There’s always work to be done in the UCWbL in regards to linguistic justice. Gatekeeping remains overt and pervasive within academic and rhetorical spaces even as we become increasingly aware of these systemic issues. Often, writers are required to stifle aspects of themselves in order for their work to be received well in academic spaces. We believe one of our foremost roles as tutors is to encourage writers to embrace their identities, rather than withholding something that could serve their writing for the sake of conforming with Eurocentric linguistic expectations. But how can we do this at the UCWbL?
In “Should Writers Use They Own English?” Vershawn Young, or dr. vay, advocates for a code-meshing approach to writing and rhetoric, as opposed to code-switching. Code-switching is when members of underrepresented and/or marginalized communities write or speak in a way that adheres to Eurocentric norms. It is a mechanism individuals use in order to be respected—or at the very least, heard—in spaces historically dominated by whiteness.
dr. vay proposes code-meshing as a progressive, self-affirming, and subversive alternative to code-switching. He says, “Code meshing blend dialects, international languages, local idioms, chat-room lingo, and the rhetorical styles of various ethnic and cultural groups in both formal and informal speech acts…[It] use the way people already speak and write and help them be more rhetorically effective” (Young 2010). While many rhetorical rules have problematic histories and little logical backing, some can actually help one convey their ideas to an audience. A writer can reveal their intersecting identities while also creating a viable piece of communication.
If you yourself are interested in advocating for code-meshing in writing, consider the following:
- What have you classified as “good” writing in the past? “Bad” writing? Who/what aided the formation of these beliefs?
- Dialects are rhetorical devices. When you encounter a variant of English that’s different from what’s expected or what you’re accustomed to, consider what the inclusion of dialect is doing, and what it would’ve done had the writing been more adherent to your expectations. Often, a particular dialect serves a piece of writing in a way no other variant of English could’ve.
- Listen to writers. Understand how language might function differently based on an amalgamation of unique individual and/or shared experiences.
In “The Re-Education of Neisha-Anne S. Green,” Green recounts her struggle to maintain her identity within an academic career where she had to code-switch in order to succeed. Bajan Creole, “Standard” American English, and Black English Vernacular are just a few of the dialects Green mentions as integral to her day-to-day interactions. She explains, “You see, each new code demanded a different persona, and it became difficult to be Neisha-Anne.”
She began to use dr. vay’s code-meshing tactics to ease this burden, and suggested that her students consider doing the same in order “to merge their-selves and languages so that all live and perform together in harmony” (Green 2016). Suggestions from Green to be applied in the UCWbL:
- “What I suggest instead is that students be made aware of the warring ideals…They have to be made aware that they have linguistic choices and the freedom to make those choices.”
- “I use the language ‘as a reader this is what I see,’ ‘some readers may interpret this as…’ ‘you as the author have choices.’” Then and only then—after I’ve informed the student—do I say ‘Well, what do you want to do?’ I let them choose. Never once am I forcing any agendas.”
Cushman et al.’s “Delinking: Toward Pluriversal Rhetorics” demands an overhaul of rhetoric and composition in order to move toward a linguistic pluriverse informed by innumerable perspectives, rather than just one (hence the uni- in universal). Cushman et al. posit pluriversality as a perspective that emphasizes “praxis without imposing a modernist notion of culture or privileging any singular locus of enunciation of knowledge” (2021). Basically, all rhetoric stems from a unique set of circumstances, thereby making it impossible for there to be a “correct” way to express oneself. The only way to determine whether something is “good” is to determine its effect on audiences—What does it do?
Though notable progress has been made, today, academic writing remains constricted by Eurocentric, ableist standards. The archetypal writing center is seen by many as implicated in this systemic oppression of writers everywhere——but at the UCWbL, we seek to encourage the writers we work alongside to write as themselves, however that might be. Cushman et al. emphasize “understanding and presenting knowledge claims as discursive objects” (2021), which entails evaluating pieces—as a tutor and as a reader—based on impactfulness and the writer’s ideas, not how the writing itself appears on the page.
Takeaways:
- Encourage writers’ agency and linguistic choice-making.
- Acknowledge biases, their origins, and their effect on a given appointment.
- Remember, “one’s location in the oppressed side of power does not absolve any of us from having to engage in a process of careful reckonings and extrication from modern/colonial modes of knowledge production” (Cushman et al. 2021).
We are all responsible for generating a space in academia—and in writing at large—where everyone is capable of belonging exactly as they are. Happy tutoring!
Works Cited:
Cushman, E., Baca, D., & García, R. (2021). Delinking: Toward pluriversal rhetorics. College English, 84(1), 7-32. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.depaul.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/delinking-toward-pluriversal-rhetorics/docview/2585500957/se-2
Green, N.-A. (2018). Moving beyond Alright: And the Emotional Toll of This, My Life Matters Too, in the Writing Center Work. The Writing Center Journal, 37(1), 15–34. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26537361
Young, V. A. (2010). Should writers use they own English? Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, 12(1), 110–117. https://doi.org/10.17077/2168-569x.1095