TIF: where politics is headed

A lot of this chapter was kinda boring to me (sorry to anyone who liked it!). I also had trouble understanding some of the main points. However, I took away one key thing from the chapter: the TIF method of discussion is where politics is headed (and in some cases it’s already there). A lot of the ways in which we can understand opinions that conflict with our own is by sitting down and having a thought-provoking conversation with the opposer. This only works unless a few rules are followed, such would be: 1. listening to the other person while they are talking, and allowing them the right to speak about what they believe 2. talking to each other in a calm way so that a fist fight doesn’t break out and 3. being open minded to things the opposer (or other people) say. If a group of discussers follows these GENERAL, basic rules, everyone will have a chance to have their voice heard–which is important in a GROUP discussion.

I think this is why TIF was so successful at Temple. The students and faculty wanted to find a way to allow others (who want to) to speak their mind on certain issues. It became even more successful when the issues directly affected them and their campus. Having an open public forum allows for lots of people to come and feel comfortable speaking their mind. Adding a moderator and a panel encourages organization…so people aren’t just yelling at each other. These were all ways in which TIF was successful.

This is why I feel TIF’s basic model is where politics is headed. Many people feel very strong towards one side of an issue, while others STRONGLY disagree. What’s the right way to let that all out without killing each other? Public debate and discussion.

It all made sense. I guess it was just another way of looking at rhetoric and democracy. And as an after thought, I like this way because it focuses on how rhetoric and democracy can play a part in our lives…even on the local level. No need for bells, whistles, thousands of people, and big cities. We Pennsylvania folk can join the discussion too. And that’s a pleasing thought.

ch 3: identification and resistance: women’s civic discourse across the color line

At first, I started to read the other chapter about cyberspace because I’m really interested in the growing fields of technology. However, two pages in I decided that I wasn’t as interested because of all the political jargon. So, women’s discourse it was!

I related MUCH better to this chapter, anyway. As I’ve mentioned before, taking Black Lit: Novel has helped me in this class (RDA) whenever we’ve talked about black rights, rhetoric, power, etc. The class also helped me understand and relate to this chapter in Rhetorical Democracy. In this chapter, women were going to be the subject, plain and simple. Shirley Wilson Logan was going to incorporate both black and white women–across the color line–in her chapter, but she found that finding texts that discussed the black race and the female gender was easier than finding white women discussing race and gender.

On page 35, Logan claims, “My central claim is that effective discourse across the color line or the line of difference must always engage in both identification and resistance.” In short, her thesis is the promotion of both identification AND resistance. To present identification, or to find commonalities is great; but, resistance is also necessary when fighting for more rights for women and racial minorities.

“We need to speak our differences, all of our differences without fear of chastisement or group regulation” (35). I think this quote is important because lots of times people ARE fearful to disagree because they are afraid the group will gang up on them, so they simply agree with the crowd. Pointing this out is crucial for the fight.

While this chapter does explore race through blacks, it definitely exploites the idea that women are discriminated against more because of their gender than they are because of their race. This surprised me a little, because we see racial discrimination still to this day…a LOT. We see gender discrimination, but don’t acknowledge it as much as racial discrimination. Recently in my intro to sociology class I learned that for every dollar a man makes, a woman only makes between 77-78 cents. This is proof that women are facing discrimination.

I loved that Logan ended with an Audre Lorde quote.

The fact that we are here and that I speak these words is an attempt to break that silence and bridge some of those differences between us, for it is not difference which immobilizes us, but silence. And there are so many silences to be broken.

ku classes

This section of Rhetoric for Radicals made me think of Erica’s post yet again. Her analogy of the book as a review of a lot of her classes still remains in my head, and it stuck all throughout this chapter as well. This was mainly because I could relate a lot of what Del Gandio was saying back to classes I have taken while at KU, specifically the classes of which I am currently enrolled.

