Multiculturalism and Self Reflexivity

Mitchell, Danielle. (2008). I thought composition was about commas and quotes, not queers: diversity and campus change at a rural two-year college. Composition Studies, 36.2 23-50.

One of the important aspects of multicultural pedagogy is the ability of both professors and students to transcend the concerns of their own selves in order to locate themselves within the struggles of the marginalized. Danielle Mitchell’s composition pedagogy pays witness to the pain this removal of the self can cause. From her title “I Thought Composition was About Commas and Quotes not Queers”, we see that she has created a binary between the comfortable self and the unsavory other. In doing so, she urges her students to embark on a journey of self-assessment concerning their roles in perpetrating discrimination, in this case homophobia. While her focus is somewhat divergent from her peers who typically focus on race, the reasoning behind Mitchell’s pedagogy is similar in that she wishes for her composition class to be “both a site of writing instruction and a critical zone of cultural contact” (Mitchell 24).

Mitchell subsequently created an entire course fraught with cultural disturbances when she chose to specifically focus on LGBT diversity. In explaining her potentially polemic choice, she asserts that “college training in writing is more than learning punctuation and grammar” but must provide students a space to “practice on issues that are pertinent to their lives, votes, nation, campus” (Mitchell 28). In other words, composition students need to learn to write about issues that make them uncomfortable. Mitchell also ventures to argue that students should not only address socially taboo issues but also argue from viewpoints that are the very antitheses of their own.

While it is important for students to immerse themselves in cultural discomfort, teachers must be willing to embark on this journey as well. As in the case of the students, this move requires self effacing bravery. I think that Mitchell aptly demonstrates this courage and delicacy to locate herself, as a LGBT individual, into a very tense classroom setting without succumbing to fear or narcissism. Thus she becomes a true example to her class what true multicultural engagement truly looks like.

Multicultural Composition Pedagogy: Moving from Informative to Transformative

Sherie Mungo

10/19/11

                   

               Multicultural Composition Pedagogy: Moving from Informative to Transformative

Problem:  I think that the biggest issue with multicultural pedagogy in composition studies is the tendency to view multicultural studies as informational rather than transformational. That is to say, writings that speak to diversity are often used as guideposts to historical missteps that society now deems to be reprehensible. Minority works then become didactic forums about the dangers of engaging in behaviors such as racism and classism. This rhetorical approach can establish the false comfort in the student that these cultural issues are individual idiosyncrasies rather than societal structures and leads to complacency with the system itself.

Thesis:  In order to rectify this situation, I think that we must create and utilize a curriculum that employs critical lens to view diversity in the composition classroom as opposed to the cursory multiculturalism that is presently taught.

 Theoretical Framework: I argue that multicultural composition scholars need to explore ways in which to make multiculturalism more based in analysis. I think that utilizing established critical ideologies, such as Critical Race Theory in their classrooms can help composition instructors locate where they need to be in this argument. It is important to note that this theory focuses on modern manifestations of discrimination, albeit within a historical framework. In other words, critical race theory does not allow one to project blame onto historical wrongdoers but causes him or her to reflect on how they have perpetrated historical malevolence themselves. However, exposing modern day prejudice is not the only concern of this ideology. Social activism is a key factor to proponents because they believe that it is not enough to determine the flaws of the system, but that this knowledge must be a catalyst to transform society.

Application: Critical Race Theory is just one of the theories that composition scholars could use to reconstruct multiculturalism in our discipline. However, the main objective for infusing these ideologies into composition is so that it can develop theories native to our discipline.

 

Can there be real teaching for diversity if everyones politics are different?

Boyd, Fenice et al. (2006). Real teaching for real diversity: preparing english language arts teachers for 21st century classrooms. English Education, 4 329-350.

When I first read this above article title, I was struck by the authors claim that their theory about teaching diversity possessed realness or authenticity, thus implying that other diversity pedagogy may not be based in reality. I think that from this title itself these scholars are audaciously pointing out that current diversity pedagogy is not realistically addressing the needs of a diverse student body. Instead, much of English curriculum still “promotes a traditional one size fits all model” which fails to take into account the complexity of modern students (Boyd et al 329).

This monolithic approach also marginalizes these students’ valuable cultural experiences because they do not merge neatly into the canon of our society’s overarching Culture. Yet, this neglect does not simply devalue the cultures of students, but more insidiously denigrates the students themselves.

