This week’s class readings aligns with my interest in the re-articulation and re-narrating of stories and histories that have either not been depicted in its entirety, are false or have been completely ignored. Gordon and Ahmed both elaborate on the idea of representation in storytelling. Ahmed tells their story of how they learned to interpret archives. Many histories of people have been politicized and written in frameworks to limit the possibilities of their lives. There is usually some form of interpreting history involved in telling the stories of marginalized people. Re-articulation and re-narration calls for a creative lens; in which authors are forced to ask questions before being aware if the answer even exists.

 Silence, then, is not the opposite of speech but, indeed, its very condition of possibility, the precondition of knowing and of meaning (Eng 86). In their own way, each author argues that lost or untold histories signifies a truth that has been untold. Silence is an identifying marker for the subject that needs to be explored, Gordon writes, “The ghost is not simply a dead or a missing person, but a social figure, and investigating it can lead to that dense site where history and subjectivity make social life. The ghost or the apparition is one form by which something lost, or barely visible, or seemingly not there to our supposedly well-trained eyes, makes itself known or apparent to us, in its own way, of course” (8).  In the essay “Mama’s Baby, Papa’s Maybe: An American Grammar Book” Hortense J. Spillers analyzes historic racial truths which problematize presenting categories as a universal commonality amongst individuals. She uncovers the missing and/or false histories of the disfiguration of Black bodies. Spillers goes on to argue that the current Black family structure is an effect of the ungendering of enslaved female bodies. The essay illustrates re-articulation and re-narration at play. Spillers retells a history that has been articulated through the gaze of white supremacy. Saidiya Hartman also puts a spin on history in the text Wayward Lives. She uses photos and stories from archives to give a fictionalized voice to Black women during the early twentieth century. The lives of the wayward women were lost- or haunted- by their inability to conform to the ideals of Black respectability. Hartman’s text is considered a biography as she brings light to these haunted lives… Who has the power to re-narrate stories? 

One of Gordon’s major arguments is to reconstruct how we know and make knowledge (5). So often academic knowledge production focuses on telling stories of marginalized groups. However, sometimes those stories are not written with the intent to share them with the very group it explores. It has always baffled me why those most interested in understanding and changing the barbaric domination that characterizes our modernity often-not always-withhold from the very people they are most concerned with the right to complex personhood (Gordon 4). Scholarship written and produced from a performative lens seeking approval from academic peers further “haunts” the research subjects. Simply reducing a human’s existence to research subjectivity further alienates their personhood and agency. Gatekeeping writings and stories is a product of white supremacy- just as producing “historical” analysis on the lives of marginalized people without dutifully working to find their voice. Ahmed’s archival study also illustrates the fluidity of history. Gordon argues that history belongs to no one. Yet, there are museums across the world with historical artifacts stolen from people they belonged to. History does belong to people, but it is co-opted in favor of those with the desire to re-articulate a story. 

I appreciate reading Helen Sword’s book, Air & Light & Time & Space. For starters, the title is extremely inviting and promotes itself as a safe space to dive into writing practices. It was refreshing to read a book that didn’t solely focus on the negative realities of academia and pedagogy. The book is not curated as a “how to” manual, rather it is a guide for reflection and customizable planning. However, thinking of writing, discussing writing, reading about writing and writing overall gives me so much anxiety! As positive as the reading is, I was enormously triggered. As a procrastinator, writing is an excruciating task for me. I have mostly negative associations when it comes to writing. I am also extremely critical of myself in academic and creative spaces so having to reflect on my writing practices and/or habits is hard for me. One of my biggest insecurities is how I articulate my ideas on paper.  My interest in pedagogy and language diversity comes from being urged to code switch in various settings. I’ve decided not to code switch under any condition. However, the idea of language assimilation is always in the back of my mind. There are many woes contributing to the lack of confidence in my writing practices. I am usually satisfied with the end results of my writing. It is the path in between the start to finish that gets my anxiety pumping. Overall, reading about writing experiences, worries and practices of other scholars, specifically advanced scholars, sparked a few questions I had trouble articulating this semester. What is a junior scholar? Is it more important to have a writing ritual as it is to just get the work done? Should writing conversations be tailored to the path of relief after a finished product or gearing up to put pen to paper?  (It seems obvious that even the best writers experience highs and lows. If the best writer has trouble with writing then I must be doomed!) 

I enjoyed the chapter “Writing With Others.” I do consider myself a “typical” humanities scholar. I prefer solitude and silence as I read and write. I find it hard to write if someone is in the same room, even if there is silence among us. However, I love collaborative discourse. My favorite part of graduate school, and education in general, is engaging in critical discourse about readings. Again, as a procrastinator not only is it difficult to maintain healthy writing habits, I also find it difficult to properly edit my own work. I have two or three writers who I turn to for editing purposes. They’re also academic writers so we have a mutual editing relationship that’s beneficial for all of us. In the chapter, Sword’s includes testimony on how scholars engage with collaborative writing, one scholar explains, “the collaborative process is essential for good writing; it brings together different perspectives and allows identification of holes that should be filled before submission. The outcome is a better product than if I wrote in a vacuum. (Kurt Albertine, Pediatrics, University of Utah)” (129). I don’t have much experience with co-authorship writing- but, I do believe collaboration is important. Collaboration in the form of peer editing has helped my writing improve. Peer editing allows others to fill in gaps and holes I may have missed while writing. Being an English scholar often triggers negative emotions of exclusion and solitude. On a personal level, most of my family members don’t truly understand what it means to be an academic. Community building in academia allows for positive reinforcement- it makes me feel as though I am actually doing something.