The first class that came to my mind was Black American Lit: Novel. The very beginning of this section talks about language and its POWER, which we often discuss in Black Lit. Before the book even got to the example of slaves and their white slave owners, I was thinking it. Dr. Blaque, my Black Lit teacher often states that language is power because the whites stripped blacks of their native tongues and forced them to learn English. The slaves had no choice but to learn the language, either, because if they didn’t, they would be whipped, punished, or put to death because of their “deviant” behavior. I believe Dr. Blaque when she talks about language as power. I think Del Gandio slightly touches on this idea, but focuses more on the MEANING of languages within different groups, social classes, races, etc.

I then thought of my Intro to Speech class from freshmen year, who I had with Clair Van Ens, when Del Gandio was talking about how language and gender affect each other. Words like humanity, woman, history, etc. all promote a male-controlled society, according to this theory. One thing I learned from this section, whether I agreed or disagreed with the argument, was how focused we are as a society to stay within the cultural norms of gender and sexuality. This may seem like an obvious statement, but Del Gandio expanded upon it in a way that I found refreshing and new.

Following the issue of gender and race was the issue of sexuality, which reminded me of my Intro to Sociology class (which I am enrolled in right now). Sexuality is far more than straight, gay, and bisexual, and I’m glad that Del Gandio exploited this so that future agitators can understand and be respectful of a wider audience. He mentions the use of saying things like “that’s so gay” and how it might seem completely harmless to us in the moment, but how that actually encourages the hatred OR oppression against gays. I actually tend to disagree with this statement. If you are ok with gay couples, you are ok with them. If you are against the idea, you are against it. It is very hard to change people’s mindsets about these types of issues. It takes years upon years of social change to enact a complete revolution for rights like gay rights. For example, we know this from our history of slaves. It was a revolution that took many years of social change and I believe that changes for the uprising of gay rights will unfortunately take the same course.

Finally, I’ll end with the crash course in PC. I think Del Gandio did a decent job with this section, giving me some insights to new ideas. However, I think Del Gandio should have exploited the fact that everyone has different opinions about what is politically correct. It is important to research your audience and find out what language they are used to and then use THAT language when organizing them. Otherwise, anything you say to them will not be PC.

One thing that Del Gandio said in the PC section that was new to me was the history of PC, and how conservatives never meant for it to encourage multiculturism, diversity, etc.

Most meaningful to me, however, was the quote: “it’s about rhetorical effectiveness rather than political correctness.” I found this to be SO true. And people think rhetoric is a nasty thing…haha!

rhetoric for radicals part II

I agree with Erica. This whole section seemed like a review. A review of speech 101, composition, and it even served as a review for things that we already discussed in RDA (ENG 316).

The main idea of this chapter was communication. This topic is a large component of the KU PW program, which is why I am a part of the major. Communication is so important that from the time man existed, some form of communication was a part of his life. This subject area has evolved into many subgroups such as reading, writing, and speech–all of which are important in any field, job, career, or path in life. Even if you walk through life jobless, you will encounter communication. Del Gandio’s idea about communication is that it needs to be used effectively in rhetoric (it is a PART of rhetoric). So, when one is protesting and shouting chants…those chants are communicating some kind of message. When one is writing a letter to the town mayor in search of change, he is communicating. And, when one is reading that letter, a message is being communicated to her. So, that brought up Del Gandio’s second point: the message. The message is very important, and with a successful message comes many requirements including clarity, consideration for its audience, and a focus. I believe that this is extremely true and, as Del Gandio pointed out, anyone can think of examples of BAD communication, which could very likely be due to poor communication of the message. I found this to be the most substantial part of the chapter because it served as the base for all of the forms of communication discussed (speech, writing, and reading). If one can master this concept, all of the rest will follow.

The rest was the secondary concepts to his main point. For example, when one is communicating through any of the communication avenues, it is important to consider audience, credibility, clarity, history, etc. All of these will follow if the message is developed properly. Also, the message must contain a new element and be relevant and important to the writer or spokesperson. This is element can probably be considered part of Del Gandio’s main point of communicating the message because without a new, relevant and important message, there is no message.

