While I have written about—and presented on—the ever-changing, often confounding relationship between Big Data and police tactics, the majority of my research has focused on a very specific technology: DNA-matching science. Of course, many of us will always look to the apprehension of Joseph James D’Angelo, aka the Golden State Killer, as a keystone moment in the expansion of police surveillance tactics, but there are other technologies being used for identification as well, particularly facial recognition technology.
I was scanning through some social media platform, maybe it was Facebook, maybe it was Twitter... oh who am I kidding? It was definitely Twitter. I came across an article from Vice News (hyperlinked here: https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/9kx7np/ice-has-been-mining-dmv-databases-using-facial-recognition-for-years?fbclid=IwAR2TWvVfo2hDqFIhdggDSRcFr3NVnFPhTeCcoiXOoPQUIZjpyMLW7rNG1wM) with the headline: “ICE Has Been Mining DMV Databases Using Facial Recognition for Years.” To be completely transparent, I am not a big supporter of Vice News, and often times find myself doubting the validity of their sources and the news that the outlet reports. However, I went with it; the headline was intriguing. My first thought—before even scrolling past the banner image—was, “Of course!” Of course, the DMV is providing data to ICE (and other government agencies). Before we proceed, a bit of caution. The disdain one might feel for the DMV, a government entity in the business of banality, should not impress upon the disgust you have for the human rights violations taking place at the southern US border. It is pretty clear what is going on here; it’s simple, really. ICE asks the DMV for information on immigrants and the DMV shares images and other data from their records. As we know and should always remember facial recognition is, as Vice calls it, an “unofficial surveillance infrastructure” without oversight. Even though, as the article points out, cities like San Francisco have banned this sort of technology due to privacy infringement, companies like Amazon continues to sale facial recognition software to police agencies—and don’t pay taxes on the profits they make! There is no comprehensive oversight for the use of this technology, and, as a result, this police tactic when seen as a rhetorical act. Due to this lack of oversight, as Vice points out, states like Utah and Washington, which offer identification cards for undocumented immigrants, now must turn over their data to ICE, which includes images. The improper use of facial recognition technology—and other surveillance technologies like genealogy databases—continues to be defined by our police agencies. This issue is a small portion within the larger field of surveillance culture and unethical police actions, but we need to shed light upon this issue now (and in the future) as the human rights crisis at the border persists. One way you might consider helping those in crisis at the border is donate your time or your money to RAICES: https://www.raicestexas.org/donate/
0 Comments
ARCHIVE FROM MY PREVIOUS WEBSITE
As the course presenter for this week, I feel as though it is important that I interact with the readings in this blog post. Therefore, I will discuss Cindy Selfe’s Toward New Media Texts, Barbara Monroe’s Crucible for Critical Literacy, and Stephanie Vie’s Digital Divide 2.0. I want to start with Vie’s work. This is the second text I have read by Vie, and I am coming to realize her work is important (necessary) to the foundation I am setting as a rhetoric and composition scholar interested in the intersection of pedagogy and technology. I really like her style, as I feel her scholarship is accessible for readers. As Vie works toward a definition of technological literacy, I really appreciate what she says about the role of the compositionist, “Compositionists should focus on incorporating into their pedagogy technologies that students are familiar with but do not think critically about: online social networking sites, podcasts, audio-mashups, blogs, and wikis” (10). Many of the assignments I include in my courses include digital components and, in my efforts to sustain a paperless classroom, I utilize technology whenever I can. However, not all my objects of production are new media texts. As I continue to grow as an instructor, I hope to develop a course where all the major assignments are new media texts. The next text I want to discuss in Barbara Monroe’s Crucible for Critical Literacy, wherein the author maintains that implementing technology in the form of digital communication makes for a more effective learning experience. Monroe details the correspondence between two schools, one which is primarily Latino/a and one which is primarily populated by indigenous Americans. The conversation concerning access in this piece is what struck me the most. When Monroe details how limited access to the technology, even homework, based on cultural differences, such as when Monroe describes the home as a place for family, not for work, for the Garland students, make me realize my privileged position when it comes to technological access. Moreover, it made me reflect on the kind of house my parents ran when I was