The Rhetorical Family Tree Experience

This project was an exciting experience for me. I enjoy researching my family history, so this project immediately caught my interest. My group for this project was excellent every member was willing and we worked together well. Dr. Frank provided an abundance of information and most of the scholars that I contacted outside of Colorado State University-Pueblo were very cooperative. This project made me realize the wide reaching influence that rhetoric and composition involves and proves that our connection to past scholars is not as limited as some may assume.
My group, assigned to investigate Dr. Frank’s rhetorical influences, began as a group of two. I had never met Dr. Frank, but Jo was familiar with her and worked on setting up an interview. Soon, our group became a group of three as Johanna joined our group after her original group disbanded due to Dr. Griffin’s retirement. Johanna was a welcome addition bringing her experience with Dr. Frank through the Southern Colorado Writing Project and great collaboration and research skills.

Before we met with Dr. Frank Johanna presented the idea to divide the work according the aspects of Dr. Frank’s work: the SCWP, creative writing, and academic writing. Since Johanna has been through the SCWP we decided she should take up that area, Jo’s connections with Dr. Frank came through David Keplinger and former creative writing professor of Colorado State University-Pueblo so she explored Dr. Frank’s creative influences and I investigated her academic influences. This approach worked well because when we interviewed Dr. Frank we each knew what questions we needed to ask. We still took notes on each area so we could offer extra support if necessary.

The interview was difficult to schedule because our schedules mostly conflicted, but we were all willing to bend where we could. We even considered interviewing Dr. Frank individually. Jo discovered that we could meet with Dr. Frank at 5:00 on a Tuesday evening, but our class with Dr. Souder began at 5:30. Johanna discussed this issue with Dr. Souder who graciously allowed us to be thirty minutes late to class so we could complete our interview even though Johanna and I still had midterm presentations to complete. The interview went well for Johanna and I since we both collected numerous names to research. Jo did not receive really any name, but she decided to attempt some research and perhaps another interview before eventually deciding to take part in areas Johanna and I were researching. This arrangement was short lived because Jo had to pursue other avenues. While we missed Jo, her absence did not cause too mush trouble because we simply returned to our previous arrangement.

Dr. Frank provided me with many names to begin tracing her rhetorical roots. I began with Dr. Steve C. Dillon but this attempt did not take me very far because he did not reply to my inquiry. The information I could find on him detailed the universities he had received his degrees from and his writings, but I could not reveal any of his professors or likely influences. The next person I sent an inquiry to proved to be much more successful. Gail Stygall answered my inquiry swiftly and provided me with the name of Marilyn Sternglass, but Dr. Sternglass passed away so finding her influences was very difficult. I learned that Dr. Sternglass did win the Mina Shaughnessy award and taught at City University New York like Shaughnessy and she wrote a forward for one of Mike Rose’s books. I am not sure any of this would constitute an influential relationship with either of these composition theorists though.

Dr. Leroy Searle’s reply to my questions was extremely helpful. Dr. Searle provided me with numerous names even though many of them were the major rhetoricians we studied for class along with Aristotle. He said that they were his major influences but also recognized that these names may not fit the purpose of our project and also provided me with names of his modern influences. I found many connections for these names mostly through their colleagues or scholars with similar ideas. Again many of the scholars Searle mentioned are no longer living so I could not be certain of their influences. There was information connecting them to scholars that contested their ideas rather than influencing them. Most of these names were related to anthropology, but I did find that one or more rhetoricians did draw from their work.

I found the rhetorical family tree to be a fun and exciting project. My group was excellent and the professors of varying universities extremely helpful. I enjoyed communicating with and researching people from various areas of study and universities. It was satisfying to acknowledge all of the people and ideas that shaped my professors and will eventually shape me. This project showed the importance of using all available resources. We interviewed our professors and engaged in correspondence with their mentors as well as doing research in the databases and Internet. This served to remind us that we should acknowledge the past that has shaped us while building on our extensive foundations.

Multiple Discourses

Lisa Delpit brings up many interesting points in her article “The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse.” Delpit voices her concerns about issued in James Paul Gee’s articles “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction” and “What is Literacy,” as well as seemingly set ideals towards teaching multiple discourses to poor students and minorities. She claims that many teachers feel it may not be possible to teach these students multiple discourses or that teaching multiple discourses would be more oppressive to the students. “…they question whether that is a task they can actually accomplish for poor students and students of color. Further more, they question whether they are acting as agents of oppression by insisting that students who are not already apart of the ‘mainstream’ learn that discourse.” (Norton 1311). Delpit’s main concerns with Gee are his suggestions that: “…people who have not been born into dominant discourses will find it exceedingly difficult to, if not impossible, to acquire such a discourse,” and “…an individual who is born into one discourse with one set of values may experience major conflicts when attempting to acquire another discourse with another set of values,” (Norton 1312-1313).

Delpit finds these views “paralyzing” to poor students and minorities. She includes many examples of students who Gee’s articles concern receiving instruction in “dominant discourse” and succeeding. Delpit even offers instances of these students requesting to learn “dominant discourse.” “…one educator of adult African-American veterans … insisted that her students needed to develop their ‘own voices’ by developing ‘fluency’ in their home language. Her students vociferously objected, demanding they be taught grammar, punctuation, and ‘Standard English,’” (Norton 1317).

What I think Delpit is suggesting is not the vanquishing of any writers voice but giving everyone the opportunity to develop skills in multiple discourses. This would then relate to Andrea A. Lunsford’s article “Toward a Mestiza Rhetoric: Gloria Anzaldúa on Composition and Postcoloniality”. Lunsford claims the Anzaldúa struggled to make sure her voice was not lost, but she also recognized the “multiplicity” of her voice. “…Anzaldúa announces the multiplicity of her ‘self’ and her ‘voice’: she is a ‘wind-swayed bridge, a crossroads inhabited by whirlwinds’…” (Norton 1401). I don’t think that Anzaldúa was concerned with the “dominant discourse” but what I feel relates to Delpit’s article is the idea to recognize multiple voices to be used in multiple discourses.

Rhetorical Heritage

When Dr. Souder first mentioned the Rhetorical family tree project, I was excited. I have always been interested and liked looking into my family history, but I never thought about considering heritage from the stand point of who has influenced me intellectually. This project may prove to be another exciting examination of who we are, how have arrived where we are, and in this case why we study what we study.

This project has also helped to encourage me to communicate with scholars beyond simply reading their books or articles. I have enjoyed learning about the people who have influenced the professors who are influencing me. The rhetorical family tree also shows us that we should build on what has been done, as well as remembering what has been done. The presentations have catered directly to the rhetorical family tree because many of the rhetoricians had direct influence on each other, and each presentation attempted to find a link between a major rhetorician and a composition theorist.

Johanna, Jo and I interviewed Dr. Frank and I was delighted to discover the many different influences she has had in every different aspect of her expertise. I also found it interesting that her major influences began when she was a middle school student. I enjoyed interviewing her and learning the names all of the people who have influenced her and how.

I have noticed that many of the people that are connected on the rhetorical family tree are spread all across the content, and as Dr. Souder predicted, quickly went outside of it.

Many of the ideas that have been mentioned for the presentation of the rhetorical family sound very interesting. I liked the ripples in a pond idea that I think Emily mentioned because it could represent different directions and ideas while still presenting the bigger connection. I also liked the more traditional idea of using an actual tree, especially it we added the roots as well. Using something similar to constellations also seemed like something that might work well and be appealing.