What is discourse? This is the first question the students of W350 Sustainable Public Discourse, were asked to think about on the first day of class. As the question was asked the room became silent as we all pondered this seeminly simple term. It turned out not to be so simple however. I find myslef, still today wondering, what is discourse?
Through class discussions and various readings we have been given examples of different types of discourse with many different aims and goals. These genre samples have proven the term "discourse" to be anything by simple. It is a term which holds a slightly different meaning for each person. For some it may be argumentation while for others it may be propaganda. These definitions have both proven to be true throughout the semester.
It is very interesting the many forms that discourse can take, as well as, the many things that it can mean. After reading from authors like Selzer, Killingsworth, Kinneavy, and many others, we have learned what it is to create persuasive and informative discourse for an audience, but it seems nearly impossible to place a solid definition to the word. This makes me realize that discourse, like the informational world in which it is utilized, is an ever changing thing which is shaped and molded to fit where it is needed. There is not concrete answer for what discourse is, because it is not a concrete thing.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
The 11th Hour
On Monday, October 18th students and instructors gathered for a film screening of the film "The 11th Hour". This film takes it's audience around the world discussing and bringing environmental worries to the larger public. When we first viewed the film, I thought it was simply because our course is based around the theme of sustainabilty, but now after we have spent time reading and studying different forms of discourse I am aware of a different way to look at the film.
After viewing the film, students were able to ask a group of experts questions and discuss the topics of the film with them. One thing that stuck out to me was a question posed by Matt Auer, Dean of Huttons Honors College. He asked "Imagine someone who isn't sympathetic to the issues in the film. What is the most influential thing in the film for them?" I was drawn to this question, because it was not simply about the content, but how discourse was modified to fit all audience members no matter their environmental cares. It is safe to say that most students were drawn to this question, most likely because it brought up the issue of form as well as content.
This reminds me that no matter the content of any discourse, it is important to make it worth while to everyone reading. "The 11th Hour" was made interesting for those who have no emotional connection to the environment because of the fact that it was focused on not just informing it's audience, but also entertaining them. One major thing disucssed was the fact that it was narrated by Leonardo DiCaprio and that it was made into a feature length film instead of a short TV documentary only viewed by History Channel buffs.
While "The 11th Hour" is mainly focused on environmental issues, writers and directors were careful to make it enjoyable for every audience member. This is an important thing to learn in order to make any piece of discourse accessable to a large audience.
After viewing the film, students were able to ask a group of experts questions and discuss the topics of the film with them. One thing that stuck out to me was a question posed by Matt Auer, Dean of Huttons Honors College. He asked "Imagine someone who isn't sympathetic to the issues in the film. What is the most influential thing in the film for them?" I was drawn to this question, because it was not simply about the content, but how discourse was modified to fit all audience members no matter their environmental cares. It is safe to say that most students were drawn to this question, most likely because it brought up the issue of form as well as content.
This reminds me that no matter the content of any discourse, it is important to make it worth while to everyone reading. "The 11th Hour" was made interesting for those who have no emotional connection to the environment because of the fact that it was focused on not just informing it's audience, but also entertaining them. One major thing disucssed was the fact that it was narrated by Leonardo DiCaprio and that it was made into a feature length film instead of a short TV documentary only viewed by History Channel buffs.
While "The 11th Hour" is mainly focused on environmental issues, writers and directors were careful to make it enjoyable for every audience member. This is an important thing to learn in order to make any piece of discourse accessable to a large audience.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Form Matters
In Studs Turkel's article, "Community in Action", he takes his audience through four of the five classical oration steps discussed by Ross Winterowd. Winterowd states that classical oration is divided into "exordium to gain the audience's attention, narratio to state the speaker's case, confirmatio to prove that case, reprehensio to refute the opponent's case, and peroratio to sum up" (40).
Turkel gains the attention (exordium) of his audience in his very first sentence by describing the many horrible things that he witnessed because of the Great Depression. This brings readers in and causes them to become emotionally invested in Turkel's story. He then moves on to state his case by saying "And this is my belief too: that it's the community in action that accomplishes more than any individual does, not matter how strong he may be" (Turkel). This statement makes his purpose for writing very clear and also leaves no doubt in the readers mind as to what he believes. Turkel goes on to "confirmatio" to prove that the society as a collective whole is more influential than one citizen could ever be by describing his own life during the time. He talks about how groups were "fighting for rights of laborers and the rights of women, and the rights of all people different from the majority" (Turkel). Because of the fact that Turkel's article is not written as a response to anyone else, he does not seem to refute the ideas of another group or person. He moves on to the last step, peroratio, and sums up his very simple claim by saying "And that happens to be my belief, and I'll put it into three words: community in action. Here he very simply and quickly wraps up his argument and leaves readers knowing exactly what they were intended to have gained from his article.
