Reclaiming Memoria for Writing Pedagogies: Toward a Theory of Rhetorical Memory Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation Authors Kennedy, Tammie Marie Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 30/09/2021 10:30:27 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/193644 RECLAIMING MEMORIA FOR WRITING PEDAGOGIES: TOWARD A THEORY OF RHETORICAL MEMORY by Tammie M. Kennedy Copyright © Tammie M. Kennedy 2009 A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY WITH A MAJOR IN RHETORIC, COMPOSITION, AND THE TEACHING OF ENGLISH In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2009 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by Tammie M. Kennedy entitled Reclaiming Memoria for Writing Pedagogies: Toward a Theory of Rhetorical Memory and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Date: October 31, 2008 Roxanne Mountford Date: October 31, 2008 Thomas P. Miller Date: October 31, 2008 Adela Licona Date: October 31, 2008 Krista Ratcliffe Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate’s submission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement. Date: October 31, 2008 Dissertation Director: Roxanne Mountford 3 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgement of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the copyright holder. SIGNED: Tammie M. Kennedy 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would especially like to thank the members of my committee, Drs. Roxanne Mountford, Tom Miller, Krista Ratcliffe, and Adela Licona, for their commitment to this project. I am grateful for the insightful comments they have provided on my chapters, which have challenged me to take my writing and scholarship to another level. I am especially grateful to my chair, Roxanne Mountford, for her unwavering support and mentoring throughout my time in the RCTE program. Among the many things she has taught me, the one that resonates most as I finish this project is this: “Never give away your power.” While I didn’t always understand what this meant, contemplating such a statement has made all the difference in my personal and professional growth. I would also like to thank Dr. Theresa Enos and Dr. Julie Jung for their feedback on my early ideas about whiteness studies and embodied writing. A special thank you goes to Bill Endres for sharing poetry with me. You showed me that I could be an academic and a poet, both roles informing the other in wonderful ways. And to Dianne Darcy and Peg Kaufman, I want to thank you for helping me to learn to live more creatively and holistically. I would also like to thank the two women in my family who envisioned what I could accomplish if I “put my mind to it.” My grandmother, Mary Kennedy, has always been a source of strength and refuge for me. She is one of the best people I know; I am blessed to call her my friend. To my mother, Judy Johnson, I am grateful for all the sacrifices you made in order to ensure that I went to college. You afforded me the opportunities you did not enjoy so that I might live a different kind of life. I hope this dissertation and subsequent work from it will serve to honor your contributions to my happiness. To my students in my first-year and advanced writing courses at the University of Arizona, thank you for teaching me more than I knew I needed to know. I would also like to thank my Dissertation Writing Group—Drew Kopp, Leta Sharp, Stacy Day, Holly Mandes Ryan, and Katie Johnson—for their helpful comments during the writing process. To Chloe, Dylan, Scout, and Vinny, I am eternally grateful for your constant companionship and the great joy you bring to my life. To Alison Miller of the RCTE program, a special thank you for answering numerous questions, listening to my graduate school worries, and for making sure all of the paperwork was in place so that I could advance through this program. You are truly indispensable. 5 DEDICATION For my beloved Tracey, my favorite teacher: “Beauty and goodness are always there in each of us. A true teacher, a true spiritual partner, is one who encourages you to look deeply in yourself for the beauty and love you are seeking. The true teacher is someone who helps you discover the teacher in yourself.” --Thich Nhat Hanh 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………………. 