"Identify, Authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces" is an article written by Elizabeth Wardle--as a web page formed with academic authority in mind--that brings attention to a "complex view of communication" that pits newcomers of any subjects against conformation of experienced members of a discourse community (Writing About Writing, 521). If the story of "Alan" described in the second half of the article explained anything, it proves to the reader that no matter where the location of this battle comes in, issues of "identify and authority" always come into play, where conflict arrives when the thoughts on the individuals, from others, contradicts with the beliefs of the individual himself (Writing About Writing, 522-523). For example, when Alan refused to work "successfully behind the scenes," such as sending poorly written emails to graduate students than following the convention of traditional proofreading, ignoring to speak to the problems and clung to his own opinion on the writing, a conflict was created behind his back. Responding to this problem--using a theory from Etienne Wenger--Wardle suggests, for both the individual and the community, to apply "three interrelated modes of belonging": engagement, imagination, and alignment" (Writing About Writing, 524). If applied correctly with these practices, which ranges from personal feelings and new practices beyond the person's control, the newly formed identify must now negotiate with the authority above him, and community below him, to get what he wants, no matter how harsh the demands may be, even if the person is aware on how much he has "confined most of his directives" to parts of the community (Writing About Writing, 532). As seen with Alan quitting his employment for "non-participation," the risk for not meeting those demands will result in a lose of that authority; trying harder to get along, or give up and move on (Writing About Writing, 531).
All in all, bringing together this idea of entitlement between an individual and a discourse community this article brought leaves an interesting dynamic to the concept of what exactly those communities are. If Wardle was trying to teach its' readers "that learning to write in new communities entails more than learning
discrete sets of skills or improving cognitive abilities" (Writing About
Writing, 533), then it simply adds to John Swales's article ("The Concept of Discourse Community") of staying away from the "communities [that] are only to be associated with intellectual paradigms or scholarly cliques" (Writing About Writing, 473). In other words, looking at Swales' six characteristics of discourse community, he would argue for the freedom of individuals away from one specific community, for various reasons, into other communities that better fit the genre they belong to. With these freedoms, they would led into what James Paul Gee ("Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics") describes as not "be let into the game after missing the apprenticeship and be expected to have a fair shot at playing it," where the individual will have to go beyond of learning his own craft, his fluency, to gain the trust of the community around him--a point Wardle empathizes in her story with 'Alan' (Writing About Writing, 487). Even the use of genre, where the use of the theory "may yield insight into teaching, research, and social interaction" (like when Devitt et al used their professions--lawyers and teachers--to further extend ethnomethodology as a research tool) has a place within Wardle's article (Reading About Writing, 98). Essentially, as a reflection of the community, each genre has a set of rules that "participants beyond a narrow community" have to solve on their own, whenever it involves voting on a ballot, filling out a PMHF, or using research as a student.
Yes, this conflicts a bit with Wardle, where it's the individual against the establishment, instead of someone trying to understand a concept within their hands to solve. And if someone rereads Gee's purpose of "how the languages from different Discourse transfer into, interfere with, and otherwise influence each other" (Writing About Writing, 490), they will discover what Gee really calls in favor of. Basically, the Discourses that "constitute each of us as persons are changing and often are not consistent with each other," which can then be applied to "values, beliefs, attitudes, interactional styles, uses of language, and ways of being in the world," instead of a center attitude of an individual controlling those discourse that is against that individualistic thinking (Writing About Writing, 485). Even then, both points are against the purpose of what Swales wanted to do with discourse communities. As he mentions, he just wanted "to clarify, for procedural purposes, what is to be understood by discourse community," setting up characteristics that appeals more to discourse communities that revolves under the participation of the individual within a community--deciding to add or leave at his own will-- that is not set up by socialized communicates of high expectations. But as Wardle puts it, it will be up to authority the individual THINKS he has that will define his place within the community, not the "norm-developed" criterion the individual has to work with to be with (Writing About Writing, 477). In other words, the person's own character, to Wardle, determines what will happen to the person within the community, while Swales believes that the group as a whole controls the individuals who work there.
