Blog Post #5: Cultural Discourse and Rhetoric

This week’s articles by Ryuko Kubota focus on cultural discourse and how this language can be used to establish and/or maintain power. Even though cultural determinism (emphasizing cultural differences according to an essentialist perspective) is widely accepted and difficult to escape, Kubota claims that we must “critically understand cultural representations as particular truth or knowledge constructed by discourse” (“Japanese Culture Constructed by Discourses” 15). Cultural understanding cannot exist outside of discourse, yet we can critically examine this discourse in order to understand power relationships among cultures. With an awareness of discourse, we can start to combat colonial mindsets, such as Otherness.

(I also found it interesting to learn that cultural groups can also use discourse to their own advantage, as illustrated by Japanese theories of nohonjinron and nihon bunkaron. I was aware that colonizers used discourse to maintain power, but I was surprised to see that discourse was also used in response to Western dominance.)

I agree with Kubota that English teachers need to be careful about connecting their students’ actions with social and ideological values of a certain culture. Kubota maintains that “power…is not unidirectional, nor is discourse monolithic” (“Japanese Culture Constructed by Discourses” 22). In other words, discourse is multi-facted. As English teachers, we should feel challenged to help our students develop awareness and think critically about the functions and purposes of cultural discourse. We should respect our students’ linguistic backgrounds in order to help create equality. We should give students an opportunity to critically analyze their own languages, as well as English. I believe that if we help them, they can develop an understanding of the discourse of power in order to negotiate and create their own individual identities in the midst of (and perhaps in spite of) cultural determinism and Orientalism.

I think this is where the idea of contrastive rhetoric can come into play. If we, as teachers, can understand some of the differences in writing across cultures, then we can help our students write to an English-speaking audience with specific expectations while still respecting various writing styles. Connor makes the point that “what constitutes straightforward writing depends on reader expectation” (227). I know that my students come from a wide variety of traditions where readers’ standards and expectations might differ significantly from a standard English-speaking reader’s expectations. However, writing is all about communicating effectively with a specific audience in a certain context (rhetorical situation). Students should be free to experiment with various genres, create multigenre projects, and adjust their voices to meet the needs of individual rhetorical situations. If cultures are always shifting, then writing styles and conventions can change, too. Kubota, for example, writes about pedagogical approaches to cultural differences very convincingly through using a nontraditional narrative form for his article, “Unfinished Knowledge: The Story of Barbara.” Additionally, Connor mentions that there might not be a clear English-language norm for EU grant proposals due to the diversity of Europeans reading and writing these proposals (235). That being said, I still think it’s valuable for students to develop familiarity with dominant discourses in English. If students can understand and write within the discourses of power, then they can “break the rules” and begin to challenge those discourses.