growing up. I think my parents never came home to a family homebut came home to a place where they could keep working. There are pros and cons to this setting, as my parents had to work very hard to provide for me and my siblings, and I was well-provided for; also, I have a strong work ethic, something I credit for my successes, as limited as they might be. Cons, however, include me not feeling the strongest sense of community among my immediate family at times, among other things. This blog post kind of got away from me for a moment, but I think all these things are important. Like Vie, Cindy Selfe is emerging as a scholar I rely on a great deal. I have read a lot of her work at this point, and each piece seems to be important. The text we read for this week is great, as it presents ideas for activities which call for the composition of new media texts. I have read this text before, and even had my student at UAB read it before creating a multimodal composition. I really like this text and could see using it in classes at ISU such as ENG 145, ENG 145.13, ENG 249, and others. ARCHIVE FROM MY PREVIOUS WEBSITE
My blog post this week is the third of three blog posts which profile a journal within the field of rhetoric and composition. This week, I have decided to focus on the journal Hybrid Pedagogybecause it is a journal I have not viewed before. Based on the title, I think it will be a journal that I enjoy because I appreciate and am interested in hybridized methodologies (thinking about J. Blake Scott here), as well as how those methods inform our individual pedagogy, specifically my own a I develop as a scholar and an instructor. Hybrid Pedagogylabels itself as “an open-access journal of learning, teaching, and technology.” I think it is crucial to understand what this means as a scholar navigating the world of academic publishing clouded by the publish or perish mentality at work within academia. While this journal is not considered a tier-one journal, I think it is a wonderful resource for anyone working in the field of rhetoric and composition. On the website,Hybrid Pedagogy describes itself as “a community, a conversation, a collaboration, a school, and a journal. It is a place to discuss Critical Digital Pedagogy by advocating for students and fostering awareness of academic hierarchies.” I appreciate this description and also appreciate the editors of this journal placing themselves as colleagues, not superiors, to the writers who might publish in this journal. Upon further investigation, I found this quote interesting:“Hybrid Pedagogy was launched in 2011 by Jesse Stommel and Pete Rorabaugh and offers a new academic publishing model influenced by digital culture. As a scholarly journal, we encourage participation in the composition and peer review of articles across disciplinary and professional boundaries. We use what we call “collaborative peer review,” in which members of the editorial collective engage directly with authors to revise and develop articles, followed by post-publication peer review.” I think it is coolthat this journal is relatively new and is impacting the field in a positive manner. Included on the primary web page for the journal are links to recently published scholarship, which I think is great because it makes the website user-friendly. Ease of access is always appealing to this scholar. One will also the typical web-based journal tabs, including “About Us,” “Journal Articles,” and “Donate.” One tab, however, is unique: “Podcasts.” So, obviously I am going to explore that tab further. Under this tab, one will find information for The HybridPod podcast, which, “explores conversations of Critical Digital Pedagogy, listening for ways to empower students and champion learning.” The podcast is hosted by Chris Friend who is associated with Saint Leo University and episodes feature interviews “with creative pedagogues working in or out of academia, sharing insights and perspectives on how we can enhance learning and teaching in our lives.” There is an extended description, including the podcast’s mission, located on this page as well. I really enjoyed reviewing this journal and look forward to exploring it further soon. I think it is a critical journal in the field in which I have chosen to work. I also think this would be a good journal for me to seek publication in, in the future. ARCHIVE FROM MY PREVIOUS WEBSITE
In this week’s blog post, I highlight the three readings for Week 10 in ENG 467 at Illinois State University: “MOAR Digital Activism, Please” published in the interactive journal Kairosby Lauri Gooding, the Computers and Compositionarticle “#MyNYPD: Transforming Twitter into a Public Place for Protest” by Tracey J. Hayes, and Stephanie Vie’s “In Defense of ‘Slacktivism’: The Human Rights Campaign Facebook Logo as Digital Activism” published by First Monday. I found these articles extremely informative concerning my present scholarly pursuits. I want to focus on Hayes’ article first, as it if foundational to what I want to discuss in this blog post. One of the issues I have been having as I think through some of the assignment in this course is how to focus in on the activity as it takes place in the digital realm and to resist my inclination to transfer that