The four articles address how society over time have perceived knowledge and composition.  Some, such as Dave’s Educational Blog, focus on rhetoric in the educational classroom setting.  It mentions how it is difficult to pinpoint the definition of knowledge through an educational or societal standpoint.  He goes on to say that the current educational model is too static as well as knowledge creators are not typically viewed as valid experts.   So since there is no universal agreement on how everyone across the world views knowledge, it is safe to say that it is subjective to culture and historical forces.

Within the article, Re-Composing Space: Composition’s Rhetorical Geography, there is a further examination of composition throughout history.  For example, the limitations and implications for composition, especially when we consider the birth of it, and the influences of time and space.  Space, is shaped by history.  When we focus on the cultural/historical influences on knowledge, we can also take into account women, salves, and non-citizens.  For myself, this was an interesting concept since knowledge was kept from these people.  But as Sibley notes, “the production of knowledge involves both the exclusion of knowledge which is deemed dangerous..”  Not to get all political, but it reminds me of how the government can keep knowledge from its citizens.  Does it affect our intellect?

Teaching the Histories of Rhetoric as a Social Praxis also touches upon women as a subject matter of knowledge.  The line that made me predominantly happy was, “Feminism is promising to have a particularly far-reaching impact on historical research in rhetoric and composition.”  Last night, I watched Emma Watson’s eloquent speech given at the United Nations conference (maybe that was the reason this paper was held off).  Hopefully when her notion for the launch of HeForShe is in full effect, maybe we will see a shift in composition as well.  In addition, Miller examines how we teach history of rhetoric.  One way to look at it is to teach it not as a sequence of names and dates, but as traditions developing over time in response to “changing material circumstances, cultures, and ideologies (Miller).

Lastly, Baca’s Rethinking Composition, Five Hundred Years Later focuses on the birth of composition from a colonial standpoint.  He states the problem of Western colonial expansion which clashes with many multiple writing systems (in this case: early Mexico, Asia, and the Arab world).  He points out that globalization as a center-periphery political economy is not a new idea at all.  He suggests that composition experts need to imagine outside their “global unconscious” in order to develop their trans-hemispheric identity.

Williams’ article, “Speak for Yourself? Power and Hybridity in the Cross-Cultural Classroom” addresses the difficulties a professor faces when trying to teach his students of varying cultures his Western style of rhetoric.  At first excited by the idea of finding an approach to the many international students, it was actually troublesome for them to write a narrative piece or an authoritative one.  Such issues that professor Williams experiences with his class were: understanding issues of power, discourse, identity, and the role of writing in the postcolonial world.

As Williams soon finds out, culture stands in the way of assimilating to the writing class for his students.  Students can adopt conventions, but they face problems because of their underlying cultural assumptions are at odds with such conventions.  Teaching authoritative text has limitations since some cultures have different ideas about who owns ideas, the relationship between writer and authority, what counts as authoritative evidence, the creation of knowledge, and how ideas should be explained to others.  For instance, some cultures go by memorization and where one stands in the hierarchy system.  For these cultures, memorization is even in their definition of literacy.  Other cultures, like Asian and African, see the whole group is more important than the individual (a Western concept).  This becomes problematic when trying to create a persuasive piece or what  statement is in fact authoritative.  Williams, through his own learning experience of this particular situation, learns never to assume especially when it comes to citing properly.  Even after Williams explains to his class how to go about it, the students are still not giving credit to the sources.

Amazingly enough, it’s not as if they are disregarding Williams’s teachings, but this all goes back to the power of imperialism.  Teaching terms such as originality and analysis in a Western environment does much harm to these cultures who assume the power of the dominant culture.  Because power is assumed by the West, not non-Western cultures.  Thus, non-Western ideas are normally seen through the outlook of the Westerner, the discourse of imperialism.  “The colonizer will always seek to have authority recognized by the colonized” (Bhabha).