As you can probably tell, I am very passionate about communicating the message–and doing it so well that everything that follows just works because the communication of the message works.

The end?

rhetoric for radicals

Wow. I liked these 35 pages better than the entire text in Rules for Radicals. I don’t know exactly why, but I found it to be an easier read, with text that I could understand because I could relate to it. This is exactly why Del Gandio is like Alinsky, though. Alinsky claims that the best way to engage people when attempting to organize them is to communicate with them through their experiences. Del Gandio’s writing did just that, for me.

Del Gandio writes in a way that’s less demanding than Alinsky. He still demands action and proper techniques when it comes to organizing and advocating, but he writes in a slightly more academic, less personal way so that everyone can relate to it in their own way.

Some key things that stuck out for me:

Del Gandio’s ideology of understanding each other and respecting each other. From this, I also related back to a point he made about leaderless leadership. With the aforementioned ideology, leaderless leadership is possible–where all people are able to communicate their thoughts and concerns and others are willing to listen to them. The overall goal is to hear everyone out, not have one specific leader controlling what a group does. These types of advocacy groups are for the PEOPLE, not for ONE person.

I also liked how rhetoric was explored throughout this chapter. Rhetoric as persuasion, reality, and discursive were all well-developed thoughts on rhetoric. If agitators consider these aspects of rhetoric while organizing and protesting, it could largely benefit them.

I was also very pleased to see Del Gandio stand up for rhetoric within organizing. This thought shined when he discussed material and immaterial concepts. We can’t ignore rhetoric…and we often do. WRITING IS IMPORTANT! <- That's basically what I interpretered this section to be saying, and as a PW major, I will simply state that it means a LOT. People need to realize how important writing is, and Del Gandio does.

Ok, bye!

rules for radicals 1-97

I didn’t enjoy this book as much as the last two. For me, there was TOO much history. While I can see how the history related to some of the points Alinsky was trying to get across, I felt bogged down in history lessons. Plus, I was NEVER good with history, and I’m still not. I guess if there would have been some up-to-date examples I would have understood it a little better and enjoyed it more. Nonetheless, I found some thought-provoking parts in the book to be useful to what we are learning in class.

The chapter on ends and means provided me with clarity. I’ve always heard that term, skipped over it, and never really thought about what it means to ask, “Do the ends justify the means?” I think for our class’ purposes, the means are very important. The means can determine whether your project will succeed or fail, if people will understand you, or whether your ideas are worth it. The means make up the middle of a sandwich, if you will. Without the middle, you just have bread, and what’s the point? Bread isn’t a sandwich, it’s just bread. You need a middle–or means–in order to have the end result, a sandwich (or an end for the means). <– See how confusing this sounds? That's how it felt to read this book, for me anyway. I felt as though I was struggling to get through a lot of the parts, and constantly searching to find something I could understand. Hopefully I didn't totally confuse the reader with my sandwich analogy.

I especially liked the second half of the reading, which started with a chapter about words and vocabulary. As a writing major, I was happy to understand the title, "A word about words." I can totally understand how words are misconstrued and can take on a permanent reputation as a "bad word." All of the words Alinsky mentioned–power, self-interest, ego, conflict–have bad connotations. This is bad for radicals, which that word, RADICAL, itself has a bad connotation. These learned-negative words are bad for groups that are trying to make a change. During the WTO protest, it was said that activists were creating conflicts by doing things that they never did. Journalists used words to describe the protestors as negative, even though it was a peaceful protest.

I'd also like to comment on the multi-faceted organizer that is required in any given social movement for change–be it small or large. I completely agree with Alinsky and his numerous requirements for organizers. It has been proven that people cannot be led by people who are not good organizers. So, the qualities that Alinsky lists are vital to having a successful protest, quest for change, or organization of many people.

