It is all about identity; it is all about otherness. It is all about how you leave your print in your piece of composition. In her article Toward a Mestiza Rhetoric, Lunsford argues for that. She asks for breaking rules. She calls for developing one’s norms. The change, she knows, is not easy. The process is inclusive. “ It is kind of like a fish in the Pacific Ocean, with the analogy that the Pacific Ocean is the dominant field and the fish is this postcolonial, this feminist, or this queer, or whoever is trying to make changes”(50). The problem for her is how to make students involved in this. She realizes that they will never dare that. She believes that their instructors will not accept their exotic style. Swearingen and Moe give an example of the way we perceive the world with different lenses. They argue that the rhetoric of their Chinese predecessors are not explained very well and their they contributed to rhetoric in the same way their Western peers did.
I do agree with Lunsford that everybody should write his point of view and should show readers how he sees the world around him. However I disagree with her when it comes to second language learning. In my experience, speaking and writing cross culturally are so dangerous. This is because your writing will reflect your identity which is a product of a culture different from natives. I remember when I was in the Intensive American Language Center, I wrote a paper on September 11 event in which I discussed the topic from an Islamic viewpoint. I showed in detail that what happened was against Islamic teaching and that Islam was always a religion of peace and goodwill. I remember I presented the paper in front of three teachers. I could see signs of dissatisfaction on their faces. They perhaps did not like me to praise another religion in front of them or perhaps associated the event with Islam. In sum, they were unhappy. However, in the case of natives, Lunsford’s ideas are illuminating; they will help people think for themselves and develop their critical sense.
The applicability of her ideas in teaching composition seems to be difficult. Her model is amorphous. No specific rules; no definite steps. It is a great challenge. It is all left to the student to choose his own way of joining the conversation. Even if the student writes very well, teachers will not appreciate that. From an observer point of view, I can confirm that some of our 597 blogs are of that kind. They are personal and academic. The important question is can we teach this experience to our 101 students? Can we urge them to find their way?