Identity: is it "worth it"?

In the readings for this week, I found that the authors both worked to define the meanings of identifying a person as "American Indian" or "mixedblood." In his introduction to the book American Indian Rhetorics of Survivance: Word Medicine, Word Magic, Ernest Stromberg explores the meaning of rhetoric in terms of American Indians, and how it applies to the discourse communities of American Indian students. From a different perspective in his article "Indians, Mixedbloods, and 'White' Academe," Scott Lyons considers how the identity of "mixedblood" people affect their writing, as well as the perception of the academic world.

To begin, Stromberg questions a definition of rhetoric for his topic: American Indians. By taking into account historical contexts and various voices influencing his writing, Stromberg states: "a definition of rhetoric as the use of language or other forms of symbolic action to produce texts (in the broadest possible sense) that affect changes in the attitudes, beliefs, or actions of an audience" (4). This definition set the groundwork for how I looked at his description of how rhetoric affected writers, in addition to being affected by writers.Within a discourse, writers must address the audience; this can be even more effective when using the language of the audience, that of the discourse community. Where Kenneth Burke defined rhetoric as a "process of establishing 'identification' between self and other(s)" (3), Stromberg takes into account that American Indians are often seen as "the other" in the United States, a culture different from the Western majority. Noting this difference between cultures may be the first step to communicating between and within communities.

Crossing discourses--from Western rhetoric to that of American Indians--is vital to understanding writing of multicultural students. As a writer considers the audience, perhaps readers need to consider the writer and his or her background and context for texts. As Stromberg notes, the "rhetoric of the victor is what we usually remember, despite the frequently superior logic and eloquence of the vanquished" (9). As the white majority is the historically powerful group in the United States, a reader outside of the the American Indian community must work to understand their writing, style, and perspective to fully appreciate the text.

Similarly, the author must establish a sense of identity in order to speak to the audience. This, however, is much more difficult that it sounds. Lyons suggests that "we translate lived experience into narrative; conversely, we rely on narratives to live our lives, make sense of our worlds, engage in production, relate to others, and construct and assert our identities" (88). The narratives of Indian students collect their cultural and personal histories, intelligence and learned knowledge, and ideas into identity which, in turn, is seen in their writing. Identity becomes difficult for students when they are considered mixedblood: " a term [Lyons] uses to refer to humans, texts, language, and consciousness emphasizing duality-as-wholeness" (Lyons 89). Identifying oneself as mixedblood may be difficult due to the perceptions of self and others--what belongs in the community and what is outside of the community. In a multicultural community, defining an identity for a member is difficult and, perhaps, impossible. Multiple identities can be found within one person, as Gloria Anzaldúa expresses due to the fact that she may belong to many communities--is this a type of mixedblood writer?

The term "mixedblood" brings up questions for me. To begin, does Lyons include multicultural people outside of Native Americans to be mixedblood, or is it specific to one group? When a person is choosing to identify himself of herself within the confines of race, ethnicity, or other defining entity, does this choice create definitive boundaries for the person? By choosing a discourse community, does this limit in what a person may participate? Using Anzaldúa's logic, Lyons asserts that mixedbloods must live within boundaries, yet notes that "the mixedblood is mobile (yet excluded) and flexible (yet caught)" (90). Looking back to James Gee's analogy that a discourse is like a map; to me, a map has rigid boundaries. Here, a writer may feel captive in his or her own identity, stuck to the cultural expectations of oneself and others; the perception of one's identity is criticized through actions, as well as physicality (Lyons 96, 105). The story of Dick Lyons, the author's father, saddens the reader because the man was unable to continue working for the people of his culture because he "'burned out'" in his community (Lyons 95). The inability to fully "assimilate" into white culture stressed his work as an educator, but his inability to fully participate in his cultural history also pulled at his work. In the end, Lyons didn't know if it was "'worth it'" (95).

To me, identity is something I struggle with, particularly cultural identity. However, I find the struggle to be worth it. Perhaps, with further education and understanding, other students, writers, and educators will also find the merits of personal and community identities and how they influence themselves and others.

