From B-town

Ladies, Gentlemen and Friends,

My first full day in Baltimore for Eastern Communication Association has been pretty interesting. However, I must not start on today without outlining last night for it was magnificently magical!

After checking into our “swanky”  hotel (We have used this word, now, 50 times to describe it), Alisha and I ascended the hotel floors to our own via a glass elevator. A very nice sight. The room is pretty good and the hallways perpetually smell like just the right amount of febreeze which is glorious.

The hunger and curiosity of the city drove us out of the hotel to walk but across the street to the Chesapeake Bay. There is a small waterfall park/garden with metal art and nice lights which we wandered before reaching a swanky bank of restaurants and stores along the bay. Two things were on our minds: Cheesecake Factory (for cheesecake) and P.F. Chang’s (for lettuce wraps).

We got the best of both worlds in choosing Cheesecake Factory (my debut at the establishment). For not only did we have a charming date (the lovely Alisha and I) with a beautiful view over the night lit water but we also enjoyed lettuce wraps and fresh guac followed by Kahlua Coco Cheesecake. It was a great time! We rolled ourselves back to the hotel. But let me say quickly that lettuce wraps are awesome! Tacos only… better!

This morning was a nervous matter, for me, of getting ready with an outfit that I realized too late doesn’t really work all that well together. That’s a sad thing to figure out in the hotel. But I owned it. Hello fucked up fashion rules, my name is Alia. In any case, Alisha and I decided very last minute to attend a Lambda Pi Eta Panel about rhetorical criticism on campaigns. It seemed up her alley for her paper and up mine when it comes to my interests. These were the papers:

Campaigns and Critique: Rhetorical Criticism of Media Messages

“World War II Propoganda: We Can Do It! & Rosie the Riveter” Lori Caldwell, U. of Pitt undergrad – feminist critique on these two images. How did the US gov use campaigns to illicit women? playing on women’s emotions and patriotism. (I think this was the best paper on the panel – it did the best job of being critical from all sides)

“Truth: Manipulation of the Tobacco Industry” Lauren Filotei, U of Pitt undergrad – cluster analysis about some video anti-tobacco campaigns aimed at youth on the internet. I thought it was to be about the discourse on both sides but she really focused on just those videos which meant, as the respondent said, that it was a critique of a critique. It was a basic presentation about the images and what they meant. It could be really cool with the respondents suggestions of problematizing the message more because the speaker seemed to simply focus championing the advertisements.

“Herbal Essences’ ‘Organic’ Campaign” Melissa Marullo, U of Pitt undergrad – Cluster critique – what kind of images showed up most often and what were they doing. She discussed the sexualization of the advertisements and outlined the necessity of the company to do it as it was failing then the company’s hailed success as sales went up. She did a thorough job of outlining the organic elements and linking it to the orgasmic ones. the respondent made a great comment in that we can wonder what the implications are of replacing the male in traditional sex acts with a consumable product. critique that up the wazzo.

“PETA: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals” Phoebe Nixon, U of Pitt undergrad – feminist critique but Alisha and I are wondering how that was. She started out great with some ads for us to look at. She outlined well what a fem crit can be 1. explore the gender construction 2. explore the patriarchy and it’s ability to perpetuate itself or how to reform it. She didn’t seem to do that in the presentation (the paper may be a different story). She said that fem crit is useful with PETA images because feminists align themselves with other oppressed groups. Then the student discussed how the animals are depicted as lesser, helpless and unwanted. but… I don’t know. She didn’t have a reason for why only the ads she showed us. Her reason was because these were the ones that supported her argument. but eh. PETA has gotten into trouble for objectifying women inadvertently when trying to help the animals out in a Catch 22 (not to mention the “pure white” racist issues that may be there too). It would have been awesome to hear what she had to say about that.

They were interesting and very well written presentations. The subject matter was really great! And I applaud these girls for doing the panel. The greatest part about the presentations, for Alisha and I, is that we are right there. What these students worked on is something we can definetly see ourselves doing in terms of quality. So….

