Last night, I finished a draft of an article (on invitational rhetoric) that I've been trying to write. It is a very Don Murray-esque "down draft" -- just get stuff down so you can fix it up. There is going to be major overhaul, I already know it. I'm not sure the intro is working, the end is falling apart, and the organization might be all wrong. But it's a start. I imagine a tag cloud/crowd on it would show that I'm using the term "approach" waaaaaaaaaaay too much.
This is exactly why I should write with my students more often -- to remind myself how hard it is. Because it is. Writing is difficult, even for those of us who like it and who are somewhat good at it.
I'm going to read Meagan's draft today then probably take a good chunk of the afternoon "off" to do dishes. We had people over for lobster and mussels the other night and it smells like seafood in here. It's that kind of productive procrastination -- stuff that sort of has to get done, but has NO relation to the stuff that REALLY has to get done. I'd like to start reading Prodigal Summer by Barbara Kingsolver (who I LOVE), but I won't finish it in one day and right now, that's all I can afford to take off. So I might spend the afternoon (when I'm not washing dishes and cleaning out my file cabinets) watching Bones, or Happy Feet, or Venture Brothers.
Fascinating, I know.
Showing posts with label invitational rhetoric. Show all posts
Showing posts with label invitational rhetoric. Show all posts
Monday, August 6, 2007
Friday, June 29, 2007
Bah!
It's possible that I'm going to have to resend the manuscript AGAIN. It appears to have gotten lost in the mail. I should know within the hour whether or not they've received it. I do not relish the possibility of walking to campus again, sitting in my office for two hours printing it again, and walking down to the post office again. But if it needs to be done, it needs to be done. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that they find it.
I can't believe it's the end of June already. Seriously, where does the summer go? I plan to start writing again tomorrow. I've got about 10-15 pages of my lit review (which is what I'm currently working on). I'm going to try to write another 10-15 on Rogerian rhetoric. I'm writing the lit review kind of piece-by-piece, which isn't what I intended, but I wrote this section on mediation and negotiation a while ago, thinking it would be for a different chapter, but realized that it needed to be in my lit review. So I set it aside. That's what's happened with the Rogers stuff too. But I think I understand the structure of my not-yet-written lit review and I think this will work. It'd be nice to have that Rogers chunk written by the end of the weekend. Then it's back to reading. I've set myself the goal of July 31st to have a draft of my lit review and an article done. it's a lot to do at once, but hopefully it's do-able.
UPDATE: The manuscript has arrived at the publisher! Hooray!
I can't believe it's the end of June already. Seriously, where does the summer go? I plan to start writing again tomorrow. I've got about 10-15 pages of my lit review (which is what I'm currently working on). I'm going to try to write another 10-15 on Rogerian rhetoric. I'm writing the lit review kind of piece-by-piece, which isn't what I intended, but I wrote this section on mediation and negotiation a while ago, thinking it would be for a different chapter, but realized that it needed to be in my lit review. So I set it aside. That's what's happened with the Rogers stuff too. But I think I understand the structure of my not-yet-written lit review and I think this will work. It'd be nice to have that Rogers chunk written by the end of the weekend. Then it's back to reading. I've set myself the goal of July 31st to have a draft of my lit review and an article done. it's a lot to do at once, but hopefully it's do-able.
UPDATE: The manuscript has arrived at the publisher! Hooray!
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Silent Protest
I wasn't sure I was going to write about this. It seems a pretty contentious topic for a public blog, but it's on my mind and, from a detached standpoint, interesting.
A group called "Genocide Awareness Project" have been on my campus the last two days. It's a fascinating rhetorical strategy, really. I mean, who isn't against genocide? So the well-meaning social liberal gets off the shuttle or is walking by the display at the center of campus and thinks, hey, I'll stop by. I want to support an organization that's trying to raise awareness about the horrors of genocide. Our well-meaning social liberal heads toward the demonstration where she sees signs warning her of graphic images of genocide. She pauses, not sure she wants to see that, but wants to support the cause. So she continues on.
