Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
A Few Observations...
Before the break began, I observed Katie Walsh tutoring a student who wanted help with her research paper. Before I get into the specifics of this particular session, I want to echo what Katie astutely points out in her most recent post: most of us regularly observe each other quite by accident.
I, for one, get restless in the writing center. If I don't have sessions, I tend to talk incessantly, to rearrange the chairs, to disinfect, to make fifteen cups of tea and to push them on anyone around--anything but tend to the "work" I usually have in my bag.
In the backdrop of these practices, I overhear many, many interesting sessions. In Katie's case, here are a few thoughts based on everyday eavesdropping and confirmed through formal observation:
1) Katie has a good number of repeats. I attribute this fact mostly to her strong efforts to relate to and to empathize with her tutees. Repeats are likely also to do with her consistent friendliness and to her skills as an active listener and as a gentle suggester. In fact, I covered one of her shifts last term, and when I "rowed out to meet my ship," the tutee was quite disappointed to see me and not Katie.
2) Katie usually sits more next to than across from her tutees. She also tends to talk with her tutee in a tone that would suggest a friendship that preceeds the meeting, though other information indicates that her tutees are not her friends, at least outside the center.
3) Like many of the tutors reading this post, Katie usually will give her tutees more than 30 minutes if she does not have other sessions scheduled.
4) She is, as most of you already know, a genuinely nice person. I've never seen her be short with or curt to her tutees. She laughs with them and tries to draw them out.
5) Through a casual back-and-forth, she is able to make the tutee feel like an informal conversation is unfolding. Other tutors probably notice, though, that she has an agenda; she is conveying some valuable information on effective writing practices for college writers.
Now, here are some notes from the actual and official observation of her session. I want to say, from the outset, that this session was a tough one. I think she hung in there and tried her best, but the student was not the easiest. This is not to say that the student was recalcitrant or even mildly unlpleasant; the tutee was neither. She was just a bit on the hard-to-figure-out side. Was she tired? Apathetic? I couldn't tell. Confused? What, specifically, did she want from the writing center/from Katie?
Tip: Katie and I have discovered that, if one tutors in the collaboration station room, then a peer can observe undetected from the desk just below the cut-out.
Note: Katie and I talked, afterward, about how this session might have gone better if the collaboration station had been working. It was in the computer hospital in the basement of the library, though, getting its mouth cleaned out with soap, or pepper put on its tongue or whatever the fitting punishment is for naughty computers who've uploaded a lot of porn. Aly, when is that "no porn, no flossing" sign going to be ready?
No more digressions. Here goes:
The tutee wanted help with her thesis statement, so Katie asks about the assignment. Although the tutee does not have an assignment sheet with her, she does try her best to explain the assignment. She seems overwhelmed. Katie asks if she is nervous about the paper. I noticed that Katie as very careful in her efforts to steer the tutee away from concern with the thesis statement and toward a focus on critical researching.
Katie commends the tutee's printed out search results from JStor, suggests a few other databases, and suggests a number of alternate search terms. She also tries to refine the thesis with the student and to get the tutee to clarify her thesis based on the research, but the tutee is reluctant. It seems that the professor has "approved" the thesis, so the tutee does not want to part with her original plan.
Katie is gentle in her approach here: she suggests alternatives, but she leaves the option to stick to the original thesis entirely up to the student. (The tutee wants to find articles that make a specific argument to do with families' incomes and the effects these have on children. Katie notices that the tutee has found more on "working mothers").
In keeping with her conversational style, Katie says things like "So, you know what your thesis statement is, right?" and "This source looks useful/less useful" and "Does any source strike you as the strongest?" "Can you tell me what the argument is in this one?" "If you are focusing on dual income families, then you should probably decide what you want to focus on within that topic."
During the bulk of the session, Katie is trying to slowly and carefully get the tutee to evaluate and to summarize sources, to create a manageable list of related and reputable articles, and to try to find books as well as articles (she strongly suggests the library). She also offers a sort of mini-lesson on evaluating sources.
All of the casual back and forth, I can tell, is deliberate on Katie's part. She is helping the tutee to discern central arguments and to evaluate the evidence used in the articles the student has collected--all through what sounds like a chat between two friends. She pulls this off through many, many casually phrased questions interspliced with expressions of empathy, understanding, and comradary. What is most impressive, to me, is her "hidden" agenda--to get the tutee to come to realize that her thesis is not going to work. It may not come to the tutee while she is sitting in the writing center, but I am sure she will have that epiphany if she continues to follow Katie's friendly advice on evaluating other writers' arguments/uses of evidence, etc.
