Starting with The Problem

Although there were many points that I took out of Canagarajah’s book so far, I’ve realized that I really don’t know what to think of it. Right from the start, he explains his thesis is “very simple to formulate but difficult to substantiate” (6). Indeed, I saw this at work throughout. Here’s how I understand it: Academic writing is a vehicle through which knowledge is not only transmitted but also produced and legitimated. However, there are many people who are excluded (whether consciously or not—I think Canagarajah makes an argument for both) because of their “outsider” status as members of the periphery (aka Non-western). I want to think about the idea of the periphery in the center later on. Anyway, so these people are marginalized because of their geographic location, economic standing, language production, material resources, exclusion from academic discourse, etc. And, in effect, because of these factors, Third World scholars or those on the periphery are largely taken out of this production of knowledge, oppressed by dominant Western voices, motives, actions, academic productions, etc…Wow. That’s a lot to take in, and I think I’ve just cracked the surface of his argument.  I get the point he’s trying to make, and I respect, even admire it. But, I can’t help feeling that even with the best of intentions, my own place as a part of the center could perpetuate each one of the problems Canagarajah cites.  I support his endeavor. But, at times, I wondered what the heck I can do about it. How can scholars in the center balance supporting a scholarly enterprise such as Canagarajah’s without overtaking it? How can I, a scholar from the center, talk about Third World countries or cultures in the periphery without “speaking for” them, if even Suresh Canagarajah cannot without critique? Also, is “speaking for” someone necessarily bad if the intention is to draw attention so these marginalized voices can ultimately speak for themselves? Canagarajah admits the “ironies of [his] positionality as a periphery scholar now working in (and writing from) the center” but I don’t really see a way around it (7). I was actually quite surprised at the critiques of his colleagues because of how self-reflexive he was throughout.  Maybe that came as a result of their critiques, but it seemed to me as if he was tackling a problem using the resources he had, all the while knowing that he was participating in the very structure that undermined or overlooked his place in the periphery before.

It seems that I’ve barely gotten past “The Problem” but I guess that makes sense since it is the foundation of the entire book. However, I want to switch modes for a bit. In my response to Erin, I wondered (based on her question) how we could translate these lessons in attitude [toward translingualism] to a larger scale. I was thinking about ways in which knowledge of “misconceptions and injustices,” as Erin says, could be expanded so more people see these problems and approach them differently. But, Brandon’s question immediately made me think about that differently—he questioned “could "translating these lessons to a larger scale" be itself somehow imperialistic?” In a way, this conversation got me thinking about how to go about changing or improving structures rather than making them exclusive. For instance, the first thing I thought of with Matsuda’s talk was that there needs to be a change in the university’s curriculum or set up so that it is encouraged to participate in a translingual education. But, if I think of it more closely, I don’t think this would be beneficial if there is not support from those teaching and tutoring on a smaller scale. All this is to say that I am completely rethinking (not dismissing, but thinking more about!) my original idea that something needs to happen immediately on a “global” (university) level rather than the more intimate settings of one-on-one WC sessions or individual classes. Maybe change does need to start small.