The Alcoff piece was definitely dead on with the assignments we are working. I am still not 100% sold however that speaking for others is harmful… that is kind of where I am stuck.

In her three beginning examples she sets up what her pice is going to be about by giving very different situations of speaking for or in the last case not speaking for. In the first example I believe that her style of writing should not be critiqued by a few other women so harshly – that example did not sell me to believe speaking for others is bad. Yet the second point about the president is a grey situation where he could be helping and could be hurting… yet the president is not simply speaking for but acting for. And then the last situation when the theorist won’t even lecture.. I thought that he could have lectured if he was educated on the situation he is still qualified to stake claims of his own personal opinion.

As far as relating that Alcoff piece and the situation at the boys and girls club I have been struggling with speaking for and speaking about. Since we are working with younger kids I feel there is some knowlegde I have looking back at my childhood that they are not aware of. Since our group plans to incoroporate a volunteer activity schedule its hard to say what speaking for the kids really is. Am I speaking for them if I express the activity choices I enjoyed when I was younger and state that I want the kids to have those opportinitues as well? I guess its a difficult subject that I am having trouble grasping but the Alcoff piece didn’t make it any clearer for me.

Some parts that I find confusing are:

“Charge of Reductionism” - why is it viewed negatively? In many cases I feel I need to see that someone has successfully achieved something higher than I have to know it is attainable. And in just as many situations there mentoring, help and even their networks can be very helpful to me. I many times especially in school and work know I am “reduced” to a lower level of inteligence and training – nor would I be angered if someone where to point it out. Its true and a place for growing not something to try and hide and not let people talk about.

I guess my biggest misunderstanding is what is the problem with being spoken for by someone who has an intention of helping you. I’m trying to grasp the idea but it hasn’t fully clicked.

I do agree with Alcoff’s statement: “Even a complete retreat from speech is of course not neutral since it allows the continued dominance of current discourses and acts by omission to reenforce their dominance.”

• It sounds to easy to be true but it almost feels like if you are going to speak for someone, with good hearted intentions, and they are aware of your intentions and direction – how can it be negative? 

For my new soundscript, I want it to make the audience (my english 121 classmates) empathize with the main character, who is doing the voice over narration. As some of you know, A Clockwork Orange is features very disturbing themes. Thus, the whole movie revolves around one young man, with all his actions and words making him ever more disturbing. Hopefully, with this new sound-script, I will take away this disturbing element in the clip. The way I plan to achieve this is by changing the tone of his voice in the narration. In the original, the emotion in the words dont match at all with his actions. Hopefully, by making the emotion in his words match up more with the narration I can take away some of that disconcerting feeling you get from watching the original.

 My research question is “how does changing the tone (specifically, making it more emotional) change how people percieve the narrator?”

My main claim for my first major paper is that something as small as changing intonations can have a great effect on how someone views the clip. Its risky, because many people would say that something as small as that would have no real effect on the overall clip. But I say that the emotional cues are an integral part of the overall feel of the clip. the intonation could be all the difference between feeling one way as opposed to another toward this clip.

My claim is important because it shows just how important sound is. The fact that a change in something as small as intonation can give two completely separate feelings toward the narrator, shows that sound definitely plays a major role in interpreting a clip.  My sound script will serve to augment the clip, because it will be showing how open sound is to interpretation. How changing one little aspect of the clip can turn the overall feel of the clip upside down. I will definitly try to use Davis’ “Acoustic Cyberspace” in support on my new sound-script. Currently, I have no questions about anything. But I’m sure that will change soon.

In Word .docx format:

the-problem-of-speaking-for-others1.docx

I didn’t understand what Alcoff meant by saying that “a speaker’s location is epistemically salient.”

I feel like there are so many things to consider when deciding whether speaking for others is appropriate and a lot of it depends on specific circumstances and individual judgements. In the same way that everyone imposes their own characteristics on other groups, so too their own experience will color their decision about speaking for others. The whole thing is very subjective and Alcoff acknowledges this when she says, “we must begin to ask ourselves whether this is ever a legitimate authority, and if so , what are the criteria for legitimacy? In particular, is it ever valid to speak for others who are unlike me or who are less privileged than me?” but she goes on to say that there are some cases when speakers are accepted and other repudiated. So, we can conclude that in some cases speaking for others is appropriate.

Alcoff raises issues regarding service in the same way as speaking for others. She claims that speaking for and/or serving those less privileged “has actually resulted (in many cases) in increasing or reinforcing the oppression of the group spoken for.” So this brings up the concern that instead of helping by “serving” at the Boys and Girls Club, if we are actually perpetuating or even exacerbating the problem.

As a student this article is helpful in recognizing when my own perspective is speaking for others and imposing itself. I will be more sensitive to this natural tendency in my own work and in any other discourse. 

Wow, that was intense.

I agree with the general premise of Alcoff’s article; that speaking for someone, if one is not a part of that group, can have dangerous consequences and is generally looked down upon. I think she brought up some good points; that if speaking for an oppressed group is bad, should I, as a white american, not do it? But then, does that go against whatever percieved societal duty I have to help those who are oppressed? She also raises the very valid question- can we ever seperate speaking about from speaking for? should we?

