Notes: Michelle Gibson, Martha Marinara, and Deborah Meem, “Bi, Butch, and Bar Dyke: Pedagogical Performances of Class, Gender, and Sexuality”

Gibson, Michelle, Martha Marinara, and Deborah Meem. “Bi, Butch, and Bar Dyke: Pedagogical Performances of Class, Gender, and Sexuality.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 52, National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, 2000.

grier_we_recruit

Keywords: Composition, Writing Studies, Pedagogy, Critical Pedagogy, Queer, Queer Rhetorics, Feminist Rhetorics, Class, Sexuality

Sources:

Minh-Ha, Trinh. “Introduction: She, the In- appropriate(d) Other.” Discourse 8 (1986/1987): 3-9.

Rich, Adrienne. “When We Dead Awaken: Writing As Revision.”‘ Ways ofReading. Ed. David Bartholomae and Anthony Pet- rosky. 4th ed. Boston: Bedford Books, 1996. 549-62.

Quotations:

“Through our “stories,” we hope to complicate the notion that identities can be performed in clean, organized, distinct ways by examining and theorizing our own experiences of class, gender, and sexual identity performance. We want to acknowledge the conscious ways we perform our multiple subjectivities and to examine our political/economic/ pedagogical uses of those performances” (70).

“In marking stories “lesbian” or “working class,” the lives contained therein are less invisible and give the narrators-students and faculty-a political site from which to speak and act. Playing with the notion of an “essential voice” allows the storytellers to claim a recognizable, politically engaged identity from a narrative that is already academically codified; however “speakable,” this politicized voice emerges from a self-empowerment that hinges on an appeal to universalities of class and sexuality, a self-empowerment that depends on binary oppositions” (72).

“Writing students define “real me” voices as safe, static, inherent, and inviolate; public voices, though, are required to listen to other public voices, and listening can cause uncomfortable changes. The tension, the uncertain space writing teachers and students find between the familiar, “real me” voice and an emerging public voice, should not necessarily be resolved with already codified positions; rather the tension should be a space to work from and with because the language of any personal narrative contests static identities” (72-73).

“The space created by opening up identity allows for a more open-ended model of collective identity and poses hard questions about the nature and definitions of political subject positions as one is both enlarged and oppressed by constantly shifting alliances” (75).

“[M]any issues of diversity are so fully embodied that they cannot be meaningfully discussed, but rather exist primarily in the realm of performance” (79).

“These three stories illustrate how my butch performance (and I use that word hoping you will attend to the difference between, say, dramatic performance and embodied performance) impacts my various interactions in the academy. Because I am butch, I am visible as a lesbian; I am often asked, for  which is mostly invisible. instance, to be the “token dyke” on campus” (82).

“Students and faculty see my butchness as powerful, especially as contrasted with femme experience” (82).

“Whenever a circumstance allows for it, I perform my identities as a femme lesbian, a survivor of family violence, and a recovering mental patient” (85).

“I wanted to perform for those administrators an identity they usually associate with students they characterize as”not college material”and then complicate it with an identity they usually associate with professionals they characterize as”successful.”” (90).

“Without consistent interrogation, over time, acts that originate as political resistance can become familiar and institutionalized, thereby losing their power to create change” (92).

 

Notes: Haivan Hoang, “Campus Racial Politics and a ‘Rhetoric of Injury'”

Hoang, Haivan V. “Campus Racial Politics and a “Rhetoric of Injury”.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 61, National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, 2009.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Keywords: Composition, Pedagogy, Critical Pedagogy, Minority Rhetorics, Critical Race Theory

Sources:

Himley, Margaret. “Response to Phillip P. Marzluf, ‘Diversity Writing: Natural Languages, Authentic Voices.’” CCC 58.3 (2007): 449–63.

hooks, bell. Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge, 1994.

Winans, Amy E. “Local Pedagogies and Race: Interrogating White Safety in the Rural College Classroom.” College English 67.3 (2005): 253–73.

Quotations:

“This article is interested in the ways diversity discourse, in a twist, can advocate for racial accountability while also undermining those same struggles” (386).

