Thursday, October 9, 2008

Mel's OSU International Literacy Studies Conference Abstract DRAFT

J. Elspeth Stuckey argues that traditional Western literacy reinforces social class structures. Contrary to the mythology that surrounds and supports its position as a liberating and apolitical panacea, Stuckey claims that literacy perpetuates power differentials through duality and exclusivity, through ideals of what constitutes legitimacy and illegitimacy. She underscores the importance of understanding “the relationships of literacy” to a culture of inequality (Stuckey 59). Similarly, Anne Francis Wysocki argues that “formal approaches to the visual” are neither “neutral” nor “univeral” (Wysocki 158). They are political. They are powerful in their abstract, groundless, taken-for-grantedness, embedded in cultural framework. New media offers the opportunity to redefine and repurpose literacy as a tool of democratization and education. I argue that current traditional approaches to literacy require building a new literacy with new media: a SpiderWeb Rhetoric. SpiderWeb Rhetoric equally empowers traditionally coded feminine visual and traditionally coded masculine verbal principles. SpiderWeb Rhetoric is integrational, multi-vocal, and reciprocal.

5 comments:

Rock said...

I like this.
Personally, I would cut some of the quotes. Let your words be here. It is your abstract. I love the power of "They are political" sentence, and the use of spiderweb rhetoric.
Expand on spiderweb rhetoric. That is your power punch.

albertoid said...

Mel,
Your proposal draft is too long to read. Please cut it down to 500-600 words. Doing this may help you focus.

The abstract presents a topic and claim. I am confused by your reference to current traditional rhetoric. It sounds like you either endorse it (unlikely) or are saying that it is still the dominant paradigm.

Your claim for the democratizing potential of new media is in need of support. It seems contradicted by your Stuckey quotes and by Selfe's points about it (which you might mention)and by Johnson-Eilola/Wysocki. In other words, how can spiderweb rhetoric (which needs further defining), if grounded in technological media (big if?), be democratizing if access remains a huge issue? Wouldn't it just become another wedge?

Albert

Melanie said...

Thanks Rock, Albert. Helpful stuff.

Right, I do not mean current traditional as in current traditional rhetorical theory--I mean current, as in at the present time, and traditional, as in not progressive.

At any rate, can you tell me what in the abstract makes it seem like I am endorsing it? And what / which Selfe's (C or D) points?

RE access--if I focus my discussion on pedagogical strategies and teaching, contextualizing it that way, is access still an issue? (most of my teaching has been in abundantly computerized composition classrooms or open labs for students, like our student learning commons)

Jules said...

Hey Mel!

You are very concise here and reading it has helped me understand the focus of your proposal. I agree with Rock--explain spiderweb rhetoric and how it can help us overcome marginalizing notions of literacy.

Perhaps introduce the spider earlier in the abstract?

Melanie said...

Thanks everybody. I've revised my proposal draft and hope you will have time in the next couple of days to give me some feedback on it . . .