Notes: Estee Beck, Mariana Grohowski, and Kristine Blair, “Subverting Virtual Hierarchies: A Cyberfeminist Critique of Course-Management Spaces” in James P. Purdy and Dànielle Nicole DeVoss Making Space: Writing Instruction, Infrastructure, Multiliteracies

Beck, Estee, Mariana Grohowski, and Kristine Blair, “Subverting Virtual Hierarchies: A Cyberfeminist Critique of Course-Management Spaces” in James P. Purdy & Dànielle Nicole DeVoss (Eds.) Making Space: Writing Instruction, Infrastructure, and Multiliteracies. UM Press Sweetland, 2016.

Summary:

Estee, Grohowski & Blair offer a cyberfeminist critique of Course-Management Spaces as well as many alternative digital spaces and the ways that these can reinscribe patriarchal authoritative values.

Keywords: Writing Studies, Rhetoric, Composition, Digital Rhetoric, Feminist Rhetorics, Multiliteracies, New Media

Sources:

Arola, Kristin. (2010). The design of Web 2.0: The rise of the template, the fall of design. Computers and Composition, 27(1), 4–14.

Oh, Yeon Ju. (2012). Is your space safe? Cyberfeminist movement for space online at Unnine. In Radhika Gajjala & Yeon Ju Oh (Eds.), Cyberfeminism 2.0 (pp. 245–261). New York: Peter Lang.

Quotations:

“Historically, theoretically, and pedagogically, scholar–teachers have critically questioned the ability of electronic learning environments to foster a safer space for students who are potentially marginalized within the physical confines of the brick and mortar classroom”

“It is important to remember, however, that integrating digital tools does not represent a de facto commitment to empowerment and that any technology use must be aligned with curriculum and pedagogical practices that support such a goal”

“In conclusion, we call for more opportunities for both students and teachers to interrogate the existing spaces they inhabit and collaboratively work to align learning spaces with the curricular and cyberfeminist goals of accessibility and inclusiveness.”

“The potential to silence or marginalize students by acting upon the data may occur because the social and political matrices students bring with them in online spaces are not captured by the algorithms that collect user clicks, downloads, and time spent in a module in the course space”

Notes: Jonathan Alexander & William P. Banks, “Sexualities, Technologies, and the Teaching of Writing: A Critical Overview”

Alexander, J., & Banks, W. P. (2004). Sexualities, technologies, and the teaching of writing: A critical overview.Computers and Composition, 21(3), 273-293. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2004.05.005

1658210_619997548076484_303409201_o

Summary:

Alexander and Banks review literature on issues intersecting queer and sexuality studies and computers and composition studies in the introduction to a special issue of computers and writing.

Keywords: Writing Studies, Rhetoric, Composition, Computers and composition, Computers and Writing, Queer, Queer Theory, Queer Rhetorics, Teaching Writing, Pedagogy, Sexuality

Sources:

Woodland, Randall. (2000 [1995]). “Queer spaces, modem boys and pagan statues: Gay/lesbian identity and the construction of cyberspace.” In David Bell & Barbara M. Kennedy (Eds.), The cybercultures reader (pp. 416–431). London: Routledge.

Quotations:

“[B]oth sexuality and technology studies are concerned with the intertwined issues of space and identity. Although theorists continue to puzzle out the intricacies of what it means to be queer—as well as what we mean when we talk about the various sexualities that exist—at the heart of such discussions seems to be an agreement that marking spaces as queer, or even marking the role that unspoken sexualities play in class discussions, disrupts easy binaries of representation and reification” (274).

“[T]he failure to pay attention runs throughout popular discussions of technology and its place in the writing classroom, as well as in education more generally. Although Selfe spoke primarily to issues of access, we would extend her concept to include paying attention to the sexed and sexualized bodies that sit in our classrooms and that use various technologies. Yet conversations among techno-savvy academics often fail to deal with inequities and disruptions in computer-mediated and online courses, such as those caused by homophobic flaming and the more subtle intimidations enacted through heteronormative language” (275).

“[A]lthough queer theories—influenced often by Marxisms, feminisms, and the discourses of deconstruction—proliferate, rarely do these theories bring their important ideas to the classroom in ways that make sense to teachers who are not already advocates of queer theories. They simply do not make the important rhetorical and epistemological move toward what Paulo Friere called praxis, the thoughtful blending of theory and practice” (275).

“What if instead of identity we began to think in rhetorical terms about ethos? While identity pretends at stability—and certainly has a cultural connection to fixity in the present climate— ethos foregrounds audience-based performativity and a recognition that some aspects of self are always open for invention, depending on any number of personal and social constraints: confidence, linguistic ability, time, place, rhetorical distance, and audience attitudes, to name a few” (285).

 

Computers and Writing Reflection: Writing is Multimodal

All writing is multimodal. It’s one of 37 “threshold concepts” in writing studies published in Linda Adler-Kassner and Elizabeth Wardle’s Naming What We Know. The word “multimodal” appears across FYWP outcome statements. Multimodality appears to be a central value in writing studies, but how is it implemented, how is it defined, and how is it assessed and housed in FYWPs?

Many of my early conversations with faculty around multimodal composition alluded to some of these questions. One even compared it to many notions of literacy that too easily become some sort of apparently “neutral good” that has a tricky definition. It doesn’t quite mean computers; it doesn’t quite mean words in a row writing.

In my reading Jody Shipka’s “Rethinking Composition/Rethinking Process” chapter in Toward a Composition Made Whole, I am understanding a definition of multimodal composition that may not utilize a certain technology, but rather, argues for an understanding of composition that calls attention to the technologies used to produce that writing. She writes, “By asking students to examine the communicative process as a dynamic, embodied, multimodal whole–one that shapes and is shaped by the environment–students might come to see writing, reading, speaking, and ways of thinking and evaluating as “a function of place, time, sex, age, and many other elements of life” (Malstrom 1956, 24)” (26). This sort approach mixes object-oriented ontology with multimodality in a compelling way that forces an understanding of technologies and environments for writing that shape the writer and what is produced as a function of that space, time, object, etc. This kind of encounter with an object unessentializes and deinstrumentalizes objects and process for the production and evaluation of a given text. Instead, it calls for an encounter with the impression the objects of production have on the composition through the recognition of the liminal spaces objects and environments afford.

I can hear this echoed in composition’s past in Kathleen Blake Yancey’s 2004 CCCC address, where she calls attention to the way that technology is rapidly and dramatically creating and changing genres and understandings of literacy. She writes that students are writing more on their own than ever before with these (then) new technologies. Though not articulated in quite the same way as Shipka’s (2011) chapter, Yancey seems to be calling attention to this same understanding of composition; one that encounters the modes of production and recognizes their contribution to the production of that text. The idea that all writing is “interfacing,” I find a compelling way to conceive of texts as creating interaction and invitation.

This is certainly something that I strive for in my own pedagogy. The idea of making as composing is language that I’m slightly more familiar with, largely coming out of the hacking vs. yacking debates in the digital humanities and the maker movement. I’ve attempted to structure the courses I teach around this idea of multimodal composition and emphasize the means of making a text to call attention to the underlying assumptions about what a text is and the technologies that go into its production.