activity into the physical action that takes place in the world. Hayes’ article allowed me to make a connection with provides a bit of clarity concerning how I see my work in this field unfolding throughout the remainder of the class and in the future. I connected Hayes to the article, “Location Matters: The Rhetoric of Place in Protest" by Danielle Endres and Samantha Senda-Cook. By having the methodology concerning place-based rhetoric in physical places, I feel comfortable thinking about the protests that take place in digital places and the associated methodologies for analysis. Another scholar I thought of this week is Ellen Cushman, and specifically, “The Public Intellectual, Service Learning, and Activist Research” published in College English in 1999. As we approach the twentieth anniversary of this article, I feel as though this article is as timely as ever, especially considering the current political climate in America, and, as an instructor, I continue to develop pedagogically with this text in mind. I think that I continue to develop as a scholar and a composition instructor, and even in my role as a Writing Program coordinator next year, it will benefit me a great deal to consider how we can get students to consider the implications of social activity on digital platforms in terms of activism. I did not strike me until I was preparing to write this blog post, but there was a bit of irony present in the articles assigned for this week and my personal social media usage. As I was reading through “MOAR Digital Activism, Please” by Gooding, I found myself struck by the quote, “We are in a position to shape understanding, perception, agency, and efficacy surrounding the use of public rhetoric, and we should not ignore the digital as a means to accomplish those goals.”I immediately Tweeted this quote. If the irony is not apparent, in Tweeting, I became an activist for the way Gooding sees the role of digital activism in our society. Of course, the implications of my moment of digital activism do not carry the same weight as those who were affected by the #MyNYPD movement, as well as those who protested in digital places for the right to equality in marriage, or the protesters who took to social media during the Standing Rock Nation/Dakota Access Pipeline standoff in the past. I continue to learn so much from the readings each week and am beginning to establish some authority in the way I see things within this field. Of course, this is not arrogance, only a young scholar developing some ethos. With these scholars, and more, including Cushman informing my decisions, I am excited to see how I continue to develop pedagogically. ARCHIVE FROM MY PREVIOUS WEBSITE
For my blog post this week, I have decided to interact with the readings which were scheduled for the course. The readings include include “Chapter 3: Remix: Afrofuturistic Roadmaps—Rememory Remixed for a Digital Age” from Digital Griots: African American Rhetoric in a Multimedia Ageby Adam Banks, the chapter devoted to Practice in Douglas Eyman’s book on Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice, and a piece published by Dustin W. Edwards in Computers and Compositionentitled “Framing Remix Rhetorically: Toward a Typology of Transformative Work.” I begin my blog post by discussing Banks’ text. While I was reading Adam Banks’ text (a text Ii enjoyed so much earlier in the course that I purchased my own copy), I had a lightbulb moment when I realized that the remix—this future text which draws upon preexisting text or texts—might be perfect to teach in the unique writing program here at Illinois State University, one which draws heavily on the tedious, yet comprehensive, Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. When we look at the seven concepts which comprise this theoretical paradigm, I think that, as instructors, we could yield interesting and effective uptake through teaching the remix. What this means is dependent upon the instructor. (Edwards approaches the pedagogical usefulness of remix in his article. I want to note that because I think it is important to put these readings in concert with one another, and if more than one scholar is saying similar things, maybe we should listen.) I could see instructors finding success in creating an assignment where students create a text, analyze through a Cultural-Historical Activity Theory lens, and then remix the text, while noting how aspects of production, distribution, reception, etc. deviate from the original genre produced. I also see the benefits in using a preexisting text and allowing students to remix into a new text on their own. So often, students complain about a lack of creativity in introductory writing classes, to these would be interesting assignments which allow the students to participate successfully in the class, which is heavily influenced by genre studies, while triangulating student creativity, student learning, and the learning objectives outlined for the course by the writing program. I find it interesting to note as I transition to discussing Eyman’s chapter, that one of the case studies he focuses on as he develops his chapter on practice is the Kairos article from 2007, the one with twelve authors, one of whom is Joyce Walker. I