For my historical analysis I would like to look into the idea of body image in American culture. This would include the many different ways in which beauty has been defined throughout history and how people are influenced by public discourse on the issue. I am interested in thinking about why the ideal beauty has changed and how this ideal might be yet again changed in order to allow those who do not share the "perfect" body to be accepted and feel comfertable within our society today. My general genre for this issue would be body image in the 21st century.
Turkel gains the attention (exordium) of his audience in his very first sentence by describing the many horrible things that he witnessed because of the Great Depression. This brings readers in and causes them to become emotionally invested in Turkel's story. He then moves on to state his case by saying "And this is my belief too: that it's the community in action that accomplishes more than any individual does, not matter how strong he may be" (Turkel). This statement makes his purpose for writing very clear and also leaves no doubt in the readers mind as to what he believes. Turkel goes on to "confirmatio" to prove that the society as a collective whole is more influential than one citizen could ever be by describing his own life during the time. He talks about how groups were "fighting for rights of laborers and the rights of women, and the rights of all people different from the majority" (Turkel). Because of the fact that Turkel's article is not written as a response to anyone else, he does not seem to refute the ideas of another group or person. He moves on to the last step, peroratio, and sums up his very simple claim by saying "And that happens to be my belief, and I'll put it into three words: community in action. Here he very simply and quickly wraps up his argument and leaves readers knowing exactly what they were intended to have gained from his article.
For my historical analysis I would like to look into the idea of body image in American culture. This would include the many different ways in which beauty has been defined throughout history and how people are influenced by public discourse on the issue. I am interested in thinking about why the ideal beauty has changed and how this ideal might be yet again changed in order to allow those who do not share the "perfect" body to be accepted and feel comfertable within our society today. My general genre for this issue would be body image in the 21st century.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Conflict Happens
In this post I will be responding to three questions posed about how conflict within the writen language can be both discovered and used to an artists' advantage.
Question 1) I recently had a misunderstanding with one of my coworkers. We were disscussing our college expierieces and he felt that the most important part of college life was the partying and having fun. I, on the other hand felt that work and school should come before the partys. We went back and forth for a while on the issue, getting nowhere, when I realized that we were not going to come to an agreement, because we do not share the same history and experiences. In this situation level 3 of Kaufer's system was in action.
Level three happens when two people "possess conflicitng evidence" (Kaufer 58) on the issue at hand. It became clear to me that we had this issue when my coworker mentioned that his older brother, who had a very active party life in college, was a recent graduate. The stories which his brother had told him made the party life seem like the best way to spend college. I, on the other hand grew up with a parent who was not able to go to college and is now struggling because of it. I have seen how difficult it is for someone to raise a family on a lower income and want to do well in college so that I will be better off.
Although our disagreement was not solved through this understanding, we were able to move on knowing that we came from very different backgrounds.
Question 2) In his article "An End to History", Mario Savio discusses his work in both Mississippi and the campus of Berkley. He works to better understand and break down the strict rules placed on students and lower class citizens. One way that he does this is by alluding to Aldous Huxley's novel "Brave New World". This piece which is set many years in our future is about how the human race has been changed or reprogrammed to become better than ever. Those in power have come up with a process of conditioning people in order to get them to fit into a certian group and perform certian tasks. This world sets up very strict rules and barriers that citizens are severely punished for if broken. Although Huxley's novel is fiction Savio uses it to compare to the struggle which he sees by the more repressed groups in society (mainly lower class citizens of Mississippi and students at Berkley) for more rights and a stronger voice within the community. He uses Huxley's work to show the horrible things that can come from the government having the power to quiet citizens.
By alluding to "Brave New World" Savio also presents the idea that it is the citizens responsibility to fight against repression if they are to keep any sort of voice at all. In the novel, people are created and conditioned without a second thought. They are raised to close their minds to anything other than what has always been presented to them. Savio urges his readers to work against discrimination and refuse to blend in.
