I just posted the draft of my paper to Google docs for peer review. Yippee!
It's still missing a couple of sections of text, but I'm not too concerned about that. I just hope I don't have to do too much revising -- I'm pooped! I've spent a lot of time on the research and writing and I'd really like to get it done. Soon. This week. Now!
Monday, December 1, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Shortest Blog Post to Date!
I'm completely absorbed in getting the draft of my paper done for tomorrow. In fact, I've spent a gazillion hours on it during the last three days. Whew!
Anyway, I have been doing the reading for tomorrow night's class, which entail a feminist perspective on rhetoric. I'm really enjoying these articles because I did a women's studies minor as an undergrad, and the readings are bringing back fond memories of those days.
I liked Choudhury's article on "adverts" in India and what they're doing to shape people's beliefs and expectations. I'm about half finished reading the Brasseur article, which I find is a little less helpful because it seems to be a recipe for developing a women in rhetoric class, which I have no plans to do. It does contain some valuable nuggets, though, and I'm actually using a quote from it in my paper!
More tomorrow.
Anyway, I have been doing the reading for tomorrow night's class, which entail a feminist perspective on rhetoric. I'm really enjoying these articles because I did a women's studies minor as an undergrad, and the readings are bringing back fond memories of those days.
I liked Choudhury's article on "adverts" in India and what they're doing to shape people's beliefs and expectations. I'm about half finished reading the Brasseur article, which I find is a little less helpful because it seems to be a recipe for developing a women in rhetoric class, which I have no plans to do. It does contain some valuable nuggets, though, and I'm actually using a quote from it in my paper!
More tomorrow.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Readings on Online Environments
Although, again, most of these articles were quite dated, I did enjoy the one by Stephen Bernhardt titled "The Shape of Text to Come: The Texture of Print on Screens." It was a good refresher on strategies for writing for the web, which, as Bernhardt stresses, is vastly different than writing for print.
One excellent point he made is that "there can be no assumption that the reader has built up a model of the logical relations of the text from processing pages in a linear order," and therefore each chunk of the text needs to be able to stand alone.
Another point I related to was "Writers of paper texts are always constrained by length...writing is a process of selection, cutting paring away at what is non-essential or redundant." Due to the current backlash in the workplace against the enormous amount of electronic text people have to read, the paper newsletter is making a comeback. In fact, I write one and collaborate on another in my job. I have definitely gotten out of the habit of having to fit everything that needs to be included into a four-panel newsletter, and it's tough -- especially when I've got an issue laid out and then somebody decides that there needs to be one more story or photo or announcement or whatever added.
The Paradis article, "Text and Action: The Operator's Manual in Context and in Court," was interesting enough for a technical discussion, but the amount of errors in the layout made it frustrating to read. There were lines missing, entire pages repeated, and lines that ended mid-sentence at the bottom of a page. Also, I didn't see a date on this one, or the publication in which it was printed.
The Mirel article, "Writing and Database Technology: Extending the Definition of Writing in the Workplace," was an incredibly detailed analysis of what, to me, is a simple task: including tables of data within a text. I wouldn't have thought this seemingly humble topic could have warranted so much attention, even though I agree that college writing programs could do a better job of teaching people to set up data in graphical formats.
With regard to Racine et al's "Getting to Know Audiences in Cyberspace: A Usability Approach to Designing Skill Centers for Online Writing Centers," I didn't feel that I got a lot of useful information out of this article. The concept of allowing users to help design websites was a good one, but the package it's wrapped in (college writing centers) was directed toward a very specific audience, and therefore, I didn't feel like I was able to glean a lot of information that can be broadly applied.
One excellent point he made is that "there can be no assumption that the reader has built up a model of the logical relations of the text from processing pages in a linear order," and therefore each chunk of the text needs to be able to stand alone.
Another point I related to was "Writers of paper texts are always constrained by length...writing is a process of selection, cutting paring away at what is non-essential or redundant." Due to the current backlash in the workplace against the enormous amount of electronic text people have to read, the paper newsletter is making a comeback. In fact, I write one and collaborate on another in my job. I have definitely gotten out of the habit of having to fit everything that needs to be included into a four-panel newsletter, and it's tough -- especially when I've got an issue laid out and then somebody decides that there needs to be one more story or photo or announcement or whatever added.
The Paradis article, "Text and Action: The Operator's Manual in Context and in Court," was interesting enough for a technical discussion, but the amount of errors in the layout made it frustrating to read. There were lines missing, entire pages repeated, and lines that ended mid-sentence at the bottom of a page. Also, I didn't see a date on this one, or the publication in which it was printed.
The Mirel article, "Writing and Database Technology: Extending the Definition of Writing in the Workplace," was an incredibly detailed analysis of what, to me, is a simple task: including tables of data within a text. I wouldn't have thought this seemingly humble topic could have warranted so much attention, even though I agree that college writing programs could do a better job of teaching people to set up data in graphical formats.
With regard to Racine et al's "Getting to Know Audiences in Cyberspace: A Usability Approach to Designing Skill Centers for Online Writing Centers," I didn't feel that I got a lot of useful information out of this article. The concept of allowing users to help design websites was a good one, but the package it's wrapped in (college writing centers) was directed toward a very specific audience, and therefore, I didn't feel like I was able to glean a lot of information that can be broadly applied.
Monday, November 17, 2008
More than I ever wanted to know...
...about the engineering of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers is what I'm reading in preparation for my paper. I've learned about different kinds of loads (lateral, gravity and wind loads), slurry walls, and the difference between heat and temperature (well, not that I completely understand the thermaldynamics of it). I've also learned that 60 workers were killed in construction accidents while the WTC was being built.
But perhaps the most notable bit of information I've come across in my research is that ownership of the WTC was transferred to a group of investors headed by Larry Silverstein, a guy who already controlled more than 8 million square feet of NYC real estate. So what's interesting about that, you ask? How about that this all happened on July 24, 2001, just six weeks before the terrorist attack, and that Silverstein not only got $98 million out of his original $124 million down payment back after 9/11, but he also got two times the payout from the insurance carriers because two planes hit the buildings, and a jury considered them separate occurences. Plus, he received $861 million in insurance claims for WTC 7, which also collapsed that day, even though he only paid $386 million for it. That's a profit of about $500 million. Further, Silverstein gets to keep the "ground zero" property to rebuild on it.
How's that for a return on investment? It's no wonder conspiracy theories abound.
But perhaps the most notable bit of information I've come across in my research is that ownership of the WTC was transferred to a group of investors headed by Larry Silverstein, a guy who already controlled more than 8 million square feet of NYC real estate. So what's interesting about that, you ask? How about that this all happened on July 24, 2001, just six weeks before the terrorist attack, and that Silverstein not only got $98 million out of his original $124 million down payment back after 9/11, but he also got two times the payout from the insurance carriers because two planes hit the buildings, and a jury considered them separate occurences. Plus, he received $861 million in insurance claims for WTC 7, which also collapsed that day, even though he only paid $386 million for it. That's a profit of about $500 million. Further, Silverstein gets to keep the "ground zero" property to rebuild on it.
