Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Margaret Williams
and wonder: How do we reach them? How do we connect? We want to share our passion for
writing and rhetoric and, in the process, help students join in meaningful conversations as
engaged citizens. In this essay, I suggest that we reach out to FYW students where they are, by
connecting with the informal rhetorics they practice. One such avenue comes through applying a
campus communication that is available to them in their immediate environment. While not
prevalent on all American campuses, at the regional comprehensive university where I teach,
students interact via chalking as an available means of persuasion. They use playground chalk
Syverson (1999) called an ecology of “writers, Figure 1: Chalking takes various forms; most are
alphabetic, like this example. The most common
readers, and texts [that form] a complex system of surfaces at my public university includes gray
concrete and red brick.
PAC Postscript Williams: Chalk to Me 2
The Search for Useful Knowledge in a Local, Rhetorical Ecology
self-organizing, adaptive, and dynamic interactions” (p. 5).
In this essay, I report observations of campus chalking, the results of a 2016 election-
season field experiment, and chalking’s potential for practical use in a first-year-writing course.
These informal modes of research help demonstrate that, as a rhetorical ecology, campus
chalking persists despite the changing population of students from semester to semester, the
themes and topics rise, subside, wash away, get interrupted or added to, and often recomposed
and negatively (or, less rarely, positively) appropriated; chalking circulates or moves within the
rhetorical ecology. Such observations also suggest how chalking might fit within 21st-century
composition studies and what practical knowledge we (teachers and students) can gain from
studying it.
My own chalking experiment began as a rhetorical intervention during the Fall 2016
campus, and I wondered whether chalking would be a productive way to support that effort. On
the national stage, meanwhile, the presidential campaign had grown acrimonious and various
protests movements were very active. In my first few weeks on campus, I had seen a variety of
messages etched into the concrete and brick that connect campus parking lots, dorms,
classrooms, dining halls, and library (see Figure 1). Two examples observed during the Fall 2016
semester were “BLACK LIVES MATTER” and “Veteran’s Day / candlelight vigil / Nov. 9th /
[Plaza]” (the forward slashes indicate line breaks). These individual chalkings had been placed at
several locations around campus but primarily on major routes between buildings and parking
lots. I wanted to know how campus chalking works. Does it move across the college’s
physical/social spaces and through time? What are its constraints and affordances? I also
PAC Postscript Williams: Chalk to Me 3
The Search for Useful Knowledge in a Local, Rhetorical Ecology
wondered where the campus chalking came from—what was its history and other possible
contexts? To explore these questions, I turned toward Syverson’s theory of rhetorical ecologies
as distributed, emergent, embodied, and enacted, but first, I suggest a few definitions.
What is “chalking”?
These days, some of us continue to pick up a piece of chalk and write on a blackboard—a
19th century medium that often still hangs on classroom walls behind “Smartboards” that we
control by computer, remote clickers, and (for the digitally savvy) hand motions. Fewer of us,
perhaps, have picked up a piece of chalk and etched the conventional squares and codes of
hopscotch into the pavement. In any case, unlike a 19th century American recipe that included
“good whiskey” and “ground plaster” (Karpf, 2012, p. 65), modern sidewalk chalk is more
commonly made with plaster of Paris, which may scratch blackboards but is well suited to the
rough textures of brick and concrete. For these and other reasons, chalk remains a practical tool.
Some of the most sophisticated sidewalk chalkings in America were produced by Robert
Guilleman, aka “Sidewalk Sam,” a 1980s artist who reproduced classic but momentary art like
the Mona Lisa on Boston’s sidewalks (Romano, 1980). Whatever its modern composition or
potential applications, chalk is cheap, widely available, and easily removed, which may partially
explain why it is commonly used in situations as varied as a street-and-sidewalk vigil for the
young woman killed during the August 2016 protests in Charlottesville, Va., or a college fitness
communication, by the way, includes posters that stick to brick and concrete; information and/or
activity booths; or banners, kiosks, display boards, and the like. All are periodically placed on or
PAC Postscript Williams: Chalk to Me 4
The Search for Useful Knowledge in a Local, Rhetorical Ecology
beside campus sidewalks, and many of them invite some degree of interactivity. To help us
better situate chalking as a rhetorical ecology, here are a few key terms:
chalk for “writing” (or drawing) messages—everything from art to insults, event
notices to poetry.
