For Thursday’s reading of Alcoff’s “The Problem of Speaking for Others”, please compose your own blog entry (categorized under “Alcoff”) that engages these three bullets:

• What questions do you have about Alcoff’s text and her argument? What wasn’t clear? What doesn’t add up?
• How does Alcoff’s article intertextualize with our work on “service” in the class thus far? How does it map onto the word, “service”? What issues does it raise about conducting service-learning at Boys and Girls Clubs?
• Finally, how is Alcoff’s article useful for YOU (as a student, as a service-learner, as a writer, as sound-script composer)?

Also, feel free to include your annotations of the article in your post or anything else you want to note, for that matter.

And remember: You are not expected to read this article and “totally get it.” It’s dense and complex. It references a long history of theory, as well as critical stress points in feminist and post-structuralist thought. Don’t get caught up in those references. Read through them and connect the article with our work in 121 — our work on voice-overs, our service-learning work, and our keyword collaboratory work. Cool?

Let me know what questions you have! (Reminder: I have virtual office hours on Wednesday from 5-7 p.m.)

Enjoy, dear theory heads.

One thing that particularly marks American culture is the notion of “adversarial jurisprudence” — the notion that law and justice ultimately emerge from the battle between two warring parties.

Consider these two, for instance:

&

In the first corner is Girl Talk (a/k/a Greg Gillis), who has become nearly famous for his intense mash-ups of other people’s music, for which he does not give credit or royalties. (What’s more, his record label is dubbed “Illegal Art.”)

In the second corner is Lady Sovereign, who is — as you’ll notice — sampled in one of Girl Talk’s songs, “Friday Night.”

Now, we COULD pit these two in a tete-a-tete boxing match for their lives. Sovereign’s music is stolen, and Girl Talk does nothing more than give a casual, cultural nod. (After all, as Doug Kahn notes, there is no citation in music.) But let us refrain from confining ourselves solely to adversarial jurisprudence, shall we? Let’s also “teach the debate.”

What does “teach the debate” imply? It implies looking at how a debate emerges in the first place. What are its modes of production? How did it come to be and where is it going? Another word here might be “problematics” — how we make problems matter, or how we make scenes of them in court rooms across the country.

Teaching the debate is a matter of asking the right questions — questions which do not end with pitting one issue (or person) against another. For the case of Girl Talk and Lady Sovereign, let’s try these steps:

• Listen to Girl Talk’s “Friday Night” and Lady Sov’s “Random” and take notes. You might focus, in particular, on how Sov is sampled in Girl Talk’s song. What was ripped and to what effects?
• Notes taken? Ok, now let’s chat as a class. We’ll need one facilitator, two equalizers, one recorder, one time keeper, and two devil’s advocates. In approximately fifteen minutes, you should generate three debates that might emerge from these two songs, between these two parties. For each debate, state what the debate is about and categorize it (e.g., economic, artistic, or political).
• When we are finished, we’ll decide upon which debate would be most interesting to pursue, keeping in mind HOW the debate emerges in the first place. How does the debate raise questions? How complex is it?
• Next, we’ll replicate the debate, splitting the class into fourths. Using the same roles (i.e., facilitator, equalizer, recorder, time keeper, and devil’s advocate) as before, you’ll be responsible for generating one complex claim, stating what evidence and what type of experts you would need to support that claim, and, finally, what you are assuming to make your claim happen (that is, what are your warrants).
• We’ll then reconvene and share your claims, evidence, experts, and warrants.
• When all’s done, we’ll teach each other the debate. We’ll look at how these claims emerged, how experts were called, and what — after all — appears to be the motor for Girl Talk vs. Lady Sov.

Let me know what questions you have before or after the workshop!

Hope this finds all well and thoroughly masked post-1.2.

Having read most of your responses, here’s what I got for your futures:

• When you introduce an artifact (e.g., a film, a book, an article, or a song), introduce the thing itself and not your take on it. For example, try: “The new Wu-Tang Clan record, which was released in 2007, contains a number of diverse tracks…” instead of “I’ve listened to the new Wu-Tang Clan record forty times in three days on my new iPod.” The reasoning here is that the former approach will force you to contextualize your artifact for your reader, who you should not assume is aware of or familiar with your artifact.
• For academic writing, I suggest avoid using “you” too often. Consider “the audience,” which is less likely to decrease the credibility of your writing.
• When you are explaining things, quote them! Quote the voice-over narration! If you are analyzing a visual medium, then paint what you see through words. The more detail, the better.
• To really develop your paragraphs and make them complex, consider the “known-new” contract. First, introduce and explain what is known. Then, toward the end of your paragraph, open up what’s known to something new — implications!
• If you want to increase the stakes of your claims, analyses, and research questions, then try reading for HOW your artifact is doing what it is doing. Rather than reading for content and interpreting what your artifact “means,” attend to modes of production. For example, you could analyze this blog and say, “The blog suggests that it is being used by a 2008 winter class at the UW.” Ok, but how did this interpretation emerge? Note how this analysis differs: “The very existence of this blog for a 2008 winter class at the UW suggests new directions in composition, modes of writing that involve online feedback, multi-authored workshops, and multimedia. This form of knowledge-making demands that students and instructors re-think composition at the college level and perhaps writing in general. It also begs the question: How is blogging an effective way of learning?”
• Beware of vague references, people! They are cruel to your poor, innocent reader! If you use “this” and “these” and “it,” then make sure they point to a specific noun (e.g., “This form of knowledge-making demands” and not just “This demands”). Cool?

That’s all I got for now. Keep up the good work, everyone. I’m really looking forward to your new sound-scripts.

Be in touch with questions!

Apparently you can park your service just off the Ave.

That said, let’s talk future.

At some point today, please e-mail your 1.2 to your peer. She or he should also have a DVD or URL in hand to watch your clip.

For Tuesday’s class, it’s quite plain, really: Read the 1.3 prompt carefully, respond to it, upload it to the course drop box, and e-mail it to your peer.

Remember that 1.3 requires a complex claim that argues for why what’s missing from your peer’s 1.2 matters. It’s also an academic argument, people. Think fancy pants, ascots, and — if you dare — berets.

And, if you are curious, then here’s the EMP exhibit, “American Sabor.” The EMP vouchers are coming soon. I’m waiting to hear from them EMP people.

In the meantime, have a great weekend!

Response paper 1.2

During Tuesday’s class, we discussed the elements of a complex claim (i.e., acknowledgment of counterclaims, so what?, what’s next?, and detail), as well as the components of a productive research question for 121 (i.e., general subject, time, space, people/group, social issue, and “how”). And two weeks ago, we began our keyword collaboratory project on “service.”

Now it’s time to mobilize claims-making and the generation of research questions in the context of the keyword collaboratory.

On Tuesday, you organized your keyword groups. Do you recall who your group members are and which definition of service you were assigned? If not, let’s chat.

Good? Ok, so the goals for this workshop are to:

• Practice writing and conducting research collaboratively,
• Continue constructing a public Wiki genealogy of “service” as a class,
• Develop skills in exposition, rhetorical reading, and argumentation for your future 121 papers, and
• Examine the ways in which service — as a term — might inform service — as a set of practices — at Boys and Girls Clubs.

This workshop has three main parts.

I. Individual Quote Selection

Individually, please compose a blog entry (categorized under “keyword notes”) that:

• Provides a quote from either the Illich or the Cruz reading in which you think your definition of service is functioning. Here, you might consider your definition a “lens for reading” Illich and Cruz. (Of note, the word “service” or “serve” needn’t literally appear. It could be “evoked,” if you will. For example, “I need to do my homework” evokes “school.”)
• Articulates the context of the quote. In what article does the quote appear? Where in the article does the quote appear? How is it functioning there?

As a class, we will then review some of the quotes you selected.
II. Collaborative Quote Selection and Claim
As a group, review each of your individual blog entries and then compose a single, collaborative entry (categorized under “keyword notes”) that:

• Provides the ONE quote — from all the quotes you have assembled in your individual entries — that you think raises the most productive questions about your definition of service.
• Lists ONE of those productive questions. (Recall: general subject, time, space, people/group, social issue, and “how.”)
• Makes a complex claim for why those questions are worth pursuing. (What other questions could be asked? What’s the purpose of your question? What are possible answers or responses? And where might your question lead us in studies of service?)

After this exercise, we’ll take a break.

III. Sharing and Commenting on Quote Selections

As a group, you will now read another group’s entry and comment on it. Note the group’s quote. Now, re-read it with your group’s definition in mind and as a “lens for reading.”

In your comment, please:

• Respond to the group’s claim by stating how the quote might be read differently through your definition.
• List at least ONE new, productive question that emerges from your “new” reading of the quote.

