This qualitative study traces different articulations of the public, emotional honesty, and economic advantage in the literacy sponsorship of detained writer Lil’ Purp by The Beat Within, a publication for incarcerated youth and adults. Findings are compared to The Beat’s own account of Purp’s progress, revealing a set of practices reminiscent of Socratic parrhêsia that revise understanding of literacy sponsorship by expanding it to a philosophical register. Because The Beat also becomes a site of affective solidarity among detained writers in a way that resists the directional logic of writing toward civic participation, the study supports thinking about affect in public writing not as a process that moves toward political action, but rather as action in the immediate space of its utterance and reception. Such findings have implications both for public writing pedagogy and for community-based literacy scholarship.
BazermanC. (2006). Analyzing the multidimensionality of texts in education. In GreenJ. L.CamilliG.ElmoreP. B. (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 77–94). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
The Beat Within. (2009). Writing for their lives: The impact of the Beat Within program on five incarcerated or formerly incarcerated youth. San Francisco, CA: Author.
4.
The Beat Within. (2012). Style sheet. Internal document, San Francisco, CA.
BerlantL. (2001). Love, a queer feeling. In DeanT.LaneC. (Eds.), Homosexuality and psychoanalysis (pp. 432-451). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7.
BerlantL. (2011). Cruel optimism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
8.
BerryP. W. (2014). Doing time with literacy narratives. Pedagogy, 14(1), 137-160.
9.
BlackburnS. (2016). Maieutic method. In Oxford dictionary of philosophy (3rd ed., p. 288). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
10.
BradleyA. (2009). Book of rhymes: The poetics of hip hop. New York, NY: Basic Books.
11.
BrandtD. (2001). Literacy in American lives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
BrandtD. (2009). Literacy and learning: Reflections on writing, reading, and society. New York, NY: John Wiley.
13.
BrodkeyL. (1989). On the subjects of class and gender in “The Literacy Letters.”College English, 51(2), 125-141.
14.
CarterS. (2008). HOPE, “repair,” and the complexities of reciprocity: Inmates tutoring inmates in a total institution. Community Literacy Journal, 3, 87-112.
CherneyJ. (2011). The rhetoric of ableism. Disability Studies Quarterly, 31(3). Retrieved from http://dsq-sds.org/
17.
ChlupD. T.BairdI. C. (2010). Literacies from the inside. In AlfredM. V. (Ed.), Learning for economic self sufficiency: Constructing pedagogies of hope among low-income, low-literate adults (pp. 193-209). Charlotte, NC: IAP.
18.
CintrónR. (2010). Democracy and its limitations. In AckermanJ.CooganD. (Eds.), The public work of rhetoric: Citizen-scholar and civic engagement (pp. 98-116). Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
CushmanE. (1996). The rhetorician as an agent of social change. College Composition and Communication, 47(1), 7-28.
21.
CushmanE. (2013). Elias Boudinot and the Cherokee Phoenix: The sponsors of literacy they were and were not. In DuffyJ.ChristophJ. N.GoldblattE.GraffN.NowacekR. S.TraboldB. (Eds.), Literacy, economy, and power: writing and research after “literacy in American lives” (pp. 13-29). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
22.
CutlerC. (2014). White hip hoppers, language and identity in post-modern America. New York, NY: Routledge.
23.
DuffyJ.ChristophJ. N.GoldblattE.GraffN.NowacekR. S.TraboldB. (Eds.). (2013). Literacy, economy, and power: writing and research after “literacy in American lives.”Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
24.
FieldingN. (2008). The role of computer assisted qualitative data analysis: Impact on emergent methods in qualitative research. In Hesse-BiberS. N.LeavyP. L. (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 675-695). New York, NY: Guilford.
FlowerL. (2008). Community literacy and the rhetoric of public engagement. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
27.
FoucaultM. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (SheridanA., Trans.). New York, NY: Vintage.
28.
FoucaultM. (1983). The genealogy of ethics: An overview of a work in progress. Interview with DreyfusH. L.RabinowP. In DreyfusH. L.RabinowP. (Eds.), Michel Foucault—Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (2nd ed., pp. 229-252). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29.
FoucaultM. (1994). Ethics: Subjectivity and truth. The essential works of Foucault, 1954-1984 (Vol. 1; RabinowP., Ed.; HurleyR., Trans.). New York, NY: New Press.
30.
FoucaultM. (2001). Fearless speech. Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e).
31.
FoucaultM. (2011). The courage of truth. Lectures at the College de France, 1983-1984 (BurchellG., Trans.). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
32.
GeeJ. P. (1999). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourse (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Falmer.
33.
GlascottB. (2013). Constricting keywords: Rhetoric and literacy in our history writing. Literacy in Composition Studies, 1(1), 18-25.
JacobiT. (2004). “I am just gonna let you know how it is”: Situating writing and literacy education in prison. Reflections, 4(1), 1-11.
