Today’s Plan:
- Blankenship Write-Up #2 (One or Two Volunteers)
- Journal Posts
- Project 2 Introduction and Timeline
Project 2 Introduction and Timeline
Last time I taught this class was spring of 2021. I built our second project around Ersula J. Ore’s book Lynching: Violence, Rhetoric, and American Identity. The title is pretty indicative of the book’s argument: that white American identity has always been built on the subjugation of and violence against black bodies; contemporary police violence then is simply another manifestation of a very long tradition of state sanctioned or ordered cruelty and murder. It is a powerful argument. This violence operates rhetorically by helping to instantiate and support white identity whic , as Coates mentioned in the interview we watched, is first and foremost a political mark of power and superiority. It is a claim to be able to claim. This is beyond the economic necessity of cheap if not slave labor to drive corporate profits. That justification exists as well.
When I was planning that unit, I deliberated between assigning Ore’s book and Kendi’s best-seller How to Be Anti-Racist. Ore’s book is more scholarly, while Kendi’s is written for a wider audience. It is more accessible–both in terms of the sophistication of its terminology and prose *and* in terms of the palpability of its argument. Kendi’s argument is both eloquent and simple, and I think I mentioned it in our last class: rather than thinking about racism as something someone is (as ethos, or identity in Miller’s terms), we need to think about it as what someone does (more in terms of logos, or policy in Miller’s terms). Being antiracist isn’t an attitude or a value–it is a path of action. You have to do stuff to be anti-racist. You have to look at your world, where you live, and figure out what you can do to dismantle inequality.
Let me put Kendi in conversation with Miller’s stases for policy debate. Being anti-racist requires that:
- Ill: We recognize a problem. Que up *a lot* of statistics on the unequal educational, financial, penal outcomes between blacks and whites
- Narrative of Causality: Debate why those inequalities exist (essentialism vs. contextualism).
- Inherency: Argue whether the problem needs intervention, will it go away. Imagine and challenge the arguments for why racism doesn’t require intervention
Miller’s stases for productive policy, for invigorating rather than suppressing democracy require that we focus on *doing* something to fix an ill. Those stases were:
- Solvency (what do you propose?)
- Feasability (how is it possible?)
- Unintended Consequences (imagine and address to the best of one’s ability)
Kendi’s approach to anti-racism resonates with Miller because he argues that being anti-racist means supporting policies with measurable outcomes that actively work to redress racial inequalities.
So, if Kendi’s work resonates so nicely with Miller, why didn’t I pick it? Because I did not think it would challenge in the way that Ore’s book would. The premises and examples from Ore’s book aren’t meant to persuade us to a movement. Kendi wants to change how we act, and is quite rhetorical in how he operates. Yes, his argument is supported with examples, both personal and historical, that are meant to outrage. But he gives us a path down which we can challenge that outrage. He allows us to skip over dwelling with our own responsibility, our obligation, by focusing attention on what we might do.
Those last two sentences above are meant to be read with a bit of skepticism. Because, as a rhetorician, I don’t want people to become comfortable too quickly. I believe that if we are to motivate ourselves and others to do that work, to follow through, then we have to understand racial injustice as part of our ethical identity. I thought Ore’s work had potential for such work because it is is historical, rather than analytical. By this, I mean that, chapter by chapter, she documents the construction, formalization, authorization of state sanctioned violence. Her argument is that violence isn’t something just outside of the system (like say, a hate group such as the KKK). And violence isn’t necessarily just physical force. I cannot know what you have been taught about America and race. I can make some assumptions, but I know enough to tread carefully lest what I make you and mean. I feel kind of safe assuming that you *probably* have not read a book like this one.
As I mentioned previously, during this class we read Coates’ “A Case for Reparations.” Like Ore, Coates makes rhetorical arguments by documenting, with fine grain, historical facts. He forces us to see something that you probably didn’t learn in high school history classes. It was through Coates’ essay that I first learned about Black Wall Street and the 1921 Tulsa Massacre. I am curious how many of you have heard of that one.
