open mindedness: myth or reality

In my introductory Blog post this semester, I wrote that I was taking this course because I was concerned with the future of “open-minded” thinkers.  Alinsky says “even a phrase such as being open-minded becomes just a verbalism” (166).  The pragmatic radical would probably avoid recycling ideological catch-phrases like this.  Although I didn’t explain the “outside the box” ideology thoroughly, what I meant by this was something along the lines of a subheading called A free and open mind, and political relativity (79).

Del Gandio says “rhetoric is the creation of reality,” noting that people “materialize through immaterial means.”  In other words, intangible ideas affect our physical environments, and through rhetoric an idea comes into existence.   Alinsky identifies words like altruistic (I impulsively use this word) as having been created by “Madison Avenue public relation companies” to promote “American fairy tales.”  Although Alinsky never uses the word propaganda he is certainly implying the applied construction myths. Alinsky goes on to say “believing in people is not just a romantic myth.” (106)  To some degree the phrase open mindedness is one of these cultural myths that are used to categorize one’s self.

Alinsky’s book seems to be more of a manual for the seasoned organizer, some kind of glorified revolutionary, whereas Del Gandio writes for a less reputable, but no less significant organizer in the contemporary age of decentralized activism.  Reading both books has been informative and inspiring.

AR Chapter 5

The opening quote by Hayden White that suggests that every historian’s interpretation of history carries a bias, “ethical and ideological,” and the only way to relate the past to the present is to look at history as on ongoing narrative, not as an end.  I feel by promoting linguistic freedom many representations of history are considered equally valid, helping ensure history is not written for disenfranchised cultures by their oppressor.

Like the title suggests, this chapter continues to draw from ideas presented in previous chapters, providing a modern context for the work of Augusta Jordan, Hallie Quinn Brown, and Brookwood Labor College faculty and staff in the ongoing controversy over the relationship between language and cultural identity.  Kates contends the “politically neutral” approach of teaching language, which seems to distance personal life and academic life rather than bridging the gap.

In 1996, the Ebonics movement in California was attacked by those who saw it as a politically correct form of “linguistic colonialism” that would lead to “cultural separateness” – seemingly the opposite of what the Ebonics sets out to achieve.  “Parents and educational policy makers of many races worried that teachers would teach African American English instead of standard English and that this pedagogical orientation would further ostracize an already disenfranchised student population, says Kates.  Comparing vernacular education with bilingual education is “misguided” because the “variety of English” in the African American community is not the same as a bilingual education.

Information technology plays an interesting role in the erasing of conventions.  As more modes of communication are available, the writer has more freedom to experiment.  An understanding of the medium is important in the choosing of conventions.  But as a professional writing major, I feel teachers do not enforce a correct style on newer modes of communication than older ones. For example, in this blog we are given a lot of freedom to write in whatever style we choose.

Chapter 3: Elocution and African American Culture

The elocution movement at the dawn of the twenty-first century circulated to non academic audiences through community centers such as “parlors, clubs, and churches,” having “practical merits to business, community, and private life.”

Author Hallie Quinn Brown wrote texts on elocution theory that sought to address issues that African Americans faced in higher education, helping represent the culture and teaching others to do so.  Brown reevaluated the concept of proper language.  The mainstream pedagogy, which had “presupposed universal principles and ideals” on Standard English, did not include regional dialects of marginalized communities, limiting opportunities for higher education.  While localized vernacular was traditionally the wrong way of speaking and writing, Brown felt this was a cultural barrier that denied the African American Community of their linguistic heritage.  Brown suggests the African American Community’s language was “disembodied,” which helped perpetuate racism and illiteracy, and uses the term “embodied rhetoric” to describe “the politics embodied in knowledge,” and the relationship between the speaker’s identity and their message.

Brown’s work diverges sharply from that of others in its presentation of numerous selections in black English vernacular, selections that allow African Americans to speak for themselves about their own experiences in a language that is essential to the articulation of that reality.

Noting the balance between mainstream vernacular and community specific vernacular, Brown says:

Faults in pronunciation early contracted are suffered and gain strength by habit and grow so inveterate by time as to become almost incurable.  A mere knowledge of the right way, will not correct the fault.  There must be a frequent repition of the right way until the correct form will root out the wrong way.

Elocution and rhetoric seem closely coupled.  I found this chapter to resonate with Lisa King’s lecture on American Indian rhetoric.