3) Chalk event: one or more messages that elicit a response or responses (“Black BLUE
lives matter!”).
major artery in the sidewalk network (such as excerpts from Beat poetry “posted” or
distributed around the university’s bricked “Central Plaza,” a large, outdoor space
encircling a water fountain where major sidewalks converge and students often
gather).
rhetorical ecology that embodies informal discourse at the university where I teach and, possibly,
other American campuses. It is persistent over time despite the changing population of students
from semester to semester, the constraints of environment, or its temporality. For example,
during the university’s Fall 2016 semester, from one side of campus to another, unseen rhetors
added “DUMP” in the margins of “Trump 2016” chalkings; “readers” intervened by crossing out
the first word of a “Black Lives Matter” message and adding (in the appropriate color) the word
“BLUE.” One love message elicited a chalked, misogynistic rant about women who need
PAC Postscript Williams: Chalk to Me 5
The Search for Useful Knowledge in a Local, Rhetorical Ecology
“work,” while another sparked the addition of colorful hearts (whether chalked in by a “reader”
or the one receiving the message, we can never be sure). What connects such informal messages?
Marshall McLuhan’s “media is the message” comes to mind, particularly as Lance Strate (2008)
observes: “Media function as environments, ecologies, and systems” (p. 135). The sidewalks and
the large bricked [fountain] area form a physical network across campus; concrete and brick
But what do I mean by rhetorical ecologies? Syverson (1999) explains that processes in
complex systems “are distributed, that is both divided and shared among agents and structures in
the environment … [and] across space and time in an ensemble of interrelated activities” (p. 7,
emphasis added). The processes within complex systems are not contained within individuals or
individual elements; instead, they spread out, link, and connect. Syverson counters here the
understanding of the classic rhetorical situation of rhetor, audience, and text by expanding
Marilyn Cooper’s (1989) argument that “writing is an activity through which a person is
continually engaged with a variety of socially constituted systems” (p. 367). In the classical
triangle of a rhetorical situation, Cooper suggests, the rhetor does not exist or operate within a
static, isolated environment, nor is the situation a one-way transaction from rhetor to text to
audience. Rhetors influence audiences, audiences influence rhetors, the texts influence both—
and all exist within larger “ecologies.” Syverson’s broader framework includes the material
elements of the rhetorical ecology. She insists that the space, place, and material components
matter (outdoors or indoors, in a classroom or in a ship’s navigation room, tools like pen and
paper, “files of ideas and correspondence,” the “arrangement of objects on [the desk],” weather,
PAC Postscript Williams: Chalk to Me 6
The Search for Useful Knowledge in a Local, Rhetorical Ecology
software, buildings, and so on [Syverson, 1999, p. 9]). My take on Syverson’s notion of
distribution is that knowledge, the sharing of it, and the creation of it move dynamically within
Within such complex systems, says Syverson (1999), rhetors draw on “a vast ocean of
words, phrases, and ideas … to bring forth texts that organize themselves into more or less
coherent and recognizable forms” (p. 10). She adds that from the high volume of texts that arise
novels—some texts or parts of texts gather “genuine force and momentum through the more or
less coherent activities of a large number of writers and readers” (Syverson, 1999, p. 10). Words
and ideas stick and take on new life, like “catch-22” and “anti-hero,” and new genres take form,
like multi-authored fiction, to list a few of Syverson’s examples. This process, which she calls
emergence, is how genres coalesce and meaning accumulates or spreads. With a strong nod to
Jenny Edbauer’s (2005) work on rhetorical ecologies, Ken Gillam and Shannon R. Wooden
(2013) sum up Syverson’s idea this way: “An essay … emerges from a complex ecological web
of knowledge formation, rhetorical expectations, and lived experiences, and then succeeds or
fails largely in terms of how it integrates into the communicative ecology to which it aspires” (p.
26). Syverson, though, speaks not in terms of success or failure but evolution. The process
always moves, even when it appears static. Edbauer (2005) famously remarks that “rhetorical
situations simply bleed” (p. 9). Following Syverson, I take up emergence as an ongoing process
in which some ideas, arising as “texts” from ecological, rhetorical environments, disperse or
decompose, subsume into or consume other emerging forms; some persist; others transform (or
embodiment and enaction. We are physical beings and, as such, we ground “our conceptual
structures” within and through our physical selves and environments (Syverson, 1999, p. 13).
