Blog Post (2/20)
I echo
much of what’s already been posted to the blog about Lape’s concept of holistic
“toggling” – the HOC/LOC binary is a little too simplistic, and sometimes a
discussion about word choice or grammar can prompt a discussion about organization
and content (and vice-versa).
Brice
describes the Writing Center at UAF as a “contact zone,” a space of cultural
exchange between graduate student tutors and Native undergraduate students.
According to Brice, tutors are to “learn from” their Native students rather
than teaching them, “across lines of culture and hierarchy” (171). This all
sounds a bit idealistic to me considering that the subsequent paragraphs of
Brice’s piece make it seem like the goal of the UAF Writing Center is to
(politely) reshape Native students’ writing in accordance with Western writing
standards. However, I appreciate that Brice tries to preserve as much of her
students’ “voice” as she can. What do we lose as an intellectual community when
academic writing is only allowed to be a certain way (argumentative)? What
makes “our” way of understanding writing the “right” way? How can we better
allow for / learn from cross-cultural rhetoric? As many of us also teach rhetoric, I wonder
how we can design assignments that might be more open to cultural variance in
writing?
Comments
Post a Comment