Katie is a tutor I admire, and I am very glad that I got a chance to observe her. For all the other eavesdroppers out there: check her out!
I, for one, get restless in the writing center. If I don't have sessions, I tend to talk incessantly, to rearrange the chairs, to disinfect, to make fifteen cups of tea and to push them on anyone around--anything but tend to the "work" I usually have in my bag.
In the backdrop of these practices, I overhear many, many interesting sessions. In Katie's case, here are a few thoughts based on everyday eavesdropping and confirmed through formal observation:
1) Katie has a good number of repeats. I attribute this fact mostly to her strong efforts to relate to and to empathize with her tutees. Repeats are likely also to do with her consistent friendliness and to her skills as an active listener and as a gentle suggester. In fact, I covered one of her shifts last term, and when I "rowed out to meet my ship," the tutee was quite disappointed to see me and not Katie.
2) Katie usually sits more next to than across from her tutees. She also tends to talk with her tutee in a tone that would suggest a friendship that preceeds the meeting, though other information indicates that her tutees are not her friends, at least outside the center.
3) Like many of the tutors reading this post, Katie usually will give her tutees more than 30 minutes if she does not have other sessions scheduled.
4) She is, as most of you already know, a genuinely nice person. I've never seen her be short with or curt to her tutees. She laughs with them and tries to draw them out.
5) Through a casual back-and-forth, she is able to make the tutee feel like an informal conversation is unfolding. Other tutors probably notice, though, that she has an agenda; she is conveying some valuable information on effective writing practices for college writers.
Now, here are some notes from the actual and official observation of her session. I want to say, from the outset, that this session was a tough one. I think she hung in there and tried her best, but the student was not the easiest. This is not to say that the student was recalcitrant or even mildly unlpleasant; the tutee was neither. She was just a bit on the hard-to-figure-out side. Was she tired? Apathetic? I couldn't tell. Confused? What, specifically, did she want from the writing center/from Katie?
Tip: Katie and I have discovered that, if one tutors in the collaboration station room, then a peer can observe undetected from the desk just below the cut-out.
Note: Katie and I talked, afterward, about how this session might have gone better if the collaboration station had been working. It was in the computer hospital in the basement of the library, though, getting its mouth cleaned out with soap, or pepper put on its tongue or whatever the fitting punishment is for naughty computers who've uploaded a lot of porn. Aly, when is that "no porn, no flossing" sign going to be ready?
No more digressions. Here goes:
The tutee wanted help with her thesis statement, so Katie asks about the assignment. Although the tutee does not have an assignment sheet with her, she does try her best to explain the assignment. She seems overwhelmed. Katie asks if she is nervous about the paper. I noticed that Katie as very careful in her efforts to steer the tutee away from concern with the thesis statement and toward a focus on critical researching.
Katie commends the tutee's printed out search results from JStor, suggests a few other databases, and suggests a number of alternate search terms. She also tries to refine the thesis with the student and to get the tutee to clarify her thesis based on the research, but the tutee is reluctant. It seems that the professor has "approved" the thesis, so the tutee does not want to part with her original plan.
Katie is gentle in her approach here: she suggests alternatives, but she leaves the option to stick to the original thesis entirely up to the student. (The tutee wants to find articles that make a specific argument to do with families' incomes and the effects these have on children. Katie notices that the tutee has found more on "working mothers").
In keeping with her conversational style, Katie says things like "So, you know what your thesis statement is, right?" and "This source looks useful/less useful" and "Does any source strike you as the strongest?" "Can you tell me what the argument is in this one?" "If you are focusing on dual income families, then you should probably decide what you want to focus on within that topic."
During the bulk of the session, Katie is trying to slowly and carefully get the tutee to evaluate and to summarize sources, to create a manageable list of related and reputable articles, and to try to find books as well as articles (she strongly suggests the library). She also offers a sort of mini-lesson on evaluating sources.
All of the casual back and forth, I can tell, is deliberate on Katie's part. She is helping the tutee to discern central arguments and to evaluate the evidence used in the articles the student has collected--all through what sounds like a chat between two friends. She pulls this off through many, many casually phrased questions interspliced with expressions of empathy, understanding, and comradary. What is most impressive, to me, is her "hidden" agenda--to get the tutee to come to realize that her thesis is not going to work. It may not come to the tutee while she is sitting in the writing center, but I am sure she will have that epiphany if she continues to follow Katie's friendly advice on evaluating other writers' arguments/uses of evidence, etc.
