about tindorhick

Citations are the clichés of scholarship.

We admit it. We are textually active. We have text with some scholars pretty regularly. Others are one-article stands. We try to stay up-to-date with “safe text.” We try to keep an eye on the big “dating” cites–College Composition and Communication (CCC) and Rhetoric Society Quarterly (RSQ)–and what’s coming out. We try to keep another eye on the big “dating” sites, the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) and the Rhetoric Society of America Conference (RSAC) and the important themes guiding rhetoric and composition scholarship.

All the text we’ve had, all the citations we’ve dated, have started to feel kinda, well, “dirty.” Like do we really know our textual partners, even the ones we have text with over and over in long-term relationships? And, jeez, are we being equitable in our dating practices–like are we “stuck in a rut” dating the same types of people over and over, getting the same perspectives–biases and prejudices?

It got us thinking about all those big dating cites, dating sites, and their power: how they arrange our citations, initiate our textual romances, frame who/what gets read, appreciated, and foregrounded in rhetoric and composition.

Sssso we created this cite-site to problematize textual partners–of citation and our matchmakers who have a lot of influence on our “dating” practices.

Since we are still figuring this out, figuring out who to date, figuring out who our citational partners are and/or should be, we play with clichés to make some important points about what we’ve noticed about scholarship, why we did this, and what might change with regards to textual activity. We cliche ourselves because they’re phrases that aren’t particularly unique, aren't’ usually cited, yet offer some kind of superficial wisdom. Kinda the antithesis of scholarship, which we feel comfortable with right now.

If ya need a stronger thesis or some bullet points for speed citing, here’s what we’re thinkin’ about.

  1. Pronoun Variety Needed: Plenty of (a type of) Fish in the Sea
  2. More Context Please: (Do &) Don’t Judge a Book by Its Cover
  3. Less Power There: Absence (& Presence) Makes the Heart Grow Fonder(er)
  4. Concluding Thoughts: Everything Happens for a Reason (Which May Not be Reasonable)

Pronoun Variety Needed: Plenty of (a type of) fish in the sea

Yeah. Sure. It’s a “nice” sentiment, helping people move on from a failed relationship. The metaphor might be said to value love as both a numbers game and hunt: If the relationship doesn’t work out, there’s always someone else one can “catch.” For better or worse, the sentiment also values moving on rather than making things work. And I think we’ve all felt similar ways with regards to citation–to move on because there are always more scholars to cite or to make that citation work. The thing though is that our seas are pretty curated. And we just aren’t sure if we are getting access to different types of fish–varieties of scholarly perspectives on rhetoric and composition issues. There may be plenty of fish in the sea, but are they all white fish from middle-upper class backgrounds who worship Kenneth Burke? It’s kinda like being exclusive to Tinder or Match.com or, hey, Plenty of Fish.

And though it isn’t a dating site per se, there is something that has become “daterly” in academic email–a kind of relationship profile: Email signatures. They’re more than just titles and contact information. Nowadays, they include acknowledgments of appropriation (e.g., that a college is located on Indigenous property), famous or significant quotes, gifs, links to websites, and to social media profiles. While these additions certainly do provide more information about a colleague/scholar (their beliefs and personality), gender pronouns may be the most significant additions for helping us understand a person’s experience with the world.

Such inclusion is a significant rhetorical move for identity expression. The preferences might be said to be agency in action for identity, for taking “authorly” control of a body rather than letting an audience define you–though of course there are assholes audience members who just don’t care and define you as they see you.

Of course, it isn’t like we are getting emails from the scholars we cite all the time. However, we do receive the emails from conference chairs and presidents and, well, when we get rejected from a journal, those emails tell us a little about our rejectors. And there are other places where identities like this are on display: author blurbs/bios in journals. Of course, these are often pretty generic and don’t provide us much information about the author beyond where they teach, where they have published along with a non-explicitly announced gender pronoun (i.e., it’s part of the blurb without a “Gender Pronouns” heading). Yet, these brief blurbs are carefully written and re-written, often bound by character or word limits, requiring authors to select a few defining pieces of themselves.