Ultimately, Williams tries to show one his students another view so it could work better for the intended audience, but it backfires.  The major problem is when another culture tries to resemble another, it is close, but it seems to come off as a mockery when imitating authority.   As Bhabha states, writing is not about revisions, hybrid discourse is a “process of negotiation”.  It is the role of the teacher to uncover the power and reorganize it.

So, what do you think of the challenges Williams faced in his classroom?  How would you approach such a matter on cross-culture in a setting such as this?  Is it possible to make other cultures understand one (especially rhetoric) that is not their own?  Would you have done a different method than Williams?

Connor’s article, “New Directions in Contrastive Rhetoric”, argues whether or not the way we form or structure our ideas onto paper is due to our language or our culture.  This article examines different cultures globally who are learners of English.  Being a tutor of those who are English Language Learners (ELLs), I teach how they are supposed to structure their essays and then I teach English linguistics.  Seeing the way my students (who are predominantly Korean) form their thoughts, I notice the lack of articles or overuse (for one example) because in their L1, articles don’t exist.  Most of my learners make this mistake, but is it due to the fact that they are transferring the way they write in their L1 to their L2?  Most definitely.  But, what about their culture? Could it be the way that they write has much to do with their cultural background?  Connor along with many other researchers study other ELLs of varying cultures to see if their way of structuring thoughts onto paper has much to do with the transfer of L1 to L2 (English) or it has to do with the way their culture addresses certain types of rhetoric.

For example, some cultures such as Asian ones come to their point at the end.  Unlike how Western societies are direct and address their thesis in the beginning, as I did in this very blog (perhaps).  Asian rhetoric seems to be a circular method opposed to a linear way of organizing thoughts.  Connor’s article suggests this occurs in business/professional writing.  In addition to the way Asian cultures bring up a topic, linguistically, there is no set way to use quotation formatting, unlike speakers of English.  Yet, this is small peanuts on the cultural side of the argument.  Examining the way native speakers of English report their claims of business, there seems to be a mutual understanding that both parties are very busy doing business-like things and so the message comes across very simple and direct because that’s western culture.  On the other hand, eastern (Asian) cultures have a delayed approach to their request and emphasize interpersonal relations within the message.  Thus, proving that different cultures have diverse considerations when relaying a memo.  When transferring from an L1 to L2, speakers of other languages will remain with the style they know best.  This has a downside that the speaker may come across a certain way to a certain culture.

Connor along with his Upton have observed Finnish scientists and concluded that their style is very similar to an Asian one: the point is held off until the end and meta-text hardly exists.  So, what does this mean?  Could styles be handed down to another culture?  Does this mean that a culture can have an influence on another?  Absolutely.  I don’t think that idea is absurd whatsoever.  Connor and Upton have found a stylistic change that has developed over a thirty year period.  Major differences were apparent, but no so much anymore.  Over the years, a homogenized style has emerged.  So, what do you think?  Will there be one set way to write when it comes to business writing?  Will a universal form soon exist?  It’s quite possible since many of us want our businesses to branch out globally.  Isn’t that the real dream?

Taking in everything Connor has mentioned, when it comes to whether it is culture or language transfer that mostly affects our ELLs, it might be both.  The way any individual or any language or culture forms their thoughts on paper has much to do with social discourse (see paper written by Gee), which relies on their identity and upbringing.  There are individuals that are bilingual, do they really depend on one language more than the other?  Perhaps.  But there is a complicated scenario behind the individual.  I don’t believe rhetoric or the way one writes (when we are considering ELLs) has to do with solely their culture or solely the way they transfer their L1 to their L2; it could be both.

What are your thoughts on the way ELLs form their thoughts in writing?  Is it based on their surroundings and the social considerations they learn in their L1?  Or linguistically, do they transfer word for word from their native tongue?  Do you agree that it could be both?  Will we soon see a business world where there is a universal style in our rhetoric?