Also, to follow up from our discussion last week, here is a link to to La llorona told by Joe Hayes. This is the version I grew up with--it scared the heck out of me. I preferred his The Day it Snowed Tortillas. I'm working on finding the actual audio, but it's hard to find online....



Works Cited

Lyons, Scott. "A Captivity Narrative: Indians, Mixedbloods, and 'White' Academe. In Outbursts in Academe: Multiculturalism and Other Sources of Conflict. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1998. Pp. 87-108.

Stromberg, Ernest. "Rhetoric and American Indians: An Introduction." American Indian Rhetorics of Survivance: Word Medicine, Word Magic. Ed. Ernest Stromberg. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2006. Pp. 1-14.

Identity is a remolino, a vortex of writing

In his "Introduction [to "Symposium: Comparative Rhetorical Studies in the New Contact Zone: Chinese Rhetoric Reimagined,"] C. Jan Swearingen offers a cultural comparison between the understanding of rhetoric in the United States, using Socratic and other Greeks' methodology, and the Chinese understanding of rhetoric that employs Confucius and Mencius, among others. Swearingen asserts "we can better understand the habits of speaking, writing, and thinking that Chinese students bring with them to the composition classroom" (33). Like with any student from a culture that is different from the mainstream, teachers and other students must pause when looking at writing; culture influences what a person writes, and each culture, each student is different.

To explain the differences in Chinese and English rhetorical writing styles, Swearingen describes the difficulties with translating words and their meanings from Chinese, a logographic language, to English, a phonemic language, and vice versa (Swearingen 34). While translations between any two languages lose certain amount of meaning due to a loss of contextual information within the primary language, the differences between Chinese and English are sometimes greater because of the nuances of the characters for certain words. English rhetoric is based on Greek philosophy, drawing from minds like Socrates and Plato; in contrast, Chinese rhetoric looks to Confucius and Mencius. While these two teachings have obvious differences, from history to philosophy, these two teachings overlap, too. The Chinese xiuci "aims to establish one's integrity" (Swearingen 35), which can be seen as a type of ethos. Similarly, it emphasizes the appropriate use of language, the timing and content--kairos.

Overall, Chinese rhetorical principles, the ci and yan, encourage getting the message from the speaker to the audience: "using rhetoric to seek truth and condemn the manipulative and deceitful use of discourse" (Swearingen 35). In the United States, the negatively perceived "rhetoric" is understood as disingenuous, the Chinese, too, see flowery language as manipulative or purposefully confusing language as a poor use of rhetoric. Where high school students in the United States learn the five paragraph essay, Chinese students may learn the eight-legged essay (Swearingen 37). Similar to the former, the latter style emphasizes eight points: the opening, amplification, preliminary exposition, initial argument, central argument, latter argument, final argument, and conclusion. Teachers in the United States may examine Chinese students' writing through their own lens, but understanding even the basics of Chinese rhetoric will further one's understanding of the writing.

Similarly, Andrea Lunsford explores the ways in which culture influenced Gloria Anzaldúa, as shown in her interview "Toward a Mestiza Rhetoric: Gloria Anzaldúa on Composition and Postcoloniality." Throughout the session, Andzaldúa poignantly describes how her identity shaped her writing, and how her writing shaped her identity. As a child, she told stories and kept journals, making narrative a part of her oral and written identities (Lundsford 47). However, when Anzaldúa applied her knowledge of writing in her essays for school, teachers chastised her for not following the "rules" of composition (Lundsford 50). Ever since, Anzaldúa has worked to make her voices heard by expressing her ideas, opinions, and stories to effect change. Writing is part of identity because it is wrapped up in self-expression, a process of liberalization and emancipation (Lundsford 62).