Thinking in terms of textual activity, taking control of pronouns gives us an idea of who they are and their experiences in the world–and/or at least how they want to experience the world–it helps us better understand the fish in the sea, so to speak. Still, this is, itself, fraught with dangerous interpretive assumptions. Like using he/she/they pronouns and their variety doesn't necessarily mean one is cisgender, transgender, nonbinary, or genderfluid. And one doesn't necessarily get an idea of how one expresses gender. What we get is, well, how a scholar wants to be interpreted textually, what he/she/they/ze want, we reckon, are comfortable highlighting during textual activity. And, of course, there is a history where pronouns weren’t as explicitly choices being made by authors in citation as they are in our current cultural moment.

But the funny thing is that there are only GENDER pronouns. Pronouns for class, race, ethnicity, sexuality, and disability certainly could exist. They could be self-referential in the same way as gender. e could say in reference to Jenna and gender, “She (Jenna who genders as woman) once cited Patricia Freitag Ericsson.” At the same time, we could say about Paul and zis whiteness: “Whe (Paul who races as white) cited Patricia Freitag Ericsson.” So instead of a focus on gender with regards to pronouns, now there’s a new rhetorical choice in pronoun selection and how it might affect a text. Basically, we wonder if they should exist as a helpful shorthand for making sure there is some equity in our textual activity, that we aren’t citing and/or experiencing the “same old same old” types of ideas and perspectives. Of course, there are more typical solutions to this understanding of social categories: checkboxes (which have their own limitations) and revealing in biographical statements. Still, ya gotta admit, more pronouns might actually be a cool rhetorical strategy revealing how authors want to emphasize their identities and the purposes of statements in a particular text. Can you imagine how different chapters, paragraphs, sentences, could mix together different pronouns and make meaning?

Ok. We went on a little tangent above. Back to our textual experiences: When looking through the filters of our Tindorick site, we often aren’t sure how people are identifying besides gender pronouns. And though we do get some insight into race from the pictures, this is also rife with problems of vision and the visual cultures of reading imagery: Like is this person Black? Is this person White? Is this person Indigenous? Is this a man? Is this a woman? Is this a person with a disability? Is this person an upper-class Burkean scholar?

When we cite we wanna know more about who we are textually active with. And some more explicit pronouns or “profile” knowledge might help with this. So as far as actions are concerned–we want some more descriptions letting us know about our textual partners' activities and identities, especially if we are trying to be thoughtfully equitable about citation.

Textual Activities for Rhetoric and Composition Scholars

  1. Pronouns
    1. Theorize about if it is worth it, about what the world would be like if there was more pronoun choice–if authors could select pronouns besides gender–maybe even combinations of pronouns in writing.
    2. If “a” seems worth doing, create some pronouns and help scholars understand how to use them.
  2. Author Profiles/Bios/Blurbs
  3. Theorize about what might be pertinent information for scholars deciding whether or not to read/cite. This could include changing the location of the profiles as well as the content.
  4. Would it be worth it to be more "daterly" in profiles? You know, what if the major social categories were made more explicit for citing? Like this-->

    Class:
    Disability:
    Ethnicity:
    Gender:
    Pronouns:
    Politics:
    Race: 
    Sexuality:

    Sure does provide a lotta boxed up information, so it's limiting because it isn't a whole person. But, at the same time, it sure does provide a lotta boxed up information that, well, kinda shows you where the scholars participate in intersectionality, right?

    Trust us. This sorta information is difficult to come by for a lotta the scholars.



    And see us to get a feel for how this could look and affect textuality.