And is met with 15-20 feet tall full-color graphic images of aborted fetuses. And mass-graves from the holocaust. And corpses in Rwanda.
This, my friends, is in some regards about genocide but really it just uses genocide to make a pro-life argument. The Genocide Awareness Project, a national organization, equates abortion with genocide. So, of course, our well-meaning social liberal back-pedals it out of there.
It's probably pretty clear from many things I've said here and in the past that I'm pro-choice. That's not what I want to write about. I don't mind a pro-life organization demonstrating on campus. That's fine by me (and you know they were looking for my approval) [an aside: I'm in my office and there is a young woman waiting in the hallway for a conference with another instructor. She's hacking up a lung. A wet lung. I'm scared to breathe.] I do, however, have an issue with this group equating abortion with genocide.
I'm thinking about bringing it up in my persuasive writing class tomorrow. People tend to be nervous talking about race, class, or gender (particularly the first two) in writing courses. I'm mostly fine with that. But abortion? That's touchy territory. I don't want to talk about abortion per se, but about the argument of definition that's going on in this demonstration.
Of course the abortion debate centers around a few different arguments, one of which is the definition of life. Does life begin at conception or at birth? Now we add abortion as genocide to that mix. We could talk, then, about the definition of genocide and whether or not abortion fits that definition. And why this group might use that term in their demonstration.
But, again, tricky territory. I'm wary of this.
There are a group students, though, who are protesting the demonstration, and have been for the last two days. The GAP demonstration is in the center of the T-Hall lawn, a bit back from main street. The pro-choice demonstrators are lined up along main street, holding signs that say "abortion [does not equal] genocide" and "pro-love, pro-family, pro-choice." They're not yelling. They're not shouting. They're not saying anything. They're just standing out in the cold, holding signs, protesting. The rumor is that GAP has lawyers on site and are hoping that the pro-choice demonstrators will get into a physical confrontation so that GAP can sue the school. That's just a rumor though. It may be true, but it certainly may not be. I have no idea. But I sort of love this line of young women and men (and yes, there are men there), a silent line, protesting.
It seems to me that this could be a great way to talk more about invitational rhetoric, rhetorical listening, the rhetorics of silence, and arguments of definition. As an instructor of rhetoric and persuasion, I'm not sure I can resist.
A group called "Genocide Awareness Project" have been on my campus the last two days. It's a fascinating rhetorical strategy, really. I mean, who isn't against genocide? So the well-meaning social liberal gets off the shuttle or is walking by the display at the center of campus and thinks, hey, I'll stop by. I want to support an organization that's trying to raise awareness about the horrors of genocide. Our well-meaning social liberal heads toward the demonstration where she sees signs warning her of graphic images of genocide. She pauses, not sure she wants to see that, but wants to support the cause. So she continues on.
And is met with 15-20 feet tall full-color graphic images of aborted fetuses. And mass-graves from the holocaust. And corpses in Rwanda.
This, my friends, is in some regards about genocide but really it just uses genocide to make a pro-life argument. The Genocide Awareness Project, a national organization, equates abortion with genocide. So, of course, our well-meaning social liberal back-pedals it out of there.
It's probably pretty clear from many things I've said here and in the past that I'm pro-choice. That's not what I want to write about. I don't mind a pro-life organization demonstrating on campus. That's fine by me (and you know they were looking for my approval) [an aside: I'm in my office and there is a young woman waiting in the hallway for a conference with another instructor. She's hacking up a lung. A wet lung. I'm scared to breathe.] I do, however, have an issue with this group equating abortion with genocide.
I'm thinking about bringing it up in my persuasive writing class tomorrow. People tend to be nervous talking about race, class, or gender (particularly the first two) in writing courses. I'm mostly fine with that. But abortion? That's touchy territory. I don't want to talk about abortion per se, but about the argument of definition that's going on in this demonstration.