Finally, the chapter on communication was also a vital read. Without communication, people will be confused. However, it is easy to TALK about communication, but what is it really? Alinsky makes it clear: organizers must speak to people’s experiences. If people cannot relate to an experience, there is no communication. Therefore, dictating and informing don’t work. In order for people to comprehend, there must be communication through experience. I found this chapter to be so educational and relevant to all areas of life that I think everyone should read it. Communication is such a huge part of life and some people have problems with it. I thought his method specifically regarding experience was so spot on that it could be applied to any field or part of life requiring communication.

chapter 5: ar

I still haven’t finished this chapter, but I’m only 10 pages shy, so I figured I would post what I have for now.

It is pretty evident that this chapter has concluded chapters 2, 3, and 4. It brought them together very nicely. However, I do think that the majority of this chapter discusses race, gender, and the working class as they are represented in the English vernacular/rhetoric/composition classroom. I think this is important to discuss because before I came to college, “Writing about Difference” was never an option, nor were the topics covered in such a class. I believe in writing about difference as a way to better a person’s literacy, critical thinking, writing, and research skills. I know I personally have developed as a person and in my writing by writing about what I know best–my differences and the differences represented through diversity I have experienced.

I also thought the Ebonics discussion was very interesting. I read the chapter on African American elocution, so the Ebonics section of chapter 5 interested me. I think this is a controversial topic, but it is only one of the MANY controversial topics discussed in rhetoric, composition, and other such English classes. I know other issues have been controversial, but I (personally) have never heard of them. For example, I’ve never heard about controversial gay rights issues in higher education English courses. For this reason, though, I feel really good that we have the opportunity to talk about any such issues in our writing, in this class and in many other English courses offered at KU.

Personally, the reason I entered into the Professional Writing major was because that was the best way I could express myself, and it always was. I loved to write for that reason. So, when Kates says that language is connected to identity, I REALLY understand what she means. I’m sure many writers can attest to this factor, too. However, many educationalists DON’T seem to understand this…which is why it seems there have been and always will be controversies within English courses throughout the U.S.

OK, sorry if there are tons of errors in here, I am so tired! See y’all tomorrow.

Chapter three: elocution and African American Culture: the pedagogy of hallie quinn brown

The first thing I wondered when reading this chapter was: what is elocution? So, I found a definition that basically said it was the “art of speaking clearly” with the correct enunciation. This is important to understand because it is the foundation for what Hallie Quinn Brown argues.

It was important to read the section following the introduction, which focused on the life of Brown and her background. She was born in Pittsburgh, Pa (holla!) to a family who was “deeply committed to black activist causes” (55). For one thing, her parents’ house was one of the stations for the Underground Railroad; therefore, from the time she was little, Brown witnessed many blacks escape slavery. This is probably where her passion for black activism began.

The rest of this section gives Brown’s credentials—and there are a lot of them. She has been published, spoke on behalf of black rights, and even established scholarships for black women to go to college. She ranges in areas of literature, politics, and academia as well as first-hand experience with those affected by the disembodiment of black rhetoric. So, she’s legit.

The next section, “Overview of the Elocutionary Movement,” discusses the central tenets surrounding elocution. We get the meat and potatoes of this movement.

1. The relationship among voice, body, mind, and soul. Body language is a huge part of this first tenet. Basically, if you are a speaker, you are not only judged on your public speaking skills, but your body language as well. A good example of this judgment is on page 59 at the very top. The block quote basically says a lot about the eyes, gestures, hands and arms, and then discusses the person’s reporting style. It definitely made me feel as though I should be more conscious of my actions next time I am speaking, not just my voice and speaking skills.

2. The relationship between thought and delivery. Here the idea of what is “natural” when speaking is explored. (Note the quotation marks, she used them every time she mentioned the word “natural,” mainly because this idea is subjective.) This is where elocution and African American culture comes into play. The idea of what is “natural,” they say, must be practiced and Kates questions, if it is “natural,” why must it be practiced? So, for example, if it is “natural” for someone to speak a certain way (i.e. with a southern accent, or a black accent), why must they practice elocution (the correct and clear way of speaking in the English vernacular)? Along with this, the question is also posed: how are audiences affected by different speakers (i.e. women, blacks, Hispanics, etc.)?