How's that for a return on investment? It's no wonder conspiracy theories abound.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Reflections on Workplace Studies Articles, Continued
Moving on to the other two articles in this week's reading.
"What We Learn from Writing on the Job" (Faigley and Miller). This article is the oldest of the four readings for this week: it was published in October 1982. To put it mildly, writing on the job has changed a bit since this was written. As Rebecca points out in her blog, reading this piece is anachronistic. Personally, I find it quite a blast from the past. I was working as a secretary before the dawn of the word processing and computer eras, and I remember having to retype one or more pages of a document every time my boss made so much as a one-word change. Plus, there was still a lot of carbon paper being used, which was a whole 'nother nightmare in itself. When Liquid Paper and photocopiers appeared on the scene, it was like a gift from above! And then they came out with those newfangled typewriters that would store a whole line of text so you could go back and fix typos before hitting "return" at the end of the line. Such progress!!
Anyway, enough bashing of the bad old days of technology. It really floored me to read about how some universities had abolished their writing programs before the mid-1970s because "high-school graduates no longer needed such training" (Faigley and Miller, 557). Good lord! That was my era, and I remember the frustration my high school English teachers used to suffer over their students' writing abilities. One thing I thought was odd, even at the time, was that grammar and punctuation went by the wayside by the time I reached eighth grade (1967-68). That's the last time I remember having to diagram sentences, at least until my undergrad linguistics classes. It was awful, boring stuff, but I did learn quite a bit about structure.
I enjoyed Faigley and Miller's passage that stated "Journals and diaries do not seem as prevalent as they once were, judging from the extensive nineteenth-century diary collections in some historical libraries" (562). I agree with that observation, but only up until the recent birth of social networking (a.k.a. blogs). After all, what is this I'm writing if not a journal entry? Of course, I rather doubt it will show up in any historical library collection a couple hundred years from now. ;-)
I also loved this gem: "Codified rules will not teach proper writing skills. Reading good writing finally ingrains good practice" (Faigley and Miller, 564). I believe this wholeheartedly, and I often advise people who are less than confident in their writing skills to READ, READ, READ. The more often we see things written properly, both from a grammar and a punctuation perspective, the more we absorb through "osmosis." I truly believe that it was my voracious reading habit -- as opposed to any formal education process -- that really taught me to write.
Another point I thought was important is "...college graduates need to know more than just the basics. They need to be able to write well in novel situations and to master a number of different styles. They especially must be able to write for different audiences" (Faigley and Miller, 564). When I hire communications professionals, I include as part of the interview process both an editing test and an impromptu essay. The editing test is a bear, because not only do applicants need to be able to correct an error, but they need to be able to explain why it was an error in the first place. (Wicked, ain't I?) But I've found that it's the writing test that really throws people. One woman I interviewed a couple of years ago for a mid-level communications job took herself out of the running because she wasn't comfortable with composing a simple one-page essay. And she was an experienced professional writer!
"Frameworks for the Study of Writing in Organizational Contexts" (Harrison). I found this article to be the most fascinating of the four. I work for a large health care organization with 55,000 employees in eight states. Harrison's discussion about the idiosyncrasies of organizations could have been written about my employer. Because we're a Catholic organization, and a non-profit to boot, we have a vested interest in maintaining our "we provide the very best care because we're carrying on the work of Jesus Christ and we don't need to make any money for doing it" image. The organization's non-profit status means we're exempt from paying taxes (which makes it a little less difficult to stay in business, especially in the current economy), but it also means we have an obligation to provide a great deal of charity care and other types of community benefit -- and prove that we're doing so.
To help project that "vow of poverty" image, about four years ago we adopted a rhetorical stance that uses terms such as "Unified Enterprise Ministry" to describe the organization as a whole, and "Ministry Organization" to refer to individual hospitals. "Employees" have become "associates" and the "Corporate" Office has changed to the "Home" Office. When we write, we use "dot" points instead of "bullet" points, and we "implement" rather than "execute" plans. We have "reflections" before every meeting, and we structure each meeting around one of the six "Guiding Behaviors" (notice the initial caps). We refer to the December festivities as "Christmas" parties rather than "holiday" parties, even though we pride ourselves on our commitment to diversity and inclusion. One of the first things I did after being hired four years ago was to attend the organization's annual Fall Conference, and was rather startled to learn that we have own song!
It's true that, in my organization's case, we "...invent ideologies...that encompass expectations about the organization, its environment, and the probable success of alternative actions and then use these ideologies to justify why certain courses of action are needed to solve a particular problem" (Harrison 12). In fact, my employer has a whole department called Mission Discernment that is responsible for reviewing important business decisions before they're implemented in terms of the organization's mission, Catholic sponsorship, and nonprofit status.
As you might expect, my employer's specialized ideology mandates a very specific framework for organizational discourse. As Harrison suggests, we "are conscious of and accommodate the idiosyncratic constraints imposed by [our organization] in the production of...documents, as well as the expected constraints of subject matter" (4). It took me, as a newly hired writer, some time to understand and internalize the rhetorical traditions of the organization, but after four years I can honestly say it's deeply ingrained. If I find it necessary to take a job with another company in the future, I believe it will be easier for me to understand the concept of the organization as rhetorical context, but perhaps a bit difficult to shake off my employer's own peculiarities.
"What We Learn from Writing on the Job" (Faigley and Miller). This article is the oldest of the four readings for this week: it was published in October 1982. To put it mildly, writing on the job has changed a bit since this was written. As Rebecca points out in her blog, reading this piece is anachronistic. Personally, I find it quite a blast from the past. I was working as a secretary before the dawn of the word processing and computer eras, and I remember having to retype one or more pages of a document every time my boss made so much as a one-word change. Plus, there was still a lot of carbon paper being used, which was a whole 'nother nightmare in itself. When Liquid Paper and photocopiers appeared on the scene, it was like a gift from above! And then they came out with those newfangled typewriters that would store a whole line of text so you could go back and fix typos before hitting "return" at the end of the line. Such progress!!
Anyway, enough bashing of the bad old days of technology. It really floored me to read about how some universities had abolished their writing programs before the mid-1970s because "high-school graduates no longer needed such training" (Faigley and Miller, 557). Good lord! That was my era, and I remember the frustration my high school English teachers used to suffer over their students' writing abilities. One thing I thought was odd, even at the time, was that grammar and punctuation went by the wayside by the time I reached eighth grade (1967-68). That's the last time I remember having to diagram sentences, at least until my undergrad linguistics classes. It was awful, boring stuff, but I did learn quite a bit about structure.
