Final Blog

The second half of Digital Griot brings us back to the world of remix first introduced (at least, for me) by Lessig.  Like Lessig, Banks envisions remix as its own unique art form, and to quote Jess’s excellent blog post, he also describes “how old school and new school can intermix to create richer rhetorical traditions and furthermore join up to create a strong linkage between different generations of blackfolk” (Jorgensen). 

But I would actually like to return to a point raised in the first section of Digital Griot.  Last week during our class discussion, our conversation turned to the caution Banks expressed with regards to unsound pedagogical approaches to the African-American rhetorical traditions.  Our conversation touched on the potential difficulties of approaching this issue from an outsider’s perspective, and I was reminded of some of the research I did for my field experience last semester.  Dr. Kelly Sassi had been working with faculty from Sitting Bull College on writing assessment, and I became familiar with the idea of rhetorical sovereignty through an article by Scott Richard Lyons (Banks mentions Lyons in his book).  I thought it might be of interest to share some of my notes with others.

From:

Lyons, Scott Richard.  “Rhetorical Sovereignty: What Do American Indians Want from

Writing?” College Composition and Communication 51.3 (2000): 447-468.  Print.  

Lyons defines rhetorical sovereignty as “the inherent right and ability of peoples to determine their own communicative needs and desires in this pursuit, to decide for themselves the goals, modes, styles, and languages public discourse” (449-450).  He stresses the important of tribal inclusion and control with regards to writing and writing instruction, and provides readers with a historical overview of the troubled relationship between American Indians and rhetoric in the form of federal laws, treaties, and culture-eradicating pedagogical practices.     

Throughout the article, Lyons brings to focus the stakes of writing in the world of native culture.  He uses his historic examples to explain how there is a “persistent distrust” of English that still stands today (449), and mentions the suicides of two tribal acquaintances that he attributes to self-hatred caused by the cultural aftershocks of colonization (461)—aftershocks caused and/or exacerbated by attacks of rhetorical sovereignty.     

Another interesting quote:

Rhetorical sovereignty is the inherent right and ability of peoples to determine their own communicative needs and desires in this pursuit, to decide for themselves the goals, modes, styles, and languages of public discourse. Placing the scene of writing squarely back into the particular contingency of the Indian rhetorical situation, rhetorical sovereignty requires of writing teachers more than a renewed commitment to listening and learning; it also requires a radical rethinking of how and what we teach as the written word at all levels of schooling, from preschool to graduate curricula and beyond. 449-450

My question for the class: I wonder if Lyons’s concept of rhetorical sovereignty can be contextually shifted to Banks and Digital Griot?

Shifting Gears:

Because this is my last blog of the semester, I wanted to share an article I came across from the New York Times, one that claims “Lone geniuses are out. Collaboration is in.”  After sixteen weeks discussing all the ways the romantic view of authorship is firmly encoded in society, I do not agree.  But, I was wondering how the class felt.

The article can be found here.