If we were gonna cite, we might have cited the following scholars:

Harmon-Jones, C., Schmeichel, B.J. & Harmon-Jones, E. (2009). Symbolic self-completion in
academia: Evidence from department web pages and email signature files. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 39(2), 311-316.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.541

Journet, D. et al. (2011). Narrative acts: Rhetoric, race and identity, knowledge. Hampton Press.

Nakamura, L. (2013). Cybertypes : Race, Ethnicity, and Identity on the Internet. Routledge.

Patterson, G. & Spencer, L. (2020). Toward trans rhetorical agency: A critical analysis of
trans topics in rhetoric and composition and communication scholarship.
Peitho, 22(4), n.p.

Smith, E. (2020). A critique of anti-racism in rhetoric and composition: The semblance of
 empowerment. Lexington Books.

More Context Please: (Do &) Don’t Judge a Book by Its Cover

Look. It’s a great idea not to jump to conclusions based on little information. Take time when dating or citing. Going on one date or even reading a text once, may not be enough to really know it. Judging the article and not the author is a helpful way of viewing the world. It’s a way to ask audiences to limit preconceptions and go into an article with an “open mind,” valuing content as if it were “objective,” timeless, placeless–as if context didn’t matter.

It’s true. Going into a text with a heavy bias because of a scholar’s politics, behaviors, and/or background colors how one might view the ideas in an article. Like knowing Richard Weaver’s influence on conservative politics would have been a “no cite” sign for Paul and might have kept Paul from learning and thinking about “god terms” and “devil terms”---thinking about the world and communication in new ways.

Thing is, though, book covers have a lotta information. They have imagery that usually sets up the type of text–what a reader can expect with regards to genre and/or topic. And there is some pretty great author information on the back, often including a picture that can be helpful in knowing who this author or authors are. Readers might even find a one-line comment about the author’s hobbies or love of dogs. So it’s important to judge a book by its cover too–to know a scholar beyond the article. Like we mentioned earlier, author blurbs and gender pronouns help us know who we are textually active with but we aren’t sure if this is enough to go on for dating.

The big takeaway here is that we don’t wanna be textually active with assholes. In other words, we don’t wanna cite contemptible scholars–scholars who in their professional and/or private lives are morally dubious. Giving time, credibility, attention, and citation with our textual activity to such a person would make us feel a kind of “dating remorse”—like what if we found out Andrea Lunsford spread misinformation about COVID-19? Victor Villanueva spread voter conspiracy theories? Or Douglas Eyman was, like, a participant in the January 6th insurrection? What if Cheryl Glenn wasn't silent about her disdain for Black Lives Matter? Is any of this information important or should we just be thinking in some Platonic way about their ideas?

There is something, then, to be said about judging/evaluating the author instead of just their ideas. After all, to be textually active with someone and to cite safely means to share ideas–means there is textual activity–a “fondling” of thought (ewww)—an affect/effect/manipulation of thinking. Such value helps us remember the significance of textual intimacy and that scholars presenting ideas come from a place, a time, and are people connected to their ideas. Ya might say we’re into the rhetorical situation of our dating situation–kairotica? Maybe we went too far :)

We aren’t trying to say that we have to agree with scholarship, with the arguments scholars present. That’s not morally dubious. That’s engaging with ideas and learning. We are trying to say that thinking in terms of character and behavior is thinking more in terms of context, to knowing more about the person one is citing and determine if this scholar is a person worth being textually active giving attention to. We aren’t sure exactly how this would work and we know some things are more important than others. Like it may not be as important when considering textual activity to know a scholar to be a frugal tipper as it is to know whether or not they are bigots, bullies, sexists, and liars (inside and outside of academia). For us there is real significance in not giving credit (i.e., scholars' most cherished resource) to contemptible people, to keeping their names and ideas out of our textual activities–our minds and our scholarship. To only judge the scholar's ideas seems like an oversimplification that forgets ideas come from people who stand for something.

