{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02719200887902331, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004439511653718091, 'mean_word_length': 5.532608695652174, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Inessential Solidarity: Rhetoric and Foreigner Relations, Diane Davis

our field rather than divide them. The book also offers productive pedagogical insights. In terms of the implications for computers and composition, Ritter avoids urging teachers to simply “get on board” and embrace popular technologies such as the Pink Money site. To the contrary, she suggests that teachers’ presence in extracurricular spaces can be counterproductive, inhibiting rather than encouraging student participation (168–69). Instead of “colonizing” these sites, teachers should adopt their “spirit” of “discourse and debate” in ways that encourage students to view themselves as “public rhetoricians in a highly democratic and potentially charged classroom” (168). Overall, the most important contribution of the book is the fundamental challenge it poses to our field’s somewhat complacent embrace of critical pedagogy, which, Ritter suggests, has not been entirely effective at making use of students’ extracurricular literacy practices. By imagining ourselves to be initiating students into civic discourse, we disregard the ways in which they are already participating in it. Ritter advocates an approach that might be considered a post critical pedagogy model: one that views students as “wholly independent learners who are capable of enacting the principles of civic discourse.” She shows us that the questions and reservations about critical pedagogy still merit consideration. She challenges us to continue questioning our theoretical frameworks, to consider whether we have moved beyond our dominant paradigm, and to ask ourselves, “Where do we go from here?” It may not be possible to answer that question fully in one monograph, but the book raises a question that future scholars cannot afford to ignore.