Either way I put it, Haters Gonna Hate.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Sunday, October 28, 2012
You May Dream
This is the first frame in the first episode of an anime, directed by Hideaki Anno of Neon Genesis Evangelion fame, called Kareshi Kanojyo no Jijyo--or Kare Kano to speed up time to discuss the show with fans--and right away the central question of the show is out there in the open, with no context or meaning at sight. That is, at least until someone shouts out "Miyazawa," which then cuts to the next scene:
Which is then followed with text and a more scenic frame (all in the same cut too):
Now a context is formed, where the introduction of this character is given a graceful introduction. But then as the episode progresses, drawings that paint the character against that context, like this:
Even this:
contradicts with that first impression. And through each image, there's a moral, which is spelled out before the second half of the episode begins:
I've been thinking about this aspect of the show for a while now, and it only got me thinking even more deeply when I found a website that has the director, Anno himself, walk around various high schools in Japan and get a better grasp on what high school students think about nowadays, compared to his own feelings as a student himself many years ago. Coming off of a starting point on how to make anime through talking of other people, Anno had this to say (with the part that interests me the most in bold):
I can’t stand people who run away, who refuse to face reality. Surely you’ll find
something for yourself if you face reality head on. If nothing else, take a good look at
your immediate surroundings. Don’t turn away from unpleasantness. Have a look at it
too. With this in mind, ultimately I want to show a little reality in my works. If
nothing else, I don’t feel any realism in something that has no reality mixed in with it.
Thus, while my next production will be a girl’s manga about a high-school girl, it’s also
partly real.
So if he wants to express reality, why go as far to use such abstraction to reach that specific goal? I have my theories on why that is, and if times permits in the future, I'm going to write down some of those theories to figure out something: Is there something deeper going on within this anime that the people who made this anime wanted to get across? Where is Anno going with all these tools out on their own?
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Project #3 Proposal
Introduction
As the studies for discourse communities continue, the time has now come to observe a community the writer is interested in. As a starting point, Swales' six characteristics will be used to write down how the language that community can be constrained for the purposes of figuring out the various functions that are used within the community. Using ethnographic studies, the principles will be used to help further prove how students should use their research to bring a community into a compelling context, bringing that community one is involved in into an understanding of each individual in a way other folks outside of a specific discourse community might not think of. Therefore, the community chosen for this project will be the writer's own family. Why his own family is chosen will be explained by demonstrating how the family can be classified as a discourse community, the writer's own thoughts on the community, how it functions as a member himself, the members chosen for a personal interview, and transcriptions used for research towards the study of the community.
Qualification
As identification of a group of individuals, John Swales proposed six characteristics of a discourse community to clarify how he understands discourse community as a literacy concept. For the purposes of this proposal, the writer will use each pointer and explain on how each principle applies to his own community:
1. A discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals.
Even if they are not explained explicaily at one time, the writer's family do have goals they need to achieve if they want to live together. As a family, the goals of the family, as a whole, will reflect on how each member will be persevered as a group, so as an example, when one member mentions to the other that he must go out and grab objects at a market, that person is adding to the survival not to himself, or herself, or to the one who sent him or her out to grab it, but to those inside the community that needs it, based on urgency. Even if the goals of the indivdiual might not reflect the hopes of another, each member is allowed to help out, out of a sense of loyalty, love, or any concept similar to the previous two.
2. A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members.
No matter how important an event might be, meetings of some individual will form if one person thinks it will benefit the community as a whole. This can range from an one on one meeting to discuss on an recently conspired event, to a festive holiday such as Easter, Thanksgiving, and Christmas.
3. A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide
information and feedback.
If one member acts in a state of embarrassment, or if one member can not set out one particular goal--because of circumstances beyond their control--then another member must come in and help out on whatever the situation needs, whatever it involves cutting the grass or alerting the community on how much loud noise one person is making.
4. A discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the
communicative furtherance of its aims.
Each person within the community have a set of beliefs that belong only to that individual, so as a family, each member must figure out a balance that can not only create a satisfactory response of the individual, but also reflects good on the family as a whole. So if the budget and time will create safety for someone to go out to the mall and hang out with friends, there now lies the choice of whenever or not another individual wants to come along, for completely different purposes (such of wanting to buy something for his own amusement).
5. In addition to owning genres, a discourse community has acquired some specific
lexis.
For this principle, one general rule applies: the quicker one sentence can be used to express what it is one member wants to communicate to another, the better that communication will be for both members. This communication can also apply to nicknames, as well if it can further express the affection one member has to the other.
6. A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of
relevant content and discoursal expertise.
When one member of the community leaves, that does not mean that he or she can no longer benefit the community in colder terms. If the possibility of younger offspring arrives, each member can then be promoted into a greater role for that young member, creating more responsibility for each member to work around with.
Interest
Living under the same place with the other members for decades, the writer's main interest really lies on whenever or not his own personal opinion of the family will conflict with the observation other make take with other communities if they were not a descendent of each member of that community. As as offspring of two of its' members, he wants to know whatever or not his personal involvement as a member will make him reflect on that community in a way it might not be is he was simply an observer far away, or non-related, from the family itself. Does he now have authority over the other members, or he is forever labeled as a 'child' of those same members? Has the feelings of his siblings changed over time, or is the battle each of them had at a young age still there? Has the community grown, now that each member is no longer legally classified as a child? Can the writer himself find out a way to express his thoughts of the family without upsetting anybody involved? It is these questions he wants to solve, determined to see if it was all worth it or not.