Villainizing scholars isn't our purpose. We understand the ethics behind blind peer review in lessening bias associated with a name, to getting to some kind of Platonic appreciation of ideas— like the emphasis is on absolute timeless ideas and not like practical action. So the sources we read and cite, the authors themselves, should be interpreted free from context; however, we think this would be a missed opportunity and an over-simplification. Images selected and pronouns used, for example, can be insight into the author's positionality in relationship to the topics they choose to write about. More context can help us better understand and might help us feel more connected to the scholars and the scholarship. Of course, we couldn't talk to Plato directly about this so we are just predicting what he mighta thought. Practically speaking, if Eric Clapton, for instance, published an article on sonic rhetoric, there is no way we'd wanna be textually active with it. Even if the ideas were revolutionary, we'd avoid them. We'd remember that with regards to ideas there are “plenty of scholars in the sea” and something else revolutionary will come along.

Textual Activities for Rhetoric and Composition Scholars

  1. Code of Principles
    1. We aren't sure academic integrity is enough, whatever the meaning behind it is in relation to scholarship. So theorize if it is worth it to have rhetoric and composition scholars create a “code of principles” to abide by as scholar-citizens. There could be an application process, a verification process, and a certification of being an ethical person and scholar. We're thinking it would be helpful to have something that goes beyond the CCCC Guidelines for Ethical Research in Composition Studies.
    2. Have some kind of system in place to make sure scholars are upholding the code. There could be an “application process,” an “assessment process, and then a “verification process,” which needs to be verified every few years or so. This idea is totally *inspired* (another word for copied?) by the Poynter Institute’s International Fact Checking Network’s Code of Principles.
  2. Political Scorecard
    1. Would it be worth it to have some kind of political scorecard for scholar positions “off the court”? Maybe something like What's Your Jock Support does with athletes and politics? See Athlete Scorecards.
  3. Author Talks
    1. Have more than short author blurbs in journals. Include interviews where scholars discuss their scholarly beliefs alongside their other principles.
  4. Value Other Ways of Knowing and Understanding Scholars
    1. Shannon Walters, for example, has resisted the rhetorical tradition focused on neurotypical minds and her research explores how people with disabilities use touch to connect with audiences. Essentially, she argues for a theory of rhetoric that values touch as rhetorical. If we extend this notion to our desire to learn more about rhet/comp scholars, Walters’ article suggests that we must be inclusive, considering multiple ways of learning about others. *We like the idea and hesitate to include this description, just because we don’t really know if we know enough about Shannon. And, well, we’re makin’ a point here about knowing your citation! So here is our hedge–the concept overwhelmed us with how it fits but we will take it back and end this textual activity if we learn more about Shannon’s ethics.*

If we were gonna cite, we might have cited the following scholars:

Foucault, M. (2003). The essential foucault: Selections from essential works of Foucault, 1954-
1984. Ed. P. Rabinow & N. Rose. The New Press, 2003.

Walters, S. (2014). Rhetorical touch: Disability, identification, haptics. University of South Carolina
Press. *Kinda cited already.*

Less Power There: Absence (& Presence) Makes the Heart Grow Fonder(er)

Our textual activity is pretty directed. The matchmakers in the rhetoric and composition discipline (editors of journals and chairs or presidents of conferences) are at the top of the hierarchy in their communities. And while we don’t know exactly the politics and/or ways things work behind the scenes, our experiences with committees and provosts and college presidents suggests there is probably a “my way or the highway dynamic” even if the editor, chair, or president isn’t explicit about that notion or cultivates that value, even if committee members and peer reviewers have a lotta say. There’s always some underlying vibe for those with less power: “I need that recommendation”; “I want that funding”; “I need that tenure.” And editors are the synecdoches–the figureheads–for a journal or conference. They’re the part-for-whole who get credit for whatever direction it goes.

