Spivak

In an interview by Philip Sipiora and Janet Atwill, Spivak gives some insights to the aspect of Rhetoric and writing. She has also given some hints on Women’s writing and women’s teaching.

When asked to define rhetoric , Spivak refers to the works of Foucault and Derrida. However, Spivak sees rhetoric as “most other important master words in the tradition of poststructuralist nominalism (SipioraAtwillSpivak.htm).

Spivak also states that rhetoric can be an extraordinary ally in, let’s say, exposing the artificial distinction between literary theory at one end and creating writing at the other end of terrain(SipioraAtwillSpivak.htm).

In addition, Spivak states that Women’s writing and women’s teaching, based on gender and drama, bring into play notions like performance, birth in the sense of acting out and representation and self-representation. While going through the interview, I felt that Speak is not very familiar with rhetoric and refers to Foucault and Derrida for resource. Even Spivak states that “ I’ve been involved in teaching of comparative literature, English, and of late, cultural studies (SipioraAtwillSpivak.htm). However, she has put some useful thoughts on the aspect of writing.

Spivak states that “writing cannot be taught through physics and chemistry courses and so on, because teaching of reading cannot be done, let’s say, in the Senate House” (SipioraAtwillSpivak.htm).

Training in writing needs to be at the appropriate place where the skills in writing have to be developed and the application of such skills develop as well. This relates somewhat to Peter Elbows thoughts. Elbow believes that there needs to be openness while writing (free writing) and open discussion , to gain perfection in writing (which would also be considered as part of the training process in writing.

Spivak concludes by saying that writing can be taught through particular texts. Therefore, versatility exists as far as the teaching and learning of writing is concerned.