Katie is a tutor I admire, and I am very glad that I got a chance to observe her. For all the other eavesdroppers out there: check her out!
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Listening
We were asked to observe a fellow tutor in the writing center this semester. I found this funny because I am constantly observing other tutors. I observe without meaning to when I do not have a session of my own. Last semester I paid particular attention to fellow tutor’s sessions because I hoped to learn tips from them. Observation paid off, in my case. I would observe, and through observation, began to realize what aspects of their tutoring style I wanted to adapt myself. For example, I learned from observation that student’s tended to enjoy reading there papers aloud. I noticed that the students who were asked to read aloud were able to catch their own mistakes. This helped the students help themselves do something that perhaps they would not have done without guidance. It made the student feel that this paper was entirely their own because they caught the mistakes that they made. I feel that listening to other sessions is something that is unavoidable and beneficial.
What is the moral?
You can’t help but listen, and it helps you to listen.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
On a Mission for a Statement
At Wednesday's meeting, we discussed creating a mission statement for our writing center. Here is our current "statement":
"The Writing Center provides assistance to writers from across the University community. Offering a mix of appointment-based and walk-in tutoring appointments, the Writing Center also makes writing resources available to students and teachers on the Kingston campus. The Center employs as tutors both undergraduate and graduate students, who work with writers as a complement to their University studies.
Western Carolina University: They have a list of ethics which was kind of cool:
"The Writing Center provides assistance to writers from across the University community. Offering a mix of appointment-based and walk-in tutoring appointments, the Writing Center also makes writing resources available to students and teachers on the Kingston campus. The Center employs as tutors both undergraduate and graduate students, who work with writers as a complement to their University studies.
The Writing Center is also a research center. While working in the Writing Center, tutors may participate in research studies that add to knowledge about writing center practices. Research studies also provide a means for inquiring into broader problems in writing, rhetoric, and education. Graduate and undergraduate tutors have the opportunity to present at local and national writing center conferences and to publish their reflections and research."
As you can see, we need a mission statement. I've picked out some good example statements (in my opinion) from other colleges' writing centers:
Endicott College: "Tutors facilitate student-writers' own efforts and processes. They do not edit or do work for students. Instead, they encourage students to identify their own strengths and weaknesses and to understand how and why changes can be made." --We discussed this Wednesday, but I would like to repeat how Endicott states what their tutors do not do.Western Carolina University: They have a list of ethics which was kind of cool:
- "Tutors will not write papers for students or assume ownership of a student's paper or ideas.
- Tutors will not comment negatively to students about instructors' teaching methods, assignments, personalities, or grading policies.
- Tutors will honor the confidentiality of the tutoring relationship.
- Tutors will honor the professionalism and varied ability of fellow tutors, requesting assistance when necessary and offering assistance when invited to do so."
IUPUI University: "The University Writing Center is a free service available to all IUPUI students, faculty, and staff, at both the graduate and undergraduate level. If you are a student, staff, or faculty member, the Writing Center is a place where you can sit down with an experienced reader who will provide assistance with your writing. UWC tutors aid both experienced and inexperienced writers at all stages of the writing process, and in any discipline. Additionally, tutors can assist you with other writing-related projects such as resumes, scholarship letters, etc..." --I thought that this statement reflected our writing center well. And it really opens the center up and encourages its use, as its light language reflects.
Central Washington University: "They guide their peers toward communication that is effective in a global and diverse environment, during and after studying at Central." --Always thinking about the future!
I think that these are a few good examples of some of the things we may want to include. What are some other thoughts?
Central Washington University: "They guide their peers toward communication that is effective in a global and diverse environment, during and after studying at Central." --Always thinking about the future!
I think that these are a few good examples of some of the things we may want to include. What are some other thoughts?
Friday, February 26, 2010
Overwhelmed
I believe as Tim A. was writing his post on Wednesday, I was coming up with the same idea in mine.
Wednesday, the 24th, was two full hours of, “Can you edit this?” “Can you take a look and let me know what needs to be fixed?” “I’m not sure what we should work on, specifically.”
