The Rhetoric of Blogging

When blogging about rhetoric, it forces the author to reflect on his or her own use of rhetoric.  For instance, I must always ask myself: what is the exigence for my writing?  In other words, what prompts my writing?  The class schedule requires that I perform a weekly blog post, and if it wasn't for my desire to earn a good grade in this class, I would not write these posts.  Hence, the exigence is the class requirement combined with my determination to earn a high grade.  In addition, this is an extension of my determination to earn a Master's degree; I want to learn about the art of teaching writing so that I can better serve my students.  The more my students will learn, the better society and future generations will be.  Thus, in a way, the exigence for my blogs stems from my desire to see a better and brighter future.
Another question I constantly ask myself is: who is my audience, and what is my purpose for writing to them?  At times, I write for my teacher.  Other times, I write for future employers that may look upon my writing.  In addition, I write for myself so that I may be able to look upon these blog posts in the future and refresh my memories.  And finally, I write so that my future students can visit my blog and read my reflections on rhetoric.  Trying to juggle these different audiences can be difficult and even contradictory.  For instance, what I write as a reminder to myself in the future may not be the same thing I would write to a prospective employer.  These different audiences forces me to write as different speakers.
Because I write for four audiences, I have to code-switch between the way I write.  For example, if I write for my teacher, I write in a more formal, academic tone.  When I write for myself, I write using a shorthand that I would be able to understand: self-comprehension would be my main focus.  When writing for future students, I write as an authority figure disseminating information on rhetoric.  And finally, when I write to prospective employers, I write very formally as an authority figure using academic language and focusing on theoretical rather than practical applications. 
The depth of my exigency and the constant shifting of audience provide an overview of my rhetorical process while blogging.  The speaker and audience is in constant flux while the exigency remains the same.  The purpose may change, but the motivation doesn't.  This may lead to a disjunction among my blog posts as one may be informal and shorthand while another may be formal and employ copious amounts of academic language.  Overall, I try to produce the best writing I can regardless of which audience I am primarily writing for.

Arguing in print, online, and face-to-face

In Theresa Enos and Shane Borrowman’s article “Authority and Credibility,” the authors synthesize the classical definitions of ethos with the emerging importance of online sources.  This article inspired me to create an activity based on their assertion that “students often intuitively work through issues of credibility.  They know, for example, that Time is a better source than The Daily Wildcat…They know that neither is as good as an article from a scholarly journal or new anthology published by a university press” (107).  The activity is an introduction to ethos, and it begins with the class brainstorming different sources of getting news.  After a student finishes writing all of the different types of sources on the board, students will get into groups and arrange the list in order of least credible to most credible news sources on the board.  Afterwards, we will debrief on the lists and discuss the role and importance of credibility in developing an argument.

Gesa E. Kirsch and Jacqueline J. Royster’s article “Feminist Rhetorical Practices: In Search of Excellence” inspired me to have students write a reflection throughout their papers.  It was refreshing to have the author write their reflection as I read because it offered me an insight on the author’s thought process.  This reflection will help students become even more conscious of their writing process through reflecting on their writing and thinking-process.  In this manner, a writing assignment can turn into a meta-writing assignment where students reflect on their writing process.

 Bo Wang’s article “Engaging Nuquanzhuyi: The Making of a Chinese Feminist Rhetoric” was a little disappointing.  It was refreshing to step into the point of view of a marginalized group of people, but the subject-matter was a little out of touch with contemporary feminist theory in China due to the fact that the author chose to focus on feminist writings from the early twentieth century.  With the scarcity of women in China, women have gained more power.  It would have been interesting to see how the significant gender imbalance in China has contributed to the female perspective on rhetoric.  In this manner, the article was slightly disappointing.

My favorite reading this week, Brian Jackson and Jon Wallin’s “Rediscovering the ‘Back-and-Forthness’ of Rhetoric in the Age of YouTube,” focused on the difference between arguing in an academic paper, arguing online, and arguing in face-to-face scenarios.  The article argues that although academic institutions are great at having students produce argumentative writing, they are neglecting the equally if not more, important medium of arguing online and face-to-face.  Coming from a high school teacher’s perspective, the common core standards require that students collaborate and argue with each other throughout their high school career.  However, it is rare that teachers require students to argue online.  Although it is a rough outline, I believe that teachers can design activities that require students to either write blog responses to other students’ blogs they disagree with or require students to make an argument to a real-world organization in the community.  These activities would help empower students’ voice and provide a meaningful learning opportunity respectively.  Overall, these readings helped me develop three in-class activities that will help my students understand and employ rhetoric better. 

How much should you know about me?

I found Stephanie Kerschbaum’s article “On Rhetorical Agency and Disclosing Disability in Academic Writing” fascinating.  Like the Kerschbaum, I was offended how people (some close and some not so close to the author) suggest that she mentions her disability in her writing.  It challenges the notion that the writing is adequate on its own.  It also calls special attention to those writing about people with special needs.  For example, authors in African-American studies don’t have to reveal whether or not they are black, authors of violence of against women texts don’t have to reveal whether or not they were domestically or sexually assaulted, and authors writing about gender don’t have to reveal which gender they more associate with.  This resonates with her declaration that, “Why am I always asked to talk about my deafness?  Why not about my race or my gender or sexuality?  Nobody has ever said to me, ‘So how does your gender play into this theory?’” (67).  However, Kerschbaum relates how writers of disability studies face direct or indirect pressure to reveal either their specific disability or their relative with a disability.  This is definitely a form of discrimination in the academic world.

I found it fascinating that Kerschbaum comes to the realization amid her academic career that revealing or not revealing one’s disability in their writing is a strategic choice on the author’s part.  I also found the following claim and rationale intriguing, “Because disability is a contested site upon which identity claims are made…disability self-disclosures are a prime location where academic writers assert themselves and give texture to their identity claims” (61).  Kerschbaum makes the claim that disability is so intertwined with one’s identity that it would be difficult to separate the disability from the person.  I don’t know how much I agree with that claim.  However, she simultaneously mentions how the acknowledgement of one’s disability is a form of empowerment that can act as a sort of membership in a particular subset of the academic community.  In other words, claiming one’s identity could be empowering or demeaning depending on how the author perceives it.

Claiming one’s disability can also backfire.  Kerschbaum mentions how an audience could understand the writing as a self-empowering piece where the only praise the author receives is that he or she is “brave” for writing about their disability.  I love how Kerschbaum then makes the academic distinction between the body and the mind, and when should the body come in in topics of the mind?  Kerschbaum’s writing begs the question as to how much the audience should know about the person who wrote an article and why should it matter?  What is salient and not salient to disclose?  And, how can we make that distinction?  Her article forces us, as readers, to evaluate how much of ourselves we disclose in our writing as well as why we do or do not do it.  It also calls into questions how much of an author do you need to understand before you read their article.  The ideas, questions, and struggles in this article will stay with me for a long time.