Note: Since I read the essays in the collection somewhat sporadically according to which ones most interested me, I have included eight talking points (four for Tuesday, and four for Thursday) out of order. The first three are more meandering and focus on specific essays; the latter three are more direct, general questions concerning the collection or its themes as a whole.
1. In the spirit of blogging, I want to focus first on something I found interesting in the essay "Pausing to Reflect" on the British MO (mass observation) project and the nature and purpose of blogging as discourse today. The author asks how much of what we write (in our blogs, writing, journaling, academic work, social media, etc) is for ourselves and how much is composed for an audience. I thought this was an interesting question which emphasizes how contextual writing is. When we write for blogs, we are constructing a certain identity for ourselves and "performing" that identity through our words; we use certain types of discourse in order for our online identities to be perceived as the type of person we want to be perceived as in real life. Does anonymity give strength to the expression of discourse on everyday life? I found that an interesting question for my inquiry project and paper as well... another thing, even when journaling in an apparently private notebook, are we composing for ourselves or for others?
2. I found this quote from the "Drawn Together" essay very relevant-- it reminded me of Lindquist's A Place to Stand ethnography.
"...Having produced our identities, we then know who we are." The beginning of the essay explores identities as largely retrospective; only by reflecting on our actions and our bodies can we begin to construct our own identities through our past "performances". What do you think about this view on identity and performance?
3. I felt that "It's My Revolution", the essay on the identities of
mixed-blood Indians, to be among the more intriguing essays. (Though I
think the author could have done more with the topic than examine three
MySpace profiles.) The question of how or whether or not one "performs"
an Indian or mixed-blood Indian identity is complicated by whether or
not or to what degree one has the physical attributes or "regalia" which
is associated with "Indianness", and is accepted as Indian by Indian
and non-Indian communities. As a person of mixed-blood Indian descent
who has never felt very "Indian" or identified as such, I found the
author's experience as a "Finndian" interesting. The legalities imposed
on "Indianness"-- whether one can be Indian under US law-- such as
blood quantum, tribe laws, and the question of biological versus legal
Indianness are fascinating, if perplexing. How is performing an Indian
identity differ from performing a white, black, Latino/a, identity and
how are physical features and adornments (such as the shawl from the
essay) regulated as markers of "Indianness"? There was a lot to write about here which the author did not delve into-- perhaps she has written a book.
4. One point from the essay "Authoring Avatars", which compares the identities explored through roleplaying gaming with those assumed by students writing about themselves in composition classes, struck a chord with me and seems especially relevant. As students in English (or other humanities) classes, we are constantly encouraged to write about own identities and experiences in traditional academic writing and through multimodal projects like the "Who am I bringing to this class?" videos we made in this class. The author points out that students consciously design and author these identities as they write. I wondered if this isn't a critical part of the college experience and the reason why college graduates seem (in my opinion) to have clearer views of and clearer ways of articulating about their own identities. Does "writing our identities into being" serve a greater purpose in helping us to, by constructing our identities, assume those roles? Maybe this is a vague question, but I found it to be an interesting concept.
5. In "How Billie Jean King Became the Center of the Universe", the author discusses the function and meaning of Wikipedia as a "librocentric archive" and cross-cultural source of information. While Wiki is only just beginning to be accepted in academic discourse, it has been considered a reputable source in popular discourse for quite some time and has truly revolutionized the way we think about accessing information and media consumption. How democratic is Wikipedia; who exactly are these anonymous authors and what kinds of processes are at work when people tirelessly strive to edit and access Wikipedia?
6. The book is partially intended for an audience of teachers of writing (particularly, it would seem, for teachers of first year college composition). How did this affect your experience of reading the book-- did you read the lesson plan ideas or find they illuminated the more theoretical concept well?
7. In "New Approaches to Composition", the author addresses what they feel is a distinct difference between writing as craft or as a testimony to "a writer's ability to reproduce ideal discourses" which are approved by social institutions or others. What do you feel is the difference (if any) between "designing" and "crafting" pieces of writing? What stigmas or advantages do you associate with academic, scholarly writing, and do you feel they are in need of revision?
8. As our bodies are the primary media through which we perceive the world, the essays in the book discuss "media" through two different senses of the word. What do you make of the stimulating (if rather too cerebral for me to easily make sense of) quote from the introduction: "Writing as technology enables us to experience our bodies as our bodies while at the same time writing mediates those bodies in line with existing institutions"?
No comments:
Post a Comment