Voices
Bizzell’s “Hybrid Academic Discourse: What, Why, How” speaks to a growing need for academics to understand (and employ) hybrid discourses in academic settings/classrooms. Bizzell cites Dr. Villanueva, and Dr. Gilyard, Puerto Rican and African American scholars, respectfully, as people who use hybrid discourses in their own writing to convey complex issues in academe, and the world, in innovative and important ways. The author also offers suggestions as to how teachers can use the hybrid model to help students experiment with writing and language. Bizzell makes some interesting moves in this article, and I think that the list is really the one that is worth teasing out.
The list … I think that making a list of what constitutes a hybrid discourse automatically makes it less like a hybrid discourse and more like the traditional discourse. In a way, the list (a bulleted list that one can check off) reifies the formats and outlines for writing that have been and continue to be called for and accepted in academe. Bizzell notes that the list is one that “describe[s] writing that does serious intellectual work” (16). But, who makes the gauge for serious work? The traditional holds the power to spit one into an abyss of nothingness or to invite them to dinner. So, the contact zone comes into play, but it all depends on which end of the spectrum one is in; it depends on how well points of identification, communication, or understanding match in the contact zone. I think that this point is clearer in Bizzel’s second article.
“Basic Writing” takes issue with some of the ideas that Bizzell presents a year earlier in “Hybrid Academic Discourse” as she speaks about issues of “correctness.” She does a good job with problematizing notions of hybrid discourses and has to cover her back by talking about the list that she made in the earlier piece. Bizzell notes that the list “seems to suggest that traditional academic discourse was a fixed and unchanging entity until recently … it is difficult to demonstrate that academic discourse has continuously evolved over time” (6). I would add that although traditional discourse changes with time, creating a list plays into the power structure by giving traditional academic discourse a say in what even constitutes a good hybrid. She cites Michelle Hall Kells as she realizes that “such a representation tends to give academic discourse an air of superiority” which brings up issues of power and borders. Who is really able to gain access? This notion brings up a need for writers and teachers of writing to understand the historical, the cultural, and the isms. It also speaks about the idea of the use of the term hybrid as “essentializing people’s language use” (8) and making assumptions about a student based on arbitrary “imagined” ideas.
In the first article, Bizzell uses Dr. Villanueva's work to explain how he is able to use distinctive hybrid moves. I like the way that she pulls information from Villanueva's work. Further analysis and more connections about the importance and use of such scholarly work instead of just saying that he uses the traditional and hybrid would have been nice. I also like the quote from bell hooks in both articles as hooks speaks about her own experience with coming into to consciousness about her “sense of versatility” (8) by listening to ways in which jazz musicians use many voices to make music. The music metaphor could have created a piece that really shows the idea of multiple voices (the physical voice, the drums, the trumpet, the violin, etc) as ones that all coalesce to make one sound. This metaphor to explain culture, to understand language, to sift through the many influences that make a person who they are, would have the potential for fruitful discussion regarding her notion of helping students to experiment with language.
By the end of the second article, Bizzell takes a more realistic approach to speaking about pedagogy and issues with correctness. She clears up many points that she made in the previous article and her book which speaks to further study about hybrid discourses and she notes that “successful pedagogies must take local circumstances into account … this would engage students” (10). She even acknowledges that she contradicts herself in her work, which is an extremely humble thing to say. Bizzell ends on a hopeful note, saying that “democratizing access may help the changes in academic discourse …thereby serving social justice” (11). I wonder, however, if democracy in regards to access will continue to include a select number of people and further essentialize people’s language use?
The list … I think that making a list of what constitutes a hybrid discourse automatically makes it less like a hybrid discourse and more like the traditional discourse. In a way, the list (a bulleted list that one can check off) reifies the formats and outlines for writing that have been and continue to be called for and accepted in academe. Bizzell notes that the list is one that “describe[s] writing that does serious intellectual work” (16). But, who makes the gauge for serious work? The traditional holds the power to spit one into an abyss of nothingness or to invite them to dinner. So, the contact zone comes into play, but it all depends on which end of the spectrum one is in; it depends on how well points of identification, communication, or understanding match in the contact zone. I think that this point is clearer in Bizzel’s second article.
“Basic Writing” takes issue with some of the ideas that Bizzell presents a year earlier in “Hybrid Academic Discourse” as she speaks about issues of “correctness.” She does a good job with problematizing notions of hybrid discourses and has to cover her back by talking about the list that she made in the earlier piece. Bizzell notes that the list “seems to suggest that traditional academic discourse was a fixed and unchanging entity until recently … it is difficult to demonstrate that academic discourse has continuously evolved over time” (6). I would add that although traditional discourse changes with time, creating a list plays into the power structure by giving traditional academic discourse a say in what even constitutes a good hybrid. She cites Michelle Hall Kells as she realizes that “such a representation tends to give academic discourse an air of superiority” which brings up issues of power and borders. Who is really able to gain access? This notion brings up a need for writers and teachers of writing to understand the historical, the cultural, and the isms. It also speaks about the idea of the use of the term hybrid as “essentializing people’s language use” (8) and making assumptions about a student based on arbitrary “imagined” ideas.
In the first article, Bizzell uses Dr. Villanueva's work to explain how he is able to use distinctive hybrid moves. I like the way that she pulls information from Villanueva's work. Further analysis and more connections about the importance and use of such scholarly work instead of just saying that he uses the traditional and hybrid would have been nice. I also like the quote from bell hooks in both articles as hooks speaks about her own experience with coming into to consciousness about her “sense of versatility” (8) by listening to ways in which jazz musicians use many voices to make music. The music metaphor could have created a piece that really shows the idea of multiple voices (the physical voice, the drums, the trumpet, the violin, etc) as ones that all coalesce to make one sound. This metaphor to explain culture, to understand language, to sift through the many influences that make a person who they are, would have the potential for fruitful discussion regarding her notion of helping students to experiment with language.
By the end of the second article, Bizzell takes a more realistic approach to speaking about pedagogy and issues with correctness. She clears up many points that she made in the previous article and her book which speaks to further study about hybrid discourses and she notes that “successful pedagogies must take local circumstances into account … this would engage students” (10). She even acknowledges that she contradicts herself in her work, which is an extremely humble thing to say. Bizzell ends on a hopeful note, saying that “democratizing access may help the changes in academic discourse …thereby serving social justice” (11). I wonder, however, if democracy in regards to access will continue to include a select number of people and further essentialize people’s language use?
No comments:
Post a Comment