When you are finished, we’ll reconvene as a class and discuss what’s up next for the keyword collaboratory.

Looking forward!

Afternoon, everyone. Thanks for a great class today. I especially appreciated your collaborative claims, which were well-written and nicely articulated.

Now for a list of what’s up for Thursday and then — from today’s class — a quick review of producing productive claims and research questions.

Please let me know ASAP if you have ANY questions about what follows, ok? As I mentioned in my e-mail today, I realize that today’s class included a lot of information. Rather than getting overwhelmed, consider that information a map of the next few weeks.

For Thursday, please:

• If you have not already, complete Podcast 1 and upload your sound file to the course drop box. (The podcasts will be considered late after today.)
• Read the 1.2 prompt carefully, respond to it (three paragraphs, three three-step analyses, three research questions), and upload your response to the course drop box (by Friday the 25th at the latest).
• Highly Recommended: Review the workshop on masking and Murray Schafer’s terms (e.g., keynote, signal, and soundmark) and consider using them in the “service” of your 1.2 writing.
• Bring a copy of your film or TV show clip (or a URL for that clip) to class for your sequence one peer.
• Be prepared to discuss and collaboratively write about Illich and Cruz, as well as your definition of service.

Otherwise, here’s a quick blog reflection on 9:30-11:20, Tuesday, January 22nd, SMI 309:

Complex claims:

• Acknowledge counterarguments (e.g., “while some may argue…”),
• Answer “so what?” or the stakes at hand (in a risky, although relevant and persuasive, fashion),
• Provide detail and context (e.g., relevant evidence and examples), and
• Are future-oriented or forward-looking (e.g., suggest where the argument is going and what it’s doing).

Productive research questions in 121:

• Inquire about an identifiable (though somewhat general) subject,
• Focus on a particular time (e.g., the 1960s) and space (e.g., Mexico City),
• Stress how the subject at hand relates to a particular person or group,
• Target a specific social issue, and
• Ask “how” rather than “what” or “why.”

That sounds about right. Again, don’t hesitate to ask questions, and I’ll see you on Thursday.

Best,

Jentery

Are as follows:

Team North Seattle (two teams to emerge) >>>

• Scott (scottwc3@u.washington.edu)
• Samuel (samuel3@u.washington.edu)
• Francis (canasn@u.washington.edu)
• Nathan (peadon@u.washington.edu)
• Summer (sjs05@u.washington.edu)
• Ashley (wakea@u.washington.edu)
• Krysta (krystay@u.washington.edu)

Team Wallingford (two teams to emerge) >>>

• Ainsley (ains@u.washington.edu)
• Jillian (jkd909@u.washington.edu)
• Aitza (aitzae@u.washington.edu)
• Sohroosh (sohroosh@u.washington.edu)
• Juhi (jainj@u.washington.edu)
• Aly (aomori07@u.washington.edu)
• Jenna (jshio@u.washington.edu)
• Seth (sethtai@u.washington.edu)

Team Rotary (two teams to emerge) >>>

• Miriam (meh7@u.washington.edu)
• Lynn Leigh (llhall@u.washington.edu)
• Alexandra (alkenyon@u.washington.edu)
• Casey (kcmin123@u.washington.edu)
• Nick (linfengx@u.washington.edu)
• Colleen (ccross59@u.washington.edu)

Here’s the list, together with e-mail addresses, people!

• Ainsley (ains@u.washington.edu) & Scott (scottwc3@u.washington.edu)

• Jillian (jkd909@u.washington.edu) & Aitza (aitzae@u.washington.edu)

• Miriam (meh7@u.washington.edu) & Lynn Leigh (llhall@u.washington.edu)

• Sohroosh (sohroosh@u.washington.edu) & Juhi (jainj@u.washington.edu)

• Alexandra (alkenyon@u.washington.edu) & Samuel (samuel3@u.washington.edu)

• Francis (canasn@u.washington.edu) & Casey (kcmin123@u.washington.edu)

• Aly (aomori07@u.washington.edu) & Nathan (peadon@u.washington.edu)

• Colleen (ccross59@u.washington.edu) & Jenna (jshio@u.washington.edu)

• Summer (sjs05@u.washington.edu) & Seth (sethtai@u.washington.edu)

• Ryan (taylor42@u.washington.edu) & Ashley (wakea@u.washington.edu)

• Nick (linfengx@u.washington.edu) & Krysta (krystay@u.washington.edu)