The views of voice expressed in the literature seem to be based extensively on the examination of individualism versus collectivism. Admitting to the existance of these cultural differences, they (p. 51) believe that teaching writing to L2 speakers may end up looking like trying to install incompatible software to certain hardware. However, in so doing, they may have been so quick to draw a conclusion from these cultural phenomena as if individualism does not exist in its entirity in Asian cultures. Individualism may still be held alongside collectivism depending on the type of situations at hand. Overgenralization derived from studies on only how students from those cultures write or perform may lead to oversimplication of the whole issue. Any idea folks?
Ramanathan and Atkinson's problematization of voice may be a case in point, however, his methods of arriving at certain conclusions about certain cultures may also be seen as aligning itself so much with the "deficit theory"-like views (as we've seen in Kaplan's doodle (check your spelling fikri!) article) that certain cultures express themselves this way or that way. Again, what do you folks think?
I find it very reductive that the term process (as in Scollon's view used to support their argument) strictly translates to words such as individualism, rationalism. and autonomicity, as if that is the only direction toward which the movement from the product approach was headed. Can't other cultures too think rationally?
While I do believe that there is a lot to be done with regard to voice in L2 writing, basing the studies of voice on very limited research findings or on issues featuring the 'others' cultures' as being at lower, higher, better, worse thinking order as the terms individualism and collectivism suggest or imply may make us miss the forest. Individualim might not be the only culprit that accounts for all differences in expression across various cultures.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
On Matsuda-Atkitson's Little Chit Chat
Matsuda and Atkinson's platonic conversation sort of fills in many ways the gaps I sensed in Kaplan's article. They make me appreciate Kaplan' ideas even more for what he has come up with more than 40 years ago. Although many scholars seem to be poking at him, they have at the same time given so much credit to what he has built. However, with no intention of being disrespectful to Kaplan’s early enlightening contribution to multicultural rhetoric, Matsuda’s argument is justified saying that Kaplan’s 1966 article has received so much attention that people forget the fact that in order to have a solid and comprehensive CR theoretical ground, things do not have to revolve around Kaplan's article.
Reading Kaplan's is one thing, reading Matsuda and Atkinson's is another. I am still left with burning curiosity in my mind as to where we are headed. Matsuda proposes two major shifts in the way we look at CR. First, since CR does not provide satisfactory conditions for it to be a distinct field, we need to move away from the already accepted view of what the currently understood CR holds. This can be done either by abandoning the term or finding a safe spot somewhere between CR and comparative rhetoric. This is a combination of multiple foci: textual features, humanity, and others. Second, a more radical approach of post-modernism, dissolving (Atkinson's term) the whole thing and let other well-established fields adopt and develop its pieces is at least not beyond reach.
Either way, I too believe that CR is a dynamic concept that should not take orders from any one. If revolutionary steps are necessary in order to make changes in people's lives and in the way the world operates then be it. If we accept that there are multiple literacies, then why can’t there be multiple rhetorical traditions or dimensions? Reducing CR to including only its textual features is, I believe, obscuring the visibility of the whole forest of rhetoric and misleading to teaching and research.
Reading Kaplan's is one thing, reading Matsuda and Atkinson's is another. I am still left with burning curiosity in my mind as to where we are headed. Matsuda proposes two major shifts in the way we look at CR. First, since CR does not provide satisfactory conditions for it to be a distinct field, we need to move away from the already accepted view of what the currently understood CR holds. This can be done either by abandoning the term or finding a safe spot somewhere between CR and comparative rhetoric. This is a combination of multiple foci: textual features, humanity, and others. Second, a more radical approach of post-modernism, dissolving (Atkinson's term) the whole thing and let other well-established fields adopt and develop its pieces is at least not beyond reach.
Either way, I too believe that CR is a dynamic concept that should not take orders from any one. If revolutionary steps are necessary in order to make changes in people's lives and in the way the world operates then be it. If we accept that there are multiple literacies, then why can’t there be multiple rhetorical traditions or dimensions? Reducing CR to including only its textual features is, I believe, obscuring the visibility of the whole forest of rhetoric and misleading to teaching and research.
A Little Note on Kaplan's Article
Kaplan's article presents one of the earliest views on contrastive rhetoric. He argues that thought processes or patterns of logical thinking play a pivotal role in shaping the rhetorical tradition of a culture. He contends that by understanding the thought patterns of other cultures or of other language users, English writing teachers will have a better chance of success. Although I agree with Kaplan on many issues raised in the article, he did leave me wonder about a few things.
First, I wonder if Kaplan is a little shortsighted in judging how literacy in general develops. In his view, it seems it is only one-way street where our rhetorical skill is shaped only by the way we think or by the way our culture views certain things. Many current literacy studies have gathered much evidence convincing enough to suggest that literacy, or in this particular case, rhetorical skill, is also affected by the already existing rhetorical forms. In other words, rhetoric is not only shaped by our logical thinking but our logical thinking might have already been affected by rhetoric from the very beginning.
The implication of this is that in order to teach English writing to students from other cultures, not only do we need to emphasize to them that they need to think differently or to think in the English context but also to emphasize to them that the form of writing that they are already used to in their own language may have influenced the way they think now. It would be in their interest that they are able to distance themselves from all forms of writing they have been exposed to that might have shaped their thinking patterns. In other words, Kaplan’s campaign would have been more successful if he also emphasized the deconstruction of the already established pattern of logic in students’ mind.