I enjoyed Faigley and Miller's passage that stated "Journals and diaries do not seem as prevalent as they once were, judging from the extensive nineteenth-century diary collections in some historical libraries" (562). I agree with that observation, but only up until the recent birth of social networking (a.k.a. blogs). After all, what is this I'm writing if not a journal entry? Of course, I rather doubt it will show up in any historical library collection a couple hundred years from now. ;-)
I also loved this gem: "Codified rules will not teach proper writing skills. Reading good writing finally ingrains good practice" (Faigley and Miller, 564). I believe this wholeheartedly, and I often advise people who are less than confident in their writing skills to READ, READ, READ. The more often we see things written properly, both from a grammar and a punctuation perspective, the more we absorb through "osmosis." I truly believe that it was my voracious reading habit -- as opposed to any formal education process -- that really taught me to write.
Another point I thought was important is "...college graduates need to know more than just the basics. They need to be able to write well in novel situations and to master a number of different styles. They especially must be able to write for different audiences" (Faigley and Miller, 564). When I hire communications professionals, I include as part of the interview process both an editing test and an impromptu essay. The editing test is a bear, because not only do applicants need to be able to correct an error, but they need to be able to explain why it was an error in the first place. (Wicked, ain't I?) But I've found that it's the writing test that really throws people. One woman I interviewed a couple of years ago for a mid-level communications job took herself out of the running because she wasn't comfortable with composing a simple one-page essay. And she was an experienced professional writer!
"Frameworks for the Study of Writing in Organizational Contexts" (Harrison). I found this article to be the most fascinating of the four. I work for a large health care organization with 55,000 employees in eight states. Harrison's discussion about the idiosyncrasies of organizations could have been written about my employer. Because we're a Catholic organization, and a non-profit to boot, we have a vested interest in maintaining our "we provide the very best care because we're carrying on the work of Jesus Christ and we don't need to make any money for doing it" image. The organization's non-profit status means we're exempt from paying taxes (which makes it a little less difficult to stay in business, especially in the current economy), but it also means we have an obligation to provide a great deal of charity care and other types of community benefit -- and prove that we're doing so.
To help project that "vow of poverty" image, about four years ago we adopted a rhetorical stance that uses terms such as "Unified Enterprise Ministry" to describe the organization as a whole, and "Ministry Organization" to refer to individual hospitals. "Employees" have become "associates" and the "Corporate" Office has changed to the "Home" Office. When we write, we use "dot" points instead of "bullet" points, and we "implement" rather than "execute" plans. We have "reflections" before every meeting, and we structure each meeting around one of the six "Guiding Behaviors" (notice the initial caps). We refer to the December festivities as "Christmas" parties rather than "holiday" parties, even though we pride ourselves on our commitment to diversity and inclusion. One of the first things I did after being hired four years ago was to attend the organization's annual Fall Conference, and was rather startled to learn that we have own song!
It's true that, in my organization's case, we "...invent ideologies...that encompass expectations about the organization, its environment, and the probable success of alternative actions and then use these ideologies to justify why certain courses of action are needed to solve a particular problem" (Harrison 12). In fact, my employer has a whole department called Mission Discernment that is responsible for reviewing important business decisions before they're implemented in terms of the organization's mission, Catholic sponsorship, and nonprofit status.
As you might expect, my employer's specialized ideology mandates a very specific framework for organizational discourse. As Harrison suggests, we "are conscious of and accommodate the idiosyncratic constraints imposed by [our organization] in the production of...documents, as well as the expected constraints of subject matter" (4). It took me, as a newly hired writer, some time to understand and internalize the rhetorical traditions of the organization, but after four years I can honestly say it's deeply ingrained. If I find it necessary to take a job with another company in the future, I believe it will be easier for me to understand the concept of the organization as rhetorical context, but perhaps a bit difficult to shake off my employer's own peculiarities.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Reflections on Workplace Studies Articles
"Wow lady" to you, Rebecca! You really got a jump start on this. Here are my comments on the two of the four articles we'll be presenting to the class on Monday, November 10.
"What Experienced Collaborators Say About Collaborative Writing" (Allen, Atkinson, Morgan, Moore and Snow). Like Rebecca mentioned in her blog, I too was amused by the fact that the researchers chose to exclude professional writers. I also was amused at this passage (Allen et al, 80): "He thought his collaborator 'might have taken certain things for granted because of his background that...were not clear enough to a person with a slightly different background.'" This is a situation I run into all the time when I review/edit things written by non-professional writers. Most don't realize the importance of establishing their audience before they begin work, and end up "writing for themselves" (or, in the case of collaboration, each other) and not even realizing it. That is, they take for granted that the reader will know what's going on inside their heads when, in fact, they leave out important or even critical information without which the reader may not be able to grasp their meaning.
Overall, I agreed with the findings of this article because they ring true with my own experience of collaborative writing. Specifically, I thought the researchers were right on when they reported that "attempts at group drafting produced only frustration" (Allen et al, 77). Writing is a very individual activity for most people, and it's rare for even two -- let alone more -- people to be able to form cohesive sentences and paragraphs while working together.
I disagree with the researchers' findings about the "divide and conquer" approach to collaborative writing. While it's true that a group might be able to get more words on paper, and that they can fully contribute their own expertise in this way, having individuals complete sections of a larger work is not always the best way to collaborate. Some people are always going to be better writers than others. Some will have more time to devote to the project. And some are just more engaged. The results can be uneven, requiring one person to tackle the editing for style, tone and parallel construction, which can be more of a chore than if that person just did the work in the first place. (Does it sound as though I've been there?) This is confirmed in the "Ethnographic Study" article I discuss below: the VPs each were responsible for writing a part of the second business plan but failed because some of them "produced incomplete or poorly written sections" (Doheny-Farina, 168).
"Writing in an Emerging Organization: An Ethnographic Study" (Doheny-Farina). I liked Rebecca's word substitutions (discourse for writing and rhetorical situation for social context) because they made it very simple to apply the learnings from last week's articles to understanding this week's.
From a personal perspective, I took considerable satisfaction in the author's comment, "...the complexity and significance of writing in some nonacademic settings often goes unrecognized and is little understood." Amen, brother! One of the things I always say (or, more accurately, whine about) is that organizational leaders often take writing for granted. Many believe that "everybody" can write, so what's the big deal about having professional communicators on staff? In an economic downturn, communicators are often the first to go because, these leaders reason, they themselves can write whatever needs to be written. When this turns out to be a mess, they bring in communication consultants -- ultil they get the bills. After recoving from sticker shock, they hire more staff communicators. Unfortunately, these new people need time to be brought up to speed on the organization and its eccentricities, so in three or four years when they're really valuable the economy starts to rock and roll again....
