I found Jacqueline Jones Royster's article, "When the First Voice You Hear Is Not Your Own" very intriguing. Her argument that subjectivity is the key to helping "deepen, broaden, and enrich our interpretive views in dynamic ways" struck me as obvious, but I realized it was something I hadn't really thought about in depth, at least in terms of ethnic background (29). I remember at the ALANA talk the students spoke of how important it was that students representing minority ethnic backgrounds really evaluate their experiences on a predominantly white campus and try to come to an understanding of them. At the time, I did not think it was vital for ALANA students to represent their group in such a presentation because I always thought that this deliberate "us vs them" dialogue kind of promoted the separation of white and minority cultures, but now I am not so sure. At some point I realized most people I heard talk about race issues at our institution were white, so I read Royster's article thinking this. She says that she has "found it extremely difficult to allow the voices and experiences of people that I care about deeply to be taken and handled so carelessly and without accountability by strangers" and I thought, hm, I'm not sure about that. But I thought further: isn't it true that we all need to speak from some experience (race included) to avoid our interpretations of such experiences becoming "a type of discourse that serves as a distraction, as noise that drains off energy and sabotages the work of identifying substantive problems within and across cultural boundaries and the work also of finding solutions that have import, not simply for a 'race,' but for human beings whose living conditions, values, and preferences vary" (31)? To me, Royster's article was about breaking down stereotypes to really listen to a person, any person, with a particular experience (race in this case) and being able to RESPOND thoughtfully, and not just carry on a conversation for the sake of it, for the mere necessity of it. Obviously, racism is still an issue and our institution is grappling with diversity and culture incorporation, trying to start up a dialogue with students at the forefront. And now I am confident they are on to something valuable through their subjectivity, inviting us "to understand human history both microscopically and telescopically" from their standpoints (34). She asks, "How do we negotiate the privilege of interpretation?" (36) But I say, ask the ALANA students who are striving to gain awareness of their experiences and start an authentic dialogue about it with those who will listen, and think, and then speak to communicate meaningfully.
As for Mary Louise Pratt's article on contact zones, I was engaged with her discussion of useful cultural literacy in terms of baseball at the beginning. I thought this was a perfect example of how we gain strong subjectivity that provides us with a perspective we can discuss effectively with just about anyone. I thought this was a strong argument that could back up Royster's ideas about the importance of subjectivity in such discussion. She lost me a bit with the historical backtracking, maybe because it was one in the morning, but I think her point was the show that historically we have allowed marginalized groups entrance into the dominant culture through a somewhat predictable and normative series of actions (2). I think she was arguing that subordinated people will challenge that dominant culture by means of parodic language and images, among other methods, in contact zones where the cultures meet. One other argument she made that was interesting to me was that "human communities exist as imagined entities in which people 'will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them or even hear of them, yet in the mind of each lives the image of the communion.'" (4). Thus, she says, these communities are defined by what style they take on in the imaginations of the constituents. I thought this was interesting in this context because most of what we think about anything, in terms of a group, is collectively subjective. This introduces a whole politics of superiority and pride and other virtues -- and allows one in this group to easily adopt assumptions as fact. I think Pratt then makes a valuable connection to these issues in the classroom: we all can be challenged on our assumptions, on race, on anything, no matter if we are "dominant" or not. That's just an imagined inclusion, so we can all benefit from a collective discussion of reality, comparing perspectives, and like Royster said, listening, analyzing, speaking from the contact zone of the classroom that allows students to do so.