These results are very on brand!

Required Readings/Videos:

Jordan, June. “Nobody Mean More to Me Than You And the Future Life of Willie Jordan.” Harvard Educational Review, vol. 58, no. 3, 1988.

Available free online: https://hiphoplitclass.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/jordan-nobodymeanmore.pdf 

Language Pedagogy in Practice– Jordan’s essay provides a case study of her experience teaching “Black English” to predominantly Black students in New York City. The lack of Black English representation, mirroring their use of language displayed within a classroom setting, caused the students to unintentionally expose internalized biases of their own identities. Jordan had the heavy task of helping her students to unlearn the negative projections stigmatizing their use of language. Both Jordan and her students illustrate how the classroom can be a site of change. By exposing students to a fluid model of learning which prompted them to question their identities, Jordan provided tools to allow students to unlock diverse levels of critical thinking.

Lyiscott, Jamila. “Why English Class is Silencing Students of Color.” Youtube, uploaded by TEDx Talks, 23 May 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4dc1axRwE4 

Liberation Literacies- Dr. Lyiscott’s Ted Talk explores how pedagogy and language de-centers students of color. She provides a call of action for educators to regard how the institution works to exclude students based on race and culture. Instructors do a disservice to students by erasing the culture and diverse linguistic styles of students from historically marginalized groups. Lyiscott applies the intersection of her own languages to understand how students of color are not able to see themselves through language within classroom instruction. She discusses the ways instructors can unintentionally participate in upholding systems of oppression. The language, literacy and practices from people of marginalized groups, that make up the global majority, have useful tools that should be dutifully tasked and applied within the classroom setting. 

Frohman, Denice. “Accents.” Youtube, uploaded by Denice Frohman, 30 Dec 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtOXiNx4jgQ 

Language as a Form of Resistance- Frohman’s slam poem describes the ways in which language and culture are synonymous. Their poem illustrates the ways in which English is a malleable language that can be used as a form of resistance. Many people who learn English as a second language apply the rules of their native tongue to their new language. Frohman’s poem illustrates how language resistance works to retain culture and heritage. Through poetry, Frohman demonstrates the ways slang, call and response and syntax govern the structure of language interpretation. 

“Immersion.” Youtube, uploaded by mediathatmatters, 16 Jun 2009, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6Y0HAjLKYI 

This short film tells the story of an Mexican- born elementary school student’s experience in the American academic system. He is fluent in Spanish and knows very little English which interferes with his learning abilities. He proves to do well in math, but his skill fails to translate due to his inability to communicate with his teacher. However, he is determined to take and pass the state mandated math exam, despite his principal’s reluctance to administer the exam to non-English speaking students. The film depicts how the American academic system is not designed to help non-English speaking students to learn and thrive. The system proves to be exclusive as students are denied the opportunity to become integrated into the curriculum. Instead, students like Moises are disregarded from learning practices which leads students down a path of systemic issues to follow. Moises lacked the English skills to advocate for his own education despite his resistance. The film also reveals how teachers must also advocate for their students. Although his teacher attempted to show up for her students, her resistance was also dismissed. Language scholars, such as June Jordan and Carmen Kynard, provide action methods for teachers to work in dismantling the exclusive and hierarchical structure of academia directly in their classroom.

Supplementary Video (optional):

Lyiscott, Jamila. “3 ways to speak English.” Youtube, uploaded by TED, 19 Jun 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9fmJ5xQ_mc 

*** Unable to lead class November 9th

I found the reading of Rogers’ book to be very comprehensible and realistic. However, I am still left with specific holes and gaps related to her argument. I would like to point out that unlike Austerity Blues and The Undercommons, it is clear that Rogers’ has created a text with the purpose of an inclusive audience. Their message and idea of restructuring the ways students regard their graduate degree and prospective professional careers is very clearly stated. In their post, Stefanie mentions the practicality of the text. I completely agree! I am obviously very interested in abolitionist works and readings. However, as reform goes, Rogers’ book poses realistic approaches to reforming higher education that places the work on the student and faculty level. Their idea of reform is based on student’s ability to unlearn the practices and limited professional aspirations embedded in graduate education, Rogers writes, “graduate education is sometimes perceived as elite and esoteric, but scholarly research has a significant impact on things that affect the daily lives of millions—from the policies that structure our society to the stories and art that bring meaning and joy. This book offers ways to reframe humanities doctoral training with an eye toward public impact, and a focus on making graduate education matter in new and powerful ways,” (2).