“Indeed, injury is perhaps the trope through which we understand racial accountability. To be sure, the trope has been fundamental to identifying and remedying those injuries caused by racial prejudice, but there are also worrisome ways in which the rhetoric of injury gets taken up. As college writing faculty, we should be troubled by injury’s articulations in campus racial politics. We see claims to and refutations against victimization, a desire to occupy injured subject positions, and excessive attention to individual distress and anxiety. We live in a privatized system that scrutinizes so very closely the wounds of individuals that it deflects attention from the material conditions, cultural systems, and histories that produced racial injustice in the first place” (386-387).

“[W]e might take care to foster students’ understanding of the historical production of racial difference, its impact on writing/speaking positions, and the ways in which difference is rearticulated in the present” (387).

“[T]he salvationist impulse among some teachers is not only the counterpart to a minority student needing salvation; the savior suggests moreover a triangular relationship with the presumed victim and the injurer. With diversity writing at the nexus of savior, victim, and injurer, students have few productive subject positions from which to write—especially if the student is cast as one who injures himself or herself. Indeed, what does diversity ask us to become?” (389).

“[D]iversity is a performative, albeit an infelicitous one. The self-involved dialogue between Cain and Abel, pervasive claims to victimization, and an interest in guilt and shame: these cue diversity’s performative nature… Public institutions… structure understandings of race, and these structures have enacted, are based on, and potentially carry on America’s vexing racial legacy” (389).

“One challenge is that diversity calls up authentic bodies that are part of taken-for-granted racial categories” (390).

“Within the university, college writing faculty are in a position to foster students’ rhetorical engagement within their campus communities; such work could encourage students to critically read a rhetorical context that matters to them and to articulate their concerns accordingly” (402).

“As a start, composition pedagogy must challenge the unfettered belief in the logic of individualism, the belief that inclusion and awareness of academic rhetorical conventions alone will eradicate unequal rhetorical agency. A critical race praxis, I propose, requires a deep sociohistorical inquiry into articulations of race over time as well as serious deliberation over community values” (402).

“A rhetoric informed by the commonplace of social responsibility, one in which students productively recognize and make use of their authority, rather than personal injury, in which students deny all agency, would better enable students to forward their democratic rhetoric” (405).

Notes: Renee Moreno, “The Politics of Location”

Moreno, Renee M. “”The politics of location”: Text as opposition.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 54, 2002.23574889382_0ae23acd76_o

Keywords: Composition, Pedagogy, Critical Pedagogy, Critical Race Theory, Minority Rhetorics, Writing Studies

Quotations:

“In a university, is the project of literacy (reading and writing) a tool for control and colonization, considering here that literacy in institutional settings is also used to socialize students to the uses of language and discourses in educational institutions? By reclaiming native language” (223).

“By telling history as stories, I assert that Galeano reimagines how identities are linked. This point is important in educational institutions—to rewrite the histories of linkage and connection and to describe how these play out in schools, despite efforts to keep people separated. I am especially interested in how, as bicultural subjects, students might begin to use textual locations to define and shape resistance, to define themselves collectively, and to unmask power when it is operating in the classroom and in pedagogy” (225).

“I wonder, is it so hard to imagine (and perhaps even to permit) “basic” writers to write, to read, and to imagine themselves through their texts? This is my starting point, to examine the context of writing within an academic setting, to examine how writers respond, and to contextualize my argument with histories” (225).

“I was interested in providing them with a safe space (however institutionalized) in which to explore the topics of race and ethnicity and to experiment with language, and I wanted to create an “oppositional” space within this traditional institution” (226).

“I have always told students that we all have stories to tell, something to say, that the classroom is a place where we listen to these stories, where we begin to co-construct knowledge and meaning” (228).

“Today, however, educational institutions are less and less interested in the needs of underrepresented students and the places from which these students come. As the institution is getting less attentive to the needs of the most vulnerable students (one effect of whittling away at the gains of affirmative action) and as services are being downsized, there is still a need to direct classroom practice to attend to the needs of these students” (235).

“For me, the most important call to action is to think about those students who are occupying our classrooms and to see classrooms as a hopeful space of transformation, as a location that might get us closer to developing those new intellectual frameworks to which Hayes-Bautista calls attention” (237).