This is embodiment. Syverson (1999) explains, “Neither writing nor reading can be
accomplished without physical activity: clasping a book, moving the eyes across a line of text,
using the muscles of the hand, arm, and fingers to handle a pen or keyboard” (p. 12). The
physical processes may vary (now we “swipe” through messages and news on smartphones, for
example), but interactions between readers, writers, and texts continue to be situated in the
physical. Syverson’s (1999) enaction theory moves from this physical foundation to “knowledge
[as] the result of an ongoing interpretation that emerges through activities and experiences
situated in specific environments” (p. 13, emphasis in the original). A key word here is
“ongoing.” Edbauer (2005) posits this process as “temporal, historical, and lived fluxes” (p. 9),
which implies change, movement, and evolution as we create knowledge. In a related vein,
Michael Warner (2002) speaks of publics coming “into being only in relation to texts and their
circulation” (p. 66). Further, “a public is poetic world making” (Warner, 2002, p. 114). What I
draw from such threads is that within rhetorical ecologies (and between larger, often overlapping
Applying Syverson and many others who have followed (Rice, 2005; Fleckenstein et al.,
2008; Rivers & Weber, 2011; Gries, 2012, 2013; Gillam & Wooden, 2013; Mays, 2017), I posit
that chalking does not occur in isolation. As noted earlier, I see chalking as an ecology of
discourse, one grounded in simple technologies, involving both material and social structures,
PAC Postscript Williams: Chalk to Me 8
The Search for Useful Knowledge in a Local, Rhetorical Ecology
and delivered in an outdoor environment (chalk, brick, asphalt, concrete, rhetor, “reader,”
message, and weather conditions; out in the open, shaded by a tree, or beneath a building
archway). Its human and nonhuman participants—its agents—are dynamic and interrelated. Liza
Potts (2009) explains that agents “come together to form temporary networks, creating
assemblages of relations specific to an individual act or broader event and forming a collective,
referred to as an actant” (p. 286). Gries (2012) adds, “Within this assemblage, people are just
one agent among a host of other human and nonhuman entities that have potential to catalyze
change” (p. 52). Drawing further on Bruno Latour’s Actor Network Theory, Gries (2012)
explains, “Claims such as ‘woman writes with pen’ are … inaccurate. Instead, by thinking of
actant, we acknowledge that, in fact, ‘woman-pen’ writes” (p. 59, emphasis in the original). In
the rhetorical ecology I describe, then, “woman-chalk” writes, in dynamic relationship to the
medium (brick or asphalt), weather, light/shade, time, proximity to buildings and gathering areas,
historical/cultural contexts, and so forth. Beyond that hybrid actant, though, in what ways does it
Before undertaking my field-work project, I had learned that chalking was a “thing” at
the university. I had often paused to read messages when I walked across campus and observed
an ongoing, sometimes interactive collection of dialogues and mini-dialogues that, because the
mountain region of the state experienced a severe drought for much of the semester, persisted for
days and weeks. Other passersby noticed the chalkings, too, pausing to read, chuckling, or (for
the most provocative chalkings) pouring the contents of their water bottles over them. When a
new batch of “Trump 2016” chalkings appeared early in the semester, scattered across campus,
but concentrated on the plaza, students responded with counter-campaigns, etching quotations
from 1950s Beat poetry, Civil Rights activists, and Bible verses. While such individual chalkings
PAC Postscript Williams: Chalk to Me 9
The Search for Useful Knowledge in a Local, Rhetorical Ecology
and chalking campaigns can be analyzed as visual rhetoric, that approach obscures their dynamic
qualities, I suggest. Middleton, Senda-Cook, and Endres (2011) note rhetoric’s “participatory”
turn toward in situ field work, or what they call “rhetorical field methods:” “participant
observation [that] allows critics to experience rhetorical action as it unfolds and offers
opportunities to gather insights on how rhetoric is experienced by rhetors, audiences, and critics”
(p. 387; p. 390). In short, I wanted to experience chalking as lived, everyday rhetoric; I wanted to
I bought a box of chalk, selected a color I thought would be most visible on gray concrete
in bright sunlight, found a location between one of the university’s most heavily used parking
lots and the plaza, and etched out a message. Together, all these individual agents—woman-
chalk, bright sun-gray concrete, the university’s chalking history, and its collection of chalkings
at that moment—formed a collective or actant situated in networks of actants. Such networks are
inherently ecological, which Laurie Gries suggests in both “Iconographic Tracking” (2013) and
“Agential Matters” (2012). But where she focuses on digital (i.e. computer-based) ecologies,
with chalking I see a more basic “digital” ecology (fingers gripping the chalk), and an almost
interlocking [system that] structure[s] the social activity of writing” (p. 369). Few of chalking’s
rhetors, I believe, have read university rules that limit chalking to horizontal surfaces (etched
onto vertical surfaces like walls, it becomes “graffiti”). Many who responded to the provocative
Trump-themed chalkings did not know that, in early April, former Trump social-media director
Dan Scavino Jr. and two social-political groups (Old Row and Students for Trump) had urged
college students to take part in what came to be called #TheChalkening (Kutner, 2016). With or
without direct knowledge of these factors, students picked up some chalk and intervened in the
PAC Postscript Williams: Chalk to Me 10
The Search for Useful Knowledge in a Local, Rhetorical Ecology
conversation. They shared or enacted distributed knowledge, experience, and activities. As I
picked up my own chalk, in short, I became part of this broader rhetorical environment.