think this is interesting, very interesting, and I have read that piece. One of the great things about this chapter is that Eyman, who is, already, someone I respect a great deal and look forward to hearing, and possibly interacting with at Computers and Writing, writes specifically about what he does when he designs a digital rhetoric class. This is early in the chapter on page 117, but it is something that I noted for future reference, as I am finding my voice as a scholar studying rhetoric and composition. I think one of the things I have been doing as Ii navigate the readings and concepts for this class, is I have been taking my criticism out of the digital realm and into the real world. After some expert advice and some follow up research, I feel as though I have a better grasp not only of the practices associated with digital rhetorical studies, but also how I can pursue my own interests in the field in a way that is beneficial to my academic career. Finally, I mentioned that I am finding my voice. Each day I have something new I am interested in researching, one day it is access to technology, the next it might be the impact of black comedians on digital spaces. While I still see myself grounded in technical communication and digital rhetoric, the possibilities of study continue to reveal themselves to me on an almost hourly basis, and the implications of what I might study become clearer each day. I truly believe in the idea that it takes a village, and every day I find myself reflecting on how lucky I am to have found my village, and the community of scholars and peers who are going to help raise and shape me into the Rockstar scholar that I want to become. ARCHIVE FROM MY PREVIOUS WEBSITE
My blog post this week is the second of three blog posts which profile a journal within the field of rhetoric and composition. My previous blog post of this nature featured The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy, and this week a feature Computers and Composition: An International Journal. As I have mentioned in previous blog posts, my interests in composition studies research lie at the intersection of pedagogy and technology, so since Computers and Composition: An International Journalfocuses on the use of computers in writing programs, writing classes, and writing research, I feel as though understanding how this journal operates (i.e. the content of the articles they are publishing) will be beneficial to my success as a scholar working in the field of rhetoric and composition.This quarterly journal publishes articles in a variety of genres ranging from explorations of the ethical implications of using digital technology in the classroom to the discursive nature of digital interaction. High profile scholars in the field of rhetoric and composition such as Cynthia L. Selfe and Gail E. Hawisher have been associated with the journal, leading to, from what I gather, the journal, through its various reincarnations and name changes, remaining at or near the top of the field. By accessing the journal online, you will find tabs such as” Recent Articles,” “Most Downloaded Articles,” “Most Cited Articles,” and “Recent Open Access Articles.” One articles which stuck out to me under the “Recent Articles” tab is Uncovering Student Perceptions of a First- Year Online Writing Courseby Lisa M Litterio, which I might find useful since I a joining the ISU Writing Program as the ENG 145 Coordinator in the Fall of 2018. One of the goals for 145 in the next two years is to rewrite the curriculum, so it may be interesting to see how including an online component might play into that (I am excited about the possibility of adding a Service Learning component to the course.). Clicking on the “Most Downloaded Articles” tab will take you to some interesting articles, but one I found interesting is ‘Devilish Smartphones’ and the ‘Stone-Cold’ Internet: Implications of the Technology Addiction Trope in College Student Digital Literacy Narratives by Jenae Cohn. I find the premise of this articles interesting because I have taught the literacy narrative in ENG 101 before, and just this semester I began urging students to explore aspects of their digital literacy as well as print literacy. One of the articles found under the “Most Cited Articles” tab is FB in FYC: Facebook Use Among First-Year Composition Studentsby Ryan P. Shepherd. I plan on using this article as a resource for a conference presentation later this spring with the pre-colon title “Establishing Electronic Ethos.” The presentation focuses on how composition instructors can foster student awareness of the implications of their actions across a variety of social media platforms. I really love the content of this journal and I look forward to reading more of the articles published within the journal. ARCHIVE FROM MY PREVIOUS WEBSITE