Anyway, I did enjoy the discussion about the conflict between Bill and the vice presidents. This seemed very authentic to me. In both this article and the "Collaborators" one discussed above, conflict was a major factor in the writing activity. I remember reading several years ago about a group process model that was described in terms of forming, storming, norming and performing. The conflict Bill and the other VPs experienced was obviously part of the storming phase. Like the "Collaborators" article stated, conflict seems to be a positive and even necessary part of the collaborative process because it "generated innovative, hence creative, resolutions" (Allen et al, 83). It was certainly true in this case.
But what was most intriguing to me in the "Ethnographic Study" article were the observations that (1) "the writing process not only influenced the substance of what was written, but also influenced the organization," and (2) "as the writing process enabled a change in the company's authority structure, that change, in turn, affected the writing process" (Doheny-Farina, 167). I couldn't help but relate statement 1 to my own job. The idea that my writing might actually, in some small way, influence my organization was a big "a-ha" moment for me, and it has caused me to think differently about the significance of what I do every day.
My thoughts on the other two articles will appear in my next post.
"What Experienced Collaborators Say About Collaborative Writing" (Allen, Atkinson, Morgan, Moore and Snow). Like Rebecca mentioned in her blog, I too was amused by the fact that the researchers chose to exclude professional writers. I also was amused at this passage (Allen et al, 80): "He thought his collaborator 'might have taken certain things for granted because of his background that...were not clear enough to a person with a slightly different background.'" This is a situation I run into all the time when I review/edit things written by non-professional writers. Most don't realize the importance of establishing their audience before they begin work, and end up "writing for themselves" (or, in the case of collaboration, each other) and not even realizing it. That is, they take for granted that the reader will know what's going on inside their heads when, in fact, they leave out important or even critical information without which the reader may not be able to grasp their meaning.
Overall, I agreed with the findings of this article because they ring true with my own experience of collaborative writing. Specifically, I thought the researchers were right on when they reported that "attempts at group drafting produced only frustration" (Allen et al, 77). Writing is a very individual activity for most people, and it's rare for even two -- let alone more -- people to be able to form cohesive sentences and paragraphs while working together.
I disagree with the researchers' findings about the "divide and conquer" approach to collaborative writing. While it's true that a group might be able to get more words on paper, and that they can fully contribute their own expertise in this way, having individuals complete sections of a larger work is not always the best way to collaborate. Some people are always going to be better writers than others. Some will have more time to devote to the project. And some are just more engaged. The results can be uneven, requiring one person to tackle the editing for style, tone and parallel construction, which can be more of a chore than if that person just did the work in the first place. (Does it sound as though I've been there?) This is confirmed in the "Ethnographic Study" article I discuss below: the VPs each were responsible for writing a part of the second business plan but failed because some of them "produced incomplete or poorly written sections" (Doheny-Farina, 168).
"Writing in an Emerging Organization: An Ethnographic Study" (Doheny-Farina). I liked Rebecca's word substitutions (discourse for writing and rhetorical situation for social context) because they made it very simple to apply the learnings from last week's articles to understanding this week's.
From a personal perspective, I took considerable satisfaction in the author's comment, "...the complexity and significance of writing in some nonacademic settings often goes unrecognized and is little understood." Amen, brother! One of the things I always say (or, more accurately, whine about) is that organizational leaders often take writing for granted. Many believe that "everybody" can write, so what's the big deal about having professional communicators on staff? In an economic downturn, communicators are often the first to go because, these leaders reason, they themselves can write whatever needs to be written. When this turns out to be a mess, they bring in communication consultants -- ultil they get the bills. After recoving from sticker shock, they hire more staff communicators. Unfortunately, these new people need time to be brought up to speed on the organization and its eccentricities, so in three or four years when they're really valuable the economy starts to rock and roll again....
Anyway, I did enjoy the discussion about the conflict between Bill and the vice presidents. This seemed very authentic to me. In both this article and the "Collaborators" one discussed above, conflict was a major factor in the writing activity. I remember reading several years ago about a group process model that was described in terms of forming, storming, norming and performing. The conflict Bill and the other VPs experienced was obviously part of the storming phase. Like the "Collaborators" article stated, conflict seems to be a positive and even necessary part of the collaborative process because it "generated innovative, hence creative, resolutions" (Allen et al, 83). It was certainly true in this case.
But what was most intriguing to me in the "Ethnographic Study" article were the observations that (1) "the writing process not only influenced the substance of what was written, but also influenced the organization," and (2) "as the writing process enabled a change in the company's authority structure, that change, in turn, affected the writing process" (Doheny-Farina, 167). I couldn't help but relate statement 1 to my own job. The idea that my writing might actually, in some small way, influence my organization was a big "a-ha" moment for me, and it has caused me to think differently about the significance of what I do every day.
My thoughts on the other two articles will appear in my next post.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Biesecker Has Brought Me to my Knees
I've taken two runs at Biesecker's "Rethinking the Rhetorical Situation from within the Thematic of Differance," and am still scratching my head. I feel like there's a disconnect between where I am on the knowledge scale about this topic, and where I would need to be to have this make any kind of sense at all.
First of all, there are the terms. "Deconstruction" is a biggie in this paper, but Biesecker is not clear on what is meant by the term. So I went to Wikipedia for (hopefully) an English-language translation but instead found a 19-page site that, in my opinion, is just more of the same. (It's interesting to note that there's a box at the top of the site that claims that "All or part of this article may be confusing or unclear." Yeah, no kidding! This site refers to some more of the terms used in Biesecker's paper, such as "phenomenology." So I Googled that too, and found a 13-page Wikipedia site. Hmmmm...I seem to see a pattern developing here.
So if we set aside for now my confusion about the terms, the next thing I notice is that Biesecker seems to be trying to find out how many big words she can string together and call it a sentence. I'm sure her statements are clear and meaningful to her -- and probably to other rhetoricians thinking up there at the top of the mount -- but we poor slobs who are just trying to get through a grad school class end up wanting to commit hari kari. ESPECIALLY since I and one of my fellow students have been charged with explaining this 12-page academic enigma to the class tonight!!
Now, don't get me wrong. I've been a reader and writer all my life, and I like to think I have adequately functioning gray matter up there (at least, Mensa thinks I do). But when I try to make sense out of passages like the following I feel like a non-native speaker:
"Symbolic action (what has historically been a linguistic text) is almost always understood as an expression that, wittingly or unwittingly, shapes or is shaped by the constitutent elements of the situation out of which and for which it is produced. This long-held conception of the rhetorical situation as an exchange of influence defines the text as an object that mediates between subjects (speaker and audience) whose identity is constituted in a terrain different from and external to the particular rhetorical situation."
You might object to my argument that this passage is nearly unintelligible to normal humans because I've quoted it out of context. If you don't know this particular paper, you may think this passage is buried somewhere deep within it, and that the potential for understanding has been established by previous explanation. But, my friend, you would be incorrect. This passage is out of the paper's introductory paragraph! Believe me, it gets worse. Several pages in we are presented with:
"The transitory character of one's choice of foundational terms is precisely that which any text cannot admit if it is going to make anything like 'truth' appear; however, the text's own provisionality is also that which the language of the text repeatedly performs, despite all efforts to conceal it. We are continually reminded that although our own desire for unity and order compels us to 'balance the equation that is the text's system,' the textuality of the text itself 'exposes the grammatological structure of the text,' and reveals 'that its 'origin' and its 'end' are given over to language in general.'"
