Saturday, October 27, 2012

#9.


Wysocki, Anne Frances. "Introduction: Into Between--On Composition in Mediation." Composing(Media)=Composing(Embodiment). Eds. Kristin L. Arola and Anne Frances Wysocki. Utah State UP. 2012. 1-22.

Banks, Adam. "Oakland, The Word, and The Divide: How We All Missed the Moment." from Race, Rhetoric, and Technology: Searching for Higher Ground. NCTE Press. 2006. 11-46.

I feel like the heart of Wysocki’s argument is that writing should be thought of “as a technology that enables us to experience our bodies as our bodies,” even as it “mediates those bodies in line with existing institutions” (22). So, in my understanding of her argument, writing makes us aware of our own experiences as a consciousness inside of a body—we understand our own physicality as we write—but our bodies are simultaneously negotiated and remediated by other ideologies. I definitely understand why we read Wysocki’s article with Banks negotiation of African American rhetoric. I see Banks’ argument fitting very much with the second part of Wysocki’s argument regarding the ideologies thrust upon/remediating bodies. Banks writes, “African Ameican rhetoric has always been multimedia, has always been about body and voice and image, even when they only set the stage for language” (25).  Banks writes about the dumbing down of course material for African Americans, about the assumptions regarding ebonics, and how the internet provides an interesting and unique space for a “dropping out of marked race” (30).

I agree with Wysocki that writing encourages an awareness of our bodies. When I sit down to write a paper, I have a very specific process, space, and method. If I skip a step, I’m distracted and my writing seems off. To be sure, this could simply be a reflection of my own neuroses, but my process makes me think about every decision I make before, during, and after I write, down to the gum that I must chew to deal with my own nervous energy. I wonder how Wysocki’s argument might be translated in terms of multimodal projects—I’d think that these multimodal projects would make us even more aware of our bodies and our processes of making. 

3 comments:

  1. I really like your explanation of body as being multimodal, and also remediated through different modalities when writing. I took have rituals that make up the way my body responds to the readiness of writing. Spatially, everything around me has to be completely in order, before I can enter the chaos of my mind to write. It might be neurosis, but it works :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Jenna,

    You know that gum chewing and writing is a dangerous combination, right? :-P

    What I find interesting about Wysocki's argument (as well as some of the other arguments/texts we're reading for Thursday's class) is that the concept of embodiment ties in so closely with Bolter and Grunsin's ideas regarding transparency. When a technology (like writing) works, we don't notice it. It's only when our attention is brought to the technology or it breaks down that we consider our physical relationship to it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey Jenna!
    Once again, great insights! I really like that you were able to make the connection between these two articles (as I wasn't so competent). At any rate, your consideration of the body and multimodality are spot on. To add to what you're suggesting, I would most certainly think that, as you put it " multimodal projects would make us even more aware of our bodies and our processes of making." In doing the multimodal timeline, I was very much aware of my body and processes that were occurring that did not occur while making the digital timeline (or when sitting down to write a paper for that matter). The different methods employed down to the laying out of materials was significantly different. I also found it interesting that I became much more aware of my hands: what they were doing in order to manipulate the materials and produce what I intended.

    ReplyDelete