Just in case you need a dose of Kenny Loggins and the World to liven up your weekend:

Thanks for your contributions to class today, everyone. And thank you, Ainsley, for being the class Word jockey and annotating Alcoff’s article. I especially enjoyed tracing the discursive functions of “putting words into the mouths of others” — in whole and in part — through conceptions of intersectionality (e.g., of gender, race, sexuality, and ethnicity), responsibility, authorship, expertise, epistemology, context, history, and — perhaps my favorite, per Aitza’s comment — the “uninvited imposition.”

Of course, we may not have solved any great dilemmas today. So be it. We’ll just let Pluto be Pluto.

But, honestly, here are some questions to consider for the balance of the quarter — questions that particularly map Alcoff onto the course material:

• How does “immersion” or “first-hand experience” generate different forms of knowledge-making than “critical distance” or similar forms of “objective,” academic knowledge? In short, how is expertise defined, when it is defined?
• How is voice-over narration a form of a narrator speaking for a subject? Is a voice-over narrator who speaks with her subjects even possible, and, if so, how?
• How is “service” defined through speaking for others? How is it defined through speaking with them?
• In future writing, how will we write about and for Boys and Girls Clubs? Or write with them? How is “responsibility” and “authorship” understood in these contexts?
• How do we work through the problems of speaking for others when we collaborate?
• Finally, how do we compose media with others? About others? For others? How do differences between the these three emerge?

With these questions in mind, let’s move toward next week, your 1.4, and your first conference. For next week:

• Please note that we DO NOT have class on Tuesday, February 5th.
• Although we do not have class on Tuesday the 5th, before Tuesday’s end, Response Paper 1.4 — which is crucial for your first conference — is due in the course drop box.
• Blog #4: Conference Thought Piece is due on Thursday the 7th. It is required for your first conference. Aside from a skeleton for your first major paper, it also asks you to comment on two of your peers’ entries.
• For Thursday’s class, please be prepared to return to the “Speak Again Twice” workshop that we began today. Today, you began with three questions that would help you speak for/about your peer’s “stance” on a social issue. On Thursday, you’ll begin generating questions that help you speak with your peer on that issue. We will then explore the knowledge that emerges from “about/for” and “with.”
• Finally, for your first conference, aside from your Blog #4: Conference Thought Piece, I suggest — but do not require — that you revise at least one of your response papers from the first sequence. That way, you will have the opportunity during the first conference to ask me about revision and preparing your final e-portfolio. Cool?

Be in touch with questions, people, and enjoy your weekend. Of note, next weekend will be a weekend off from 121. So keep that break in your horizon.

I’ll have your Response Papers 1.3 to you soon. In the meantime, thanks for being rad.

Yours,

Jentery

Your first conference is required and evaluated.  Please come prepared and on time to Art 347.  I also suggest that you bring a print copy of your Conference Thought Piece.

If you are not on this list, then get in touch with me ASAP.

Thursday, February 7th

11:40 — Alexandra

12 — Juhi

12:20 — Ashley

12:40 — Lynn Leigh

1 — Alyson

1:30 — Jillian

1:50 — Jenna

2:30 — Ryan

2:50 — Seth

3:10 — Aitza

3:30 — 4:40 are open

Friday, February 8th (Thank you, Krysta, for your revision here)

9:50 — Casey

10:10 — Ainsley

10:30 –  Krysta

10:50 — Summer

11:10 — OPEN

11:30 — Sam

11:50 — Sohroosh

12:10 — Francis

12:30 — Colleen

12:50 — Scott

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.

You. One social issue.

&

Your peer. One social issue.

Now what?

>>> Three questions that would help you speak “for” or “about” your peer’s “stance” on the issue.

>>> Get the answers to those three questions.

>>> Share.

>>> Three questions that would help speak “with” your peer’s “stance” on the issue.

>>> Get the answers to those three questions.

>>> Let’s chat about how knowledge emerged.

If you don’t mind, then please post your questions and answers in your own blog entry (categorized under “Speak Again Twice”). Thanks!

Let’s get (re-)thinking about the first major paper!

Recall that your major paper is engaging the research question you’ve been formulating since Response Paper 1.2. During your first conference, which is approximately twenty minutes in duration, you and I will chat about that question, how you are exploring it (through your paper and new sound-script), and why your research question and line of inquiry matter in the first place.
To prepare for the conference, please prepare a brief blog entry that:

Briefly explains your new sound-script (e.g., its purpose, audience, and narrative style).

States your research question (from Response Paper 1.4). (Of course, you may have revised your question since 1.4).

Expresses the main claim of your first major paper and why you believe the claim is reasonable and risky.

Explains the stakes of your argument and why your claim and new sound-script are both important.

Articulates how your new sound-script serves to augment, critique, or complicate your chosen film or TV show.

Provides one artifact (e.g., a journal article, academic text, or selection from the course material) that you will be using in support of your new sound-script.

Raises any specific questions you have about your claim, your analysis, or your research. Of course, your questions can be about any nervousness or frustration you are having. Remember: both nervousness and frustration are a part of the writing process.

Be prepared to discuss your thought piece at the conference. In fact, I suggest that you print it and bring it with you. I will! (Please note that not having your thought piece for your conference seriously cramps your participation grade.)

Your thought piece can be written in a fragmented, bulleted manner, though your complex claim should be well-articulated and grammatically correct.

Please post your thought piece by Thursday, February 7th at 9:30 a.m. and categorize it under “#4 – Conference Thought Piece.”

Also, please read and comment on at least two thought pieces posted by your peers. What do you like about their ideas? What is missing? What needs explaining?

Thanks! Looking forward to reading your arguments and hearing your new sound-scripts,
Jentery

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.