The books reviewed here share the theme of women “making it†in the world of rhetoric and composition academe. The reviewers first critically summarize each of the three collections; then narratively synthesize their personal experiences with four prominent themes across these collections: knowing, balance, mentoring, and change. This four-part woven analysis, shows and tells tales from women about what has been lurking in the academy’s closet and what still needs to change.

(2003). Representing Disability Rhetorically. Rhetoric Review: Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 154-202.

Research Article| October 01 2002 Coming-Out Pedagogy: Risking Identity in Language and Literature Classrooms Brenda Jo Brueggemann; Brenda Jo Brueggemann Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Debra A. Moddelmog Debra A. Moddelmog Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Pedagogy (2002) 2 (3): 311–336. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-2-3-311 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Brenda Jo Brueggemann, Debra A. Moddelmog; Coming-Out Pedagogy: Risking Identity in Language and Literature Classrooms. Pedagogy 1 October 2002; 2 (3): 311–336. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-2-3-311 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search Books & JournalsAll JournalsPedagogy Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2002 Duke University Press2002 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal Issue Section: Articles You do not currently have access to this content.

The five authors call for increased awareness of disability in composition studies and argue that such an awareness can productively disrupt notions of “writing” and “composing” at the same time it challenges “normal”/“not normal” binaries in the field. In six sections: Brueggemann introduces and examines the paradox of disability’s “in-visibility” White considers the social construction of learning disabilities; Dunn analyzes the rhetoric of backlash against learning disabilities; Heifferon illustrates how a disability text challenged her students; Cheu describes how a disability-centered writing class made disability visible; all five conclude with challenges and directions for composition studies in intersecting with disability studies.

The tradition of rhetoric established 2,500 years ago emphasizes the imperative of speech as a defining characteristic of reason. But in her new book Lend Me Your Ear, Brenda Jo Brueggemann exposes this tradition s effect of disallowing deaf people human identity because of their natural silence. Brueggemann s assault upon this long-standing rhetorical conceit is both erudite and personal; she writes both as a scholar and as a hard-of-hearing woman. In this broadly based study, she presents a profound analysis and understanding of this rhetorical tradition s descendent disciplines (e.g., audiology, speech/language pathology) that continue to limit deaf people. Next to this even-handed scholarship, she juxtaposes a volatile emotional counterpoint achieved through interviews with Deaf individuals who have faced rhetorically constructed restrictions, and interludes of her own poetry and memoirs. The energized structure of Lend Me Your Ear galvanizes new thought on the rhetoric surrounding Deaf people by posing basic questions from a rhetorical context: How is deafness constructed as a disability, pathology, or culture through the institutions of literacy education and science/technology, and how do these constructions fit with those of deaf people themselves? The rhetoric of deafness as pathology is associated with the conventional medical and scientific establishments, and literacy education fosters deafness as disability, both dependent upon the premise that speech drives communication. This kinetic study demands consideration of deafness in terms of the rhetoric of Deaf culture, American Sign Language (ASL), and the political activism of Deaf people. Brueggemann argues strenuously and successfully for a reevaluation of the speech model of rhetoric in light of the singular qualities of ASL poetry, a genre that adds the dimension of space and is not disembodied. Ironically, without a word being spoken or printed, ASL poetry returns to the fading, prized oral tradition of poets such as Homer. The speech imperative in traditional rhetoric also fails to present rhetorical forms for listening, or a rhetoric of silence. These and other break-out concepts introduced in Lend Me Your Ear that will stimulate scholars and students of rhetoric, language, and Deaf studies to return to this intriguing work again and again.

t was not until I had embarked upon my coming out as a deaf person that I considered my rites of passage, and dwelled on my acts, both deliberate and unconscious, both past and present, of passing. Because my coming out was a mid-life event, I had much to reflect back on and much, too, to illuminate ahead of me. This through an identity crisis, as it were, and the rites of passage then involved in uncovering the paths of my lifelong passing as hearing, took place in a hall of mirrors. (Later I would come to know this place as the art and act of rhetoric.) I first saw myself mirrored in several students I met at Gallaudet University (the world's only liberal arts university for deaf and hard-of-hearing students). I was thirty-two and finishing my PhD, writing a dissertation-that quintessential act of literate passing. What's more, I was finishing it by doing an ethnographic sort of study on deaf student writers at Gallaudet University; thus I was using the guise of an academic grant and a PhD-producing project as a professional foil to make a personal journey to the center of Deaf culture. I was always good at finding a way to pass into places I shouldn't normally be. So, there I was, doing time as a teacher and researcher at Gallaudet, collecting data for my study, taking a sign language class, living with a Deaf woman and faculty member at Gallaudet, going to Deaf gatherings, tutoring some of the students. Mostly, I was trying to pass in ways that were both familiar and unfamiliar to me: to pass (unfamiliarly) as D/deaf-and doing a lousy job of it-and to

Describes a doctoral student’s experience of studying the deaf or hearing culture from the standpoint of her life and work as a hard-of-hearing person. Discusses the student’s (almost) passing in and among the “D/deaf and H/hearing” worlds.

Preview this article: Present Perfect and Future Imperfect: Results of a National Survey of Graduate Students in Rhetoric and Composition Programs, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/48/3/collegecompositionandcommunication3156-1.gif

Over forty years have passed since five hundred participants gathered at the first conference on College Freshman Courses in Composition and Communication.l Since then our discipline has undergone unprecedented change, often characterized by moments of intense excitement, pride and astonishing growth: the watershed 1963 CCCC; the proliferation of journals, university presses and conferences; the institution of nationally recognized graduate programs in composition; the development of research communities; the addition of new rhetoric and composition positions within departments of English; and the expanding role of writing workshops and writing-across-the-curriculum projects. These years of development have also provided an opportunity and a need to look back on the issues that have defined and continue to shape our discipline. It is with this goal in mind that we have assembled the following annotated bibliography. Our purpose here is to provide a resource guide and overview for those who wish to familiarize themselves with the kinds of practices, research questions, and histories which have constituted our profession in the last forty years. The materials we collected, therefore, explore such fundamental concerns as the professionalization of composition, the formation of a canon, the interrelationship of rhetoric and composition, received histories of the field, and areas which call for further research. The the scope of this collection is necessarily limited-in both chronology and content; its focus is representative rather than definitive, descriptive rather than prescriptive. The works catalogued here were selected from several sources: ERIC searches, separately published bibliographies, conference programs and surveys, journals with annually published bibliographies, data base searches, and journal directories. We have attempted to provide a fair distribution of chronological coverage and, as is the case in more recent years, to choose the most representative works when the number of items in a given category became unwieldy. We have chosen these materials because they fit one or more of the following criteria: (1) They attempt to define our discipline; (2) They trace major shifts in theory and/or practice; (3) They present meaningful overviews of theoretical and pedagogical issues and research questions; (4) They summarize large, significant areas of research; (5) They affirm connections or establish distinctions between rhetoric and composition and other disciplines.

(1989). Whole brains, half brains, and writing. Rhetoric Review: Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 127-136.