After this somber revelation, the authors do not leave the reader to wallow in futile guilt but encourage us to active transformation. They argue that the first step educators must take is “to acknowledge that English teachers and teacher educators are complicit in the reproduction of racial and socioeconomic inequality all across U.S. schools” (Boyd et al 331).  This admission of complicity is vital because it minimalizes a counterproductive blame game that would distract scholars from the goal of genuine change.

 After advocating this initial step, the authors then provide us with a doctrinal statement of sorts that lists a set of beliefs, all which include variations of the admonition for teachers to be both culturally cognizant and socially engaged. In other words, it is not enough to be aware of diversity in the classroom or even to acknowledge difference. Teachers must also actively address power structures that are problematic to their diverse student body.

Perhaps the most powerful declaration on the authors "outline of belief statements" is the first one: “teaching is a political act” (Boyd et al 332). I think that this statement alone subverts the traditional rhetoric that educators are objective entities through which objective knowledge flows. Instead, the authors admit that teaching transfers specific ideologies to students while framing the information as objective. However, this admission is, I think, a double edged sword that can be used for good or ill. Allowing teachers to view their craft as a political act will naturally incline them to insert their personal politics into teaching.

While that is not inherently bad, not every teacher’s politics will adhere to a diverse learning experience. Yet, diversity ideology cannot be forced on teachers because that will make it as stringent as monolcultural pedagogy. Great care therefore must be taken to buttress this political freedom with a benefit driven diversity curriculum. That is to say, teachers must understand the benefits of authentic diversity in their classroom to both themselves and their students in order to completely acquiesce to this thought structure. I would presume to say if this does not occur, many teachers will not willingly adjust their politics nor their pedagogy.

Does Starting Somewhere Better Really Mean Not Starting at All?

Reid, Shelley. (2004). Starting somewhere better: revisiting multiculturalism in first year composition. Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture, 4, 65-92.

In my first two blogs, I have argued for composition scholars to consider incorporating critical multiculturalism into their pedagogy. With Jordan’s article, I pointed out the pit falls of teaching the generic and cursory multiculturalism that seems to be encouraged in multicultural readers. I then (hopefully) juxtaposed these shortcomings with Knaus’ pragmatic approach to teaching race in the writing classroom.

After analyzing the positions of these two articles, I realized that I needed to present a work that looks at theoretical issues with multicultural pedagogy in composition. I think that Shelley Reid’s article provides us with a thorough examination of said issues and develops some viable questions that composition scholars need to ask themselves about multiculturalism.

Reid’s foundational argument or issue with current multicultural pedagogy in the writing classroom is that composition scholars “have not vetted multicultural pedagogies and their implications as carefully as we need to” (Reid 65). In other words, multiculturalism has not been deemed essential enough to composition to deserve a separate pedagogical and ideological analysis. This has led to multicultural studies being an uneasy addendum to writing curriculum, rather than a latent theory within the discipline. Reid and I argue that this lax attitude results in some very problematic approaches to teaching multiculturalism.

Hence I agree whole heartedly with Reid when she insists that scholars need to “devote more time to investigating and discussing how multiculturalism and first year writing pedagogies can work together” (Reid 68). Reid posits that during this investigation scholars must also ask this difficult question: does multiculturalism and writing pedagogy really mix?

The author’s cautious answer to her own query is where I have my main issue with her arguments. Reid ultimately decides that multiculturalism may better be studied at “points in the curriculum other than FYC” (Reid 85). She goes on to argue that if multiculturalism is to be studied in FYC at all, composition scholars need to step back and look to “restart our efforts” (Reid 85). While I understand her concern that many times composition classes only provide a surface examination of diversity, I do not think it is productive to take a “break” from teaching this ideology. If composition scholars are as disinclined to repair multiculturalism pedagogy as Reid suggests, what makes her think they will acquiesce to rebuilding it?

This move would also suggests that multicultural pedagogy does not have the ability to adapt and improve through the trial and error opportunities that other pedagogies have been afforded in the history of writing.  This suggestion is therefore fraught with the underlying theme of the “double standard” placed on minorities and their enterprises. Therefore I do not think that composition scholars need to declare a moratorium on multicultural pedagogy, but improve the ideology already in the writing classroom.