Not that I mind helping students out with their work, I however mind the word edit. The word edit, as defined by dictionary.com is “to supervise or direct the preparation of (a newspaper, magazine, book, etc.); serve as editor of; direct the editorial policies of.” I am NOT an editor. I am a tutor. The word tutor from dictionary.com is “a person employed to instruct another in some branch or branches of learning.” I am here to teach you about yourself as a writer and to help you progress with the English language as well as progress your use of rhetoric. If I were an editor, and all of us at the Writing Center were editors, this would be called the Editing Center.
Is there or should there be a preface to a session? Some sort of message that comes with booking an appointment that says something along the lines of “In order for tutee and tutor to work together, please work alongside your tutor and engage with your text as clearly as possible” or “Please come to your tutoring session prepared and ready to specifically state your exact wants/needs from a session (i.e. editing is not a specific enough qualification for a session).”
Maybe I’m stressed out because school is getting busy, or maybe I’m onto something here. That is something I would like to discuss with all of you. What are your thoughts on this matter? What do you do when students have nothing more to say than “Can you edit this?” Do all students (whether they say it or not) want a free edit? Is it wrong of me to want more substance than the process of editing?
Wednesday, the 24th, was two full hours of, “Can you edit this?” “Can you take a look and let me know what needs to be fixed?” “I’m not sure what we should work on, specifically.”
Not that I mind helping students out with their work, I however mind the word edit. The word edit, as defined by dictionary.com is “to supervise or direct the preparation of (a newspaper, magazine, book, etc.); serve as editor of; direct the editorial policies of.” I am NOT an editor. I am a tutor. The word tutor from dictionary.com is “a person employed to instruct another in some branch or branches of learning.” I am here to teach you about yourself as a writer and to help you progress with the English language as well as progress your use of rhetoric. If I were an editor, and all of us at the Writing Center were editors, this would be called the Editing Center.
Is there or should there be a preface to a session? Some sort of message that comes with booking an appointment that says something along the lines of “In order for tutee and tutor to work together, please work alongside your tutor and engage with your text as clearly as possible” or “Please come to your tutoring session prepared and ready to specifically state your exact wants/needs from a session (i.e. editing is not a specific enough qualification for a session).”
Maybe I’m stressed out because school is getting busy, or maybe I’m onto something here. That is something I would like to discuss with all of you. What are your thoughts on this matter? What do you do when students have nothing more to say than “Can you edit this?” Do all students (whether they say it or not) want a free edit? Is it wrong of me to want more substance than the process of editing?
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Session: Session Redux
During two shifts this week I worked with the same graduate student. Like other graduate students, he had come in for help with an pretty extensive document (20+ pages). After greeting the student (for the first session), I asked the student what they wished to work on within the 30 minute block. The student responded by telling me that they "didn't have a lot of time" and the student would just leave the document here with me and pick it up the next day.
I attempted to explain that that is not how we do writing tutoring here. The student than said well "can you just edit what you can now" and I'll come back and pick it up. Again, I tried to explain that that was not something I was "going to do," but I would work through the document to help the student learn a couple of effective ways to performing editing. For instance, reading the document aloud to another person who identities, in turn, areas where the prose "doesn't sound right." The student responded that, that technique wouldn't work because 1) the document needed to be finished quickly because the student didn't have time 2) the student didn't know anyone who would do that with and for the student. I responded that, I, would work with the student to do this, and passed the document to the student who decided it would a good time to try to "strong arm me" into editing the document. We spent the next 25 minutes recircling the issue that the student 1) didn't have time 2) it would just be "easier" if I did it for the student. Certainly, the student was pragmatic, in a sense. The student was right, it would be "easier" if I did it for the student, but then the student would never learn how to performing editing or correct the grammatical and mechanical mistakes that were in the essay independently. aka the give a person a fish, and they will eat for a day; teach a person to fish, and they will eat for their life.
Ultimately, I ended up explaining that if the student wanted to speak with the director of the writing center I would certainly put the student in contact with the director. The student said "no," I just need this done. So, I did the next best thing I could think of, I encouraged the student to return to revisit this conversation.
The student did return the very next day. And, to my disappointment the student brought the same attitude: I give the paper to you; you do the work for me. Thinking about the conversations today (i.e. the dynamic on giving and who is doing the giving) I now am beginning to think this is an interesting inversion of the power-differential. [Fissure for reflective pause.] And, splicing both Foucault's theorizations of power relations (specifically that which surrounds reverse discourse) and Freire's pedagogy of critical-praxis for dialogic interaction, I have come to a certain ethical stance I tend to take towards how I hope power relations might function.
