I very much find in my own mind that it's hard to separate the readings when approaching Yancey, Bitzer, and Royster's takes on composition, rhetorical situation, and voice. I feel that the three texts are interconnected in their conversations about the "spaces" in which conversations on composition are being discussed and the "codes of conduct" within these spaces. In Yancey's article she navigates the idea of "imagined communities and "gate-keeping," I feel compelled to ask "Does Yancey think that that these ideas of "gate-keeping and community," are conjured because we are thinking of these issues as being spaces? or Is this conversation more connected to what Royster highlights in her article about this idea of "voice" and who is allowed to manage what is a proper voice?
I think its interesting that we keep returning to the context from which writing centers were created. The writing center and the "standards of composition" developed side by side with educational institutions and time and time again we are constantly reminded of the cultural contexts that influence our ways of thinking when refer to composition. I feel Royster infusing a personal touch in terms of singling out cultural identity and social hierarchy as the main ingredients for why the management of composition can be so difficult. But are we being too problematic? Should the conversation term so heavily on the intersection of culture and power? After all we are concerned with the need for a standard in writing, and tasked with trying to manage writing in the 21st century, where the erosion of technology and communication is ever constant.
I find myself looking to Bitzer's analysis of "the rhetorical situation" as being a better approach to managing both subjectivity, standard, and voice. I agree that this process is something that should involve the writer, in whatever context that might be, and what specifically it is they are trying to express within their community.
Thanks,
Jeannine
No comments:
Post a Comment