Cushman, Ellen. “The Rhetorician as an Agent for Social Change.” Ed. Lisa Ede.
Urbana, Illinois: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1999. 372-389.
This groundbreaking article, first published in CCC in 1996, takes an eye-opening position on the role of the researcher, instructor and facilitator within the communities we actively investigate and engage in, and the pedagogical implications of becoming an active participant for social change within these communities. The dichotomy of academic institutions verses the reality of the communities these institutions serve is the crux of Cushman’s argument. By embracing a non-traditional approach to her scholastic endeavors, consciously applying theory to her ethnographic experience, and applying realistic applications to these processes, Ellen Cushman successfully breaks through the conventions of staunch academic protocol and asks scholars to become active participants within their respective communities not only inside the halls of academia, but beyond, where the difference that can be made indicates a real and lasting impact on every individual involved in the process.
In the first paragraph of “The Rhetorician as an Agent of Social Claim,” Ellen Cushman states her belief that “modern rhetoric and composition scholars can be agents of social change outside the university” (372). While this concept may not seem revolutionary, Cushman elaborates by stating further that “classroom pedagogies” are not the sole measures of enacting such change, but instead she suggests “something more along the lines of civic participation.” At first, the reader may be tempted to condemn the writer’s language as idealistic; however, Cushman is quick to point out that she is not suggesting that composition teachers roll up their sleeves and take on the role of a selfless martyr, taking on various roles outside the classroom, but instead she identifies a need for “self-reflexive rhetoric” on behalf of both the researcher and the participants of a composition study or situation.
As indicated, from the onset Cushman acknowledges a multifaceted approach to her techniques that prove to be effective with further investigation. It is clear that she is breaking new ground and taking an admirable risk within the structure of composition theories. Just in the writing techniques employed alone, she clearly positions herself outside the academic mold and juxtaposes the language of the university with the application of skill in the outside world. She cleverly demonstrates her argument that bridging the gap between academia and the community is a crucial function of the socially conscious rhetorician. Her multifaceted approach is a challenge to the academic paradigm. Her multivoiced, multimodal discourse is right in line with her theory that it is necessary to connect academia with the outside community in order to effectively enact tangible social change. She strengthens her argument by connecting a analogous parallel between the Approach, a “monument of granite stairs, pillars, and decorative lights” that was built in the early 1900s as a physical and symbolic connection between the town of Troy, and her adjacent research institution on “the hill,” Rensselaer. Today, the centerpiece that once was a source of pride for both the college and local community stands in disrepair, symbolically and physically representing a disconnect between the prestigious halls of the academic world and the real-life happenings of the town below. Cushman then furthers her argument by using ethnographic examples of her literacy work with underprivileged African-American participants within her research community. (372-373)
Ellen Cushman recognizes the complicated repertoire between researchers and their subjects that is inherent to the humanistic nature of scholarship in composition research. Participants in a composition study are impacted by the work of the researcher, and vice versa. This article demonstrates that the prestigious personae fueled by the rigors of academia do little for the empowerment of the community, hence the need for scholars to engage the community on terms that are accessible to the average member of society. Her findings are not about the privileges that are implicit in the lives of academics, but instead focus on the vehicles of social change within the actual community that the academics theoretically serve. Cushman aims to break the barriers between the community and the university by implicating feasible literacy strategies that can illicit genuine results in the lives of students. She uses personal examples of helping students build resumes, assisting in college applications, and offering references for housing and employment as examples of breaking from the “ivory tower of isolation,” and “actively seek[ing] our students in other contexts—particularly the community context” (376).
Cushman’s philosophy is that the privilege of space and resources endows the composition researcher with the tools necessary to empower members of their community. Scholarly activism takes the institutions that are already in place and capitalizes on them in order to facilitate social change.
Cushman demonstrates the effectiveness of combining scholastic enterprise with pure, activist endeavors that are realistically executed within the community. The mutual effects of researcher on the researched, and the researched on researcher, are duly noted and appreciated. Further, the idea of space and resources as a privilege of academics, versus the real-life circumstances of the community of writers as a whole, is critically examined. This research offers simple solutions by suggesting a need to provide a climate for people to progress and develop intellectually as writers. As researchers and instructors, we can enable members of society to utilize the powers necessary to enforce meaningful change in their own lives, and in effect, in communities at large, one life at a time.
Essentially, Cushman argues that empowering people with the basic fundamentals of literacy enables people to engage and activate social change within their own lives and then manifest that change beyond within the community. In Cushman’s eyes, our duties as facilitators are clear; she writes, “Empowering people in part enables them to achieve a goal by providing resources for them” (381). By giving people access to simple technology and empowering them with this access, literacy takes on the amazing possibilities of progression and life alterations. The gift of the teacher is to see her students progress and achieve a higher status within the confines of a restrictive community, and in turn, students allow the progression of their mentors by allowing them to write, theorize and publish on their findings within the community. Indeed, it is a meaningful relationship of reciprocity when executed consciously and properly.
The hierarchy of power within the academic structure can limit possibilities because of sociological divides; these strata of sociological separation binds us to the student/instructor divisions from which Cushman is attempting to break free. As indicated in this article, there is a possibility for the teacher to become the student in a reciprocal exchange; even if there is dissent, there is a mutual respect and exchange: “Through communication, the exchange of questioning and asserting, we come to identify with each other and challenge the basis for our differences” (380). Differences can be identified, analyzed, and utilized for the greater good. Redefining boundaries opens instructor and students, researcher and subjects, to new, realistic possibilities. As researchers, our privilege and access to resources is the very essence of our ability to empower others. However, Cushman recognizes that the very nature of humanistic research is bound by the notion that there is something to be gained in the research process, financial gains not withstanding. Therefore the researcher/instructor finds herself in a tenuous predicament of negotiating boundaries. The role of volunteer verses the role of researcher can be a volatile negotiation.
Overall, Ellen Cushman’s argument is a refreshing and realistic approach to connecting the academic rigors of composition research with the realistic social benefits within the community.
By combining theory with hands-on, ethnographic experience, Cushman depicts the role of composition scholars as interdependent activists of social change within the communities that they study and work in. Perhaps her only shortcoming is failing to address situations in which the researcher/instructor has limited resources to offer students and research participants. However, her willingness and desire to enact social change by connecting academia to the communities they serve, through establishing feasible literacy programs, and her non-traditional approach to scholarship is practical and enlightening. Ellen Cushman’s place in The Braddock Essays is well deserved. This essay has been particularly meaningful for me as I envision an underlying meaning of my research to be aimed at narrowing the digital divide, which would help enact social change.