Huh?
Reading (or, more accurately, trying to read) this paper has been a truly humbling experience.
First of all, there are the terms. "Deconstruction" is a biggie in this paper, but Biesecker is not clear on what is meant by the term. So I went to Wikipedia for (hopefully) an English-language translation but instead found a 19-page site that, in my opinion, is just more of the same. (It's interesting to note that there's a box at the top of the site that claims that "All or part of this article may be confusing or unclear." Yeah, no kidding! This site refers to some more of the terms used in Biesecker's paper, such as "phenomenology." So I Googled that too, and found a 13-page Wikipedia site. Hmmmm...I seem to see a pattern developing here.
So if we set aside for now my confusion about the terms, the next thing I notice is that Biesecker seems to be trying to find out how many big words she can string together and call it a sentence. I'm sure her statements are clear and meaningful to her -- and probably to other rhetoricians thinking up there at the top of the mount -- but we poor slobs who are just trying to get through a grad school class end up wanting to commit hari kari. ESPECIALLY since I and one of my fellow students have been charged with explaining this 12-page academic enigma to the class tonight!!
Now, don't get me wrong. I've been a reader and writer all my life, and I like to think I have adequately functioning gray matter up there (at least, Mensa thinks I do). But when I try to make sense out of passages like the following I feel like a non-native speaker:
"Symbolic action (what has historically been a linguistic text) is almost always understood as an expression that, wittingly or unwittingly, shapes or is shaped by the constitutent elements of the situation out of which and for which it is produced. This long-held conception of the rhetorical situation as an exchange of influence defines the text as an object that mediates between subjects (speaker and audience) whose identity is constituted in a terrain different from and external to the particular rhetorical situation."
You might object to my argument that this passage is nearly unintelligible to normal humans because I've quoted it out of context. If you don't know this particular paper, you may think this passage is buried somewhere deep within it, and that the potential for understanding has been established by previous explanation. But, my friend, you would be incorrect. This passage is out of the paper's introductory paragraph! Believe me, it gets worse. Several pages in we are presented with:
"The transitory character of one's choice of foundational terms is precisely that which any text cannot admit if it is going to make anything like 'truth' appear; however, the text's own provisionality is also that which the language of the text repeatedly performs, despite all efforts to conceal it. We are continually reminded that although our own desire for unity and order compels us to 'balance the equation that is the text's system,' the textuality of the text itself 'exposes the grammatological structure of the text,' and reveals 'that its 'origin' and its 'end' are given over to language in general.'"
Huh?
Reading (or, more accurately, trying to read) this paper has been a truly humbling experience.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Revised Thesis Statement and Proposed Project Plan
Today I did some thinking about how to structure my research project. Here are my initial thoughts, pending approval. (Steve: I would appreciate your comments on this preliminary plan ASAP.)Based on this plan, I'm revising my thesis statement. Instead of "The innovative design and engineering processes used to create the World Trade Center resulted in buildings that were taller, less expensive to build, and more profitable to rent than any that had come before. But the "tube" design, lightweight materials and untested construction techniques called for by the new technology failed completely after the impact of the aircraft. The structural integrity of the towers was destroyed, which made their collapse inevitable," I propose the following statement:
The World Trade Center has been the subject of controversy since its conception in the days following World War II. Opinions continue to differ widely on topics ranging from the twin towers’ innovative but untested design and construction methods to explanations of why they collapsed. During the early days mass communication was limited to traditional media such as newspapers, television and radio, but in the current era anyone with access to the Internet can reach a global audience. As a result, what people believe to be the "truth" about the World Trade Center is no longer limited to official reports and conclusions.
The project will be in the form of a paper, although not presented in a traditional academic format. Instead, I'd like to use InDesign / PDF to structure it similar to a journal article, with copy interspersed with photos, diagrams and tables. My idea is to present and analyze the material in three sections (topoi), representing a before, during and after perspective of the World Trade Center catastrophe. These three topoi would be presented not as a regurgitation of the existing literature, but rather in the context of Aristotle's theory and practice of rhetoric. I would present the opposing arguments in terms of enthymeme, ethos, pathos, kairos, pisteis, enstatis and blaisosis. In addition, I plan to summarize each topoi using a side-by-side comparison that illustrates the rhetorical features of each enthymeme. Following a final analysis and conclusion, I plan to include an appendix that will contain any relevant illustrations that were not featured in the body of the paper.
Following a general prooimion to establish a context for the paper, I would present the first topos, the pre-construction rhetoric about the wisdom of building the twin towers. Enthymemes might include the battles for control between New York and New Jersey; the differences between the New York City building codes of 1938 and 1968; and objections from fire officials, the business owners / residents who were evicted from the building site, and the public. Kairos will be an important factor in this analysis, as mass communication was the domain of traditional media -- and more likely to be trusted than it is today.
Topos two would present the rhetorical differences between the "official" explanation of the towers' collaspe (from the perspectives of investigative agencies and conservative / mainstream architects and engineers) and the opinions held by "radical" (but qualified) professionals. Discussion might include opinions about the temperature of the fire; whether / how the fireproofing materials failed; the question of whether the towers could withstand an airliner collision; and whether the innovative new "tube" design of the towers was the cause of their collapse. Again, kairos is an important factor as new media had gained a strong foothold by 2001.
The third topos would include some of the ongoing "Monday morning quarterback" conversation about how and why the towers fell, and the lessons learned. I envision that this discussion will include the many conspiracy theories that continue to the present day, as well as a synopsis of the new 2008 building code that was just signed into law. It also may include some of the controversy about the design of the new World Trade Center "freedom tower." Kairos will be an essential element of this analysis, as technology such as Web 2.0 has enabled virtually all Americans to share their opinions globally.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Preliminary Thesis Statement
As I indicated in a previous post, the topic for my English 505 research paper is the collapse of the World Trade Center.Last night I watched a DVD titled World Trade Center: Anatomy of the Collapse (The Learning Channel, 2002). The filmmakers did a great job of explaining how the towers were designed and built, and used a lot of stock footage and computer simulations of the construction process. They also interviewed the project's lead structural engineer, Leslie E. Robertson, who is now a little old guy who seemed at the time of filming to be having a hard time accepting the tragedy of the WTC's collapse. For example, he kept referring to the towers in the present tense and would every so often have to stop and correct himself. He didn't seem to want to accept responsibility for the collapse, and he wouldn't even admit to feeling guilty (at least in so many words), but it was evident that he was devastated by it.