[Brief explanation 1: "power relations"-(oversimplification for brevity) are created, maintained, and revised through discourse (I tend to define discourse broadly as what Burke calls "symbolic action" but basically for me it assumes both of the conscious and less conscious purposeful actions we engage in everyday. aka rhetoric.]
[Brief explanation 2: "reverse discourse"-is that which are more and less complete inverses in the way that the power-relations flows through the ways "subjects" are positioned vis-a-vis discourse (aka tutors give tutorial support; tuttees receive tutorial support reverses to tutees give directives; tutors do what tutees say).]
[Brief explanation 3: "dialogic interaction"-is the active product of a process that works to level power-relations by proactively involving participants as subjects in an action and decision making]
[Brief explanation 4: These are really big ideas, and I'm trying my best to be inclusive to all of the members of our community]
So, essentially, this is my ethical stance: I don't want the tuttee to be the "object" to my "subjective gaze"; nor, do I want to be the "object" of the student's "subjective gaze. Instead, of approaching power relations as unidirectional, which Foucault certainly theorizes they are not; I assume that they can be made, if parties come open and willing to take up the work of "dialogue," multidirectional. Aka, not falling into reverse discourse. Freire really makes that point that the "oppressed" need to be vigilant to not "reverse" the situation for those that once did the "oppressing" i.e. simply reverse the dynamic so that really there is no substantive change 1 party always assumes the subjective position and the other the object position in the model of giving and receiving. [But, I also acknowledge and realize that there are still the historical material and institutional differentials that exist before, during, and after a WC session transpires]. Ultimately, I don't want to appropriate a student's place within this contact space; nor, do I wish to be appropriated in a reverse fashion. What I want to do, and made slight headway towards, during the second session I had with this student is enacting a type of exchange that is neither to (I appropriate the tuttees place), nor for (the tuttee appropriates my place), rather with (we inhabit our places in a common and negotiated dialogue): perhaps the "textual" product does not improve, but it is my hope that the "ethical" product does or may.
At the end of the 2nd session, all I am sure of is two things: 1) The student learned there is a difficulty in their use of articles; 2) If the student wants to work with me to do the work of learning, addressing, and talking about how articles function, I will be here.
At the end of all of this, all I am sure of is three things: 1) I have appropriated a space that is not entirely mine with an ethical stance which is mine; 2) This is a contradiction to the ethical stance I have enacted; 3) I am comfortable with that because of the weird paradoxical sense it makes given the reasons I have outlined.
I attempted to explain that that is not how we do writing tutoring here. The student than said well "can you just edit what you can now" and I'll come back and pick it up. Again, I tried to explain that that was not something I was "going to do," but I would work through the document to help the student learn a couple of effective ways to performing editing. For instance, reading the document aloud to another person who identities, in turn, areas where the prose "doesn't sound right." The student responded that, that technique wouldn't work because 1) the document needed to be finished quickly because the student didn't have time 2) the student didn't know anyone who would do that with and for the student. I responded that, I, would work with the student to do this, and passed the document to the student who decided it would a good time to try to "strong arm me" into editing the document. We spent the next 25 minutes recircling the issue that the student 1) didn't have time 2) it would just be "easier" if I did it for the student. Certainly, the student was pragmatic, in a sense. The student was right, it would be "easier" if I did it for the student, but then the student would never learn how to performing editing or correct the grammatical and mechanical mistakes that were in the essay independently. aka the give a person a fish, and they will eat for a day; teach a person to fish, and they will eat for their life.
Ultimately, I ended up explaining that if the student wanted to speak with the director of the writing center I would certainly put the student in contact with the director. The student said "no," I just need this done. So, I did the next best thing I could think of, I encouraged the student to return to revisit this conversation.
The student did return the very next day. And, to my disappointment the student brought the same attitude: I give the paper to you; you do the work for me. Thinking about the conversations today (i.e. the dynamic on giving and who is doing the giving) I now am beginning to think this is an interesting inversion of the power-differential. [Fissure for reflective pause.] And, splicing both Foucault's theorizations of power relations (specifically that which surrounds reverse discourse) and Freire's pedagogy of critical-praxis for dialogic interaction, I have come to a certain ethical stance I tend to take towards how I hope power relations might function.