Of course the abortion debate centers around a few different arguments, one of which is the definition of life. Does life begin at conception or at birth? Now we add abortion as genocide to that mix. We could talk, then, about the definition of genocide and whether or not abortion fits that definition. And why this group might use that term in their demonstration.
But, again, tricky territory. I'm wary of this.
There are a group students, though, who are protesting the demonstration, and have been for the last two days. The GAP demonstration is in the center of the T-Hall lawn, a bit back from main street. The pro-choice demonstrators are lined up along main street, holding signs that say "abortion [does not equal] genocide" and "pro-love, pro-family, pro-choice." They're not yelling. They're not shouting. They're not saying anything. They're just standing out in the cold, holding signs, protesting. The rumor is that GAP has lawyers on site and are hoping that the pro-choice demonstrators will get into a physical confrontation so that GAP can sue the school. That's just a rumor though. It may be true, but it certainly may not be. I have no idea. But I sort of love this line of young women and men (and yes, there are men there), a silent line, protesting.
It seems to me that this could be a great way to talk more about invitational rhetoric, rhetorical listening, the rhetorics of silence, and arguments of definition. As an instructor of rhetoric and persuasion, I'm not sure I can resist.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Ten minutes
I'm trying this new thing where I take ten minutes to write in my blog. If I don't do it, I don't post, and that's no good. Or at least it's less fun. So, I've got ten minutes to tell you about class yesterday.
In short, it rocked. Now I have 9 minutes and 56 seconds left. No, really, it was an amazing class. I've got a class that's senior-heavy, which might have negative reprecussions later in the semester when they're getting itchy to be done, but right now, they're mostly a delight. I'm incoroporating feminist rhetorical theory into my persuasive writing course (as I've done for the last year or so) and yesterday, based on their discussion board posts and what they're reading, decided that we had to talk a bit about feminism(s). I had them take a few minutes and write their own definition of feminism. I instructed them to write not what they think I want to hear, but what that term, or the term "feminist" calls up for them. What do they think of when they hear those terms? Then I gave them five minutes to think and write about where they learned their definitions. Where did they learn what a feminist is or what feminism is. Then they got into small groups and, in the spirit of invitational rhetoric, offered each other their definitions. They were also asked to engage in dialogue, not debate, about the terms. I gave them about 10 minutes on their own and then started walking around the room.
What was so interesting was that just about everyone had written down a pretty standard, pretty distanced and sanitized version of a definition. They said that feminism was basically the desire for equality between the sexes. Women want to have the same rights as men. One young man said he'd rather say "benefits" than rights. I asked what the difference is for him and he pointed out that while women and men might have the same rights, technically, that men, by their gender, are afforded more priviledges. I mean, how much do we love that kid?
But even though almost all of the students wrote a similar definition when I asked them in their small groups if each of them identifies themselves as a feminist, almost all of them said now. "So," I said, "you're not actually for equality of the sexes?" Well sure. "That's the definition you gave me. If that's true, then why wouldn't you call yourself a feminist?" Which of course got us to talk about the difference between denotative and connotative definitions, and exposed the stereotypes and lead to an interesting discussion about different definitions of feminism and the ways in which they operate in our society.
But I think I really had the most fun talking with them about Rogerian argument and invitational rhetoric. They asked fantastic questions, challenged the traditional definition of rhetoric, and really engaged the question of whether or not conversation without intent to persuade is possible. We haven't found answers, but wow are they asking some fantastic questions.
Very very cool.
