELL/ESL is something that is unique on its own and many instructors now need to face those challenges in their classroom. So the question here is how it is being handled. More often than not, it’s not being handled at all. Because of the higher education stigma, you should have somewhat of a mastery of basic English speaking and writing (I think this is stated somewhere in most English 101 syllabi’s). Clearly, this isn’t the case especially with more and more open enrollment colleges. Silva and Zamel point out there needs to be change that takes place to some degree and dropping these L2 students at the tutoring center for assistance isn’t solely going to cut it. By not doing anything, we contribute do this whole marginalization business. And so we begin again.