2.1 Language is Social and Rhetorical

In Module 1, we explored the concept of intersectionality as a lens for thinking about “identity and its relationship to power” (Crenshaw). The different, intersecting aspects of our identity shape our experiences in the world, including our experiences as writers and readers of texts. As we begin to think about our identities as writers and audiences in a relational and contextual way, the importance of positionality is brought into focus. We do this to understand how our writerly and readerly identities connect to others, and how these relationships shape ways of knowing and communicating.

Positionality “refers to the personal values, views, and location in time and space that influence how one engages with and understands the world” (“Positionality and Intersectionality”). Positionality is shaped by social identity—by how factors such as race, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, ability, class, educational background, language(s), and geographic location are given meaning and influence by the societies we inhabit. (UCLA Library)

Overall, positionality helps us to recognize that communication is rhetorical. By rhetorical, we mean that it emerges from a specific context to meet a specific need or accomplish a goal, and that its effectiveness is determined by who is communicating, who their audience is, and what they are trying to achieve. To be rhetorically effective, a piece of writing, speech, or other communicative action (or what we might broadly call discourse) must adapt to fit these complex dynamics.

Thus, contrary to how most of us were taught, there is no one “correct” way to write. In an essay from Bad Ideas about Writing [PDF], a collection challenging traditional ideas about writing, Anjali Pattanayak emphasizes this, noting that “scholars in writing studies have examined the ways in which writing has a close dialectical relationship with identity, style, genre, and culture. In other words, the rules for writing shift with the people and the community involved as well as the purpose and type of writing” (82). Put another way, “good” writing is responsive to its rhetorical context and the needs of the community in which it is used.

The idea that there is one “correct” way to write denies the complexities of the rhetorical situation and the complex dynamics of identity in relation to language and systems of power. Further, this idea serves to privilege and naturalize the academic discourses of the most privileged groups in the US and marginalize others. As we discussed in the previous section, the linguistic practices that have been taught as the “correct” way to speak, write, or behave have been those most closely associated with white, middle-class communities; the fact that some individuals’ “home discourses” are closer to the dominant discourse has meant that certain ways of knowing have been cast as more valued or appropriate than others. But when we recognize the diversity of discourses that we all utilize, we have a more complex and nuanced understanding of how language actually works, a greater appreciation for the diversity of language practices, and a more robust set of linguistic and rhetorical resources to draw on in different settings. In short, we are more equipped to be rhetorically savvy writers, readers, and listeners.

The Rhetorical Situation

Rhetorical analysis will play a central role in our learning in this text as we examine the strategies that writers use to affirm or challenge linguistic norms. When we analyze texts, we seek to understand not only what is being said and how, but the factors that shape it—or what we term its “rhetorical situation,” a concept that “emphasizes that writing is a social activity, produced by people in a particular situation for particular goals” (Jory). By considering positionality and linguistic diversity in the context of this analysis, we hope to illuminate how diverse language backgrounds and identities serve as resources for writing and learning.

Some of the elements of the rhetorical situation include:

Rhetoric comes into play for us whether we are writers, readers, listeners, or speakers. The nature of the rhetorical situation reveals how meaning is co-constructed by both readers and writers, rather than being inherent to the text itself. In the next section, we’ll talk more about how your positionality and rhetorical situation shape your own language use. Below, we will use this concept to analyze a reading, with particular attention to how your own identity as a reader shapes your experience of the text.

Apply It

Previously, in Module 1, you learned about the concept of intersectionality and applied it as a framework for analyzing the different aspects of your identity and how they shape your positionality as a reader and writer. Next, you will apply what you learned about positionality and how it shapes the rhetorical choices that writers and readers make as you read and analyze “Mexican-American Disambiguation” by José Olivarez.