The discussion of audience is an important one, especially for this class as it relates to our service learning. We need to be very aware, both when we are at the clubs, talking to the kids, and when we are doing our projects, of who our audience is, and how much they will take what we say as truth, and what kind of credibility we have in their eyes. This ties into another point of Alcoffs, that we can never speak solely for ourselves, that our words will always be affecting someone. To be aware of our audience is to be more aware of the effect our words have, even when we think we are speaking only for ourselves.

I must dispute her claim that “in many situations when a woman speaks the presumption is against her”. I think that in today’s society, womens’ opinions are often as respected as men’s, especially when it comes to the kinds of things Alcoff is talking about, namely, speaking for the oppressed.

After reading Alcoff’s novel on speaking for and about others who are considered oppressed, my first question was something along the lines of “why did it take 25 pages to say this?” Really I didn’t see the need for the superfluous use of jargon and fancy writing to get across her point. Also, in this excerpt: “And this effect will continue until the U.S. government admits its history of international mass murder and radically alters it foreign policy” I found that it was out of the blue, and very abstract to the purpose of the essay, and she had a typo! should’ve been “It’s foreign policy.” Well, I thought that was funny. ^^

The things that weren’t clear to me were most often drowning in an ocean of unnecessary details and artful writing. Seemed to me like the Alcoff was trying to appear unquestionably intelligent or an expert on the subject, though I do recognize her relationship to her subject; she is a minority, and she is asking a question pertaining to how to speak for or about, or even if it’s acceptable to speak for or about a minority.

This article is useful to us as service-learning volunteers because it addresses the political correctness of speaking for a group, which is what we will be doing for our papers in due time. She tackles the different methods of avoiding speaking for a specific group, as well as the downsides to those evasive techniques. She asks the very questions that we, as representatives of the kids at the Boys and Girls club, should be considering.

As far as intertextualizing with service learning, Alcoff looks at the effects of speaking for someone else, and how one’s position as a member of a different class, race, or sex can affect their biases or credibility in certain situations.

Alcoff’s article seems to present the problems of speaking for others, hence the title. Though speaking for others can sometimes seem fine to do, it is often something that can spark conflict. Simply speaking, an example could be when my friend speaks for me about why I was late to an event. Sometimes, this can create conflict and argument because he does not know the whole story and may be saying the wrong words to convey a different picture of what happened. An excellent question from Alcoff, “So the question arises about whether all instances of speaking for should be condemned and, if not, how we can justify a position which would repudiate some speakers while accepting others.” When is it justifiable for someone to speak for others? Never? Speaking for myself is the way that I want to portray myself, but when speaking for and/or about others is a different story. “However, the problem of speaking for others is more specific than the problem of representation generally, and requires its own particular analysis,” according to Alcoff. There is more to just representation, which means there are more deeper meanings to this topic.

The importance of who is the speaker makes a huge difference on the impact. Like Alcoff states, “…how what is said gets heard depends on who says it, and who says it will affect the style and language in which it is stated.” It is only recently that more social equality is beginning to happen and that female writers and writers of ethnicity are being taken seriously. One thing which did not make too much sense to me was the topic of truth and the understanding of it. Hegel and Kant were names of two people referenced of whom I had no knowledge of. Though the idea makes sense, where “the speaker loses some portion of control over the meaning and truth of her utterance.” It is difficult for some to completely portray their thinking and mindset in words, which often does not do well to persuade listeners. Though there are two sides to the argument of whether speaking for others is right, “I would stress that the practice of speaking for others is often born of a desire for mastery, to privilege oneself as the one who more correctly understands the truth about another’s situation or as one who can champion a just cause and thus achieve glory and praise,” as Kozloff states. On the other hand, “Sometimes, as Loyce Stewart has argued, we do need a “messenger” to advocate for our needs.” Kozloff’s article makes sense for the most part, but some parts, as mentioned, and people referenced do not help her case due to the fact that I have no idea who they are.

Thus far, this article intertextualizes with our work on “service.” The video on Dark Days really connects as it had the actual people speak for themselves in addition to others. Speaking for oneself is sometimes necessary to get the message out right. By giving our service to others, we must represent where we are coming for in a upright manner, which is the UW. This is a service-learning class, which goes deeper than just giving help to people we view as “in need,” according to Illich and Cruz’s articles. Sometimes what we think of as a service may not be a service. It may somehow be harmful or disrespectful to the person, even if we think it is something beneficial. Some issues it may raise at the Boys and Girls club is how we treat and speak about these children. We are there for service-learning, but they are there to be fostered and educated. We need to be respectful and not always think that we are servicing them.