8 CHAPTER ONE: RECONCEPTUALIZING MEMORIA IN WRITING PEDAGOGIES ………………………………………………………………………. .10 Introduction: Defining Rhetorical Memory ………………………………………….10 Mnemosyne Remembers ……………………………………………………………..14 The Terministic Screens of Rhetorical Memory ……………………………………..18 Memory as Invention ………………………………………………………………....26 Memory’s Suspicious Subjectivity …………………………………………………...34 (Re)remembering Mnemosyne ……………………………………………………….40 Theoretical Underpinnings of Rhetorical Memory: Film Composition, Autobiographical Studies, Foucault, and Neuroscience …………………………….45 Notes ………………………………………………………………………………….62 CHAPTER TWO: MNEMOSYNE’S HEIRS: RHETORICAL MEMORY AND FEMINIST RHETORIC AND COMPOSITION PEDAGOGIES …………………66 Memory and Feminist Rhetoric and Composition Studies …………………………...70 Rhetorical Memory in Maxine Hong Kingston’s “No Name Woman”……………....73 Rhetorical Memory and Historiography………………………………………………80 Rhetorical Memory and Experience ………………………………………………….83 Rhetorical Memory and Agency ……………………………………………………...86 Writing Rhetorical Memory and Alternative Discourse(s) …………………………...92 Rhetorical Memory and Mestiza Consciousness ……………………………………100 (In)Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………103 Notes ………………………………………………………………………………...103 CHAPTER THREE: MNEMOSYNE’S RUINS: USING RHETORICAL MEMORY TO (DE)CONSTRUCT MARY MAGDALENE’S MEMORY IN THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST AND THE DA VINCI CODE ………………...107 Re-membering Mary Magdalene ……………………………………………………116 Pre-production Notes: Constructing Martin Scorsese’s Memory of Magdalene . 121 Pre-production Notes: Constructing Dan Brown’s Memory of Magdalene ………...127 Scorsese/Hershey’s Memory of Magdalene on Screen ……………………………..136 Brown/Howard’s Memory of Magdalene on Screen………………………………...146 (In)Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………159 Notes ………………………………………………………………………………...161 7 CHAPTER FOUR: MNEMOSYNE’S TECHNOLOGIES OF SOCIAL ACTION: REREADING WHITENESS PEDAGOGIES THROUGH RHETORICAL MEMORY ……………………………………………………………………………165 Whiteness Pedagogies and Film ……………………………………………………172 Whiteness Pedagogies and Rhetorical Memory ……………………………………181 Classroom Praxis: Rhetorical Memory and Writing about Representations of Literacy in Movies …………………………………………………………………………...195 Tapping Students’ Constructed Memories ………………………………………….197 Using Film to Build Prosthetic Memory ……………………………………………204 Exploring the Intersections of Private/Public Memories ……………………………208 (In)Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………212 Notes ………………………………………………………………………………...214 CONCLUSION: IMPLICATIONS OF FURTHER RESEARCH AND FOR PEDGAGOGY………………………………………………………………………. .218 APPENDIX A: COURSE RATIONALE ……………………………………………231 APPENDIX B: SYLLABUS (COURSE DESCRIPTION AND MAJOR ASSIGNMENTS) ……………………………………………………………………..233 APPENDIX C: WRITING ASSIGNMENT 1 (LITERACY NARRATIVE)...........235 APPENDIX D: WRITING ASSIGNMENT 2 (TEXTUAL ANALYSIS) …………236 APPENDIX E: WRITING ASSIGNMENT 3 (CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS/DOCUMENTED RESEARCH) ……………………………………….238 WORKS CITED............................................................................................................240 8 ABSTRACT While memoria is the fourth canon of rhetoric, its generative power remains essentially absent from rhetoric and composition studies. In my dissertation I use Mnemosyne’s story as a way to reconceptualize memoria beyond the confines of mnemonic techniques and memorization. I provide an overview of memoria using the terministic screens of storehouse, invention, and subjectivity in order to explain its absence and the consequences of this gap. I posit that the generative, critical, and embodied qualities of memory shape our ways of knowing and being and our hermeneutical, inventive, and revisionary practices. I argue that memory is rhetorical: it’s not just what is remembered/forgotten that matters, but how it is remembered, by whom, for what purpose, and with what effect. Rhetorical memory is a process—and product(s)—of remembering. Rather than remaining fixed, rhetorical memory is dynamic, relational, infused with emotion, steeped in imagination, and context-dependent. It is also relational, not autonomous and continuous. When memory is written, it expresses, analyzes, connects,