[Brief explanation 1: "power relations"-(oversimplification for brevity) are created, maintained, and revised through discourse (I tend to define discourse broadly as what Burke calls "symbolic action" but basically for me it assumes both of the conscious and less conscious purposeful actions we engage in everyday. aka rhetoric.]
[Brief explanation 2: "reverse discourse"-is that which are more and less complete inverses in the way that the power-relations flows through the ways "subjects" are positioned vis-a-vis discourse (aka tutors give tutorial support; tuttees receive tutorial support reverses to tutees give directives; tutors do what tutees say).]
[Brief explanation 3: "dialogic interaction"-is the active product of a process that works to level power-relations by proactively involving participants as subjects in an action and decision making]
[Brief explanation 4: These are really big ideas, and I'm trying my best to be inclusive to all of the members of our community]
So, essentially, this is my ethical stance: I don't want the tuttee to be the "object" to my "subjective gaze"; nor, do I want to be the "object" of the student's "subjective gaze. Instead, of approaching power relations as unidirectional, which Foucault certainly theorizes they are not; I assume that they can be made, if parties come open and willing to take up the work of "dialogue," multidirectional. Aka, not falling into reverse discourse. Freire really makes that point that the "oppressed" need to be vigilant to not "reverse" the situation for those that once did the "oppressing" i.e. simply reverse the dynamic so that really there is no substantive change 1 party always assumes the subjective position and the other the object position in the model of giving and receiving. [But, I also acknowledge and realize that there are still the historical material and institutional differentials that exist before, during, and after a WC session transpires]. Ultimately, I don't want to appropriate a student's place within this contact space; nor, do I wish to be appropriated in a reverse fashion. What I want to do, and made slight headway towards, during the second session I had with this student is enacting a type of exchange that is neither to (I appropriate the tuttees place), nor for (the tuttee appropriates my place), rather with (we inhabit our places in a common and negotiated dialogue): perhaps the "textual" product does not improve, but it is my hope that the "ethical" product does or may.
At the end of the 2nd session, all I am sure of is two things: 1) The student learned there is a difficulty in their use of articles; 2) If the student wants to work with me to do the work of learning, addressing, and talking about how articles function, I will be here.
At the end of all of this, all I am sure of is three things: 1) I have appropriated a space that is not entirely mine with an ethical stance which is mine; 2) This is a contradiction to the ethical stance I have enacted; 3) I am comfortable with that because of the weird paradoxical sense it makes given the reasons I have outlined.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Whiteness
Below I have taken the liberty of copying and pasting sections from a review of the book that a few years back introduced me to "whiteness theory." I had taken a Harlem Renaissance course by then and read W.E.B. DuBois among others, but David Roediger presented something I had not thought about at all.
Here there are, a few fragments by Faron Levesque (Smith College):
"In _The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class_ (1991), David Roediger writes that 'Even in an all-white town, race was never absent. I learned absolutely no lore of my German ancestry and no more than a few meaningless snatches of Irish songs, but missed little of racist folklore.'
By questioning why the main body of white, Marxist work has 'neutralized' whiteness and over-simplified race in the United States, Roediger concentrates the thematic structure of his sweeping analysis from this point of contention. The idea of 'profiting' socially, psychologically, and economically, from the 'wages of whiteness' is taken from the fundamental theory of W.E.B. Dubois. Emphasizing that even though white working classes earned low wages, Roediger asserts that their compensation went beyond the monetary to include a public and psychological wage. Moreover, 'Status and privileges conferred by race could be used to make up for alienating and exploitative class relationships, North and South. White workers could, and did, define and accept their class positions by fashioning identities as not slaves and as not Blacks.’
Within the historical legacy of racial invention, Roediger superimposes a constrained lens to question the evolving, technological operations of racial mechanisms amidst the objects of industry, folklore, humor, song, and language used to build an insidious racial hierarchy with ultimate staying power."
I decided to include these sections in my post because they capture the gist of that which altered the way that I think about race--my race--but also raise the problem of defining oneself as non-, or rather being the background against which others are made visible. They, like some points in Cathryn's post, also reverberate the blurry line (or so it seems to me) between reinforcing and redefining, or about how to change language, how to abandon stagnating words and categories in order to create new ones. I keep thinking about a professor's point with regard to attitudes such as racism, sexism, homophobia in the class room, namely not to engage them in a reasoned argument because that would validate them as equal or legitimate perspectives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)