Damian Baca’s piece presents an extremely important topic to consider in discourse on the global turn in composition and rhetoric. He introduces the idea that the global turn, spoken of by Hesford and others, is not a new phenomenon that has emerged, rather, it took root about 500 years prior, in the onset of European exploration and colonialism in the “new world.” Early on in the text, he discusses the dominating Eurocentric Myth related to the evolution of rhetoric and clearly explains its various falsehoods. In describing this myth, he writes, ‘“As seen from within a Eurocentric narrative, Composition’s rhetorical history is rationalized from East to West, ‘“from Ancient Greece to Modern America”’ (Baca 229). The United States ultimately falls within this “history” as the end stage and center point of current rhetorical authority.

Baca pays special attention to Spanish conquests in his discussion, particularly the violent, aggressive reinvention of the cultural “other.” (Baca 230) This “Aristotelian syndrome,” soon led to the destruction or suppression of multiple other native rhetorical traditions throughout Asia. In other words, the reinvention of native composition and rhetorical traditions was not merely a side effect of colonization, but an active attempt at eliminating thought processes and communication styles that the European “center” could not practice or understand. Baca cites theological reasoning of the colonization of Mesoamerica and brutal suppression of the culture, which sought to justify these actions by deeming them necessary attempts at civilizing barbarians who did not even have a system of writing. (Baca 236) He then quotes Franciscan, Diego Landa, who wrote:

These people used certain characters…with which they wrote in their books about their antiquities and their sciences; with these, and with figures, and certain signs in the figures, they understood their matters, made them known, and taught them. We found a great number of books…and since they contained nothing but superstitions and falsehoods of the devil we burned them all, which they took most grievously, and which gave them great pain. (236)

This statement clearly demonstrates what Baca refers to as, “Imperial hubris,” and shows the attitude of dominance held by the “center” in relation to the periphery or other (236). It acknowledges other forms of writing, but seeks to suppress them and ultimately replace them because of misguided feelings of superiority and enlightenment. Ironically, despite theological opinions suggesting that the natives were unaware of written communication, Landa notes that the destruction of native texts resulted in great sadness. However, it would seem that these attempts at eradicating native tradition were not wholly successful. In attempting to shed light on the global turn towards digital composition and representation, Baca suggests that colonialism fueled a similar situation in which European rhetorical tradition and Mesoamerican rhetorical tradition unevenly combined. The digital age presents a similar phenomenon in that the Roman alphabet is no longer the only option in terms of digital texts. With globalization, a heightened awareness, and the rapid advances in technology, digital composition allows for great diversity in alphabetical and pictographic composition.

However, I would like to draw attention to another important issue, taking into consideration Baca’s piece. Writing center pedagogy is undoubtedly at the center of my graduate, academic pursuits. Part of the experience of being a writing center tutor is working with students who come from a variety of national, social, and thus rhetorical backgrounds. As someone who is trained in the western rhetorical tradition, and follows the Roman alphabet, I frequently come across multiple students who come from different rhetorical backgrounds. Although there are greater implications related to writing center ethics here, I am more interested in the approach that tutors take to sociocultural and rhetorical differences. I am guilty of practicing the aforementioned reinvention within a writing center setting, more out of necessity than ignorance. As Muriel Harris notes, writing center tutors inhabit a unique role that hovers between student and teaching. In the collaborative exchange between tutor and student there is supposed to be mutual learning. However, we might often find ourselves imposing the rules we have been taught and are expected to follow ourselves, giving little thought to the rich rhetorical traditions our students often have. Thus we might perpetuate this 500 year old practice of imperial subjugation, just in a different context. As I mentioned before, this is not necessarily intentional. As tutors, we are aware of teacher requirements and because we have a responsibility to teach rather than fix, we might find ourselves devaluing other rhetorical traditions to ensure that the student does well, and can perform in their current sociocultural and academic environment. Baca calls for greater awareness of the true history of globalization and how it relates to the composition field. He also suggests that we might be able to dismantle the Aristotelian syndrome in this heightened state of awareness of the effects of colonialism on the development of composition.  As useful and necessary as awareness is, it has its limitations. Dismantling the Aristotelian syndrome is no easy task in a writing center when we, as tutors, are aware of the academic expectations of professors. We are often required, not of our own volition, to continue in the legacy of forced reinvention that began in the colonial period. This limitation begs the question, how do we reconcile awareness and the requirements of an institutionalized rhetorical tradition of subjugation and suppression? I suppose we could take a similar approach as has been suggested with teaching ELLs. We could uphold the value of their native rhetorical traditions, arguing that the awareness of their cultural rhetorical traditions will be a distinct advantage in communication. However, how often, in our current social, professional, and academic settings, are we required to write in another rhetorical tradition. Occasionally, perhaps, but by and large, especially in most American, social, academic, and professional settings, we are expected to adhere to the rules of the “center.” What to do, what to do? 