Kaplan's call for studying contrastive rhetoric might be seen as opinionated, which is another potential source of disagreement and the one that does not reflect the current view of literacy or contrastive rhetoric. Kaplan seems to have assumed or advocated that English has one fixed form of rhetoric or what is called Aristotle’s version of rhetoric. This assumption, if proven, dismisses the role of other forms of rhetoric such as those found in creative writing. Kaplan's intention in the article might then be judged as to teach that one form of rhetoric with no deviation allowed.
In contrast, the current view of literacy (as in multiple literacy theory) and contrastive rhetoric recognizes the role other rhetorical forms and those from other cultures play in English writing. This to some extent makes Kaplan’s agenda politically problematic in that he encourages teachers to teach the student how to be aware of the existing variety only for the sake of not falling into that "variety trap". Doing so, Kaplan has (maybe) created a list of do's and don’ts in contrastive rhetoric instead of asking teachers and students to recognize such differences as their writing assets.
Questions to ponder: what is the true contrastive rhetoric conventional position on this dilemma? Are we to recognizing alternative rhetorical forms in order to avoid them or to find space for them in English writing?
First, I wonder if Kaplan is a little shortsighted in judging how literacy in general develops. In his view, it seems it is only one-way street where our rhetorical skill is shaped only by the way we think or by the way our culture views certain things. Many current literacy studies have gathered much evidence convincing enough to suggest that literacy, or in this particular case, rhetorical skill, is also affected by the already existing rhetorical forms. In other words, rhetoric is not only shaped by our logical thinking but our logical thinking might have already been affected by rhetoric from the very beginning.
The implication of this is that in order to teach English writing to students from other cultures, not only do we need to emphasize to them that they need to think differently or to think in the English context but also to emphasize to them that the form of writing that they are already used to in their own language may have influenced the way they think now. It would be in their interest that they are able to distance themselves from all forms of writing they have been exposed to that might have shaped their thinking patterns. In other words, Kaplan’s campaign would have been more successful if he also emphasized the deconstruction of the already established pattern of logic in students’ mind.
Kaplan's call for studying contrastive rhetoric might be seen as opinionated, which is another potential source of disagreement and the one that does not reflect the current view of literacy or contrastive rhetoric. Kaplan seems to have assumed or advocated that English has one fixed form of rhetoric or what is called Aristotle’s version of rhetoric. This assumption, if proven, dismisses the role of other forms of rhetoric such as those found in creative writing. Kaplan's intention in the article might then be judged as to teach that one form of rhetoric with no deviation allowed.
In contrast, the current view of literacy (as in multiple literacy theory) and contrastive rhetoric recognizes the role other rhetorical forms and those from other cultures play in English writing. This to some extent makes Kaplan’s agenda politically problematic in that he encourages teachers to teach the student how to be aware of the existing variety only for the sake of not falling into that "variety trap". Doing so, Kaplan has (maybe) created a list of do's and don’ts in contrastive rhetoric instead of asking teachers and students to recognize such differences as their writing assets.
Questions to ponder: what is the true contrastive rhetoric conventional position on this dilemma? Are we to recognizing alternative rhetorical forms in order to avoid them or to find space for them in English writing?
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Journal Response to Casanave's Intro and Chapter 1 - Controversies in Second Language Writing
Although I have not seen much of the controversies I admire Casanave's attempt to keep things plain and simple and doable. I anticipate that in the next chapters I will get to meet these controversies which are more than mere compilation of dichotomies and dilemmas. Casanave states clearly in many part of the book that it does not prescribe any cure to existing teaching-related problems. It serves however as a reminder to teachers and teacher writers that having well articulated philosophies and several categories in mind may help them decide what to do and what action to take should controversies and dilemmas arise at a certain point of their practices.
It is perhaps too early for me to lay out some criticism, offer a critical view, and state my overall impression of the book in this journal. I do however have a few questions that are worth noting. First, I notice that Casanave is being too careful about stating or revealing his true position. Although It seems that his philosophy (at least thus far) lies in the art of juxtaposing various methods and using them as required by circumstances, I cannot wait to hear him talk about a few main philosophies that have led second language composition and literacy to where they are now. For this to be clear, problems from which philosophies originate need to be first defined and classified. Apples must first be separated from oranges, so to speak. Talking about writing as a social activity is not equal to speaking about teaching genres. They belong to separate levels within the taxonomy. I hope to see clearer direction and definition of things as we venture further in the book.
I find it plausible that the book starts with the issue of empowerment. The book encourages teachers to think critically about their own practices. They can accomplish this by being involved in decision making through constant reflective practices. They ought to take control of what should go on in their own classroom.
One question for now: what is Casanave's position in regard to current-traditional rhetoric?
It is perhaps too early for me to lay out some criticism, offer a critical view, and state my overall impression of the book in this journal. I do however have a few questions that are worth noting. First, I notice that Casanave is being too careful about stating or revealing his true position. Although It seems that his philosophy (at least thus far) lies in the art of juxtaposing various methods and using them as required by circumstances, I cannot wait to hear him talk about a few main philosophies that have led second language composition and literacy to where they are now. For this to be clear, problems from which philosophies originate need to be first defined and classified. Apples must first be separated from oranges, so to speak. Talking about writing as a social activity is not equal to speaking about teaching genres. They belong to separate levels within the taxonomy. I hope to see clearer direction and definition of things as we venture further in the book.
I find it plausible that the book starts with the issue of empowerment. The book encourages teachers to think critically about their own practices. They can accomplish this by being involved in decision making through constant reflective practices. They ought to take control of what should go on in their own classroom.
One question for now: what is Casanave's position in regard to current-traditional rhetoric?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)