Our own absence from a journal when we tried to get into the matchmaking service kinda makes us wanna be textually active with it even more: please include me in this dating “cite” kinda way. But, at the same time, there is another value in play, which helps us forget what might have been: Presence wilts absence. In publishing and/or leading conferences, editors, chairs, and presidents guide our textual activities guiding scholars in determining what and who to value. Matchmaking, in more words, keeps a lotta scholars absent, wilting their ideas and ways of presenting the world. ***There are many rhetoric and composition scholars in the world who know how to ‘scholar’ well– “cream of the crop” arguments just don’t seem to hold here. It’s hard to be fond of what doesn’t exist!

CCC, for instance, has the editors serve 5 year stints, one year more than a generation of scholars–if we go by the 4yr PHD program. So it’s interesting to think about that power, that a whole generation of scholars could be guided by one editor. There are other journals to read of course and other ways to get a variety of perspectives. It’s just that the powerhouse CCC gets to control a generation of perspectives.

Textual Activities for Rhetoric and Composition Scholars

  1. Head Editors at Journals
    1. Theorize about timelines for being an editor. Like is five years too long of a contract to be an editor at a journal, to value variety and diversity?
    2. Conduct a meta-study of editors and who they are. How diverse is rhetoric and composition as a whole with regards to editors?
    3. Open up opportunities at journals for new, fresh voices. Allow graduate assistants to serve as copyeditors, such as the model Rhetoric Review had for many years.
  2. Limit Time Frames for Citation at Journals
    1. Though it seems counterintuitive, it might be helpful for diversity in citations to limit the timeframe from which authors can cite. So rather than sticking to the “big shots,” encourage scholars to move on and start theorizing from post time immemorial.

If we were gonna cite, we might have cited the following scholars:

National Council of Teachers of English. (2019, April 4). Asao B. Inoue, #4C19 Chair's Address
[Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brPGTewcDYY

Sheffield, J.P., Sparks, S.C., & Ianetta, M.J. (2014). SYMPOSIUM: Revaluing the work of the editor.
College English, 77(2), 146-152.

Johnson-Eilola, J. & Selber, S.A. (2019). Editing texts, editing careers. In J. Gallagher &
Danielle Nicole Devoss (Eds.), Explanation points: Publishing in rhetoric and composition
(pp. 219–22). University Press of Colorado.

Poe, M. (2019). Creating a conversation in the field through editing. In J. Gallagher &
Danielle Nicole Devoss (Eds.), Explanation points: Publishing in rhetoric and composition
(pp. 219–22). University Press of Colorado.

Concluding Thoughts: Everything happens for a reason (which might not be reasonable)

Textual activity and choosing citation? “It’s complicated.” As you can see from the webtext we created and our thoughts on the matter, there might be more considerations about “safe text” and citation than the sort of going rule that kinda embraces everything we’ve discussed: “Love is blind.” Going into citation we often focus on the content and are blind to the “faults” in our partners. So for us everything certainly happens for a reason, we just aren’t sure if how we feel about the everything and/or if the reasons for getting there are fair.

We ask you don’t think in terms of us “sanitizing” scholarship. The metaphor is a big problem. I mean it makes ya think context is being eliminated/”cleaned away so history is “nice.” That’s not exactly it. Context is still there, it’s just values are being highlighted differently/performing a new ethic. Think The Chicks and Lady A’s name changes intended to make a point about the glorification of slavery in the south. Think highlighting Harriet Tubman’s experiences and contributions to American culture on a twenty dollar bill instead of Andrew Jackson’s.

So in your own textual activities we hope we have provided some useful citing advice—to think more carefully about textual partners. We hope our cite-site gets you thinking about the importance of practicing “safe citation,” of thinking a little differently of things we often “take for granted.”

We really hope your “first date” with this text—with us—might lead to a second, a second where you take up some of our textual activities for rhetoric and composition scholars. Seriously, we’d love to see you again, meet you textually and see where we go from here.

If you wanna try something like this with one of your articles–to experience more about your textual partners–nd if you want more info on how to create a webtext like this, go ahead and email us and we’ll send you some files:)