Between now and spring break, I am going to ask you to do some reading and some thinking. Instead of Ore, I’ll ask you to read two essays by Ta-Nehisi Coates, both of which are available in Canvas. Based on those readings, I will ask you to read another 75-100 pages or so by any author Coates mentions, or on a subject that comes up in the Coates reading.
In addition to your reading, I’ll ask you to write 3 reflection journal entries on your reading. Each entry should be about the length of a write-up: one page single-spaced. Your journal entries should be structured around Blankenship’s four questions for empathy:
- Yielding to others by sharing and listening to personal stories [thinking about when stories sting us, and when we feel resistance, hesitancy to accept, cognitive friction? What does this person believe that I do not?]
- Considering motives behind speech acts and actions [what is the writer trying to do? What is the argument/purpose/goal of this text? What is it doing besides communicating facts? Who is their audience? How does the context/kairos of the text show up? Why write this now?]
- Engaging in reflection and self-critique? [Why don’t I believe the things that this person believes?]
- Addressing difference, power, and embodiment [How and where you see, engage with them? What we might do?]
As I mentioned in previous classes, I will not see these journal entries. These are meant to be a space in which you can think through the readings. Let me share something I wrote about this project in 2021.
If needed, I can share an extended discussion of postpedagogy.
Journaling Discussion
I got two questions about the journaling assignment and wanted to share my response here. Here’s one of the questions:
Would writing down my notes and thoughts count as a reflection? Or do you want a more formal sense of writing about our comments ad ideas, more like our write-ups? Please let me know.
A fair and reasonable question. My first crack at an answer:
The reflections are your space. They aren’t something I will see, unless you really want me to read it. My idea was more of a free-write, because I think ideas emerge when you just pose a question and start writing.
My own process involves taking notes as I write—first in the margins of texts and then in a Google Doc. Then I start writing a summary of a piece, attempting to lay out its major argument and points of evidence. Then I start *really* writing about it: about how it compliments or challenges my understanding of an idea, policy, practice, etc.
I sort of realize that I didn’t directly answer the question. Because I don’t want to answer that question. My theory is that people need space to think through things, and people think in different ways. One of my reflection questions essentially asks if you thought providing you a space to read and think without my oversight was valuable or a waste of time. I know (from research and experience) that students tend to view discussion boards as busy work. There’s skepticism toward journaling and reflective writing. So, think of this as a hypothesis, does that work become more meaningful to you if you are “free” to choose to do it? And free to determine how to do it?
That said, I know not everyone here has experience in humanities research classes, so I don’t know (and please don’t take this critically) if you feel confident that you know how to do the hard work of thinking. I mean this sincerely. Thought isn’t a magical thing that happens, it is often the product of productive engagement, will, labor. And you might have questions about how to do that labor. (Does this stuff get taught here at UNC?)
Proposed Timeline
- Tuesday, Feb 20: Project Introduction. Home: Finish Coates’ “A Case” reading.
- Thursday, Feb 22: In class: watch Kendi TED Talk, “The Difference Between Being Not Racist and Antiracist” (2020). Homework: Journal #1. Start reading: Coates’ “The Black Family in the Age of Mass Incarceration”
- Tuesday, Feb 27: Watch Ore, “Lynching in American Public Memory”. Homework: continue reading Coates. Prepare one thought on Coates’ reading thus far that you want to share. The thought should be 200 words or less. It can reflect on the reading, identify what you might read next, or identify something that you might do based on your reading thus far.
- Thursday, Feb 29: One Thought. List of Other Readings [50-100 pages]. Homework: Finish Coates’ reading. HW: Do Your Reading
- Tuesday, Mar 5: Discussion of Coates, other readings. Exercise: What is a question that I might ask you? Longer group exercise: What is an MA exam question I might ask you?
- Thursday, Mar 7: Computer Lab day to do Race and Rhetoric Project Reflection