Kozloff’s article is useful to me because it shows how speaking for others is often harmful or disrespectful for them. If we cannot say it right and in the manner they would like to portray, then it is probably something which we should not speak about. Many people can be offended if something apparently small is written or spoken. Though it may not seem harmful to us, it can be devastating to them. Consequently, it is critical that people watch what they say and comprehend that some things can be harmful even when it is not intended. At the Boys and Girls Club, we must watch what we say because these children look up to us. We need to provide a good example to these kids, which is why we are there. Speaking for others often leaves unintended feelings towards some part of the audience. Thus, it is crucial that when speaking for others, including during service-learning, we watch what we say.

My first question after reading “The Problem of Speaking For Others” is whether Alcoff becomes a hypocrite by perhaps speaking for other social theorists that may not agree with her. She writes an essay on the problem of speaking for others, yet often refers to “we” as if all social theorists agree with her. I also find myself overwhelmed with her references to philosophers such as Foucault and Hegel that I vaguely remember learning about in 8th grade. Honestly, I believe the majority of Alcoff’s article is too dense and references too many outside texts to be accessible to me. I understand the basic gist of the essay and how it applies to our service learning, though. We will eventually have to compose a project where we speak for others; we will be speaking for the poverty-stricken youth of the Boys and Girls club of North Seattle. By Alcoff’s logic, our claims will be invalidated by the fact that most of us are affluent middle-class college students, not accustomed to living in poverty. Alcoff says, “I agree, then, that we should strive to create wherever possible the conditions for dialogue and the practice of speaking with and to rather than speaking for others.” We can take this advice into our project, by talking with the kids and learning about their lives rather than just speaking for them and making assumptions.

Wow. So that was one of the most confusing things I’ve ever read. Lots of run on sentences? anyways! reading it, there was her obvious bias. Her dislike, might I even say, hatred toward speaking for others. But unless I missed it ( which I very well could have; I couldn’t concentrate toward the end) it seemed very one sided. She did give many examples and reasons to why speaking for others was detrimental, but it seemed there was a complete lack of any argument for the other side. That alone, the failure to show the other side takes away some of the credibility. It makes it seem more like a rant. Of course, there was still a lot of good information in there. Just reading through it, I got the feeling that her hatred of speaking for others were a bit over the edge.

“There is a strong, albeit contested, current within feminism which holds that speaking for others—even for other women—is arrogant, vain, unethical, and politically illegitimate.”

That just really struck me, the choice of words used. All some of the worst insults you could say to someone. Also              “The declaration that I “speak only for myself” has the sole effect of allowing me to avoid responsibility and accountability for my effects on others; it cannot literally erase those effects. ” This was really interesting. Even though you try to speak for yourself, you can still end up speaking for others. Of note, is that no matter what you say, its going to have an effect one way or another on someone elses views.

This intertextualizes with service in this class thus far, because currently, we are providing a service to the Boys and Girls Club.  Our personal experiences are akin to what she Alcoff is talking about. She mentions people in different locations speaking for people of a different location, with location not being just the traditional sense, but also, a persons “social Location”; what rung are they on society’s ladder.

“In other words, a speaker’s location (which I take here to refer to her social location or social identity) has an epistemically significant impact on that speaker’s claims, and can serve either to authorize or dis-authorize one’s speech”

This highly pertains to us and our class, because as we do our sevice learning, we are interacting with a group who are at a different location in society. Thus, we must tread lightly, as we can not truely understand them. Since we are going to be making a Public Service Announcement, what we say is going to either, as Alcott puts it, “authorize or de-authorize” our announcement.

For me, it just sort of re affirms the idea of not being able to truely speak for another group of people. But at the same time, it also dredges up questions of where that line is. At what point can you still speak for others, and at what point should you just stop. Also, it makes me think about the ramifications of everything i say, and also when I dont say anything, what happens.

It is hard for me to point out what is unclear or what does not add up. For me, the text was a little overwhelming. I was curious about how Alcoff defines “priviliged” and “oppressed,” since most people (I am speaking for others) are both. Alcoff addresses this in her footnotes, though. I found one statement that seems to be an oversimplification:

“For example, in many situations when a woman speaks the presumption is against her; when a man speaks he is usually taken seriously (unless his speech patterns mark him as socially inferior by dominant standards).”

I guess Alcoff’s context and “location” matters here. I do not, consciously at least, think less of something a woman says. Maybe the fact that I do not think I am prejudiced towards women makes more vulnerable to accidentally being sexist. Wimmin…

I do not know what “post-structuralist” means, but I am sure Wikipedia can fix that.

Alcoff discusses how the social position of the speaker and the person being spoken too change the meaning of what is said, and can reflect social hierarchies. The definition of “service” as sexual intercourse suggest a dominant role of the person doing the “service.” Depending on who is saying the word, and to whom, the suggested social relationship could change. Alcoff’s points also raise questions regarding Illich’s speech “To Hell with Good Intentions.” For one, is Illich speaking for the underprivileged of Mexico? And if so, is he justified?

While learning at the Boys and Girl’s Club, I need to make sure that I do not speak for the children I am working with unless I need to. Also, I need to make sure that if I do speak for any of the children, I am not reinforcing class or societal hierarchies. By criticizing my words with my social location in mind, I might possibly prevent unjustifiably speaking for others.