The Student's W/hole Voice
R E I N V E N T I O N I N
E X C L U D E D V O I C E S . . . "What is x?" "The question of definition relates to practices of rhetoric invention as well as the generation of knowledge in digitally mediated environments." - Sarah J. Arroyo "There are substantive differences between [the five types of voice], but more often than not they go together. And surely what holds them together are the richly bundled dimensions and connotations of the human voice." - Peter Elbow |
In the electrate classroom, the question is not "what is voice?" but "what and how can voice become?"
"Asking what something is, in order to define and set up boundaries, undoubtedly excludes and purges that which it is not. This purging, which creates a hole in order to re-create a new whole, deflects that which it has excluded." - Sarah J. Arroyo, Participatory Composition
H O L E S are not lacking. Rather, the hole "created by the excluded is indeed an active receptacle, a space of generation and constant reinvention, as opposed to a seemingly empty container."
Within an electrate space, one does not stop at the definition of x, but also looks to the "holes" within x to see the w/hole-- all the possible meanings and spaces for invention.
Voice, as a metaphor in rhetoric and composition, has long been widely disputed as to what it means, exactly. As seen in Kathleen Blake Yancey's anthology, Voices on Voice, there are several competing references as to what voice means and how it should be defined within writing and pedagogy. If voice is defined as x alone, then the definition will exclude other possible meanings for voice that resonate more with others. In trying to define voice, possible meanings for voice are excluded including language(s), roles, and agency for students within academia. If teachers set predetermined notions for what voice is-- and which voices are real and/or valid-- then the students' work will also be predetermined by the social codes of the academy, with little to no room for invention.
I T I S I N T H E D E E M I N G O F V O I C E A S S U C H . . . that predetermines the students' work by the social codes of the academy.
Within an electrate space, one does not stop at the definition of x, but also looks to the "holes" within x to see the w/hole-- all the possible meanings and spaces for invention.
Voice, as a metaphor in rhetoric and composition, has long been widely disputed as to what it means, exactly. As seen in Kathleen Blake Yancey's anthology, Voices on Voice, there are several competing references as to what voice means and how it should be defined within writing and pedagogy. If voice is defined as x alone, then the definition will exclude other possible meanings for voice that resonate more with others. In trying to define voice, possible meanings for voice are excluded including language(s), roles, and agency for students within academia. If teachers set predetermined notions for what voice is-- and which voices are real and/or valid-- then the students' work will also be predetermined by the social codes of the academy, with little to no room for invention.
I T I S I N T H E D E E M I N G O F V O I C E A S S U C H . . . that predetermines the students' work by the social codes of the academy.
V O I C E, and all of its preceding excluded meanings from those offering perspectives on the metaphor, then become the "active receptacles, the spaces of generation and constant reinvention" for students to engage more closely with electracy by playing with their own voice(s) in writing.
Different meanings of voice branch out from literal voice-- metaphorical receptacles that stem from the one easily defined human voice. This "true," literal voice, when defined, excludes its fictional or metaphorical counterparts and creates holes in the definition. The holes, or exclusions, of voice then become the receptacles for constant reinvention in not only understanding what voice means in writing and pedagogy, but in creating new types of voice that have yet to be discovered in writing, pedagogy, and electracy.
Different meanings of voice branch out from literal voice-- metaphorical receptacles that stem from the one easily defined human voice. This "true," literal voice, when defined, excludes its fictional or metaphorical counterparts and creates holes in the definition. The holes, or exclusions, of voice then become the receptacles for constant reinvention in not only understanding what voice means in writing and pedagogy, but in creating new types of voice that have yet to be discovered in writing, pedagogy, and electracy.