The Addition of Division

Adam J. Banks's Race, Rhetoric, and Technology: Searching for Higher ground aims at looking at how African American rhetoric can productively contribute to discussions about technology and rhetoric in general by getting away from binaries and instead examining ideas of transformative access. Bank's discusses the Digital Divide in terms of the racial divide, and demonstrates that work in both technical communication and composition has been largely silent about race and technology. He speaks to the issue of denial (the divide, white privilege), how history has shaped current issues of access, and the the default white user on the web, and, in the end, discusses how the discussions presented can help transform the rhetoric and composition classroom. In all, the book is, in Bank's words (and as the title suggests), "a search for higher ground" (134). In the beginning of the first chapter, he explains his main claim for the text:

The overall argument I make is this: rather than answer either/or questions about whether or not technological advancement and dependence leads to utopia or dystopia, whether technologies overdetermine or have minimal effects on a society's development, or whether people (especially those who have been systematically excluded from both the society and its technologies) should embrace or avoid these technologies, African American history as reflected through its rhetorical production shows a group of people who consistently refused to settle for the limiting parameters set by either/or binaries. Instead African Americans have always sought "third way"answers to systematically racist exclusions,demanding full access to and participation in American society and its technologies on their own terms, and working to transform both the society and its technologies, to ensure that not only Black people but all Americans can participate as full partners." (2)

 Bank's text has got me thinking about a lot of different aspects of rhetoric and technology (especially as I prepare to teach 402 next semester), and I really enjoy the way he weaves narrative, history, and theory together. His discussion of access expands on Reed's categorizations by adding critical access to the mix as well. We have already talked about how access should not just be viewed strictly in terms of material access: "Hey, here's a computer!" or, in the case of this text, "Hey, look, 90% of students in the US can access the web!" (137), but that it should also include knowledge, experience, and discernment. Bank's talks about this issue in the second chapter in terms of schools who are "under-performing" paying massive amounts of money to bring in technology or a new system that teachers are not trained to use and will be obsolete in a few years, and the troubling regime of "drill/skill/kill". The depiction of the young girl using a computer program to place commas in sentences that talk about technology's takeover was particularly disturbing to me, especially because, as pre-graduate school student, I never really thought about what any of the programs were saying to me or what that meant. Now that I am a teacher, I'm struggling with that issue right now, because the functions I want to use are compatible with Word (aka. fork over that money so we can use track changes) and not some of the free programs such as Open Office and Google Docs. Though we do have the AML, I'm not sure that fully addresses what that extra work and training means to either students or instructors.

A teacher's joke about technology and how to really be successful.
http://msvice.blogspot.com/2013/08/beginning-of-year-bulletin-board.html?m=1

According to my previous blog entry, Reed broke down access in terms of digital resources, human resources, and community resources. Bank's definitions are similar: material access (e.g. I have a computer), functional access (e.g. I have the resources and knowledge to use this computer), experiential access (e.g. I feel connected enough that I want to use this computer), and, the one I don't recall Reed talking about, critical access (e.g. I know enough about the pros and the cons of this computer to realize when I should use it and when I should critique it). However, Bank's also concludes, "[Access is] not just a neat list of material access, functional access, experiential access, and critical access. Access to any particular technology occurs only when individuals or members of a group are able to use that technology to be able to tell their own stories in their own terms and able to meet the real material. social, cultural, and political needs in their lives and in their communities" (138). I found this quote especially interesting given our recent discussions in Language Acquisition and how the fields of linguistics and composition connect. For example, we recently read an article that talked about how acquisition is not governed by static notions of motivation and the affective filter, but rather investment, a term that takes into account changing context and the tie to identity that comes along with language acquisition and the "right to speak". One woman spoke because of her need to fulfill her role as mother so her children did not have to, and it caused her to engage in conversations that others found surprising. Thus, it seems to me that this article and Bank's text are both concerned with when and how people are silenced and how and when they choose to resist. They also both emphasize the importance of the social component in use. We must undermine, break down, and complicate simplistic, damaging explanations, that (surprise, surprise) still appear regardless, whether that's "she's just unmotivated to learn the language because she's lazy" or "he cannot use a computer because he's stupid [read: not white]".