A little history may help further untangle the backdrop to the Fall 2016 chalkings. For
those unfamiliar with what happened at the university during the Spring 2016 semester, a local
news reporter writes, “It started with a poster” (Kays, 2016, n.p.). That is, as part of the
nationally celebrated Black History Month, some students set up an Intercultural Affairs (ICA)
display that referenced the 2012 shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. A
university student/staffer posted on Facebook about the display and the “lies” circulated by the
#BlackLivesMatter movement; his post elicited racist comments. Students responded with a
#BLM chalk campaign on campus, while anonymous posters on the social-media site, Yik Yak,
countered with anonymous, intensely racist comments that were seen by some students.
students and Facebook posters who were not anonymous. On April 4, a group of students,
children, and adults of various ethnicities staged a live protest at the [fountain]. They circled the
fountain at the plaza, held up #BLM posters, and supplemented their performance with chalkings
underway in campuses across the United States, from the University of Tennessee to the
This series of incidents illustrates the complex ecology in which chalking is situated: “a
network of independent agents [who] act and interact in parallel with each other, simultaneously
reacting to and co-constructing their own environment” (Syverson, 1999, p. 3). That is, the
events that unfolded from February 2016 to April 2016 demonstrated the inter-connectedness of
campus communication, social media, students, administrators, and national events. In this case,
PAC Postscript Williams: Chalk to Me 11
The Search for Useful Knowledge in a Local, Rhetorical Ecology
smaller ecologies (a poster display, a local chalking campaign) interacted with larger ecologies
(the campus as a whole and its student, administration, and staff subsets; potentially global
social-media ecologies like Facebook, Twitter, and Yik Yak; and national movements and
(“Dump Trump” and “Black Lives Matter”) took form and circulated through the rhetorical
ecology. In short, chalking’s ecology showed signs of Syversonian emergence. The campus
Although I was not on campus to see these events first-hand, I had heard about them and
had informally asked fellow students and professors what they remembered. And as I thought
about WCU’s recent chalking history, I was reminded of the spread and evolution of the “Keep
Austin Weird” movement Edbauer examines. Drawing on the rhetorical ecology work of
Syverson and others, Edbauer emphasizes that the rhetoric situation is not as simple as Lloyd
Bitzer (1968) would have it. Arguing for a linear relationship involving such elements as
exigence, audience, and response, he had declared, “[T]he situation … calls the discourse into
existence" (Bitzer, p. 2). Bitzer had also defined the rhetorical situation as “a natural context of
persons, events, objects, relations, and an exigence which strongly invites utterances” (p. 6). His
framework is linear and logical. But Edbauer, like Syverson, argues that rhetorical reality is not
that operates within an ecological framework and shows the movement or circulation of ideas
and texts similar to the chalkings. In response to the bumper stickers that were distributed in
Austin, Edbauer (2005) writes, someone posted a “piece of white paper … on the side of a
newspaper stand. In all block letters, the words read: ‘Keep Austin fucking normal. Conform. It’s
PAC Postscript Williams: Chalk to Me 12
The Search for Useful Knowledge in a Local, Rhetorical Ecology
just easier.’ [Such] counter-rhetorics directly respond to and resist the original exigence [and]
expand the lived experience of the original rhetorics by adding to them” (p. 19, emphasis in the
original). From Warner (2002), we know that “a public comes into being only in relation to texts
corollary/response (p. 66). In short, the original Austin message “circulate[d] in a wide ecology
of rhetorics [and] accrete[d] over time” (Edbauer, 2005, pp. 19-20). The Austin message
gathered meaning, or rhetorical weight, to which audiences and rhetors continued to respond.
