Jacqueline Jones Royster Response

Overall, I really enjoyed Jacqueline Jones Royster's When the First Voice You Hear Is Not Your Own. I thought the author was very insightful, and I liked how she connected cross-boundary discourse with three personal real-life scenarios. This allowed me to put myself into Royster’s shoes and really understand the depth of what she was explaining. The author’s task in the essay is threefold: (1) present scenes which server as personal testimony, (2) draw from these scenes suggestions about how the nature of voicing is problematic, and (3) propose that theories and practices should be transformed (612).

In “Scene One,” Royster discusses her difficulty with being an audience member when she is also the subject matter. She speaks about her difficulties listening to “authorities” remark on the African American community, when she herself is the “real” expert as someone who actually belongs to the said community. Royster claims that "when the subject matter is me and the voice is not mine, my sense of order and rightness is disrupted" (613). This is something that every single human being can relate to- because no one can possibly control who speaks about them and if/when they will have an opportunity to contribute to the conversation. The problem with this, Royster claims, is that this ultimately creates a tension (even unintentionally) in the discourse community. To elaborate on this experience, the author also discusses the concept of 'home training': it doesn’t matter how intelligent you are, or how much authority you have, you cannot go around “name calling.” This is not only dehumanizing, but it is also just plain bad manners- something far worse than sloshing soup or using your dinner napkin as a tissue. To alleviate this problem, Royster proposes that we develop specific codes of behavior to maintain honor, manners, and respect. This is a good solution, but perhaps it is something far easier said than done.

In “Scene Two,” Royster describes a situation where she has chosen not to be distracted or consumed by her rage, but to look at what she can do in response to these typically offensive situations. She stresses the importance of a negotiator, or a person who can work to cross boundaries and work as a “guide.” In this scene, Royster talks about how when she talks about African American women, she is often met with people who seem surprised and silent. She describes this experience in Du Bois’ words as “the sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of other, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in an amused contempt and pity” (616). In short, Royster says the only way to combat this is just to learn to speak without clenching her teeth- and to keep on talking without taking the audience at face value.

In “Scene Three,” Royster describes a situation where she reads a scene from a novel that requires historical understanding. As she read, Royster engaged in the dialect of the characters in order to really give depth to the text. When she finished the passage, she was greeted by a friend who complimented her on using her “authentic voice.” This, like other instances of cross-boundary discourse, irked Royster. She believes people have many authentic voices and that they should not be pressured into choosing one voice over another. Furthermore, each of these voices is equally "authentic" regardless of how often each voice is utilized.

Like Lindsay stated, I think this idea can apply to our tutoring experiences. Tutees and Tutors alike both need to focus on finding the voice that will best work for the purpose of their communication. For example, I may refrain from talking in cuss words or slang, because I want to present the idea that I am taking this assignment seriously and that I think it has merit.

In the conclusion of her article, Royster encourages people to focus on practice- practice exchanging perspectives and meanings. We need to learn to do these things in a respectable manner so that we do not alienate the others around us. We do not want to create angry audiences or disheartened speakers, so we must come to a collective understanding for what will best foster a healthy discourse community.

This article reminds me of what we have learned about David Bartholomae and his “bastard discourse.” Bartholomae advocates using the jargon and advanced writing techniques of an expert in order to best become an expert. I think this is similar to what Royster is describing when she talks about using “authentic voices.” Royster claims that we already have these expert voices inside of us (a little different from what Bartholomae is saying) and just because we may not use them at all times does not mean we are “faking it” when we do use them. In short, I think these concepts overlap, but I do see where they verge off into different directions.