Summary Synthesis Report #1
Summary Synthesis Response #1
Summary:
I chose to take a deep dive into "Bootstraps: From an Academic American of Color" as I am tendentious toward the applied rather than the abstract. In this excerpt, and more specifically in chapter three, Villanueva chronicles his experience as a minority in The United States; he uses this narrative as a way to illustrate the struggle which is common among many minorities in America, the struggle of assimilation. “Choosing to speak the language of the dominant, choosing racelessness, bears a price, however. (sic) And that price is alienation - the loss of fictive kinships without being fully adopted by the white community.” (40, Villanueva) Villanueva’s experience can be summarized briefly as follows: his abandonment of the dialect of the block in favor of an academic tongue has left him with identity confusion and dissolution. Identity constitutes the defining characteristics of a person. Villanueva explores this deprivation of identity, and by extension the dilution of a person. One who forgoes their identity, language and dialect being major components of said identity, dilutes their persona; they feel disenfranchised and ostracized from all communities, the dominant culture (in this case white culture), and the minority culture.
Synthesis:
According to last week’s reading, "Rhetorical Listening: Identification, Gender, Whiteness", rhetorical listening is a method by which cultures can interact and communicate with each other without depriving each other of identity. The true exploration of identity, modern and postmodern, begins in chapter two. The chapter leads with the following: “If rhetorical listening is to facilitate cross-cultural communication, then rhetoric and composition studies needs to extend its discussions of identification to include troubled identifications…” (47, Ratcliffe) Identity, both in the modern and postmodern sense, is troubled by a loss of language or dialect. In the modern sense, one loses a large component of the common ground, the “fictive kinships” that allow one to identify with a cultural group. In the postmodern sense, your identity becomes one of an assimilationist, if you will; one who sacrifices their culture in order to blend into the dominant culture, though never fully reconciled with the dominant culture. This assimilationist mentality is one’s postmodern identity because it is the difference between oneself and the group they would regularly associate with.
In "Do You Speak American", it is uncovered that all peoples, even if they might be thought of as the dominant culture, are susceptible to feeling this chipping away at identity. The first chapter elucidates upon the differences and prescriptive and descriptive grammar, and although the grammarian John Simon is a perfect caricature of the forces behind this assimilation phenomena, I am more interested in a unifying principle than a dividing one. This unifying principle is more readily found in chapter two. Enter John Coffin, a Maine resident with a peculiar dialect and a fear that it may soon be gone. He has fished lobster off the coast of South Newport, Maine all his life. His family has resided their for many generations; a piece of John that links him with his ancestors, his dialect, he fears will not be carried on. “John Coffin probably speaks for many Americans who see their small, traditional communities flooded by newcomers and feel their way of speech evaporating, along with part of what identifies them and where they belong.” (33, MacNeil & Cran) I would like to make clear that I do not cite this as a means to diminish the struggle of Villanueva, as those who are a whole language removed will, it seems to me, struggle greatly with identity. Dialects, however, are a part of who we are, whether New England, Mid Atlantic, African American Vernacular English (note that this dialect has been highly scorned by those who subscribe to “Standard English”, disproportionately so), or what have you. The way in which one speaks indicates who they are.
In "What Writing Does and How it Does It", Chapter two, Eubanks describes and articulates metanarratives. He writes “Postmodernism is attuned to grand narratives or metanarratives - stories that pervade, shape, and, it is often asserted, delude cultures.” (35, Eubanks) To address the delusional aspect of this quote before delving into the deeper meaning of its introduction, I have little comment on this delusion. If these metanarratives are a delusion, then so be it; they still serve a function within identity. The metanarrative I contend to have noticed is that language and dialect are an implicit family; those whom you share a language or dialect with feel familiar even though they may not be. This is likely a function of human evolution and psychology, as in the days of tribal humanity, shared language indicated shared tribe and shared goal. If one were to encounter a foreign tongue, they would be skeptical of that person’s intent; they would not be able to discern it through language. This metanarrative serves to strengthen the bond between those who share language or dialect, and, consequently, alienate those forced to abandon a language or dialect. They have, in a sense, committed a treason against their tribe.
"Scrolling Forward', Chapter two aims to describe writing, and moreover the document, in terms of its relationship with the author. Written language, like oral language, is an identifier. Levy writes, “Writing is the act of breathing our breath into the dust of the earth… While this act doesn’t literally bring the inert material to life, it does infuse it with an identity…” (23, Levy) This identity which Levy writes about is inextricably linked with our own identity. At the risk of being too meta, what does this writing say about my identity? It probably indicates that I am a college student, eager and apt to write, but perhaps more clumsy than an academic of the same discipline given the same task. In this way, I identify with fledgling academics, undergraduate students, English majors… the list goes on. If I were, perhaps, to sever ties with the community and culture that I identify with by dropping out, I would feel (to a lesser extent than those ostracized by an ethnic group) disenfranchised. My identity would no longer reflect that which I am; which is to say my writing would always exist, the identity persistent, yet I would not be accepted by the community I identify with.
"Scrolling Forward", Chapter one explains the origins and the wonders which culminate in a receipt for a tuna fish sandwich, a bag of chips, and a drink. Why a receipt? Are there not documents possessing more intrigue than a quaint receipt? Levy selected this document to demonstrate the extraordinary within the ordinary. He writes,“The bigger challenge is to look closely and respectfully at the lowest and homeliest of [documents]. (sic) And should we find beauty, depth, and power in these, we will surely have accomplished something.” (9, Levy) I introduce this at my report's end not because the central focus of this report was a document, but because upon careful consideration of the readings and the theme of identity, which I first perceived as lowly, I have uncovered that which has “beauty, depth, and power.” Prior to reading these, I despised conformity, and I still do to a point. I realize, however, that identity with the groups we associate with is a key aspect of the human experience, lest we be alienated within our own communities. Knowing this, I empathize with the minorities and immigrants described in "Bootstraps: From an Academic American of Color." This feeling of disenfranchisement, of alienation, can only be addressed if America (and the world for that matter) centers a discourse not around an assimilation and resistance dichotomy, but around an understanding and respect of cultures which differ from one another.
Questions:
On what scale is Identity formed? Is a modern or postmodern view of Identity preferable in a discourse of understanding? Does a more healthy view of Identity reside somewhere between modern and postmodern conceptions?
How do we change the assimilation/resistance dichotomous view of immigrants/minorities? Is it systemic or tacit? Or somewhere in between?
Introspect on your own Identity. What does it mean to be you? What are the defining characteristics? Have you hidden or donned different aspects of Identity depending on context? Have you shed or assumed any aspects of Identity permanently?
Word count: 1377