In short, it rocked. Now I have 9 minutes and 56 seconds left. No, really, it was an amazing class. I've got a class that's senior-heavy, which might have negative reprecussions later in the semester when they're getting itchy to be done, but right now, they're mostly a delight. I'm incoroporating feminist rhetorical theory into my persuasive writing course (as I've done for the last year or so) and yesterday, based on their discussion board posts and what they're reading, decided that we had to talk a bit about feminism(s). I had them take a few minutes and write their own definition of feminism. I instructed them to write not what they think I want to hear, but what that term, or the term "feminist" calls up for them. What do they think of when they hear those terms? Then I gave them five minutes to think and write about where they learned their definitions. Where did they learn what a feminist is or what feminism is. Then they got into small groups and, in the spirit of invitational rhetoric, offered each other their definitions. They were also asked to engage in dialogue, not debate, about the terms. I gave them about 10 minutes on their own and then started walking around the room.
What was so interesting was that just about everyone had written down a pretty standard, pretty distanced and sanitized version of a definition. They said that feminism was basically the desire for equality between the sexes. Women want to have the same rights as men. One young man said he'd rather say "benefits" than rights. I asked what the difference is for him and he pointed out that while women and men might have the same rights, technically, that men, by their gender, are afforded more priviledges. I mean, how much do we love that kid?
But even though almost all of the students wrote a similar definition when I asked them in their small groups if each of them identifies themselves as a feminist, almost all of them said now. "So," I said, "you're not actually for equality of the sexes?" Well sure. "That's the definition you gave me. If that's true, then why wouldn't you call yourself a feminist?" Which of course got us to talk about the difference between denotative and connotative definitions, and exposed the stereotypes and lead to an interesting discussion about different definitions of feminism and the ways in which they operate in our society.
But I think I really had the most fun talking with them about Rogerian argument and invitational rhetoric. They asked fantastic questions, challenged the traditional definition of rhetoric, and really engaged the question of whether or not conversation without intent to persuade is possible. We haven't found answers, but wow are they asking some fantastic questions.
Very very cool.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
CCCC and me
So I need to start getting my presentation together for CCCC. There's this line that all the grad students seem to know: you can write that on the plane. It's funny that we all seem to know the line, and we laugh and nod, but know darn well that none of us could (or would) actuall write it on the plane. Plus I'm flying from NH to NY -- not a particularly long flight.
I'm excited about my (potential) presentation. I haven't really started it yet. But it's on invitational rhetoric in the composition classroom. It's based in part on my classroom study, and in part on theory, and it should end up being not only an article that I've been writing in my head for some time, but a chunk of chapter 2 or 3 of my dissertation. I was reading and taking notes for the lit review chapter, and I need to keep doing that, but now i have to shift gears a bit and focus more on invitational rhetoric. Plus there's teaching.
I can juggle, but this is hard. You all know that, I'm sure (whoever "you all" actually are), but trying to balance reading, writing, teaching, commenting on student papers, conferencing, and that little thing called life? It's just rough. I've been doing some form of this balancing act since 1999 but it's still difficult every semester. I'll absolutely miss teaching next year, no doubt about that, but it will be nice to just focus on my dissertation, just as it was nice when I was a full-time lecturer to just focus on teaching, and not coursework. I know that this is the profession, and I'm game, but that doesn't make it easy.
I'm excited about my (potential) presentation. I haven't really started it yet. But it's on invitational rhetoric in the composition classroom. It's based in part on my classroom study, and in part on theory, and it should end up being not only an article that I've been writing in my head for some time, but a chunk of chapter 2 or 3 of my dissertation. I was reading and taking notes for the lit review chapter, and I need to keep doing that, but now i have to shift gears a bit and focus more on invitational rhetoric. Plus there's teaching.
I can juggle, but this is hard. You all know that, I'm sure (whoever "you all" actually are), but trying to balance reading, writing, teaching, commenting on student papers, conferencing, and that little thing called life? It's just rough. I've been doing some form of this balancing act since 1999 but it's still difficult every semester. I'll absolutely miss teaching next year, no doubt about that, but it will be nice to just focus on my dissertation, just as it was nice when I was a full-time lecturer to just focus on teaching, and not coursework. I know that this is the profession, and I'm game, but that doesn't make it easy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)