There are two major points that stood out most for me during the reading. The first point is Rogers’ argument of working for “love” vs. “food,” they write, “many faculty members love what they do, and will say so openly. And yet, as numerous scholars including Fred Moten, Stefano Harney, Michael Bérubé, and Kathi Inman Berens have all described, the notion that one works “for love” reflects a position of privilege that minimizes the struggle many academics face to support themselves, and renders invisible the barriers that exacerbate the challenges for women, people of color, people with disabilities, and others who are not well supported by the structures of academe,” (21-22). Rogers’ main point of argument is understanding privilege involved in wholeheartedly loving what you do. I understand in a capitalist society there is enormous privilege in the act of pursuing and thriving in a career that a person loves. However, it is hard for me to fully understand and agree with her angle (I’ll try my best to flesh out my opinion in writing!). On the one hand, Rogers is urging students to consider professions outside of academia. But, regardless of the overall systemic issues of academia, can an adjunct professor not simply work for love? In our system of capitalism labor and love is not designed to go hand in hand. Any form of labor is done out of necessity to survive in the system, so working for love is a contradiction in itself. However, at the very least are we not supposed to do the work we love? Rogers also goes on to argue, “this rhetoric of love is one of the mechanisms that can lead people to endure underemployment, insufficient wages, and poor working conditions,” (22). Being a Black woman scholar, and placing myself in proximity to be mentored by senior Black women scholars, I have witnessed how working for both love and food can inevitably lead to the issues stated. Her argument of working for love leading to the issues listed centers whiteness. In my experience, I’ve worked with Black women scholars who take on roles to make a living wage and remain arguably underemployed, underpaid and endure unfair working conditions. I’ve also witnessed Black women scholars who pursue work based on their dying passions and endure the same issues. I’ve also learned many Black women scholars are not compensated at all or fairly for the extra work they do whether for food or love. I do agree pursuing work based on what you love is a major privilege. I would also argue that for most scholars, and professionals outside of academia, will endure some of the issues regardless.

Another point that stood out for me is Rogers’ idea of the grooming of graduate students. She mentions this throughout the book to criticize how most graduate students are fixated on a career based on teaching, rather than branching out to engage in non-academic professions. Most students, particularly myself, recognize the privilege of making a living only teaching. Particularly in the CUNY system, many professors engage in careers/jobs outside of teaching. The cost of living in NYC is a major factor. However, Rogers’ point of “grooming” sparked me to consider my own journey to a PhD program. Graduate school was first introduced to me during undergrad as a scholar in the McNair program. The program is specifically designed and funded to “groom” minority and underprivileged students to pursue a PhD. Without my involvement within the program I am 100% sure I would not have pursued graduate school. I’m still wrestling with the overall outcome of my “grooming.” The highs and lows of academia is similar to the structure of most institutions in our capitalist system.

This week’s reading of Austerity Blues provided detailed information on policies and reform that I had no knowledge of prior to the reading. Although the reading was easier to digest than The Undercommons, the book provided a lot of information to consume. The reading explores the timeline of public policy, technology and privatization that has affected public education. The book explains how politics influence our personal lives, especially how we navigate education, they write, “It was in the public university during that era where we learned that the external world of political economy and our own interior lives were inseparable. These worlds had to be linked to be understood. That struggle for unification has marked much of our academic work ever since” (2). The decade of the 1960s opened the door for students to protest and advocate for the many intersections of their identities. The emergence of the SNCC in conversation with The Black Panther Party, Civil Rights Movement and Anti-War Movements illustrated just how much “the external world of political economy” is a part of students “interior lives.” Carmen Kynard’s book, Vernacular Insurrections: Race, Black Protest, and the New Century in Composition-Literacies Studies, explores twenty-first-century literacies, specifically those created by Black liberation movements, and how they work to impact our personal lives and academic institutions. Kynard analyzes the link between our personal lives and education through the lens of discourse and language. How we maneuver academic institutions is influenced by politics of our identities. 

The reading explores how policy impacts our education system. It analyzes historical policies that once promoted free and/or accessible public education that has since been reformed to negatively impact students’ quality of education, they write, “Student per capita public spending in higher education, for example, has declined over the past fifteen years. The reduction of investment has in turn had a significant impact on the quality of education as class sizes increase, pedagogy is mechanized, and academic content is increasingly standardized or watered down. The social reproduction of college students from one generation to the next is less likely as a result to promote the kind of classroom work and faculty engagement that sharpen students’ critical thinking and writing skills. This shift in education quality also has negative consequences for many college graduates, who are increasingly unable to function as informed citizens and to take on challenging job roles” (16). The ways in which the country’s education policies have been reformed and spending defunded causes a number of harmful effects. For one, large class sizes reduce the number of students that are able to receive a nurturing education. Class sizes also affect the efficiency of teachers to execute a lesson plan that aids the many learning styles of students. The reduction of engagement tailored to “sharpen students’ critical thinking and writing skills” trickles down to negatively impact college students. How can students be expected to perform as well-learned individuals participating in society if our education system does not foster their responsibilities? Our country’s political and social system is more concerned with tackling issues of crime and punishment rather than preventative measures. If more money was used to aid preventing crime and unlawful acts students would have the opportunity to properly transition into post-graduate society.