This is where the section turns over to explore Brown’s ideals. In this chapter, Kates describes Brown’s aim to include the African American vernacular English, African American history, and social responsibility in work dedicated to elocution.

Specifically, Kates discusses how Brown challenges the cannon. The cannon are Brown’s white counterparts, who are notorious for excluding the black English vernacular in their work. Brown, obviously, doesn’t do this; rather, she includes the black vernacular in her works: the reciter texts. Reciter texts included stories, poems, and speeches for practicing proper elocution. They were often used in a family environment because they provided entertainment pieces. An example of black vernacular can be found on page 64 at the top of the page (the block quote).

Kates questions what is right and how greatness is determined and by whom it is determined. This is a good thing to be questioning when we are told we are wrong. Brown was told she was wrong to stand up for black vernacular, but she did it anyway. Why did she do it? Because many blacks at that time didn’t have the education and literacy skills in order to speak with elocution—but they could speak. So why weren’t they allowed to speak the way they could? And who determined that their way of speaking was wrong? Whites did, and they ignored the black history behind everything. “While numerous reciter texts by mainstream elocutionists often include speeches that take up the abolitionist cause, such speeches are invariably in the voice of whites who speak for blacks and do not contain examples of blacks speaking for themselves” (67). This quote explains everything previously mentioned in this paragraph. Whites were projecting their voice over blacks so that blacks could not be heard. So Brown allows African Americans to have a voice in her texts. Otherwise, when we are reading “black” texts or pieces within texts, we’re really just reading what whites have to say about blacks, and that is not an accurate opinion. If we’re not hearing it from the horse’s mouth, we’re not really hearing it. And, as chapter three points out, we are still apprehensive to include black vernacular and history into our texts. Some are inclusive, but some aren’t. It’s still a process to be worked on.

I have to end here because I have other stuff I need to get to tonight, but let me close with a quote from Brown in her “First Lessons in Public Speaking” manuscript (70):

The intellect is highly trained in our schools and institutions of learning, but little or no regard is paid to the systematic training of the higher powers…intellect is not the highest gift to man. The business of intellect is simply to know. Above and back of that stands character—the soul that directs and impels both mind and body. Elocution teaches the student that he is to cultivate these higher powers; that he is to quicken his sense of obligation to himself, to his fellow man…(165)

I loved this quote. It is so eloquent of her to say this—because it makes such perfect sense! Life isn’t always about how much you know or how smart you are. It’s how you use those smarts to help the common good and “fellow man.” Character, as she points out, is what holds up the intellect of man. What you know is reflected in your character, so your character really says a lot about what you know.

Fin.

chapter 1: AR

I just finished reading the first chapter in AR. I felt a bit of a struggle while reading it. I don’t necessarily think it was boring, but it was difficult to read, which made it appear boring.

Most of the text in this chapter I did feel a connection to, especially the African American sections. I am in Black American Lit: Novel (ENG 237) right now, and I can easily relate material we discuss in that class to the African American material we discuss in RDA. Also, in ENG 237 we have learned about the oppression of white women, which this chapter also discussed. The other group mentioned in the text was the working class, which I suppose is another reason I found it to be a little bland. I was longing for more diversity aside from these three groups, because they are often discussed; so I wonder why the text didn’t mention other groups that were excluded from higher education and rhetorics because they’re never really discussed. I find this to be the reason I have so much difficulty searching for disability-related pieces. Also, it reminded me about the guest speaker we had (the potential faculty member) who spoke about sovereignty.

Many of my following comments will be random, but they were the things I highlighted while reading.

