دانلود رایگان مقاله تعیین محل بلاغت غیرمعمول: نگاشت به عنوان یک روش موجودی

Abstract

Because of the sheer abundance of scholarship employing spatial metaphors to trace Rhetoric and Composition’s development, it feels disingenuousto argue that mapping hasrecently emerged as an important method forshaping and reshaping the field. However, much of this scholarship challenges the lay of the land by describing the discipline as a map (e.g., Glenn, 1995). In so doing, this work glosses the complexities involved in making and reading maps. More recently, Sullivan and Graban (2010), Tirrell (2012), and others have delved into these complexities by employing mapping technologies to visualize aspects of the field that get overlooked. We draw inspiration from both bodies of work in order to locate queer rhetorics in two maps: one visualizes published work, and the other marks where, when, and from whom dissertations emerged. In one sense, our maps conceptualize queer rhetorics as a landscape in order to complicate how published works define this area of inquiry. In another sense, discussing our processes for creating and reading these maps points toward the limited way we are able to extend this conversation and complete our project. Put simply, we argue that mapping is an inventional method and that maps are not an end in themselves. In order to raise questions for future research, we address how our maps locate (and dislocate) what they attempt to visualize.

5. Locating Queer Rhetorics

As we consider the question asked at the outset of this article—how do we locate queer rhetorics—we have come to the conclusion that the act of locating something relies on a particular approach to mapping. This approach views mapping as a overlapping and recursive processes of writing and reading space. Furthermore, the task of locating queer rhetorics depends on who or what is included in the area of inquiry and the position of those asking the question. Any answer to the overarching question that we shape throughout this article is partial and contextual, and there are innumerable answers. Given that our article arrives five years after “the queer turn” and ten years after Alexander and Banks’ (2004) taxonomy for queer rhetorics, we use this opportunity to prompt others working at intersections of sexuality studies, computers, and writing studies to leverage their access to and knowledge of emerging writing technologies in order to locate queer rhetorics differently, to point out where boundaries among various areas of inquiry overlap and break down, and to craft research that aims toward inclusion even when it will invariably fall short. While we hesitate to offer our maps as an impetus to such work, we feel that some of the spaces we’ve located, or maybe more accurately dislocated, offer opportunities for further work. For instance, we are curious what we would find if we looked more closely at places where dissertations in queer rhetorics emerged independently, that is to say those institutions where there were seemingly no scholars identified with such work save the dissertator. Were there other overlapping areas of inquiry that helped make such work possible? Can we include these influences as queer rhetorics? We also wonder about the number of scholars represented on both maps and the scholars who created a queer dissertation but have not had anything related to this research published. Obviously, our maps cannot represent their experiences moving from doctoral student to professor, but we would like to know more about these transitions. How might contemporary writing technologies be used to address such research questions?