From other reading this week I learned that the WTC's architect, Minoru Yamasaki, was a first-generation Japanese American who grew up in the Seattle area but founded his firm in Birmingham, Michigan in the 1950s. Among his portfolio was the 30-story Michigan Consolidated Gas building in downtown Detroit, where there used to be a fine dining restaurant called the Top of the Flame. My boyfriend and I went there for dinner after my senior prom. One of the things I remember about it was the little flutter in the tummy I got sitting at a table right next to the floor-to-ceiling windows. It's ironic that Mr. Yamasaki -- who was afraid of heights -- designed buildings that must have given him the heebie-jeebies...but I digress.
I've done enough research to compose this preliminary thesis statement: The innovative design and engineering processes used to create the World Trade Center resulted in buildings that were taller, less expensive to build, and more profitable to rent than any that had come before. But the "tube" design, lightweight materials and untested construction techniques called for by the new technology failed completely after the impact of the aircraft. The structural integrity of the towers was destroyed, which made their collapse inevitable.
I'll let this simmer for a couple of days, and expand upon it in my next post. I may whittle the topic down a bit to focus on the building and safety codes that were in effect at the time the project was proposed, but I need to do more research first.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Brainstorming and Censorship
After reading chapter five of Professor Krause's The Process of ResearchWriting, I felt I had to second his instruction to avoid self-censorship during the topic brainstorming process.
Although I have never heard this advice in an academic setting, it's a rule I have used professionally for years when needing to come up with a name, tag line, theme, etc. My colleagues and I gather around a white board, with one person serving as scribe. We call out whatever comes into our minds and the scribe writes down every thought, no matter how silly it may seem at the time. Later, when we move into the weeding out phase, we're often surprised at how good some of the "silly" ideas are.
Although I have never heard this advice in an academic setting, it's a rule I have used professionally for years when needing to come up with a name, tag line, theme, etc. My colleagues and I gather around a white board, with one person serving as scribe. We call out whatever comes into our minds and the scribe writes down every thought, no matter how silly it may seem at the time. Later, when we move into the weeding out phase, we're often surprised at how good some of the "silly" ideas are.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Blogging from Bellaire
The foliage is gorgeous in northern Michigan this weekend, and judging from the crowds and traffic, there are loads of people from downstate who are here enjoying the scenery along with us. Here's a photo I took this morning of the 18th hole of the Hawk's Eye golf course in Bellaire (where our condo is), the charming little village that's home to Shanty Creek and Schuss Mountain.
Yesterday was my birthday, which is one of the reasons we're up north. It's none of your business which birthday it was, but let's just say that if it weren't for the pitiful state of the economy, I'd have retirement in my sights within a decade or so. Sigh. Anyway, I've been doing some preliminary research on the World Trade Center's building and safety codes, my chosen topic for my English 505 paper, and am pleased to find that there's lots of information available. In addition to countless online articles, I found a half-dozen books that I was able to reserve at my local library. I'm looking forward to digging into the material and learning about the kinds of back-room deals that preceded the WTC's approval.
Monday, October 13, 2008
My blog for today...
...is about the grief I've experienced reading Book 2 of Aristotle's On Rhetoric! I've been a reader since I was four years old, but much of this makes my head hurt. I shared it with Jennifer, a colleague at work who has two master's degrees in communications, and her head is now hurting too.
I'm hoping that our class discussion this evening will help to clarify some of the more difficult passages.
I'm hoping that our class discussion this evening will help to clarify some of the more difficult passages.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Finally, a Thesis Topic
I've been thinking a lot about my topic and have even done quite a bit of preliminary research on a couple of my ideas, but just this week it occurred to me that all of the topics I've been considering are more political than scientific or technological in nature. Given that the focus of the course is The Rhetoric of Science and Technology, I thought I'd better come up with something that more closely linked to what we're studying. :-)
Several months ago I read a book titled 102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive the Twin Towers by Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn. It had a great description of how the the architects and builders got around the safety codes that were in effect at the time. I'd like to do my paper on this topic, if possible.
If this one isn't approved, here are some other ideas I have:
Several months ago I read a book titled 102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive the Twin Towers by Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn. It had a great description of how the the architects and builders got around the safety codes that were in effect at the time. I'd like to do my paper on this topic, if possible.
If this one isn't approved, here are some other ideas I have:
- Thalidomide, a drug that was used by some pregnant women during the late 1950s and early 1960s to treat morning sickness. About 10,000 women in Europe and Africa who took the drug in early pregnancy gave birth to children with severe birth defects such as missing or shortened limbs. Although thalidomide was not prescribed or sold for decades, in 1998 the FDA approved its use for the treatment of a form of leprosy.
- The Swine Flue vaccine. In 1976 President Gerald Ford allocated $135 million to vaccinate Americans against what was feared to be a reincarnation of the Spanish Flu that killed as many as 100 million people worldwide in 1918/19. The program was halted when it was discovered that the risk of developing Guillain-Barre syndrome, a rare, usually reversible but occasionally fatal form of paralysis, was seven times higher in people who received the vaccine.
- The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which marked the end of World War II, were the only offensive detonations of nuclear weapons to date. The bombs killed as many as 220,000 people during the next four months, and thousands more died afterward from exposure to radiation. The issue that has divided scholars ever since is whether using the bomb was necessary for the U.S. to achieve victory over Japan.
Monday, October 6, 2008
A Summary of Aristotle's On Rhetoric, Book 1, Chapter 8
I wrote this for tonight's class discussion, but I thought it might be helpful to others so it's going to be my blog content for this date.
According to Aristotle, understanding various forms of government (constitutions) and the uses / advantages of each is essential to “the ability to persuade and give good advice,” and thus essential to rhetoric.
The four forms of constitution identified by Aristotle are:
According to Aristotle, understanding various forms of government (constitutions) and the uses / advantages of each is essential to “the ability to persuade and give good advice,” and thus essential to rhetoric.
The four forms of constitution identified by Aristotle are:
- Democracy, or rule by the majority. (Ancient Greece operated under a democratic form of government, but this doesn’t mean that everyone had equal rights. Theoretically, all citizens were equal and equally qualified to participate in government, but women, slaves, resident foreigners and even undesirable free men were excluded.) Under democratic rule offices are distributed by lot, and the “end” or objective of democracy is freedom.
- Oligarchy, or rule by the minority. (To qualify, an individual must own a minimum of ratable property (that which is capable of being appraised, which serves to keep the number of the governing elite low.) Under oligarchic rule offices are distributed on the basis of ownership of property, and the end of oligarchy is wealth.
- Aristocracy, or rule by “best” individuals or small privileged class believed to be superior. (Only those with high birth, inherited wealth and an understanding of the culture are permitted to participate; the nouveau riche are not welcome.) Under aristocratic rule offices are distributed based on education that is “laid down by law,” and the ends of aristocracy are education and preserving legal traditions.
- Monarchy, or rule by a single person who is sovereign over all. (This form can be orderly or tyrannical, depending on the individual.) The end of monarchy is self-preservation.