The next panel was sponsored by Voices of Diversity and it was so GREAT! for a later post though because Alisha and I are going to the Baltimore Aquarium like right now because it’s only a few blocks away and some shindig is going on with ECA. Lots of thoughts running through my mind. Much worry about the poster session tomorrow. I love having this experience and especially having it with Alisha.

The Limits of Speech

Heavily influenced by Audre Lorde and Linda Alcoff. It’s rough. I know.

I hurt most for the moments when I feared my own voice and the power it carries to re-write the stories written about me. They were wrong and often worked to erase who I am. Could have said. Should have said. Wished I had made noise, been volumous. Death will not wait for us to have our last say before we are swept from the possibilities of sound. What were the consequences of my silence? I left myself to be fashioned as the voiceless “Other” because I feared the risk of my own noise. So another and another and again more took much less risk and named my life, my existence and my experiences for their own purposes. I permitted fear the reign to bare me naked and defenseless against an onslaught of powerfully shaping rhetoric. Someone else told my story and made or unmade me. How much harder the battle is when you must rewrite the lies about your body or write yourself and your body back into the storyline of reality? I feared the risks of speaking but now I realize the greatest risk was in the silence I chose. Another spoke for me. Another unspoke me. The well-intentioned hampered. The ill-intentioned harmed. This is the transformation of silence into language and action.

And each silence that permitted but one word in place of mine acted to thread me down. Silence after silence, word after word. The Lilliputians slowly gained control. To break the silence severs their restrictions. So I am speaking now. Your silence will not protect you. It did not protect me.

Silence is a tyranny that must be named that. I feared the risks of giving myself away or violating the order that would enemize my emotions, my sex and my lifestyle further. There is that personal risk in language – dangerous battling against the mores that ignore my uniqueness and complexity.  Possibly yours too. Our adoration for language and words is part of our unity. Words entrance us. They entice us with their power to create and to alter. A second unity resides in our ultimate respect for the power that the writer, speaker, whisperer wields: language. I acknowledge the whisperers because we need all voices as best they can to speak as loudly as possible. I encourage you, Whisperer. Each word is power. Each word bearer dances, paints and battles. Silence about ourselves is only harmful. Language used against or for us must be reharnessed for ourselves and our sisters.

And yet, Criticism, be our sister. Our close kinship to her makes us stronger and more powerful. We hesitate already in speaking for others for many of us have felt the pangs of the insolence of office and spurns of hatred. I have heard the voices who have boldly spoken of such silencing effects.  In recognizing the pains of another we are best to self-regulate our words. Difference alone need not be the muzzle we allow to gag us. Writers, speakers, whisperers – We must embrace criticism in the circumstances where we feel compelled to speak. In recognizing the power of language and in trusting our prowess in using it loudly it would be wise to always consider those for whom one acts as a mouth piece. The words of the well intended may clang loudly regarding her pain and oppression. They may incite change. (excited whisper at the possibility of change) Glorious people, may we be effective in bringing change as we rewrite, retell the fallacious stories about ourselves that box or erase. And yet may speakers be wary that the well intended words of others have rewritten us.

We were encouraged to be silent as someone more capable fights the battles for us. Their words are often like loud cra(u)shing waves. The empowerment to be had from our realization of this idea called self-respect and dignity were pulled out in the tide. Another did not recognize this as being the important thing of the time. Better they address my life and my struggles to bring about the change they trust themselves capable of. In the end, I speak best to my struggles. I speak best about myself. But I am hesitant to utter a word when I trust Another to do so for me.

May this not be what we do as writers, speakers or whisperers. Though I seem to contradict myself, very well then I contradict myself. For it is when the harms of no speech at all is too great for the world to bear that we may speak for any other and their experiences. Silence is that great harm. Our speech will never be ineffective. It will either do good for ourselves or those we chose to speak for or it shall harm her. Always may we be aware that in speaking of them we name who they are, what they want and what they are about. Though I may hate silence I hate even more that I may silence another.

