R%eponse Lisle & Mano

American culture dictates that we write in accepted standard academic writing. Our system values individualism and demands that we use our own words in ways that encourages self expression in what Carolyn Matalene refers to as the “Authentic Voice” (790). Bonnie Lisle and Sandra Mano suggest that in the United States the emphasis is on the “personal voice” and “individualism as the basis of identity” (14). However, this Western approach relies on certain ethnological biases and assumptions while ignoring the rhetorical traditions of other cultures. This ethnocentricity assumes that all readers and writers are assimilated into our culture and speak and write in standard American English. I am inclined to agree with Lisle and Mano that a cross cultural or multicultural approach to writing must be established in order to acknowledge the ethnic diversity that exists in our society. It cannot be assumed that all cultures can adapt or are comfortable writing in a personal context. In fact Chinese students find it difficult to write personal opinion essays as it is contrary to their culture and training. Other cultures resist writing about their personal experiences out of pride or due to painful recollections. Lisle and Mano argue that we can’t assume that “students find it easy to write about themselves” and that we should offer accommodations to culturally diverse students who are uncomfortable with a style of  writing that we might take for granted but does not come easy for them (15-17).

When teaching rhetoric it is important to understand that while critical and expository writing may be considered the norm in our society it is not the only acceptable form of writing. Failure to acknowledge such biases prevents teachers from learning about the wide variety of rhetorical models that exist in our environment. Matalene refers to learning the rhetorical practices of other cultures as “contrastive rhetoric” that is based on relationships and an understanding of language and culture (790). There are subtle and not so subtle differences in the world’s many rhetorical systems. Lisle and Mano suggest that what Asian traditions value, we would view as departures from acceptable rhetoric. Though American Indian story telling may provide an alternative and Arabic student writing does not always differ from that of native English speakers, all are considered digressions from the standard. Most importantly I am informed that Chinese rhetoric may present the greatest diversion from the Western form of writing and composition.

The Modern Language Association of America defines plagiarism as “a means to commit literary theft and to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source” (52). Diana Hacker advises in A Writers Reference that “any writing that borrows information from sources; the borrowed information must be clearly documented” (326). Can we surmise that a nation of Chinese writers is guilty of intellectual theft or fraud because the usual Chinese response to a literary text is to repeat it without paraphrasing or quoting the text? Chinese literacy requires intensive memorization, which is considered their most important rhetorical skill. While Western literacy insists writing be original and in the writers own voice, Lisle and Mano argue that “the primary function of rhetoric in China is to promote social cohesion and appeal to history and tradition” (19).

In China memorization is considered the most important attribute of intelligence. Achievement and advancement are dependent on how well Chinese students memorize the classics and their ability to reproduce them verbatim on essay examinations. What Western culture considers plagiarism is highly regarded as imitation and Chinese literary tradition encourages reproduction of writing from memory without citing sources. The idea that Western writers want credit for their own ideas is of no consequence to Chinese writers. Therefore Western academics should respect that Chinese writers are more interested in the harmony of the group than the wants of individuals. Also, I would entertain the idea that since most of Chinese society memorizes and repeats set phrases, this form of writing could be considered common knowledge and as Hacker argues “when you have seen certain information repeatedly in your reading, you do not need to cite it” (83). Therefore, Western academics should be tolerant of Chinese rhetoric and not categorize it as plagiarism.

References

Hacker, Diana. A Writers Reference. Fourth edition. Boston: Bedford/

St. Martin’s. 1999. Print.

Lisle, Bonnie and Sandra Mano. Writing in Multicultural Settings. Embracing a

            Multicultural Rhetoric.” New York: MLA Press. Year unknown. Print.

Matalene, Carolyn. “Contrastive Rhetoric: An American Writing Teacher in

            China.” College English 47 (1985): 789-808.

Modern Language Association of America. MLA Handbook for Writers of

Research Papers. New York: 2009. Print.