In both Edbauer’s “Keep Austin Weird” example and in the Spring 2016 chalkings on my
campus, rhetorical ecologies demonstrate that discourse evolves. The rhetorical situation is more
than simple stuff happens / we act (apologies to Bitzer with this oversimplification). Further,
despite the ever-revolving student body, knowledge of chalkings gathers over time; some sort of
collective memory lingers, whether students share stories of previous events or professors and
staff (who are around for much longer) foster long-term or ongoing awareness. Such ecologies
are complex; they are living and non-static. They are, in Syverson’s framework, distributed and
Viewing the informal discourse of chalking in terms of rhetorical ecologies provides a practical
metaphor for understanding the evolution and decay of campus discourse in general, and the
social and physical circumstances that contribute to its movement and patterns. Further, this
chalk-based messaging system resembles such digital ecologies as discussion forums or social-
media feeds. As Gries (2012) remarks, “[T]hinking ecologically acknowledges the dynamic
complexity of these networked systems, the interrelated, laminated layers of activities that
constitute them, and the mutual transformation that occurs among intertwined elements” (p. 51).
PAC Postscript Williams: Chalk to Me 13
The Search for Useful Knowledge in a Local, Rhetorical Ecology
One of those transformations is the rise and fall of publics and counterpublics within the
chalking ecology, as mentioned earlier, and within the broader ecology of the campus as a whole.
That is, chalking invites passersby to read as they walk past or stop to read, not unlike motorists
reacting to billboards on the highway (thankfully, most of them rarely stop in the middle of the
road to read the things). In this process, there is an interactive back-and-forth movement between
rhetor and audience; unlike Bitzer’s static view of situation-rhetor-audience, chalking engages in
an organic way. A chalking might be ignored, laughed at, grumbled about. Its most engaged
public will write over it, wash it away, report it to campus administration, or launch a counter-
campaign. Chalking is common, somewhat valued on campus, cuts across various public and
counterpublic spheres, and invites response. I add that chalking is performative, involving the
interaction of bodies with the environment, texts, and other elements both social and material.
Chalking is, to apply Syverson (1999), “dependent on, and reflective of, physical experience” (p.
I gathered and pondered such ideas as I developed a plan and etched my first chalk
message. Middleton et al. (2011) note that “processual forms of rhetorical action [may be]
accessible only through participatory methods (and … flattened when those forms of rhetorical
action are reduced to exclusively textual representations)” (p. 387). As they explain, qualitative
and ethnographic methods of rhetorical analysis can provide insight into the process or, in the
case of chalking, into a rhetorical ecology. Like natural or biological ecologies, chalking entails a
dynamic system of chalk, talk, interrupt, engage, ignore. It occurs in both time and space, in what
seem to be random patterns and placements across campus but are concentrated in the area of
PAC Postscript Williams: Chalk to Me 14
The Search for Useful Knowledge in a Local, Rhetorical Ecology
highest traffic (the central plaza). To study chalking more fully, I needed to do it, to step into its
milieu. So I mapped its outlines informally, starting with the underlying ecology(ies): the
environment and/geography of the campus, chalking’s possible rhetors and “readers,” and its
historical/social context. The university’s physical environment includes a system and pattern of
sidewalks, buildings, trees, hillsides, flat areas, and other features that constrain, encourage, or
protect delivery (a section of sidewalk covered by a building archway, for example, shields
chalkings from rain but also accosts students as they enter/exit that building or walk under the
arch). Outside forces add another layer that can catalyze the system or constrain it, such as the
As I plotted the delivery and possible circulation of my chalk campaign, I considered the
university’s physical environment, as noted above; its temporal environment (time of day,
events, and campaigns. I plotted and placed chalkings that on sidewalks extending from well-
trafficked buildings and parking lots and ending at the central plaza. Afterward, I observed chalk
messages, events, and campaigns (my own and others), noting “reader” or “passerby” reactions
to them; and catalogued chalkings (by photographing, and/or transcribing them). In the vein of
Gries’ (2013) iconographic tracking method for “empirically account[ing] for how images flow,
transform, and contribute to collective life,” such considerations situated my study (p. 337). I
took notes on date, location, and text to denote an “original” chalking message,
ecology as visual rhetoric. Some colors stand out more than others on the two types of surfaces
(red brick or gray concrete); effective chalking requires large, bold characters and images; and
PAC Postscript Williams: Chalk to Me 15
The Search for Useful Knowledge in a Local, Rhetorical Ecology
chalking occurs mainly at the most traveled points in the physical network. Based on a weather
morning. I added one more element: I left pieces of chalk near each sidewalk message, in the
hopes that readers would pick them up and respond to #ChalkToMe. By Tuesday, heavy rains
I also used Twitter, which encourages sharing and/or recomposition. Kathleen Yancey
(2004) says that we “already inhabit a model of communication practices incorporating multiple
genres related to each other, those multiple genres remediated across contexts of time and space,
linked one to the next, circulating across and around rhetorical situations both inside and outside
school” (p. 308). I used the means of persuasion available, and as a former journalist, I had both
Bitzer (1992) says, “A work of rhetoric is pragmatic. It comes into existence for the sake of
something beyond itself; it functions ultimately to produce action or change in the world” (p. 3).