A government’s central authority or decision-making element is separate from, but equally important to, its constitution, and therefore reflects the constitution’s objective. For example, the decision-making body in an oligarchic form of government will consist of the wealthiest members of its society.
Aristotle believed that each of the four forms of government produces a distinctive type of rhetorician, and that understanding an individual’s rhetoric is enhanced by understanding the form of government under which he lives. This was especially significant to him, because he believed that speech is driven by character: “…we believe the speaker through his being a certain kind of person….”
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Economic Crash-and-Burn
How timely that all of this widely varying discourse is taking place about the state of the economy. Because I'm studying rhetoric and learning that it not only describes what's happening, but that it can actually shape outcomes, I'm watching these events from a different perspective than I would have a month ago. It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall in some of the "smoke-filled rooms" where decisions about the government bailout are being made to observe how rhetoric impacts the results.
So, added to our recent concerns about strangelets, vacuum bubbles, magnetic monopoles and microscopic black holes is the escalating anxiety about the financial markets. (Hey, a thought: Could there be a correlation? The money I used to have in my 403(b) has to have gone somewhere, after all.) Everyone I have spoken with about this today are angry about their personal losses, confused about the issues, and frustrated about the lack of consensus on what should be done.
What I'm hearing is that some experts are telling us not to worry because the markets will bounce back like they always do, while others are clearly predicting that things are going to get worse before they get better. Financial planning professionals are advising us to hunker down and leave our retirement savings where it is (as long as it's allocted appropriately) and to eliminate debt. I agree with this advice, in theory, but it won't be all that easy to pay down debt for the millions who are underemployed and living paycheck to paycheck -- not to mention those who have already lost their jobs -- and have no choice but to use credit cards to feed their kids. And many of those whose straits aren't yet quite that dire have already lost so much of their nesteggs that they're tempted to liquidate the rest and stuff it in a mattress before it, too, dwindles away to nothing.
Our esteemed leaders and others in-the-know are saying that we shouldn't agonize over this because most of us have very little or no control over what's going on. Okay, thanks for the tip. I'll try my best to remember that. But what I can't help worrying about is this: As bad as things are now, what if we haven't even come close to hitting bottom yet?
So, added to our recent concerns about strangelets, vacuum bubbles, magnetic monopoles and microscopic black holes is the escalating anxiety about the financial markets. (Hey, a thought: Could there be a correlation? The money I used to have in my 403(b) has to have gone somewhere, after all.) Everyone I have spoken with about this today are angry about their personal losses, confused about the issues, and frustrated about the lack of consensus on what should be done.
What I'm hearing is that some experts are telling us not to worry because the markets will bounce back like they always do, while others are clearly predicting that things are going to get worse before they get better. Financial planning professionals are advising us to hunker down and leave our retirement savings where it is (as long as it's allocted appropriately) and to eliminate debt. I agree with this advice, in theory, but it won't be all that easy to pay down debt for the millions who are underemployed and living paycheck to paycheck -- not to mention those who have already lost their jobs -- and have no choice but to use credit cards to feed their kids. And many of those whose straits aren't yet quite that dire have already lost so much of their nesteggs that they're tempted to liquidate the rest and stuff it in a mattress before it, too, dwindles away to nothing.
Our esteemed leaders and others in-the-know are saying that we shouldn't agonize over this because most of us have very little or no control over what's going on. Okay, thanks for the tip. I'll try my best to remember that. But what I can't help worrying about is this: As bad as things are now, what if we haven't even come close to hitting bottom yet?
Monday, September 29, 2008
Writing and Jewelry -- Two of My Favorite Pastimes
I got a huge kick out of this week's reading, "The Evolution of Writing" by Alexander Reid. I'm a part-time jewelry designer, which is something I've been doing for the last few years. Since I began I've realized on a personal level that it's a truly intense outlet for self-expression and creativity, but I never thought about it in terms of being one of the original, basic human forms of communication as Reid suggests.
I have been giving more thought to my research study topic, and have considered adding segregation to the list. What I find fascinating about this topic is the fact that the arguments are still raging, even though more than 50 years have passed since the Brown v. Board of Education decision.
I have been giving more thought to my research study topic, and have considered adding segregation to the list. What I find fascinating about this topic is the fact that the arguments are still raging, even though more than 50 years have passed since the Brown v. Board of Education decision.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Preliminary Ideas about Research Project
Now that I'm starting to get a better idea of what is required for the research project, I have come up with a possible topic: the War in Vietnam. I realize that this is a very broad category, and that it will need considerable sharpening. My initial thoughts are to focus either on student protests -- in particular, the Kent State shootings -- or the My Lai massacre. I started searching the 'net for source materials, and it appears that there's no shortage of information available. This will make it easier to do the research, but on the other hand, I'm hesitant to choose a topic that's been done to death. The jury is still out at this point.
Other ideas I have are something to do with Nixon and Watergate, the JFK assassination, the 1929 stock market crash, and the sinking of the Titanic. All of these topics have been written about exhaustively as well, though, so perhaps I'll do a little more thinking.
Other ideas I have are something to do with Nixon and Watergate, the JFK assassination, the 1929 stock market crash, and the sinking of the Titanic. All of these topics have been written about exhaustively as well, though, so perhaps I'll do a little more thinking.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Getting a Handle on It
Wow, we're really closing in on the "mystery": how to connect the dots between rhetoric and science / technology. Walzer and Gross' discussion of social constructionism, particularly their assertion that knowledge is a function of time, makes perfect sense. It not only helps to explain historic events in terms of the level of understanding at the time, rather than filtered through the revisionist understanding that we, as creatures of the present moment, cannot help but have.
On a more personal level, this idea helps me to put events in my own life into better perspective. For example, it's easy to look back on egregious mistakes I made in my youth and wonder what the hell I could have been thinking. But if knowledge is a function of time, the wisdom I have gained since those days makes it easy to see today where I went wrong, even though I honestly could not have known any better at the time. Whoever it was who said "we're too soon old and too late smart" really knew what s/he was talking about!
On a more personal level, this idea helps me to put events in my own life into better perspective. For example, it's easy to look back on egregious mistakes I made in my youth and wonder what the hell I could have been thinking. But if knowledge is a function of time, the wisdom I have gained since those days makes it easy to see today where I went wrong, even though I honestly could not have known any better at the time. Whoever it was who said "we're too soon old and too late smart" really knew what s/he was talking about!
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Re: Space Shuttle Challenger, Part 1
After reading three of the four articles for this week, I find that I'm very sympathetic to the difficulties experienced by the engineers who discovered the potential for disaster before the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion. As a professional communicator, I have often run into similar political and "turf" issues on the job. Some of the most frustrating problems I have encountered are senior leadership's expectations (1) that I write what I'm asked to write, regardless of whether it represents the facts honestly or needs a certain "spin" put on it (even when doing so goes against my better judgment); and (2) that I will solve whatever problems arise without requiring help or guidance from senior leadership, and thus always be able to tell them what they want to hear.