For my blog post this week, I feature The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy. I discovered this digital platform for scholarship after making a list of academic journals within the field of rhetoric and composition or related fields. I focus on this journal in this blog post due to the title; The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogyincludes the intersection of one of my primary interests: technology and pedagogy. The way I am viewing my development as a rhetoric and composition scholar, a scholar interested n digital rhetoric, is that I am, “still figuring it out, still finding my place. Last week, I read Heidi McKee and James Porter’s book, The Ethics of Internet Research, which, admittedly, is a bit out of date, due to it being a decade old, and falls a bit short in expansive focus due to the narrowness of the argument. However, the text does set a foundation for considering the ethical implications of the internet research rhetoric and composition scholars are conducting. How does this relate to The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy? On the site, which is found at the URL, https://jitp.commons.gc.cuny.edu/, there is a tab for Teaching Fails, which I really appreciate, not because I a teacher who fails all the time, but because I think this is a good way to build a community of scholars who are working together to become more effective instructors. Most of my fails come in my role as a student; one failure came last week while discussing McKee and Porter’s book, a failure which I hope to remedy in this blog post. The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogystates the mission is “promoting open scholarly discourse around critical and creative uses of technology in teaching learning, and research,” which I appreciate because these are my interests within rhetoric and composition. This digital journal has tabs which direct you to aspects of the journal such as, “Issues,” “Assignments,” and “Reviews.” For the sake of time, I will focus on the most recent issue, Issue 12, which is a themed issue focusing on digital technologies in art history. While this issue is not devoted to rhetoric or composition, it does focus on the implementation of digital technology in pedagogy, which I find useful pertaining to my interests. The Assignment tab opens a new page within the site where instructors can explain assignments and projects they completed in their classes. The first assignment is from late 2017 and is titled, “Digital Humanities and the First-Year Experience: Teaching Reading, Writing, and Research with Digital Critical Editions. I think this assignment would be beneficial for an emerging rhetoric and composition scholar. After reviewing some of the other offerings under the “’Assignments” tab, it is apparent that not all these suggestions are for rhetoric and composition, but are aimed at the humanities, specifically digital humanities. Earlier I mentioned I failed when discussing McKee and Porter’s book The Ethics of Internet Research. During small groups in class, we were discussing the binary McKee and Porter establish concerning internet research as text-based or human-based, and I mentioned that if I was pressed to choose one of the two, I would choose text-based. After reflection and revisiting the text, my assertion there is wrong. Not only is internet research human-based, but I was not working to disrupt the established binary. While I am not going to submit this failure to The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy(it wouldn’t be appropriate), I feel it can be cathartic if not reassuring to discuss failures as both an instructor and a student. Since this featured journal also values failures, and learning from failures, I decided to highlight one of my failures. I can see this journal that I rely on in the future, and perhaps one in which I seek publication as well. ARCHIVE FROM MY PREVIOUS WEBSITE
The English Studies curriculum at Illinois State University requires students in their graduate programs to take a series of graduate level seminars, each focusing on a different field within English studies, including literature, rhetoric and composition, linguistics, and pedagogy. I appreciate this approach due to the breadth of information and knowledge made and shared in these classes. Yet, limitations of this approach include students having to take one course a semester which does not directly relate to their field of study. This semester all three of my courses are within my field of interest, as I am enrolled in the rhetoric and composition seminar. As a result, this semester I am feel as though I can truly set the foundation for myself as a scholar working in the field. In her article “Methodologies and Methods for Research in Digital Rhetoric,” Crystal VanKooten explains the messiness associated with the development of ideologies and practices in an emerging field like digital rhetoric. This semester I have been able to identify myself as a student who wants to become a digital rhetoric scholar, so I really value the work VanKooten is doing. I specifically appreciate that she is frank concerning what Jeff Grabill, Rebecca J. Rickly, and others describe as the messiness associated with rhetorical practice in digital spaces. Of course, this acknowledged messiness concerning application of rhetorical theory in digital spaces translates directly to the invention of research practices as well. I also appreciate the interdisciplinary approach to the methodology VanKooten proposes; I see much of the work done in the humanities as interdisciplinary. How can you not see it that way? VanKooten notes in her conclusion