Question 4) Bullard works in the stasis of cause within his article in order to make his point clear using historical facts. This is only one of many approaches he could have taken in the piece. This route was most likely the best way to express his views without making his piece seem completely elementary. If he were to work in the stasis of fact or value he would have a few problems. If he were to do this he may run into disagreements with his audience. Looking back to Kaufer's 5 levels of conflict it can be seen that fact and value can be very shady areas to work in. Bullard, as well as Wells and Savio, had no idea of knowing exactly who their audience was going to be while writing. Without having this information they would have surely run into differences in value and fact.
Every person has slightly different values so by working mainly from the value stasis each writer would have cast out many readers. This is the same for the stasis of fact. A fact to one person may not be the same for another. If the writer chooses to write purely from their own factual knowledge some readers may not accept it, because they do not agree that it is truely a fact. By working with historical happenings each author did not need to work around these issues. It is possible to dispute historical facts, but they are more concreate than both values and facts. By using history each author made their piece accessable and acceptable to a much wider audience.
Question 1) I recently had a misunderstanding with one of my coworkers. We were disscussing our college expierieces and he felt that the most important part of college life was the partying and having fun. I, on the other hand felt that work and school should come before the partys. We went back and forth for a while on the issue, getting nowhere, when I realized that we were not going to come to an agreement, because we do not share the same history and experiences. In this situation level 3 of Kaufer's system was in action.
Level three happens when two people "possess conflicitng evidence" (Kaufer 58) on the issue at hand. It became clear to me that we had this issue when my coworker mentioned that his older brother, who had a very active party life in college, was a recent graduate. The stories which his brother had told him made the party life seem like the best way to spend college. I, on the other hand grew up with a parent who was not able to go to college and is now struggling because of it. I have seen how difficult it is for someone to raise a family on a lower income and want to do well in college so that I will be better off.
Although our disagreement was not solved through this understanding, we were able to move on knowing that we came from very different backgrounds.
Question 2) In his article "An End to History", Mario Savio discusses his work in both Mississippi and the campus of Berkley. He works to better understand and break down the strict rules placed on students and lower class citizens. One way that he does this is by alluding to Aldous Huxley's novel "Brave New World". This piece which is set many years in our future is about how the human race has been changed or reprogrammed to become better than ever. Those in power have come up with a process of conditioning people in order to get them to fit into a certian group and perform certian tasks. This world sets up very strict rules and barriers that citizens are severely punished for if broken. Although Huxley's novel is fiction Savio uses it to compare to the struggle which he sees by the more repressed groups in society (mainly lower class citizens of Mississippi and students at Berkley) for more rights and a stronger voice within the community. He uses Huxley's work to show the horrible things that can come from the government having the power to quiet citizens.
By alluding to "Brave New World" Savio also presents the idea that it is the citizens responsibility to fight against repression if they are to keep any sort of voice at all. In the novel, people are created and conditioned without a second thought. They are raised to close their minds to anything other than what has always been presented to them. Savio urges his readers to work against discrimination and refuse to blend in.
Question 4) Bullard works in the stasis of cause within his article in order to make his point clear using historical facts. This is only one of many approaches he could have taken in the piece. This route was most likely the best way to express his views without making his piece seem completely elementary. If he were to work in the stasis of fact or value he would have a few problems. If he were to do this he may run into disagreements with his audience. Looking back to Kaufer's 5 levels of conflict it can be seen that fact and value can be very shady areas to work in. Bullard, as well as Wells and Savio, had no idea of knowing exactly who their audience was going to be while writing. Without having this information they would have surely run into differences in value and fact.
Every person has slightly different values so by working mainly from the value stasis each writer would have cast out many readers. This is the same for the stasis of fact. A fact to one person may not be the same for another. If the writer chooses to write purely from their own factual knowledge some readers may not accept it, because they do not agree that it is truely a fact. By working with historical happenings each author did not need to work around these issues. It is possible to dispute historical facts, but they are more concreate than both values and facts. By using history each author made their piece accessable and acceptable to a much wider audience.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Blind Progress
In Jonah Lehrer's article "The Future of Reading", he clearly expresses his love of reading and the written word. In the piece he discusses the fact that technology is causing major changes in the way that reading is being done. As an author Lehrer uses his degree in neuroscience and literary training to bring common issues into a slightly different light. His writing takes on a scientific mood while remaining entertaining. I find this interesting, because his article seems to be working in both a scientific and literary way.