I was also especially interested in the section regarding the absence of articles discussing race and the digital divide in technical communication, given that I analyzed Technical Communication Quarterly
in 534. Banks states that in English studies, issues of race, technology, and access are examined, but rarely the connections between them (12). According to Banks, the best Technical Communication Quarterly can do is "a grudging nod in the direction of Black people" (15), and, fittingly, our review failed to mention any trends related to race or access. It seemed to us that the journal focused much more on genres (especially online), international communication, issues in medicine/health care, and the role of the technical communicator as author rather than producer. I appreciate that Banks acknowledges the difficulty and uncertainty that comes with trying to bring these issues into the classroom, stating,

Both areas [technical communication and rhetoric and composition] place faculty in two constant and almost ridiculous binds: having to choose between "The World" and "Technology," between being and remaining true to a developing tradition of critique and providing students with the means with which they can gain access to the university and the workplace (140).

I appreciate that he acknowledges the struggle and his own uncertainty (though that is also a bit scary given that I am so much more inexperienced), considering our conversation last week about the pressures and constraints that come with teaching such courses. I also like that he gives some ideas for how to use projects to have students wrestle with some of this stuff, though I'm curious how he gets the materials for some of his assignments. When we talked about our ideal learning environments last week, I definitely wanted one with a magical supply closet that contained, well, whatever I wanted, but maybe at least some markers, poster board, and Legos. Also, I want the library to trust me enough to let me into the computer lab...sigh...Banks states, "The burden of access is not only the responsibility of those seeking it, but is a systemic burden as well" (21). Where is my 'check yes' button now?

Also, on a related note, the Race Card Project is a rabbit hole that's going to stop me from getting lesson planning done. I'm following the disturbing path of patrioticvigilantie's comments (though unfortunately the activity tied to the account is private, so I can't read them all in one place). The computer has told me to "deal with it," complete with a smirking blue face and sunglasses. This brings me back to the article we read about the blogger in Cuba, and whether or not these places for comments are productive sites for real conversation or not. It seems to me that unlike the forums with students that we also discussed two weeks ago, no one is really talking to each other.

It's My Body (and Other Bon Jovi Songs)

Warning: I'm not sure exactly what this blog is supposed to look like since I missed some of class last Wednesday, so I'm just doing a brief run-down of the pieces and some of my thoughts. Spoilers to follow:

"Writing Against the Normal: Navigating Against a Corporeal Turn" by Dolmage immediately reminded me of Hayles work in its emphasis on the body and embodiment. In his first paragraph Dolmage states one of his (now eerily familiar) claims about the aim of his work: "...I argue that, in fact, ignoring the body has serious consequences. As we compose media, we must also-always-compose embodiment" (115). He also brings up the default identity that we consider to be the normal subject position (straight white able-bodied male shout out, but only if you are upper-middle class!) and compares it to writing that is free of error and labor (harkening back to Hayles example of Freed). However, Dolmage expands on the relationship between the body and writing and the emphasis on clarity as a subjugating term, which leads him to conclude, "...these power dynamics, combined with an under-appreciation of the difference of the bodies engaged in writing, bodies writing processes in normative and possibly hegemonic ways--an abstract, ideal, normate body shapes the bodily possibilities for all students" (117). Unsurprisingly, I've read some of the arguments that writing should be messy before (and Dolmage discusses that it has been used by many in composition studies), and I do use the similar functions in Word (track changes, compare documents) in my own classroom. I do wonder how many composition teachers are not doing this in their practices, though the art gallery aspect of it was neat to think about and something that might contribute to seeing this as less of a linear process. Though, really, when I'm being honest with myself, I have a hard time imagining that students see revision as anything more than making their writing better or more perfect, and I cannot say I blame them. It sucks to be in that place where things have to get worse to get better and even harder to explain, and We. Never. Have. Enough. Time. I haven't quite figured out the magic of scaffolding yet (I lean on the side of introducing more forms, more functions), so I'm forced to push my students through a pretty quick composing process (even given the portfolio system). Sometimes I wish we could allow students to polish two pieces, because I think it would offer more choice and (perhaps) encourage more revision (though I know that comes with its own set of problems). Bottom Line: I like the idea of messy composing, but I wish more of the authors would speak to some of the realities that make this really difficult to use in academia (it is hard to make writing a unique process when you have to teach 50 students, or maybe I'm just doing it wrong *bangs head against desk*). Also, how much can English push back against the university standard (and the job standard?!) of clear prose as the way to go? Is this still what "we" want, or is that just what we say we want when we don't know what else to say?