40.
JacobiT. (2008). Slipping pages through razor wire: Literacy action projects in jail. Community Literacy Journal, 2(2), 67-86.
41.
JacobiT. (2009). Writing workshops as alternative literacy education for incarcerated women. Corrections Today, 71, 52-56.
42.
JacobiT. (2011). Speaking out for social justice: The problems and possibilities of US women’s prison and jail writing workshops. Critical Survey, 23(3), 40-54.
43.
JacobiT.JohnstonE. (2011). Writers speaking out: The challenges of community publishing from spaces of confinement. In MathieuP.ParksS.RousculpT. (Eds.), Circulating communities: The tactics and strategies of community publishing (pp. 173-200). Lanham, MD: Lexington.
KerrT. (2006). Prison U: How the late Tookie Williams and other incarcerated writers are teaching us (Paumanok Lecture). Brooklyn, NY: Long Island University–Brooklyn.
47.
KnightC. (2014). Emotional literacy in criminal justice. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
48.
LagmanE. (2015). Moving labor: Transnational migrant workers and affective literacies of care. Literacy in Composition Studies, 3(3), 1-24.
49.
LathanR. E. (2013). Testimony as a sponsor of literacy: Bernice Robinson and South Carolina Sea Island Citizenship Program’s literacy activism. In DuffyJ.ChristophJ. N.GoldblattE.GraffN.NowacekR. S.TraboldB. (Eds.), Literacy, economy, and power: writing and research after “literacy in American lives” (pp. 30-44). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
50.
LuM. Z.HornerB. (2013). Translingual literacy, language difference, and matters of agency. College English, 75(6), 582-607.
51.
MathieuP. (2005). Tactics of hope: The public turn in English composition. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
52.
MoulderM. A. (2011). Cherokee practice, missionary intentions: Literacy learning among early nineteenth-century Cherokee women. College Composition and Communication, 63(1), 75-97.
53.
OliverW. (2006). “The Streets”: An alternative Black male socialization institution. Journal of Black Studies, 36(6), 918-937.
54.
OrbachS. (2000). Towards emotional literacy. Health Education, 100(6), 269-270.
55.
ParksS. (2015). Sponsors and activists: Deborah Brandt, sponsorship, and the work to come. College Composition and Communication, 66(3), 483-499.
56.
PitcockR. L. (2000). “Let the youths beware!” The sponsorship of early 19th-century Native American literacy. Written Communication, 17(3), 390-426.
57.
PlemonsA. (2013). Literacy as an act of creative resistance: joining the work of incarcerated teaching artists at a maximum-security prison. Community Literacy Journal, 7(2), 39-52.
58.
PompaL. (2004). Disturbing where we are comfortable: Notes from behind the walls. Reflections, 4(1), 24-34.
59.
PoughG. (2004). Check it while I wreck it: Black womanhood, hip-hop culture, and the public sphere. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
RichardsonE. B. (2006). Hiphop literacies. New York, NY: Routledge.
62.
Roberts-MillerP. (2004). Deliberate conflict: Models of the public sphere and the teaching of argument. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
63.
RodríguezD. (2002). Against prison writing. Genre, 35(2), 407-428.
RolstonS. (2011). Conversion and the story of the American prison. Critical Survey, 23(3), 103-118.
66.
SaldañaJ. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
67.
SchallertD. L.WadeS. E. (2005). The literacies of the 20th century: Stories of power and the power of stories in a hypertextual world. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4), 520-529.
68.
ShetharA. (1993). Literacy and “empowerment”? A case study of literacy behind bars. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24, 357-357.
69.
SpadyJ. G.MeghelliS.AlimH. S. (2006). Tha global cipha: Hip hop culture and consciousness. Richmond, VA: Black History Museum Press.
70.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Procedures and techniques for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
71.
TellD. (2010). Rhetoric and power: An inquiry into Foucault’s critique of confession. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 43(2), 95-117.
72.
TomlinsonE. C. (2011). Mediation and legal literacy. Community Literacy Journal, 5(2), 75-100.
WarnerM. (2002). Publics and counterpublics. Public Culture, 14(1), 49-90.
75.
WellsS. (1996). Rogue cops and health care: What do we want from public writing?College Composition and Communication, 47(3), 325-341.
76.
WilbergP. (2004). The therapist as listener: Martin Heidegger and the missing dimension of counseling and psychotherapy training. Sussex, UK: New Gnosis.
77.
WiltseE. (2011). Doing time in college: Student–prisoner reading groups and the object(s) of literary study. Critical Survey, 23(3), 6-22.
78.
WrightR.GehringT. (2008). From spheres of civility to critical public spheres: Democracy and citizenship in the big house (Part I). Journal of Correctional Education, 59, 244-260.
79.
ZembylasM.FendlerL. (2007). Reframing emotion in education through lenses of parrhêsia and care of the self. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 26(4), 319-333.