In a similar manner, Anzaldúa says that "Identity is very much a fictive construction" (Lundsford 66). A student must use their surroundings, their cultural and geographical surroundings, what people label him or her, and what the student identifies as elements of his character. Lundsford emphasizes the importance of a student's recognition of voice, where teachers may work: "to find ways to help students recognize their own multiple voices" (59). The analogy of identity as a personal remolino, a vortex of "values, ideology, and identity" (Lundsford 71) works to describe how a student conveys his or her own voice through writing, his or her own identity.

Works Cited

Swearingen, C. Jan and LuMing Mao. "Introduction [to "Symposium: Comparative Rhetorical Studies in the New Contact Zone: Chinese Rhetoric Reimagined."]: Double Trouble: Seeing Chinese Rhetoric through Its Own Lens." College Composition and Composition 60.4 (June 2009): W35-45.

Lunsford, Andrea. "Toward a Mestiza Rhetoric: Gloria Anzaldua on Composition and Postcoloniality." In Race, Rhetoric, and the Postcolonial. Ed. Gary Olson and Lynn Worhsam. Pp. 43-78.

Relationships on Front Street

In her chapter "Putting One's Business on Front Street," Barbara Monroe discusses a certain group of Detroit high school students and their interactions with tutors from the University of Michigan during the 1990s. Through the project's span, interesting data and observations regarding the relationships of the students, tutors, and educators.

One fascinating--and understandable relationship-- was that of sexual identity and the gender relationships' effect on written communication. In particular, I found it interesting that the tutor-student relationships between females often included personal notes, or borderline "secrets" that are channels for female friendship (Monroe 48). While the male tutor-female student partnerships were the most professional and productive, the female tutor-male student dyads were the least productive. There are many social implications in the noticeable effects of this relationship; for example, there may tension between an older man and a younger woman due to the ages of each and the historical implications of marriage of older men to young women. It may be difficult to establish long-term, close relationships where personal information is shared due to legal precedence, or a least a perception of what may be seen as "wrong." As for the female tutor-male student dyads, it does not surprise me that they were less productive; however, I imagine that their relationship was more personal than the male-female pairs as there is less of a social stigma or likelihood of misinterpretation of their relationship. Personally, I have found a slight difference between females and males with my work in the Writing Center. Female students appear to be more comfortable when sitting down with me for a tutorial than males; perhaps this is due to similar communication styles between women or due to my ostensible authority over them or their work where males may feel defensive. Or, perhaps, this is merely an attempt to find similar relationships in Monroe's project within my own experiences.

Another fascinating aspect to the tutor-student relationship was the conscious and unconscious attempts to break stereotypes, from tutors de-emphasizing their "richness" and students' attempts to show their success in school through GPA (Monroe 46-47). In order to establish a relationship, many of the participants actively bring themselves out of their stereotyped role; often, however, unconscious comments sometimes show more than intended. However, the relationships broke stereotypes simply through communication; the two groups would not have likely worked together without the help of the project. In and of itself, the unconscious elements of the relationships and work established through the project did more to break stereotypes than the conscious, planned attempts.

Lastly, the relationship between Standard American English (SAE) and African American English (AAE), as well as the written Edited American English (EAE) show the importance of code-switching and style-switching within the students' oral and written practices. The students clearly knew when to use each according to what was appropriate for each situation and to whom the student was speaking. Style-switching seemed to be necessary for students' reputation in social circles, while code-switching was necessary for school, church, or professional situations. How each student spoke--or wrote--was directly associated to their audience, demonstrating awareness of their surroundings and importance of conveying a message.

Clearly, I've focused on Barbara Monroe's chapter for this blog. For further analysis, discussion, and thoughts on James Gee' "Tools of Inquiry and Discourses," please see my previous week's post: Discourse as a dance.

Works Cited

Gee, James. "Tools of Inquiry and Discourses." Ch. 3. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. New York: Routledge, 2005. Pp. 20-35.

Monroe, Barbara. "Putting One's Business on Front Street." Ch. 2 in Crossing the Digital Divide, pp. 31-69.