How different our history would be if Criticism was so close of kinship that we intimately loved her enough to reflect upon ourselves. Had the leaders of the Civil Rights movement been speaking about a world they were not apart of and trying to solve for problems they did not intimately know and had they been the only voices I wonder if the world would see the beginning of the end of racism. Albeit it dies slowly and we are still trying to suffocate that. Dr. King and Malcolm X spoke for themselves and empowered those who struggled like them to first whisper and then to cry out.

The state of the world may be different had women of color been encouraged to speak of the differences between their experiences and that of white women. Women of color face a unique problem in establishing their identity. They risk accusations of treason to their race if they fight for feminism but also disloyalty to feminism if they bring the issue of race to the table. Many white feminists were and may still be notorious for shushing issues of race in the name of presenting a unified front against patriarchy.

How different the world may seem if the colonized had represented themselves to the conquering crowns who heard the accounts of white men out to profit. What would Africa look like today had the powerful been more intimate with Criticism.

Writers, Speakers and Whisperers – Again I tell you that my moments of silence I regret deeply. I was re-written and erased. I was disempowered and spliced into the categories that they expected me to fall into. I was not protected. May the fear of risk embolden the shaky voice to speak the truth of that life. May we recognize the limits of our speech by respecting, always, the power of language whether it be intended for the good of another or not. Let us not be silent about ourselves any longer to encourage those still fearful to tell their stories.

Ignorant critique avoided… maybe

I almost wrote a scathing critique in this post about Lisa Flores regarding her essay Creating Discursive Space Through a Rhetoric of Difference. I was angry that I didn’t understand the jump she seemingly made from Chicana’s forming their identity and that identity being immediately connected to Third World Women in general. When she had spent so long discussing how important it was for the uniqueness of the material reality to shape a people’s identity it did not make sense that she should assume that all Third World Women working to emancipate themselves from their oppressive cultures would have the same sisterhood. Their materiality is different!

In trying to justify my angry tyraid I discovered her point. It is nestled in an understanding that identity is constructed … redefined in three stages:

- carving out a space withing which they can find their own voice – entails recognizing the labels, definitions

- they begin to turn it into a home where connections to those within their families are made strong

- construct bridges of pathways connecting them with others

-  result: chicana feminist homeland flexible enough to interact with other homelands

I’m sure that ya’ll reading that can figure out which part I forgot and got angry about. But if not, that’s ok cuz ya probably didn’t read the article and I did.  Mexican American women who feel neither Mexican nor American must create a space for themselves to be themselves, yes? For many, yes. Chicana women carve out their space and make it a home by creating what Gloria Anzaldua calls El Mundo Zurdo – the left handers world – the place for the misfits.

Lisa Flores says, “Because they may never have the connections to their biological families that allow them to be whole, Chicana feminists create a home with other Third World feminists…”

What scared me about my misunderstanding is that I almost wrote a fallacious, ignorant blog. Who knows, maybe the way I understand Flores is wrong here too. The perminancy hit me though. I must be more careful. I must ask more questions before I go about yelling (typing loudly) at the internet or in papers.

This paper is rough but I love it because the subject matter is so important. My critique on Gloria Anzaldua’s Speaking in Tongues: Letter to Third World Women Writers marches on through more reading, learning and questioning.

Many other things to write this weekend as well. I am kind of excited.

Adrienne, Audre & Alice

A Statement for Voices Unheard: A Challenge to the National Book Awards

Adrienne Rich, Audre Lorde, and Alice Walker

At the National Book Award ceremony, Adrienne Rich read the following statement, prepared by herself, Audre Lorde, and Alice Walker-all of whom had been nominated for the poetry award. They agreed that whoever was chosen to receive the award, if any, from among the three, would read the statement.

We, Audre Lorde, Adrienne Rich, and Alice Walker, together accept this award in the name of all the women whose voices have gone and still go unheard in a patriarchal world, and in the name of those who, like us, have been tolerated as token women in the culture, often at great cost and in great pain. We believe that we can enrich ourselves more in supporting and giving to each other than by competing against each other; and that poetry-if it is poetry-exists in a realm beyond ranking and comparison. We symbolically join together here in refusing the terms of patriarchal competition and declaring that we will share this prize among us, to be used as best we can for women.

