Praxis: Respond, due 1/30/19

Praxis: Responding to Grobman

Grobman approaches the topic of internationalization in the very literal sense of the word and its contribution to a more multicultural future in education. Grobman makes it an important point to emphasize a point from Timothy Weiss: “…the competition for domestic as well as international markets has attained an intensity that brushes aside the interculturally Ignorant and Inexperienced” (428). I would in some ways agree with Grobman for including Weiss’ quote in this article, but I also think there is something to be said about possibly preserving tradition. I will be responding to certain sections of this journal to expand on why I believe she makes an important and necessary argument for the need of using classrooms as a contact zone for multiculturalism.

The importance of what Grobman is writing here is deeply related to another point Weiss makes about a time locked traditionalist model, mentioning that in a historical perspective, these models were US-centered in a time of isolationism and American cultural dominance (431).

Grobman in, From the Social to the Political: Multiculturalism in the Professional Communication Classroom, asks the student’s age-old question: “When would I use this in real life?” Specifically Grobman says that there needs to be, “…an effort to bridge the gap between composition and professional communication…”(431). This is supported by the works of both Cook and Rude. Cook in Layered Literacies: A Theoretical Frame for Technical Communication Pedagogy, puts forwards the importance of literacies and the varieties of them that exist. In this paper Cook refers to Stephen Bernhardt’s usage of multiple literacies of the twenty first century including, but not limited to: “traditionally defined literacies of reading, writing, and math, but also computer skills, oral communication, teamwork, problem-solving, and effective interpersonal communication” (6). The relation between this idea of multiple literacies parallels the similar idea of Grobman’s reference to Weiss about being people who understand and are open to the product of internationalization. In Carolyn D. Rude’s Mapping the Research Questions in Technical Communication, she puts an emphasis first on pedagogy, which is clearly a related topic; but more specifically, Rude refers the necessary relationship of both academics and practitioners. Although, “social change questions expand the horizons of the field through research that is unlimited by the boundaries of work by practitioners and specialist” (179), practitioners are also often, the people who have the most direct contact with the users themselves, which are important to the research done in the field. Once again touching on this topic of tying pedagogy with practice. As Grobman says, it is necessary that, “we wed them [multicultural education and technical or business communication program “(437).

Multiculturalism, Politics, and Pragmatics: Teaching in the Professional Writing Contact Zone, is where Grobman gives us, “Teaching culture is difficult” (437). Like Mike Rose covers in his piece, Narrowing the Mind and Page: Remedial Writers and Cognitive Reductionism, he says that although we as a people have defined formal logic and reasoning, it is not possible that we think that way or act for what is “best.” Rose claims that writing can not be a purely objective process or item, since writing itself is so innately tied to the human experience. Much like Grobman’s claim that we can never truly claim to teach the many cultures which contribute to this idea of multiculturalism and internationalization; we can, however, attempt and hope to analyze the effects of it on rhetorical writing. Similarly, to many of the other writers we have read, like Nancy Sommers and many others’ denouncement of writing being a purely linear process. Studies in class we have discussed move to studies like Rose, talking about cognitive study in support of learning more about the human writing process. Grobman’s point about using the rhetorical writing from people of different backgrounds to tell us more about cultural differences. It is worth noting that this notion revisits the staleness of older American-centric writing; she tells us that, while “Western communicators lean towards deductive patterns,” we also have that, “Asian writers often use inductive discourse patterns” (438). Grobman also makes it an important note that, she disagrees with the idea that in these contact zones no one is excluded, and no is safe; however, she considers the century long advantage and ingraining of westernized culture into the minds of millions (443).

In today’s twenty first century, the world has become smaller and closer. As the ride says, “It’s a small world after all.” Grobman highlights and emphasizes the importance of using classrooms as not only a place to introduce students to a multicultural view on writing, but as well attempt to use this in preparing students for practice. I think that Grobman makes a good point in arguing for a more multi-knowledgeable student not far from Weiss, but an updated version of his take on the matter. While in general I believe what Grobman offers as a route for the discourse, her piece does have me asking questions. Grobman emphasize the importance of permeating the barriers of culture and introducing them to students to create not only a knowledgeable student, but as well as a new wealth of knowledgeable student; I do wonder: Do we risk losing tradition? Do we also risk diluting the rhetoric culture, which isolated has the most power and persuasion in its original isolated group? I am left wondering from Grobman, although she does not suggest any termination, do we risk losing something we might have already that is good? In teaching students more about multiple cultures and ideas do we lose the possibility of the uniqueness that they studied to begin with? In the case with biology it is proven that greater genetic diversity is beneficial for all, but I do wonder if a new rhetoric culture, pedagogy, and practice will arise from this new conglomeration of knowledge.