In several tweets delivered in the days leading up to my chalkings and afterward, I combined
these hashtagged ideas into a core message: “#ivote #uVote #WHEEvote = #democracy.” I also
tweeted about a small group of students who were publishing voter-registration guides, hosting
presidential debate parties, and urging fellow students everyone to vote. I talked with one of
those organizers, who steered me toward fellow students handling the voter-registration
campaign’s social-media outreach. These students, however, were not very active on Twitter. I
monitored similar state and national efforts, passing along useful information for voters via
Twitter. To minimize negative appropriation, such as retweets by the many “haters” and trolls in
the #Election2016 cycle, I also made a conscious choice to keep my posts nonpartisan—no
however, I was not thinking about rhetorical ecologies, human-nonhuman agents, publics-
over my shoulder because I was worried about being seen. I also wondered whether anyone
would pick up the chalk I planned to leave next to the phrase, #ChalkToMe, and, if they did,
would they choose to be crude or thoughtful? Would they notice the twitterized hashtag approach
and share my message via social media? Woman-with-chalk, I felt the same rush I had as a kid,
picking up a No. 2 pencil and writing about my latest summer vacation in a Red Chief notebook
(a nod to my fellow Baby Boomers here). The vacation report had a limited audience: an
elementary-school teacher. My chalk message, on the other hand, could reach thousands of
students.
“Sometimes, you know, you have a moment,” Yancey (2004) says. “How we value [our
moments] is in part a function of how we understand them, how we connect them to other
moments, how we anticipate the moments to come” (Yancey, 2004, p. 297). Conversations
bloom across campus, disperse, and disappear. Stepping into that rhetorical ecology, I
experienced its limitations and possibilities. For example, one response to a “#iVote /
used on Twitter and Yik Yak. Another chalk-responder delivered a counter-message urging
people to vote for the Libertarian presidential candidate. A nearby response filled the sidewalk
with a misogynistic twist on “if you need a job…” But one reader drew an elaborate, colorful
PAC Postscript Williams: Chalk to Me 17
The Search for Useful Knowledge in a Local, Rhetorical Ecology
swirl that seemed happy and hopeful (see Figure 2). One of my messages, placed under an
archway between dorms, survived the Tuesday rain, although letters at the edges were faded.
Figure 2: This chalking appeared as a response to the #ChalkToMe invitation in the Fall 2016 campaign.
Nonetheless, analytics indicate that I gained few new followers on Twitter and inspired
few retweets. The #ChalkToMe message elicited a handful of responses, as noted above. It was
far from certain that I had encouraged anyone to register to vote. By choosing to be neutral and
non-provocative, I may have limited both the circulation of my messages and the possible
responses. Perhaps, by Gillam and Wooden’s measure, I had also failed to integrate into the
“communicative ecology” I sought to enter. With few campus-based followers and low activity
from student tweeters, the muted response to my social-media campaign was predictable.