Discouse as a dance

Throughout his chapter "Tools of inquiry and discourses," James Gee uses extended metaphors or examples to characterized and explain his definition of "'Discourse,' with a capital 'D'" (21). It incorporates language into action, situation, and acceptance--it is highly contextual and social. Gee uses the example of the who and what in a discourse allow for a person to belong, such as the "real Indian" (23-26). To further investigate and clarify his notions, Gee turns to references of dance, cartography, and even Barbie dolls. All of these examples seemed repetitive at first, but I found that I had a greater understanding of Gee's "Discourse."

Discourse as a dance makes sense: there are styles, actions, props, motions, words, and a places where a dance may occur, all within the broad terms of Discourse (Gee 28). People in a dance take roles similar to that of the teacher and student--the lead and the follow. Dance may be local or universal; it may be learned and, when learned, expressed through the accepted elements of the certain type of dance. People learning a dance do not belong to the discourse community, yet they are trying to learn all of the elements so that members--"real"--may accept them. (This makes sense to me because I am taking a social dance class right now--my first dance class ever. I am clearly an outsider, trying to learn the elements of the dance community.)

The idea of acceptance into a certain community brings up the issue of identity, and how many identities a person may have--a mixed discourse, perhaps. Gee notes that belonging to a Discourse involves "recognition" (26) by others in the community. Additionally, a person in a Discourse must act "in the 'appropriate way' with the 'appropriate' props at the 'appropriate' times in the 'appropriate' places" (26). Discourse is about belonging and being accepted. Moving into a new Discourse is difficult and, at times, impossible.

Barbara Monroe discusses what is seen as appropriate and acceptable within certain cultures in her chapter "Storytime on the Reservation." Due to their socialization at home, students of certain cultural backgrounds approach writing and narrative differently, telling a story in concordance with what they know is acceptable in their home (Monroe 100-101). While story-telling is one of the greatest aids for young students to excel in school, it is typical of white families, definitely not typical in Latino, Mexican-descent households (Monroe 97-98). How students talk is directly related to their socialization--what is appropriate for their culture. Similarly, the simple act of storytelling or bedtime reading teaches students to think beyond the present or the facts; storytelling teaches children to ask why, to elaborate, and to think of potential outcomes. Monroe describes these as discourses similar to academic discourse.

While the comparison of Discourses to dance and kits (Barbie doll kits) work for me, I struggle with Gee's use of a map to describe Discourse (28-30). While he notes that discourse does not have clear boundaries, a map does. To amend for this, Gee's "map" becomes a grid, or a map with flexible boundaries. Boundaries create borderlands, which in turn may create mixed discourses; however, a boundary also attempts to draw a line where an identity must end. Gee states that "A given Discourse can involve multiple identities" (33); this may be understood as Bizzell's "mixed" discourses. However, as a Discourse is highly contextual and subject to those within the discourse, can identities be flexible and fluid? or are they fixed?

Lastly, as a note on his writing style, Gee uses a plethora of quotation marks in his writing. While he notes that the use of these marks may be due to his inability to claim membership within a certain discourse; for example, he uses the notation to clarify that he is referring to certain terms like "real Indian" and not claiming the "right" to use the term (Gee 23). In effect, Gee is distancing himself from certain terms because he does not belong to the social situation--is an outsider--and is not comfortable using certain terms. However, Gee also tends to use quotation marks when referring to terms in discourses in which he may belong or may understand; he continually sets apart words like "appropriate" (26), "recognition" (27), and even "discourse" (33). Perhaps Gee does not want to claim ownership to certain words in context; perhaps he is marking the difference between his words and those of a separate discourse.

Lastly, number two: Storytelling is huge. My mom always said that she read to us each night so that we--my siblings and I--would learn to read and learn to appreciate reading. I'm so interested in discussing this in class--my mom would be so excited that research supports her theory!


Works Cited

Gee, James. "Language and Identity at Home." Ch. 3. Situated Language and Learning: A Critique of Traditional Schooling. New York: Routledge, 2004. Pp. 21-38.

Monroe, Barbara. "Storytime on the Reservation." Ch. 4 in Crossing the Digital Divide, pp. 85-114.