We appreciate the good faith of the judges for this award, but none of us could accept this money for herself, nor could she let go unquestioned the terms on which poets are given or denied honor and livelihood in this world, especially when they are women. We dedicate this occasion to the struggle for self-determination of all women, of every color, identification, or derived class: the poet, the housewife, the lesbian, the mathematician, the mother, the dishwasher, the pregnant teenager, the teacher, the grandmother, the prostitute, the philosopher, the waitress, the women who will understand what we are doing here and those who will not understand yet, the silent women whose voices have been denied to us, the articulate women who have given us strength to do out work.

Taken from Inviting Transformation, Sonja Foss and Karen Foss, Second Edition. This speech was presented in 1974 for the Poetry Award

The Lied About Body

Yes, at four in the morning I sit down to write. Perhaps I shall traverse the lines I have created between my blog and my journal. Self esteem is plagued by termites – insects who one by one eat crevices into the whole of the body. Some of the bugs are people, some of them are circumstances. I hate being in New York while my family is in the hospital. I hate (selfishly) even more that I want to be there but know I wouldn’t really be of any help to my cousins. Uselessness. Thank God he’s getting better.

Beyond that issue which has been harsh, I have been realizing a new dimension to how I am to speak about my body. I am researching for my paper that is to be a media criticism of the depiction of female sexuality in K-Y ads. This research has helped me appreciate the possibilities of discourse about my body. Yet again other feminists, seemingly more oppressed than I, are showing me how I am boxed, misrepresented, de-centered, objectified, stripped of worthwhile agency and silenced. (I secretly call my authenticity into question. When will I realize these things for myself?) In any case, female sexuality has been grossly misunderstood to a point where there is no question in my mind that my sexuality was only an extension of “his.” Damn Freud. I can’t imagine being an upperclass woman at that time. The myth about vaginal orgasm would have me probably at a drs door to be treated as the sick are. And we still deal with it. The Male Gaze and Phallic centered discourse are far from cured. Even PETA is so immersed in the culture that the group badly re-entrenched these ideas in 1990 advertisements – in an attempt to liberate animals it furthered the objectification of women.  But what do sex positive advertisements really look like anyway?

There was another question I have been thinking about…
I remember thinking that I wanted to blog on it because it didn’t have to do with feminism but the question kept reoccurring.

Oh well.

Sheesh

Sheesh, what to write about? I made at least four mental notes on subjects and methods of exploration today. And as I sit down to write I can’t remember any of them. Fail.

I’ll pick up (read: wander around aimlessly) from where I left off for a bit. Many feminists advise that “we” should write about our bodies! Apparently “our” body has a vague melody that we are taught to suppress. Well, my eyes are burning cuz I was dumb and got soap in both of them. My arms are covered in goose bumps because hotel rooms are always cold for me. And my lower back doesn’t like the position I am typing in. Seems like a melody of discomfort.

Short wandering. Pointless wandering. I am tired and am going to go to sleep.

Gloria, Oh Gloria!

Having a terrible emotional war with myself. It’s stupid and selfish. BUT according to Gloria Anzaldua, writing is the most freeing, empowering activity that I can do. In writing I am supposed to be able to reveal to myself aspects of me that I never knew. She writes:

“Why am I so compelled to write? Because the writing saves me from this complacency I fear. Because I have no choice. Because I must keep the spirit of my revolt and myself alive. Because the world I create in the writing compensates for what the real world does not give me. By writing I put order in the world, give it a handle so I can grasp it. … To discover myself, to preserve myself, to make myself, to achieve self-autonomy… To convince myself that I am worthy and that what I have to say is not a pile of shit.”

This passage is great! …and problematic for me too. She isn’t talking to me. This excerpt is from her Letter to the Third World Women Writers. Pretty much not me. So I don’t know where my spirit of revolt is coming from. She also discusses the need to write because others are erasing her. My suffering can’t be compared to the erasure felt by a Chicana lesbian (shame on me for even thinking about comparing our experiences but honestly, how else do you try and connect with a piece?) Also, while I believe I try to write to put order in the world, I often wish to write about things that are academic but not too personal. I’ve no intention of making a diary entry right now about my personal problems… just a little discussion about Anzaldua and rhetorical criticism. I just need order right now.

