In his work, The Persistence of Difference in Networked Classrooms: Non-negotiable Difference and the African American Student Body, Todd Taylor seems to be agreeing with Bizzell and Min-Zhan Lu's faith that "students from the margins can effectively operate, or negotiate, within both dominant and home cultures and that the effect of such border crossings can be the subversive and productive reverse acculturation of the dominant group by the marginalized" (220). From this belief that marginalized students can change or influence a dominant culture, Taylor proposes that "profound, deep-seated difference is, by definition, non-negotiable" (220); difference can make an impact but can not be made uniform.
Taylor notes that there is a history of researchers who "[bring] up issues of difference or suggest that he or she is attempting to consider the circumstances of people of color but then fails to address either difference or color in substantial ways" (221).
Jonathan Alexander, in Out of the Closet and into the Network: Sexual Orientation and the Computerized Classroom* is almost in conversation with Taylor. Alexander's research is focused on marginalized voices also, those of reticent homosexual students. Alexander points to Jeffrey Weeks' "particular history" that shapes sex and sexuality. Alexander asks, "The question now is, of course, how do computers help students realize and think about the 'social phenomena shape[ing this] ... particularly [sic] history" (211)?
The same question could be asked by Taylor. Both authors point out that computers can serve as anonymous forums that will allow for "reverse acculturation of the dominant group by the marginalized;" for Taylor, we must recognize the physical bodies of those who respond online in a disembodied place for the effect of reverse acculturation to take place (223). For Alexander, online discussions allow for "a growing awareness of how 'normalcy' is a construct and not a given" (215). Reverse acculturation, although never stated as such, is occurring in Alexander's study. Taylor simply suggests that reverse acculturation is possible if certain steps are taken to recognizing the body that is active in the non-body of a computer network.
I'm generalizing Taylor's discussion terribly, but it's important to note that both authors, who were published in the same issue of Computers and Composition, see the computer as a way to equalize voices.
*I have to point out that it was startling to see that our institution (under a former name) is published in a text from Bedford/St. Martin's and that Dr. Margaret Barber is acknowledged as well. Pueblo, represent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I noticed too that the comfort that races and sub cultures felt in presenting in anonymous forums is felt not only by these groups, but also by members of different classes. In previous research, I noticed that the continued use of Web 2.0 platforms are making it easier for members of different classes to communicate due to the similarity of language.
ReplyDeleteNow, at the same time, its also making it easier for creepy people to prey on normal people...but that's a different discussion for a different forum.
Is technology leading to a common language shared by members of all classes? Possibly...
Interesting thought, Dave. The more accessible that technology becomes, the more voices may be heard.
ReplyDeleteIt's not just computers that are creating a common language between historically marginalized groups, but institutions. As more and more institutions begin open enrollment policies, including CSU-Pueblo although they don't openly state it, more students who are historicallly out of the loop when it comes to the language of the "academy" are being given the tools to communicate with this new available language. AS opposed to before when universities were exclusive and reserved for the elite, they are now available to more groups of people, like technology.
ReplyDeleteDr. Barber also published a computer textbook in 2005, Argument Now. If I obtain a copy, I will bring it to a future class.
ReplyDeleteTechnology is changing us in many ways,bridging previous unknowns, normalizing what was not previously seen as normal,creating common bonds where there was none, isolating us from the reality of one another and taking precious time from interacting with the world. There are pros and cons. The jury is still out on the ultimate consequences.
ReplyDeleteI think one thing online forums are doing is creating a new language base by which different groups can identify themselves. While Taylor and Alexander are both right in terms of the freedom of expression these forums offer I question how cosmopolitan the effect is. Online forums also provide a means of being self-excluding and for creating group divisions, just along slightly different lines than has been seen traditionally.
ReplyDelete