Beliefs Questions 5

5. After reading some of the CR and IR debates in this chapter, and reading as well some of the original articles, what are your views on the different opinions and evidence that different scholars have presented? One has to give credence to the criticism against CR and IR, because boxing up cultures and comparing texts blindly certainly falls short of a thoughtful, helpful, and legitimate analysis. However, although the ideas of CR and IR are not new to me, the vocabulary terms are new-- this ties into what I view as one of the major points of criticism against this concept. I think it’s important to point out that many of the issues with this concept stem from its name and the restrictive nature it carries. While it is important that the vocabulary accurately represent the ideas, it’s worth remembering that a lack of satisfaction with a name doesn’t necessarily negate the ideas it represents. Isn’t time more valuably spent refining the ideas and the impact these may have on teaching practices rather than debating the term itself? The implications of the name do matter. However, I tend to wonder if the issue is less with the restrictive nature of the title “Intercultural Rhetoric” and more with the fact that this name is closely tied to the narrow ideas of CR. If the IR which takes context and outside factors into consideration had been its own entity since the beginning, its criticism may have a different look.