One thing that shocked me was how Edward Clarke, a professor of gynecology, was against so many womens’ rights. How could he be, given his profession? It seemed very hypocritical. I honestly thought I was about to read about someone standing up for women, but in fact it was the polar opposite. It was quite the disappointment.

Obviously, another shocking part was the fact that many psychologists, sociologists, and scientists claimed to have found “evidence” regarding proof that females, blacks, and the working class were mentally incapable of achieving the knowledge of whites and males. This point is referred to several times, which is the most ridiculous part.

Working class citizens were forbidden to participate in unions, and if they did, there was a “Yellow-dog contract” which allowed employers to fire or refuse employment to anyone affiliated with a union” (7). This is also ridiculous, but (even though I hate to say it) I half-expected to read this because of the time period we are dealing with, which is probably the reason people with disabilities aren’t even mentioned. They were all perceived to be “mentally challenged” or “retarded” and mentally and physically incapable of doing anything–no matter what the disability.

I appreciated Kates’ effort to explain herself. When saying “mainstream,” she explains what SHE means by it. She is very clear and doesn’t let any part of her text be confusing for the reader. She explains the difficulties she’s having putting everything into words–and the struggles she has with them. But, it should be noted that she does do a great job being clear. (Maybe almost too much? Just because it seemed to ramble on in some parts.)

The text also makes references to comparisons/binaries. Whites/blacks, men/women, and higher class/working class. Kates’ marks references to how men should not take precedents or set the model for women in higher education. I think this is a great statement, and one that continues to shed light on us today (in higher education, the work force, etc.).

I think that’s all I will post for now. See you all tomorrow!

~Jackie

Chapter 4 – MLK

Many things struck me about the chapter (4) that I chose to focus on. Mainly, though, the power of the agitators really made me feel good about change. Sometimes, the things people want to change are just too far from reality; however, people with realistic ideas that want to change things are generally smart about their tactics because their common goal is developed and strong–therefore their tactics to initiate a change are strong. For example, the chapter discusses MLK and his fight to end segregation and discrimination against blacks. Most of their means were successful, but on page 78, we find that not all of them were, “King and his followers had suffered defeats in places like Albany, Georgia, in 1962 because of a lack of planning and coordination. They vowed not to make the same mistakes in Birmingham.” This is smart. Not only did they not give up–they vowed not to let it happen again, making their fight for freedom even stronger, because they knew what they should and should not do. They learned from their mistakes, fixed them, and continued on their journey. Another thing that made me reflect on this movement (in Birmingham) was the ignorance that King and followers faced. To witness such hatred from whites, yet still fight using NONVIOLENT techniques amazes me. Nonviolent protesting/activism takes guts. How these activists didn’t get up and start violently protesting makes me curious. If I put myself in the shoes of a black activist during that time period, I feel as though it would get old really fast. Watching people beat my brothers and sisters, throw them in jail, or burn their houses down–it would simply enrage me and the will to continue nonviolent protesting would probably escape me. So, in short, I guess I really admire the men and women who fought for their rights in such a way.

Other snipets I’d like to add:

Their tactics were really cool. On page 83, when discussing their tactics, it says, “One played the role of a representative of the establishment, the other took the role of a nonviolent resister.” How smart is that? It’s simulation at its finest.

A few things made me sick (and always have when looking back to this period of history). “They took those signs down because you were coming to town, and they’ll put them up again as soon as you leave” (82). The sad thing is, this still goes on today. People will be respectful in the presence of certain individuals, but as soon as they are with their close group of friends, their back to being disrespectful towards those certain individuals.

Another sick thing was the images of police dogs, fire hoses, and increased violence towards blacks that is always in everyone’s mind when we think about segregation and discrimination. However, I found it interesting that these horrible TV images made neutral parties take action. Neutral peoples were now putting themselves on the agitator’s side; thus, the activist’s party increased in members, allowing the agitators an advantage while the establishment was at a disadvantage.

And finally, the saddest of all, “We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed” (90). And isn’t that the truth.