I believe these are similar to the issues that were faced by the Morton Thiokol engineers when they tried to warn management of the potential danger of launching the shuttle on a cold day. To be fair, I understand the pressure that management was under: Morton Thiokol was a contractor doing their best to meet the expectations of their client with regard to timing and cost, but they allowed their "management hats" to influence their decision to launch, and it turns out that they -- and many others -- paid a great price for it.
I believe these are similar to the issues that were faced by the Morton Thiokol engineers when they tried to warn management of the potential danger of launching the shuttle on a cold day. To be fair, I understand the pressure that management was under: Morton Thiokol was a contractor doing their best to meet the expectations of their client with regard to timing and cost, but they allowed their "management hats" to influence their decision to launch, and it turns out that they -- and many others -- paid a great price for it.
Monday, September 15, 2008
After the First Class Readings on Rhetoric
Interesting stuff, this rhetoric. I graduated with a bachelor's degree in English from a nearby *major* midwestern university without ever having touched on the topic. Hmmm....
Anyway, some comments on the texts. First, Wayne Booth's The Rhetoric of RHETORIC. A definition of rhetoric by Andrea Lunsford (1998) appears in chapter 1, page 8, as follows: "Rhetoric is the art, practice, and study of [all] human communication." Of the eight definitions Booth includes, this appears to be the broadest, but what exactly are we to understand from this catch-all description? I agree with Booth as he points out on page 9, "If you expand the term to cover all attempts at effective communication...doesn't it become meaningless, pointless?"
But I thought James Herrick's inclusion of the concept of symbols (The History and Theory of Rhetoric -- An Introduction) was an important point that Booth did not cover. Herrick's statement in chapter 1, page 7 that "The art of rhetoric can render symbol use more persuasive, beautiful, memorable, foreceful, thoughtful, clear, and thus generally more compelling" called to mind a TV commercial for chemical company BASF that declares, "We don't make the ____________, we make it _____________" (implying that they improve whatever product they partner on).
So, like BASF's ability to make consumer goods better, if rhetoric has the ability to improve simple communication by making it richer and "more compelling," let's take the application a step further and apply it to "hard" disciplines such as physics: Rhetoric doesn't make the laws of physics, it makes them more understandable and acceptable.
After doing the readings, I'm beginning to see a line of sight between rhetoric and science on which I was a little fuzzy when I wrote my first post.
Anyway, some comments on the texts. First, Wayne Booth's The Rhetoric of RHETORIC. A definition of rhetoric by Andrea Lunsford (1998) appears in chapter 1, page 8, as follows: "Rhetoric is the art, practice, and study of [all] human communication." Of the eight definitions Booth includes, this appears to be the broadest, but what exactly are we to understand from this catch-all description? I agree with Booth as he points out on page 9, "If you expand the term to cover all attempts at effective communication...doesn't it become meaningless, pointless?"
But I thought James Herrick's inclusion of the concept of symbols (The History and Theory of Rhetoric -- An Introduction) was an important point that Booth did not cover. Herrick's statement in chapter 1, page 7 that "The art of rhetoric can render symbol use more persuasive, beautiful, memorable, foreceful, thoughtful, clear, and thus generally more compelling" called to mind a TV commercial for chemical company BASF that declares, "We don't make the ____________, we make it _____________" (implying that they improve whatever product they partner on).
So, like BASF's ability to make consumer goods better, if rhetoric has the ability to improve simple communication by making it richer and "more compelling," let's take the application a step further and apply it to "hard" disciplines such as physics: Rhetoric doesn't make the laws of physics, it makes them more understandable and acceptable.
After doing the readings, I'm beginning to see a line of sight between rhetoric and science on which I was a little fuzzy when I wrote my first post.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
My Newbie Post and Thoughts on Gorgias' Encomium
I've heard a lot about Web 2.0 (even went to an IABC luncheon on this topic a few months ago), and have read a lot of other people's blogs, but until today have been able to avoid actually creating one. :-) I think this is going to be kind of cool, though, because like so many writers I usually have a lot of "really important stuff" to say.
I attended my first class at Eastern Michigan University last night, English 505: Rhetoric of Science and Technology. It's been several years since I last took a class, and I forgot how much I enjoy the chance to engage in the kind of conversation an academic setting provides. I think it's going to be a lot of fun, although I'm not yet able to envision the connection between rhetoric and science / technology. Patience is a virtue I'm still trying to learn, so I'll do what's required and see how it all plays out.
I have a comment about Gorgias' Encomium of Helen, which the class discussed last night. I was rather surprised to learn that Gorgias (and, presumably, others of the ancient era) were willing to accept that Helen of Troy may have been blameless in her experience with Paris. I did a Women's Studies minor as an undergrad, and one theme that recurs -- at least throughout the modern era (say, the last 1,500 years) -- is society's castigation of women who lose their virginity without benefit of marriage, regardless of their personal culpability. It was long believed that women were evil, and that they would do anything in their power to tempt men into sin (think: Adam and Eve).
Therefore, I found it particularly remarkable that Gorgias asserts that something other than Helen's own innate female wickedness -- such as fate, the gods, irresistable love, or Paris' treachery (whether he raped her, or if his "speech persuaded her and deceived her soul") -- may have been responsible for Helen's ruination. It makes me wonder if the patriarchy, in which men set the standards and rules for female sexuality, did not yet exist or had not fully developed in Gorgias' time.
I attended my first class at Eastern Michigan University last night, English 505: Rhetoric of Science and Technology. It's been several years since I last took a class, and I forgot how much I enjoy the chance to engage in the kind of conversation an academic setting provides. I think it's going to be a lot of fun, although I'm not yet able to envision the connection between rhetoric and science / technology. Patience is a virtue I'm still trying to learn, so I'll do what's required and see how it all plays out.
I have a comment about Gorgias' Encomium of Helen, which the class discussed last night. I was rather surprised to learn that Gorgias (and, presumably, others of the ancient era) were willing to accept that Helen of Troy may have been blameless in her experience with Paris. I did a Women's Studies minor as an undergrad, and one theme that recurs -- at least throughout the modern era (say, the last 1,500 years) -- is society's castigation of women who lose their virginity without benefit of marriage, regardless of their personal culpability. It was long believed that women were evil, and that they would do anything in their power to tempt men into sin (think: Adam and Eve).
Therefore, I found it particularly remarkable that Gorgias asserts that something other than Helen's own innate female wickedness -- such as fate, the gods, irresistable love, or Paris' treachery (whether he raped her, or if his "speech persuaded her and deceived her soul") -- may have been responsible for Helen's ruination. It makes me wonder if the patriarchy, in which men set the standards and rules for female sexuality, did not yet exist or had not fully developed in Gorgias' time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