In their piece "The Stases in Scientific and Literary Argument", Jeanne Fahnestock and Marie Secor discuss that scientific articles go through the statses of "face, definition, and cause" (436). I found this to be true in Lehrer's article. He begins with the fact that our world is going digital. He then goes on to define why he is wary of such advancements by bringing to light how different formatted text is perceived by the brain. He states that "the words will shimmer on the screen, but the sentences will be quickly forgotten" (Lehrer, Future of Reading). The cause which he presents is that the brain can more easily read text on an electronic screen, but comprehension is hindered. Lehrer goes on to incoporate the last two stases mentioned by Fahnestock and Secor of evaluation and proposal. The fact that he does this makes it clear that this is no dry scientific blog. Lehrer wishes to connect with his audience by drawing them in and incorporating his literary style in with his scientific findings.
Lehrer's very first sentence and paragraph introduces an idea that "the future of books is digital". This tells much about the audience he is writing for and what he assumes his readers know and have experienced. If he were writing for citizens of a country other than one that is culturally connected to books, he may not be able to make this generalization. Lehrer, being from England, is also used to a literary culture. Also, the fact that he has had an extensive educational background make it unlikely that he woul dbe writing for an audience he has no understanding of. The fact that this article is published on a scientific blog also makes it more geared towards those who care about the functions of the brain.
Lehrer makes his text entertaining by not only appealing to his audiences love of science, but to books as well. He does not simply give a factual account of the process of reading. He carefully incorperates this information while using literary moves to draw his reader in. He does not neglect the fact that his audience is made up of those who choose to read for the fun of it. The piece would have no effect on someone who can not relate to his love for reading. Those who do, however, are most likely impressed by his ability to make neuroscience interesting.
In their piece "The Stases in Scientific and Literary Argument", Jeanne Fahnestock and Marie Secor discuss that scientific articles go through the statses of "face, definition, and cause" (436). I found this to be true in Lehrer's article. He begins with the fact that our world is going digital. He then goes on to define why he is wary of such advancements by bringing to light how different formatted text is perceived by the brain. He states that "the words will shimmer on the screen, but the sentences will be quickly forgotten" (Lehrer, Future of Reading). The cause which he presents is that the brain can more easily read text on an electronic screen, but comprehension is hindered. Lehrer goes on to incoporate the last two stases mentioned by Fahnestock and Secor of evaluation and proposal. The fact that he does this makes it clear that this is no dry scientific blog. Lehrer wishes to connect with his audience by drawing them in and incorporating his literary style in with his scientific findings.
Lehrer's very first sentence and paragraph introduces an idea that "the future of books is digital". This tells much about the audience he is writing for and what he assumes his readers know and have experienced. If he were writing for citizens of a country other than one that is culturally connected to books, he may not be able to make this generalization. Lehrer, being from England, is also used to a literary culture. Also, the fact that he has had an extensive educational background make it unlikely that he woul dbe writing for an audience he has no understanding of. The fact that this article is published on a scientific blog also makes it more geared towards those who care about the functions of the brain.
Lehrer makes his text entertaining by not only appealing to his audiences love of science, but to books as well. He does not simply give a factual account of the process of reading. He carefully incorperates this information while using literary moves to draw his reader in. He does not neglect the fact that his audience is made up of those who choose to read for the fun of it. The piece would have no effect on someone who can not relate to his love for reading. Those who do, however, are most likely impressed by his ability to make neuroscience interesting.
Friday, September 17, 2010
SA 2: "One Day, Now Broken in Two"
Anna Quindlen's article, "One Day, Now Broken In Two" speaks to those who were affected by the bombings of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Within this article, she attempts to bring her audience together by recollecting this horrific time by discussing how she and the entire country have worked to live with the devistation. It feels to me that Quindlen is attempting to appeal to her readers by drawing out their strong emotions regarding the attack. She does this by mentioning her son and how the day of his birth, September 11th, will always be joyful and heartbreaking. It seems that Quindlen is expecting those reading her article to share this same feeling due to the loss of a loved one in the bombings.