Furthermore, as with Twitter, chalking seems to encourage anonymity and thus an element of
Papper, (2008) who express “a belief in the possibility of both a coherent story of reality and
multiple coherent stories” (p. 390). What is the long-term “story” that the chalking phenomenon
reveals? Students, staff, and professors still talk about the Spring 2016 events, and some seem to
be actively, albeit quietly, continuing to respond, like the Beat poetry campaign, sparked by a
PAC Postscript Williams: Chalk to Me 18
The Search for Useful Knowledge in a Local, Rhetorical Ecology
professor whose students had questioned how to respond to antagonistic Election 2016
chalkings; some of these students had witnessed the Spring 2016 chalking-related events. With
messages espousing themes of protest, peace, and perspective, their rhetorical intervention and
others like them may help keep chalking dialogues civil. The Beat-poetry campaign also
demonstrates one way that chalking continues to evolve on campus over time. But in a larger
sense, the moment of heightened chalking had passed before the presidential election season was
even over.
In any case, how does my research and initial findings suggest a learning unit for first
year writing? A full discussion exceeds the limits of this essay, but I can offer a preview of the
possibilities. At the university, all students are required to take a sequence of writing courses,
ENGL 101 Writing and Rhetoric, and ENGL 202 Writing and Critical Inquiry. Both classes are
grounded in the basics of rhetoric: What is ethos? Pathos? Logos? What is the rhetorical
situation? How do we construct arguments? How do we make meaning in the world? For
example, a common assignment for ENGL 101 is a rhetorical analysis. Many students struggle
with understanding the basic concepts, couched in Greek and other fancy words; visual rhetoric
often helps them see rhetoric in action. Both in composition textbooks and classrooms,
advertisements often fulfill this approach. But I chose chalking examples, drawing from Gillam
and Wooden’s ideas for fostering interactive, collaborative practices in the classroom. Chalking,
like other modes of informal discourse, is present and continually enacted in the students’
immediate environment.
PAC Postscript Williams: Chalk to Me 19
The Search for Useful Knowledge in a Local, Rhetorical Ecology
As students were in the process of choosing texts to study for their first paper, a rhetorical
analysis, I showed slides of present, recent, and past chalkings. I asked them questions about
fonts, colors, medium, arrangement, and message. We discussed how these elements contributed
color choices, bad lighting, or arrangement? Students easily identified basic problems or
successes, such as long, textual messages that were hard to read because they did not fit in the
visual “frame” of a casual passerby; or colorful etchings that drew attention and invited response.
Students also related to the context of chalking campaigns that occurred before they came to
campus as freshmen. One student, for example, chose to create a chalking campaign as part of a
chalkings they had seen on campus, shared them with the class, and analyzed them rhetorically.
One student was inspired by a chalking that showed rhetors recomposing a “Black Lives Matter”
chalking by crossing out “Black” and replacing it with “BLUE,” then crossing out “BLUE” and
replace it with “HUMANS.” In each “edit,” the student wrote, different rhetors were
communicating what they thought or believed about race, police actions, and our shared
humanity. The tension between these beliefs had sparked protests in his hometown, Charlotte,
N.C., after police shot and killed 43-year-old Keith Lamont Smith in mid-September 2016
(Domonoske, 2016). With a question not easily answered, the student wrote of the chalking
Campus chalkings often address big issues, but even in the mundane (“FREE
CUPCAKES TODAY!”) they offer a localized, tangible element to class discussions and
assignments. My point is that such modes of informal discourse allow students to create their
own meaning-making in the rhetorical ecologies they move through and intervene in. Chalking
PAC Postscript Williams: Chalk to Me 20
The Search for Useful Knowledge in a Local, Rhetorical Ecology
highlights the “drive of people to interact socially” (Porter, 2009, p. 219), even if its “writers” are
rarely seen and are sometimes as disruptive as trolls on the internet. Chalking’s rhetors and
readers nonetheless demonstrate that they are engaged with issues and ready to talk about them.
