September 9
i. Welcome & Opening Writing for Week 3
For your journal entry #2: What worries you most about graduate school (there were lots of things shared in the first letter assignment)? Let's get it allll out on the table. What's going well for you so far? What is grounding you/grounding for you?
II. Name Game
a) We'll start w/ a go-around where you share whatever aspects of your journal entry that you want
b) Caylie, Emily, Grace, Hannah, Jason, Renee, Sayed, and Victoria have played... we need another 3-4 this week and next
Please remember to bring a device and earbuds that you feel comfortable using to go online, etc during our classes!
For your journal entry #2: What worries you most about graduate school (there were lots of things shared in the first letter assignment)? Let's get it allll out on the table. What's going well for you so far? What is grounding you/grounding for you?
II. Name Game
a) We'll start w/ a go-around where you share whatever aspects of your journal entry that you want
b) Caylie, Emily, Grace, Hannah, Jason, Renee, Sayed, and Victoria have played... we need another 3-4 this week and next
Please remember to bring a device and earbuds that you feel comfortable using to go online, etc during our classes!
iii.More DJing: Party Blending & Mixing
1. Transitions: Eve, Mary Jane Girls, Faith & Brian McNight/Nelly
|
2. Overlapping: Lauryn Hill, Digable Planets
|
3. Dirty South Stuff: "Stomp" by Kirk Franklin w/ "Back Dat A** Up" instrumental (YIKES!)
|
IV. "WHAT IF...?"
Chavez: "[W]hat kinds of actual bodies warrant unusual scrutiny, and whose voices and views are taken to be civil and appropriate? Instead of simply staring at Hamer’s body, we can direct a textual stare at how the field of rhetoric surveils and disciplines bodies, with effects far more damaging to some than to others."
Jackie Royster: "How do we engage in such endeavors [rhetorical histories] with Western rhetorics, when these traditions of theory and practice have tended to function with a heavy and relentlessly constraining hand? Western rhetorics, at least the legacies of them that we have inherited through scholarship, are demonstrably dominated by elite male viewpoints and experiences... In fact, the dominance has been so fixed that contemporary scholars who seek to shift these viewpoints and paradigms, to extend the boundaries of interest and inquiry, or to re-endow these spaces with the materiality of other lives face an abiding challenge. We are called upon to create conditions that have the capacity to enable scholars in the area to even imagine the rationality of standing in other places, or inquiring with contrasting interests, or paying attention to different sets of features that may not currently be within the scope of credibility. In other words, disciplinary practices have built up a high intolerance to the assigning of value and credibility to any site, focal point, theory, or practice other than those whose contours are already sanctioned historically within the circle of understanding. These habitual systems easily filter out aberrations, making it abundantly clear that such deviations from normed understanding are not computable, that they are alien, distracting, unproductive, and likely the result of insanity, that is, non-rationality. In this way, our habits create a remarkably resilient mechanism against which contemporary research must inevitably contend and must persistently resist... I start with the question, "What if . . .?" If the current ground is largely perceived as the rightful ground of elite males in western territories, I wonder what might be revealed if all of these terms were contestable: elite, male, western. What if I started a rhetorical interrogation with a consideration of more southern territories, with a focus on women, and with the possibility that eliteness may or may not hold its viability across variations in rhetorical performance? How, after all, might the concept of eliteness shift when the focus of interrogation or the site of interrogation shifts?
YOUR TASK: Come up with some WHAT IF questions.
Chavez: "[W]hat kinds of actual bodies warrant unusual scrutiny, and whose voices and views are taken to be civil and appropriate? Instead of simply staring at Hamer’s body, we can direct a textual stare at how the field of rhetoric surveils and disciplines bodies, with effects far more damaging to some than to others."
Jackie Royster: "How do we engage in such endeavors [rhetorical histories] with Western rhetorics, when these traditions of theory and practice have tended to function with a heavy and relentlessly constraining hand? Western rhetorics, at least the legacies of them that we have inherited through scholarship, are demonstrably dominated by elite male viewpoints and experiences... In fact, the dominance has been so fixed that contemporary scholars who seek to shift these viewpoints and paradigms, to extend the boundaries of interest and inquiry, or to re-endow these spaces with the materiality of other lives face an abiding challenge. We are called upon to create conditions that have the capacity to enable scholars in the area to even imagine the rationality of standing in other places, or inquiring with contrasting interests, or paying attention to different sets of features that may not currently be within the scope of credibility. In other words, disciplinary practices have built up a high intolerance to the assigning of value and credibility to any site, focal point, theory, or practice other than those whose contours are already sanctioned historically within the circle of understanding. These habitual systems easily filter out aberrations, making it abundantly clear that such deviations from normed understanding are not computable, that they are alien, distracting, unproductive, and likely the result of insanity, that is, non-rationality. In this way, our habits create a remarkably resilient mechanism against which contemporary research must inevitably contend and must persistently resist... I start with the question, "What if . . .?" If the current ground is largely perceived as the rightful ground of elite males in western territories, I wonder what might be revealed if all of these terms were contestable: elite, male, western. What if I started a rhetorical interrogation with a consideration of more southern territories, with a focus on women, and with the possibility that eliteness may or may not hold its viability across variations in rhetorical performance? How, after all, might the concept of eliteness shift when the focus of interrogation or the site of interrogation shifts?
YOUR TASK: Come up with some WHAT IF questions.
V. Black Rhetoric: Genres, Styles, and Verbal Traditions
Your SIX Options: Watch below or on slides 18 and 19 above!
