Throughout the quarter, I’ve found myself grappling with all of the different techniques we’ve explored about writing effectively and responsibly for the purposes of social change. It seems clear to me that the work we’ve read has the ability to make a political statement and inspire thought with regards to social change, but there wasn’t a single, identifiable approach as to how this can be done correctly. Anne Boyer’s The Undying seemed to be at odds with the philosophies of Hartman and Keene, who advocated for leaving gaps in narration when retelling the stories of those who have been historically silenced and are no longer with us. Boyer, on the other hand, believes that it is her responsibility to “tell” rather than to leave intentional gaps, because to put the responsibility of filling them onto the reader would not do justice to her narrative. I suppose the takeaway from this is that when writing for the purposes of social change, careful attention should be paid to the medium and goals of the writing. There doesn’t seem to be one effective approach, but rather, the writing this quarter has made me aware of many of the challenges of this type of writing. The method of tackling those challenges depends on the specifics of the work, which will perhaps inherently be likely to cause controversy or disagreement.

My question is: What is the difference between writing for the purposes of social commentary versus social change? How should/do writing methods differ when the goal is to inspire thought in readers versus when the goal is to create actual change through the writing itself? Are these both possible (especially the latter)?