In October, in connection with a national campaign, messages about domestic violence spread
from the plaza to the library, written in childlike block letters and plain white chalk: “LOVE
DOESN’T HURT,” for example. If we, as teachers and scholars, can understand this ecology and
what it says about our students and their culture, then chalking affords a possible way to engage
them in meaningful assignments and activities. Claude Hurlsburt (2012) suggests, “If we have
learned anything in composition studies over the last thirty years, it is that formal exercises do
not, largely, encourage student engagement” (p. 35). Could chalking somehow also help us
who found that millennials remain sensitive to issues of free speech, including how we mediate
hate speech yet engage in meaningful conversations. Also, Simmons and Grabill (2007)
history of people communicating to change communities but also to help students develop habits
of mind that will enable them to recognize problems and design inquiry strategies to work
toward solutions” (p. 442). If chalking and other campus-oriented, informal forms of discourse
provide available means of persuasion within or as a rhetorical ecology, then students of all
levels can learn to evaluate chalking as rhetoric and, in a variety of situations, use what they
learn. As Gillam and Wooden (2013) say of their goals, “Ideally, our students would think and
write in environments rich with interpersonal communication, rewarding collaboration, and the
formation of productive learning communities” (p. 25). In other words, chalking can be a way for
PAC Postscript Williams: Chalk to Me 21
The Search for Useful Knowledge in a Local, Rhetorical Ecology
students to enter the dialogue of engaged citizenship. “Writing itself is always activism,” say
Marback and Bruch (2013, p. 61). If not chalking, other modes of informal discourse, from
bulletin-board messages to event posters, Snapchat to the 6-second video app Vine, might open
the door to dialogue and critical inquiry. The key to finding that doorway is stepping back and
Works Cited
Ball, J. (2016, March 17). WCU chancellor responds to racially charged posts. Asheville Citizen-
Bitzer, L. F. (1992). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, vol. 25 [Supplement], 1-
Chemerinsky, E., and Gillman, H. (2016). What students think about free speech. Chronicle of
https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-Students-Think-About-Free/235897
Cooper, M. (1986). The ecology of writing. College English, 48(4), 364-375. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/377264
Domonoske, C. (2016, September 21). After fatal police shooting, protest erupts in Charlotte,
way/2016/09/21/494844130/after-police-shooting-protesters-in-charlotte-n-c-shut-down-
interstate
rhetorical ecologies. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 35(4), 5-24. Retrieved from http://0-
search.proquest.com.wncln.wncln.org/docview/216251770?accountid=14968
PAC Postscript Williams: Chalk to Me 23
The Search for Useful Knowledge in a Local, Rhetorical Ecology
Fleckenstein, K. S., Spinuzzi, C., Rickly, R. J., & Papper, C. C. (2008). The importance of
Gillam, K., & Wooden, S. R. (2013). Re-embodying online composition: Ecologies of writing in
actancy. In Dobrin, S. I. (Ed.), Ecology, Writing Theory, and New Media: Writing
——. (2013). Iconographic tracking: A digital research method for visual rhetoric and circulation
Hurlbert, C. (2012). National healing: Race, state, and the teaching of composition. University
Karpf, Juanita. (2012). The last dramatic instructional innovation? The chalkboard and music
Kays, H. (2016, April 20). Promoting civility: Online posts prompt discussion about race and
Krueger, S. H. (2016, March 14). Black Lives Matter at Western Carolina University.
Kutner, Max. (2016, April 9). Armed with chalk, Trump supporters are a new breed of college
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/04/29/students-trump-old-row-chalkening-445923.html
PAC Postscript Williams: Chalk to Me 24
The Search for Useful Knowledge in a Local, Rhetorical Ecology
Mays, C. (2015). From “flows” to “excess”: On stability, stubbornness, and blockage in
to-excess
Middleton, M. K., Senda-Cook, S., & Endres, D. (2011). Articulating rhetorical field methods:
doi:10.1080/10570314.2011.586969
Porter, J. E. (2009). Recovering delivery for digital rhetoric. Computers and Composition, 26,
Potts, L. (2009). Using Actor Network Theory to trace and improve multimodal communication
10.1080/10572250902941812.
Rivers, N. A., & Weber, R. P. (2011). Ecological, pedagogical, public rhetoric. College
www.jstor.org/stable/23131582
Romano, S. (1980, July 14). Sidewalk Sam's street corner art is here today, walked on tomorrow.
here-today-walked-on-tomorrow-vol-14-no-2/
Simkiss, A. (2016, April 7). Students & faculty protest to bring awareness to racial tensions at
http://www.thewesterncarolinajournalist.com/2016/04/07/students-faculty-protest-to-
bring-awareness-to-racial-tensions-at-western-carolina-university/
PAC Postscript Williams: Chalk to Me 25
The Search for Useful Knowledge in a Local, Rhetorical Ecology
Simmons, W. M., & Grabill, J. (2007). Toward a civic rhetoric for technologically and
Strate, L. (2008). Studying media as media: McLuhan and the media ecology approach.
Yancey, K. B. (2004). Made not only in words: Composition in a new key. College Composition
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4140651