Notes: Jill Eichhorn et al., “A Symposium on Feminist Experiences in the Composition Classroom”

Eichhorn, Jill, et al. “A Symposium on Feminist Experiences in the Composition Classroom.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 43, National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, Ill, 1992.

15106273965_09e28e2732_o

Keywords: Feminism, Feminist Rhetorics, Pedagogy, Critical Pedagogy, Safe

Quotations:

“As we explore the ways we have been named, inscribed, objectified, exoticized, silenced, and coopted by male-dominated discourses, we simaltaneously engage in the articulation, negotiation, and collective re-vision of our gendered, ravial and class locations” (298).

“One difference we explore, among a multiplicity of differences, is that feminist graduate students and faculty who teach composition we do not experience the same level of authority in the classroom as white male, middle-to-upper-class graduate students and faculty” (298).

“Taking up a feminist politics of location in the classroom, as Adrienne Rich observed, means taking differences seriously. It also means taking the responsibility to construct critical classroom spaces ‘where [we and our] students can come to see ambivalence and differences not as obstacles, but as the very richness of meaning-making and the hope of whatever justice we might work toward” (299).

“As feminist teachers of writing we want to question those pedagogical models which privilege only an atmosphere of safety or a completely maternal climate” (299).

“How can we teach for radical change if we don’t challenge our students’ androcentric readings of literary texts or their classist, sexist, racist, and homophobic discourses as they arise in journals, essays and class discussion?” (300).

“Can there truly be ‘safe space,’ in or out of the classroom? Should there be? Is there in our desire for a safe space also a refusal to recognize that our different locations—as men or women, as Anglos or people of color, as faculty or graduate students—are and have always been unequal?” (300).

Notes: Catherine Fox, “Toward a Queerly Classed Analysis of Shame: Attunement to Bodies in English Studies”

Fox, Catherine Olive-Marie. “Toward a Queerly Classed Analysis of Shame: Attunement to Bodies in English Studies.” College English 76.4 (2014): 337-56.

6813149012_ba8aee2cb2_o

Summary:

Fox extends the conversation offered by Yoon, analyzing the discourse of critical pedagogy through a queer/class conscious frame.

Keywords: Queer, Queer Theory, Queer Rhetorics, Pedagogy, Critical Pedagogy, 

Sources:

Monson, Connie, and Jacqueline Rhodes. “Risking Queer: Pedagogy, Performativity, and Desire in Writing Classrooms.” JAC 24 (2004): 79-91.

Yoon, Hyoejin. “Affecting the Transformative Intellectual: Questioning ‘Noble’ Sentiments in Critical Pedagogy and Composition.” JAC 25 (2005): 711-47.

Quotations:

“I would like to suggest the seductive force of affective dimensions of critical pedagogy discourse comes about partly through their hidden nature and partly the heteronormative frame through which they are deployed-a frame that centers on reproduction and generational transmission” (245).

“Within a heteronormative desiring framework, our work as critical pedagogues is made meaningful through “a narrative of generational succession,” of passing on our identities, values, and morality to the next generation, thereby reproducing the transformative intellectual” (245).

“Far from undermining the violence of normalization, critical pedagogy discourse deploys pleasurable possibilities of reproducing the terror of a whitely, masculinist ethos framed around “hard” inflexible emotions and arrogant righteousness” (246).

“Nonnormative subjects who “trouble” these ideals at the heart of critical pedagogy discourse are often perceived as threats that must be silenced and shamed. I would like to suggest, in concert with Yoon, however, that such conflicts can be “inhabited, written into, written about” differently” (248).

“Disidentification problematizes identity/identification and requires a contradictory stance toward critical pedagogy-leading to neither easy “consumption” nor rejection but instead to a field of force that is productive. Such a stance requires that we interrogate how citizenship, democracy, and nation-building have been encoded around cultural norms of race, sexuality, and gender” (249).

“As we assume collective responsibility for nonviolent modes of discourse, she insists that we remain desirous of change even as we surrender ourselves to the unknowable. It is our task to respond, imaginatively and compassionately” (252).