I don't want readers to get the wrong impression; I did really appreciate this text, and it did make me think a lot about my practices as a teacher of composition. I especially found the vocabulary about "deficient" writing and how that relates to the body particularly disturbing. However, I thought it was interesting that Dolmage says, "While some students felt alienated by problems with the technology, at least a few felt a connection through the WIKI, and I think this means its use was justified" (129). If so, couldn't teachers justify teaching a normative model? Couldn't teachers justify anything? Dolmage quickly moves on to talk about context and how that is more important than process, but the comment still left me with a sour taste in my mouth, especially given the focus on "recognizing and enabling all bodies" (131).

Slatin's article discusses the issue of accessibility for disabled persons online and how we should use AccessFirst Design. I think his opening is powerful in pointing out that we would never create a site that would be exclusive based on gender or race (though I think that there is certainly a difference between cannot use and would not want to use and feel uncomfortable using), and I'm always interested in thinking about the technical aspect of it all, so I enjoyed reading the piece. Slatin reiterates a point made by those involved in design/technical communication:

It is far less costly, in terms of time, money, and good will, to talk about accessibility and explore alternative solutions when fundamental changes can be made with the stroke of a magic marker on a flip chart page or the swipe of a dry-eraser across a whiteboard, rather than after actual implementation has gotten underway or been completed.

I like the idea of making accessibility a design element and  that it shouldn't have to be hidden. I wish he would have talked a bit more about points 14 and 15 and the differences between retrofitting for accessibility and designing while thinking about accessibility (I would be really interested to examine an example), However, overall, I like the ideas of imaging disabilities that could be used in the classroom, and I'm thinking about implementing one next semester when I talk about usability. This article also makes me think about people (like me) who have no idea how to design websites and just use a pre-made course management system for their courses. Perhaps I can use some of these activities to test out Writing Studio!

The last article, "Multimodality in Motion: Disability and Kairotic Spaces" builds on the article by Slatin by drawing awareness to the fact that disability is often hidden:

Access statements on webtexts are often hidden from view, placed in a footer or off-site disclaimer (or just left off altogether). Such choices speak to the subjugation of accessibility as a rhetorical framework. Alternative entrances, disclaimers—by their very nature, these create a special population of people, whom we then identify as disabled.

Their goal is to examine how composition studies could benefit from a disability studies framework. and how working on accessibility often benefits the able-bodied as well. I appreciate that Selfe and Howe talk about how certain types of students are privileged in the classroom in big and small ways, especially because I've had some very productive email exchanges with students this semester (and it has also made me more interested in the distinction? between email and texting, as I occasionally find myself giving up on the conventions of the email message when its 11:00 pm and we've gone back and forth at least a few times). Another quote that really got me thinking states:

Many multimodal texts exclude disabled audiences because they are not commensurable across multiple modes, thus rendering the text inaccessible. Consider, for example, the kairotic space of a presentation at an academic conference. Conference presentations are highly inaccessible to a variety of participants. For many deaf people, like me, it is difficult to follow an oral presentation without another channel for accessing the information that is embedded in the sound of the presenter’s voice reading their paper, and consequently, opportunities for engaging in the circulation of ideas within the presentation (or afterwards) are lost.

 Given that I just returned from a conference this weekend, it is interesting to consider how much we value these meetings and how much they do exclude people. My presentation was actually a poster, and I'm wondering if that would change (improve?) some issues of access, because that format is more of a audience-centered interaction than one dictated by the presenter. People are able to examine the poster for as long as they want, ask questions (or not) if they want, skip certain posters, etc. I'm curious overall about the move to posters at some conferences in the humanities and the reasons behind that (though I would guess that it doesn't have to deal directly with accessibility). Will it always be considered a "lesser form" of presentation? These articles have also got me thinking about students in the classroom and whether or not they chose to self-identify as disabled.  Yergeau says, "Accommodation, I'd suggest, presumes that disabled people do not exist unless they reveal themselves—at which point, they need able-bodied people to help them assimilate". How do we help our students see disability as natural? Does when they do so dictate our response as instructors? How does that influence our classroom practices? Do we provide enough training/consider this enough at WSU?

Justin is red-green colorblind, and it has made me rethink my design decisions for maps etc.