Hesford’s piece starts quite interestingly with a tweaked form of rhetorization, or seeking to explore a modern phenomenon within composition studies with a text of literary significance . However, as I mentioned before, her approach is tweaked in that she seems to be explaining the current shift towards attempts at unification within the field of composition, through the lens of the sociocultural shift in the United States that has been happening for over a decade. In other words, she draws parallels between the United State’s ongoing reaction to vulnerability and external threats, in the form of reinforced national and global identity, and a similar tactic being used in composition studies, where concrete identity is sometimes sought after. Describing this phenomenon, she writes, “Yet, at the same time, there is evidence of a nostalgic retreat to disciplinary identities and homelands and a resurgent, though not uncritical, localism” (Hesford 788).

I found the way she framed her argument rather compelling as the two social spheres she parallels, the sociopolitical/cultural sphere, and academia, to mesh very well. However, as her argument transitions and evolves, it becomes much easier to understand the validity of her comparison. Composition studies, as a field, has gone through many changes, from being lumped in with English, to being established and respected as a formal field of study. From Hesford’s explanation, it would seem that certain overarching shifts in Composition and Rhetoric are leading to blurred disciplinary lines, and that respected academics within the field are calling for a reversion to a state of recognizable identity. As an aspiring educator and recent convert from literature to Rhet/Comp studies, I can’t help but sympathize and encourage this “nostalgic retreat,” as Hesford puts it. (788)

Those of us who have pledged our allegiances to either literature or Rhet/Comp know that the two go hand in hand, and one cannot necessarily exist without the other. But Hesford’s analysis goes deeper than that age old conflict. Instead she seems more interested in the divide specifically within the field of Rhetoric and Composition. If I understood the piece correctly, she seems to suggest that in the midst of globalization in an academic sense, or perhaps consensus and standardization through the beauty of accessibility, the equally important regional factors and rhetorical trends are being overlooked, resulting in local divergence, for lack of a better term. Things like ethnography, essential for the study of local rhetorics and social development, are being described as setting up binaries. ( 792) But others see this establishment of identity in contrast to others as necessary. Hesford seems to be calling for a reconciliation and linking of global and local trends through ethnographic and rhetorical study. (793) Although Hesford continues to explore sociopolitical, rhetorical methods including philosophies and tactics like non violence, I keep getting drawn back to the “conflict” within our field. I find myself wondering, can exclusivity and a communal mentality exist in balance? I’m not sure if it can, since both mindsets have their own limitations and vulnerabilities. Were is the line drawn between interdepartmental cooperation and amalgamation?

Finally, I must revert to the geopolitical issue at hand related to Western (specifically American) rhetorical strategies in framing national identity in relation to the rest of the world. As Hesford notes, our political language has a tendency to be rather belligerent and promote American Exceptionalism, which ultimately leads to generalizations and the failure, on our part, to establish connections between the past and our concerns for the future. If we are to be truly secure as a nation, we must avoid our own tendency towards ethnocentrism and spend time in self reflection and the objective study of global, historical trends. We must also resist the use of Western rhetorical strategies i.e. the use of our field in the promotion of national aggression and exceptionalism, and an imperialistic national attitude.