that “These new methodological movements for digital rhetoric are located in somewhat unfamiliar spaces, spaces populated by colleagues from the learning and social sciences, from cinema studies and design, and from information science.” This is exciting to me and is one of the reasons I feel as though I am attracted to this area of study. In Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice, Douglas Eyman presents a methodological approach to digital rhetoric research. As I make my way through the book (and the class), the more I come to appreciate what Eyman is doing, specifically concerning purpose and scope, in this text. Like VanKooten, Eyman synthesizes multiple approaches to define his methodology: “Taken together, these two positions—engaging context and expanding the scope of research methods to include the textual, the social, and the rhetorical situation—provide a platform for digital rhetoric research” (100). Of course, Eyman’s methodology is not without complications, a fact that the author notes near the end of his third chapter. Eyman acknowledges “the man factor (and the one from which he others derive) is access” (111). I agree with the emphasis Eyman places on this factor. While he focuses on issues of control (limited access) and ephemerality (instability), I would extend his argument to also explore the ecological and social factors impacting the digital rhetoric researcher in digital spaces. As I mentioned above, I really appreciate the English Studies model implemented at Illinois State University. As a result, I am establishing concrete connections between the rhetoric and composition classes I am taking this semester. The readings from this week, which also included the Introduction to Digital Writing Research by Danielle DeVoss and Heidi M. McKee and Cynthia L. Selfe’s and Gail E. Hawisher’s chapter from Writing Studies Research in Practice, correlate with the issues I have been exploring in Research Methods in Composition Studies with Bob Broad where Writing Studies Research in Practice is a required text. As I continue to envelop myself in this field of study, the questions concerning the ethical implications of this work abound. Yet, for me, each wave of uncertainty in this area of study requires me to answer complex questions and make meaningful decisions. For that, I am grateful. I leave you with my newest inquiry. Eyman and VanKooten describe the study of digital rhetoric as an emerging field. I wonder, then, about the implications of the constant evolution of digital technology on the establishment of foundational methodologies in digital rhetoric composition, digitial rhetoric scholarship, and digital rhetoric research. I am writing this blog post on Valentine’s Day 2018. It is my first Valentine’s Day as a husband to my wonderful wife, who plays a critical role in this week’s blog post. While we do not usually buy into the hyper-consumerist approach surrounding what would otherwise be just another freezing and frigid day in central Illinois, I was feeling romantic since it was our first Valentine’s Day as a married couple, so I brought home some chocolate covered strawberries last night. After dinner we landed on the couch, turned on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I and divulged in the strawberries. At this point, I did not know my night was going to dominated by the rhetorical agency of algorithms.
My wife directed my attention to a picture of a woman holding a giant champagne bottle and told me Facebook suggested her as a friend. Okay—I thought—what is interesting here? Then my wife showed me another picture on her phone of her with the woman and the giant champagne bottle at a bar on my wife’s birthday. I thought about how best to approach this situation. I had just finished Jessica Reyman’s article, “The Rhetorical Agency of Algorithms” in which she explains how algorithms function to provide “more ‘personalized’ and ‘responsive’ experiences across the web” for users. My understanding of algorithms still in its infancy, I decided to abandon attempting to explain the rhetorical agency of algorithms to my wife. Not because she wouldn’t understand, she is a nurse, and is in fact smarter than me, but because I did not want to come off as a know it all, especially with the strawberries involved. My wife chalked up the coincidence to Big Brother watching, claiming the FBI Agent in her computer must have time share in her cell phone. Alas, I wanted to say something—I was experiencing a kairotic moment I could not pass up. I attempted a brief explanation. Later that night, I was lying in bed scrolling through my Twitter feed (I always ask myself, “What happened to reading a book to go to sleep?” Then I remember, we live in what John David Bolter calls the “late age of print” and I turn back to my zombie-like attention back to my screen, anyway,) I was scrolling through my Twitter feed and I saw a tweet that read: “Two MIT grads wrote an algorithm to match you with wine. Take the quiz to see your matches” and a link: https://www.brightcellars.com/ It was there, so obvious, so blatant. Algorithms. Wine. My wife. What I had to do was clear to me. I immediately tweeted the quiz to my wife. It was not until the next day that I truly understood the dramatic, situational, verbal irony (all the ironies) of my situation. Here I am, a student in a digital rhetoric class who has just read an article about algorithms when my wife brings up an instance where algorithms are obviously manipulating her user experience on the internet. What did I use to explain myself? An article about an algorithm that was presented to me based on algorithms. At least it was about wine, right? ARCHIVE FROM MY PREVIOUS WEBSITE