If we take Ong's chapter, "The Audience is Always Fiction" into consideration and entire new layer is added to Quindlen's piece. I feel that as she was writing her article she was imagining her audience to be those who feel pain and horror when recollecting the bombings of September 11th. It is interesting to thingk about how this article could be changed by simply shifting the tone in which she speaks. While this article feels strong epideictic, a few small changes could shift the focus entirely. If Quindlen had chosen to take a deliberative approach on the issue, she could have imagined her audience to be those who are very bitter about the bombings and wish to take violent action. It may be a stretch, but the piece could be a call for even further revolt from Americans. By asking the question "Who are we now?" she gives the reader a choice as to what type of responder they wish to be. This could also be seen as a mocking statment used to presuade readers into taking action.
This article could easily be shifted by a few simple sarcastic undertones used to enrage Quindlen's already upset readers. Her current article seems to be having a conversation, as well as sympathizing, with those who were beaten down and terrified by the disaster, but she could have writtne it to aim for those who wish to take revenge on the attackers by simply shifting her focus ever so slightly.
If we take Ong's chapter, "The Audience is Always Fiction" into consideration and entire new layer is added to Quindlen's piece. I feel that as she was writing her article she was imagining her audience to be those who feel pain and horror when recollecting the bombings of September 11th. It is interesting to thingk about how this article could be changed by simply shifting the tone in which she speaks. While this article feels strong epideictic, a few small changes could shift the focus entirely. If Quindlen had chosen to take a deliberative approach on the issue, she could have imagined her audience to be those who are very bitter about the bombings and wish to take violent action. It may be a stretch, but the piece could be a call for even further revolt from Americans. By asking the question "Who are we now?" she gives the reader a choice as to what type of responder they wish to be. This could also be seen as a mocking statment used to presuade readers into taking action.
This article could easily be shifted by a few simple sarcastic undertones used to enrage Quindlen's already upset readers. Her current article seems to be having a conversation, as well as sympathizing, with those who were beaten down and terrified by the disaster, but she could have writtne it to aim for those who wish to take revenge on the attackers by simply shifting her focus ever so slightly.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Community in Action SA 1
After reading Terkels piece, Community in Action, I came away with the strong feeling that his intent is to speak positively about the practice of working together within a community. This idea can be further solidified by looking at the context in which the article was written. As he says in the article, Terkel was alive at the time of the Great Depression. He speaks of his memories of his community coming together in order to help their neighbors, and how he believes that it was these acts of kindness which brought the country out of its depression. An example of this is his statement that "it's the community in action that accomplishes more than any individual does".
It is clear that Terkel is a very straight forward speaker who does not try to hind his intentions. He does, however understand the need to appeal to the readers in order to gain their support. In this article, I feel that he is appealing to the logos or logic, of the readers. He states his claim very clearly and gives reasons why it is best for people to work together as opposed to one man working alone. Terkel claims that "the individual discovers his strength as an individual because he has discovered others share his feelings". This also appeals to the values, or pathos, of his readers, because, although he is not writing to those during the Great Depression, the right of individuality is a strong value for those in our country today. It is a right that we take very seriously, and by bringing it up Terkel has incorporated a key American value and shown how this plan of working together can be used to accomplish individuality.
It is interesting to note the fact that his article is published on a radio stations website and was first spoken on the air. It appears to be a very liberal station where everyone is free to speak their beliefs. The title of the show is "This I Believe" which leaves it open to all. When considering this aspect, which Terkel was very aware of while writing, he was most likely writing to liberal people who greatly value individuality and the freedom of fordging ones owe path throughout life.
It is clear that Terkel is a very straight forward speaker who does not try to hind his intentions. He does, however understand the need to appeal to the readers in order to gain their support. In this article, I feel that he is appealing to the logos or logic, of the readers. He states his claim very clearly and gives reasons why it is best for people to work together as opposed to one man working alone. Terkel claims that "the individual discovers his strength as an individual because he has discovered others share his feelings". This also appeals to the values, or pathos, of his readers, because, although he is not writing to those during the Great Depression, the right of individuality is a strong value for those in our country today. It is a right that we take very seriously, and by bringing it up Terkel has incorporated a key American value and shown how this plan of working together can be used to accomplish individuality.
It is interesting to note the fact that his article is published on a radio stations website and was first spoken on the air. It appears to be a very liberal station where everyone is free to speak their beliefs. The title of the show is "This I Believe" which leaves it open to all. When considering this aspect, which Terkel was very aware of while writing, he was most likely writing to liberal people who greatly value individuality and the freedom of fordging ones owe path throughout life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)