The Politics of Location

Okay, theoretically I found this piece to be interesting. Granted, because of inequalities people are overlooked and academic discourse can, at times, represent the white male and ignore “marginalized” people, places and cultures. This is an extremely complicated issue. One point I would like to highlight in Kirsch and Ritchies piece is the idea that: “In composition, a number of scholars have begun to invent writing that highlights multiple narratives and diverse perspectives… Such innovative writing challenges journal editors to develop a greater tolerance for ambiguity and unconventional forms of discourse, and challenges readers to learn new ways of reading and interpreting texts” (541). This is a good point and I would like to point out, that some of these practices are being used at the high school level. Granted, I do not have my students reading multiple narratives by the likes of bell hooks or Anzaldua, as those pieces might be a bit challenging for a ninth grade student; however, there are many other works to use that offer similar modes of discourse.

A great example of an entry-level book for multiple narratives is the House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros. I use this book with my ninth grade students because it is an excellent portrait of a young person, who is coming of age, amidst difficult circumstances manifested by society and culture. The main character, Esperanza, is a Latino female marginalized by society. The book is broken down into vignettes, that at times are poems, and at other times short stories, but pits and pieces of Spanish are used to illustrate the author’s somewhat autobiographical position regarding her place in society. This is a good piece to read with my student’s because it highlights a different voice that is perhaps not always heard in our society.

In regards to how all of this applies to the “politics of location”, Kirsch and Ritchie appear to be suggesting that the higher education English departments need to approach their discipline acknowledging that “[o]ur research instead will need to extend to theory-generating in a self-reflexive and mutually dialogic context to help researchers and participants challenge and change the conditions that keep oppressive structures in place” (542). While I agree that other voices need to be heard, I find this statement to be a little bit over the top. Is it really composition research and academics that keep oppressive structures in place? Reading and writing is the gateway to knowledge. Although different people have their own political and social opinions about what is being delivered in the classroom or in compositional studies, I feel that many teachers do not attempt to ignore “marginalized” students. From my experience as a teacher, I see myself and my colleagues trying to provide students with a large variety of resources for students to look at so they can find their own “personal” truths. Furthermore, is this not what reading and writing about in the first place?