So this passage serves two purposes. First, it justifies to myself my desire to write while also getting started on the topics I want to write about.

Today I spent some time studying Anzaldua’s Letter and two questions popped into my head. The first question is one of content. I am not sure how to understand her when she asks women to write. The second is one of method as I study her. I feel uncomfortable fashioning a rhetorical criticism on a creative work like this letter.

First Issue: She wants women to write but write what?!  Peppered throughout the letter are the poems of Cherrie Moraga. Really very beautiful words! They seem to function as examples of other third world women writers writing about their experiences without the distance of academic language and form. They are creativity. They also illustrate whichever point Anzaldua (I’m gonna call her Gloria now) is making. For example, she discusses the limitations that “we” feel and transitions into Cherrie’s poem about writing in poverty. So I can gather that when Gloria says “we” should write she is encouraging creative writing.

Here’s my issue with that: I don’t write poetry. Nothing in me says “let’s write a poem.” Instead my brain says “you really should ‘cuz it’s supposed to be what cultured and intellectual people do.” Even though Gloria discusses how hard it is to make yourself write, I think that creative writing is my weakest, weakest, very not strong point. It is a painful and uncreative process for me. So what am I to do? (assuming she thinks that white first world women can also benefit from writing.)

There are other excerpts to look at in this letter and I think that these can save me.

-She quotes Kathy Kendall who talks about what she thinks Audre Lorde wants women to do. “Audre said we need to speak up. Speak loud, speak unsettling things and be dangerous and just fuck, hell, let it out and let everybody hear whether they want to or not.” (pretty cool)

-Gloria also quotes Naomi Littlebear, “Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage.” (a proverb, no?)

-Then there is Luisah Teish’s words to white feminists uttered in hopes of explaining that third world women writers face very different barriers… like starvation.

I would not call these examples of creative prose. They seem to be on the other side of the spectrum. These ladies are revealing the reality of their lives. They are discussing how to take up arms so that against a sea of troubles (roaring) they will not be ended (silenced).

Gloria uses poetry, proverbs, and naked narrative to fashion a super creative letter (I’ll explain why this is a thorn in my side next). She encourages creativity but wants raw experience put inside of it. I am not gonna score high on creativity (Cherrie’s poems… amazing) and I am not sure what my unextreme experiences can offer in narrative or proverb. These seem like big giant statements stemming from big giant oppressed experiences. I just don’t know if what I put together about debate, rhetoric or whatever would be of much worth to her.

Second Issue: For one of my final papers, I want to do a rhetorical criticism on this Letter. But I am so lost! One of my professors has this cool technique that I thought I would try and in using it I discovered how nonlinear her letter seems… especially at the end. The technique is really super simple. Just order the piece in the margins. So next to the first paragraph I wrote “creation of audience.” And in a few other places I partitioned paragraphs off and titled them “characterizes ‘we’” and “problem.” However, by the last page I couldn’t do it anymore.

I can’t explain why this point is follow by that point or why she calls the body a distraction to writing (“the body distracts”) in one place but then valorizes the body in the next paragraph (“listen to the words chanting in your body”). The last bit is like a collection of proverbs with only a general theme. They aren’t too well ordered but they seemed really important to her so she smashed them in all at the end. Getting inside of an author’s head is pretty damn hard but we can try to understand their logical progression. In this letter, I feel like I have to be clairvoyant to write about the progression. I wish she was clearer, concise and traditional.

Don’t worry. I get why she’s illustrating something that the establishment might get a little upset about. The disorder might make you think more. And if she felt like this point should follow that point then what better reason does she need? It just makes it hard to dissect the piece so that I know what’s going on… so that I can critique it! Rhetorical criticisms on creative works are just hard.

At the end of the day, I am going to talk about her construction of the audience. More to come on that later.