I begin this blog post by saying I enjoyed the readings for this week. I found all of them accessible and, frankly, quite engaging. The selections from Adam Banks’ text Digital Griots had the greatest influence on me concerning my positionality as a student in this class and as an instructor who continues to develop a pedagogy informed by the implications of accessibility. The title of my thesis, written for my master’s degree program: “credo quia absurdum est: Redistributed Race and the Neo-Soul Aesthetic in the Works of Percival Everett,” was a literature thesis, so my scholarly background is in literature studies. However, once I began teaching, I found myself leaning, often quite heavily, toward the field of rhetoric and composition studies. Now that I have situated myself as a rhetoric and composition scholar in the ISU PhD program who would like to work within the realm digital rhetoric, it was thrilling to read a text which firmly connects to the previous work I have done in the literature realm. In my estimation, the study of digital rhetoric is, to borrow a term from Banks (who he borrows from elsewhere [boom! boom! —a remix]) post-everything, so the connections to my studies in African American literature, and specifically Percival Everett (and Toni Morrison and Ishmael Reed)—all author’s I associate with the post-modern tradition—are inherent, blatant, and most of all, welcome. Banks sets out to create a remix which defines the digital griot as well as African American Rhetoric 2.0, His primary sources are Black Theology—highlighted by the meshing of ideologies of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X, a theological perspective which emphasizes a resistance to the dichotomic—DJ culture and the defining of the DJ as a digital griot, and the work of influential black scholars ranging from Cone to Royster. I believe Banks is successful in his argument. One early highlight in the text is when Banks purposely slips the needle from the record and begins a fiery sermon in the tradition of the Reverend, a crucial figure within the development of African American culture, African American rhetoric, and African American literacy. The Rev (a la Rev Run from Run DMC; for an updated vision, see Aaron McGruder’s transformative televisual cartoon The Boondocks) may be identified as a cultural forefather to the concept of the digital griot Banks posits in his writing. Banks presents his translingual perspective and is dogmatic in his assertion that “at this moment in 2011, anyone still attempting to argue that Ebonics is a problem for black students…it’s time for those folks to be retired” (Banks, 15). James Baldwin, Amiri Baraka, Cornel West, and Henry Louis Gates, Jr. would be proud. As Banks continues throughout his text, his argument reminds me of an article by Ellen Cushman, “The Public Intellectual, Service Learning, and Activist Research” which details The Public Intellectual, a term Banks draws upon, as a scholar who develop a pedagogy informed by service learning and activism. One quote from Banks, drawing on Stull, stuck with me as I develop as a rhetoric and composition scholar and writing instructor: “the study of composition can, should, help set the captives free and give sight to the blind” (Banks, 112). I think this quote could serve as a foundational idea for me as an instructor of writing but find myself worried about the implications. That is, by abiding by the quote, am I framing myself as a master of knowledge? A gate-keeper to the truth? This is not the position I take in the classroom—I instead see my role as instructor as simply the facilitator of a space where meaning and knowledge are created collaboratively through intellectual inquiry and productive discourse. (Perhaps my concerns here mimic the “dual consciousness” asserted by W.E.B. DuBois.) The Banks readings are truly transformational in two ways. First, his argument concerning copyright, plagiarism, and intellectual property—all aspects of remixing—dictate further attention due to the constantly evolving landscape of digital technology use in the academy. Second, I am transformed as a scholar. Perhaps it is precocious of me to muse, but further investigation into the marriage of African American rhetoric (and the rhetoric of other systematically marginalized communities) and digital rhetoric is a scholarly place I want to be. Finally, the I am drawing two connections to my own interests and Banks’ text: development of a pedagogy informed by the tenets of The Public Intellectual and the concept of digital heirlooms, both of which Banks addresses. I can not wait to dig further into this work. |
Charles WoodsPhD student focusing on Rhetoric, Composition, and Technical Communication at Illinois State University. Archives
October 2019
Categories |