Interview
Regarding interviews, the writer wants to use one or more specific members in mind: the writer's sister, his own parents--consisting of a mother and father--and his grandparents.
Texts
For text, the writer is open to the possibility of using the following tools: emails, posts from various websites, PowerPoint presentations, the answers of homework problems, the text of books one member likes, notes written all over the location of the community, and cellphone texts (or Facebook comments) if needed.
Conclusion
As an English freshman, the writer believes that since he has a major impact as a member of one specific community, he will bring a complexity to the text that will bring interest for readers to go through. Once finished, he hopes, the project will help further expand his education on how he should approach discourse communities; help clarify his own thoughts on that involvement as a member. Then he can figure out if his opinion will help him out when he goes out on his own, as an individual of society.
Sources
Wardle, Elizabeth, and Doug Downs. Writing about Writing: A College Reader. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011. 468-80. Print.
As the studies for discourse communities continue, the time has now come to observe a community the writer is interested in. As a starting point, Swales' six characteristics will be used to write down how the language that community can be constrained for the purposes of figuring out the various functions that are used within the community. Using ethnographic studies, the principles will be used to help further prove how students should use their research to bring a community into a compelling context, bringing that community one is involved in into an understanding of each individual in a way other folks outside of a specific discourse community might not think of. Therefore, the community chosen for this project will be the writer's own family. Why his own family is chosen will be explained by demonstrating how the family can be classified as a discourse community, the writer's own thoughts on the community, how it functions as a member himself, the members chosen for a personal interview, and transcriptions used for research towards the study of the community.
Qualification
As identification of a group of individuals, John Swales proposed six characteristics of a discourse community to clarify how he understands discourse community as a literacy concept. For the purposes of this proposal, the writer will use each pointer and explain on how each principle applies to his own community:
1. A discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals.
Even if they are not explained explicaily at one time, the writer's family do have goals they need to achieve if they want to live together. As a family, the goals of the family, as a whole, will reflect on how each member will be persevered as a group, so as an example, when one member mentions to the other that he must go out and grab objects at a market, that person is adding to the survival not to himself, or herself, or to the one who sent him or her out to grab it, but to those inside the community that needs it, based on urgency. Even if the goals of the indivdiual might not reflect the hopes of another, each member is allowed to help out, out of a sense of loyalty, love, or any concept similar to the previous two.
2. A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members.
No matter how important an event might be, meetings of some individual will form if one person thinks it will benefit the community as a whole. This can range from an one on one meeting to discuss on an recently conspired event, to a festive holiday such as Easter, Thanksgiving, and Christmas.
3. A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide
information and feedback.
If one member acts in a state of embarrassment, or if one member can not set out one particular goal--because of circumstances beyond their control--then another member must come in and help out on whatever the situation needs, whatever it involves cutting the grass or alerting the community on how much loud noise one person is making.
4. A discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the
communicative furtherance of its aims.
Each person within the community have a set of beliefs that belong only to that individual, so as a family, each member must figure out a balance that can not only create a satisfactory response of the individual, but also reflects good on the family as a whole. So if the budget and time will create safety for someone to go out to the mall and hang out with friends, there now lies the choice of whenever or not another individual wants to come along, for completely different purposes (such of wanting to buy something for his own amusement).
5. In addition to owning genres, a discourse community has acquired some specific
lexis.
For this principle, one general rule applies: the quicker one sentence can be used to express what it is one member wants to communicate to another, the better that communication will be for both members. This communication can also apply to nicknames, as well if it can further express the affection one member has to the other.
6. A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of
relevant content and discoursal expertise.
When one member of the community leaves, that does not mean that he or she can no longer benefit the community in colder terms. If the possibility of younger offspring arrives, each member can then be promoted into a greater role for that young member, creating more responsibility for each member to work around with.
Interest
Living under the same place with the other members for decades, the writer's main interest really lies on whenever or not his own personal opinion of the family will conflict with the observation other make take with other communities if they were not a descendent of each member of that community. As as offspring of two of its' members, he wants to know whatever or not his personal involvement as a member will make him reflect on that community in a way it might not be is he was simply an observer far away, or non-related, from the family itself. Does he now have authority over the other members, or he is forever labeled as a 'child' of those same members? Has the feelings of his siblings changed over time, or is the battle each of them had at a young age still there? Has the community grown, now that each member is no longer legally classified as a child? Can the writer himself find out a way to express his thoughts of the family without upsetting anybody involved? It is these questions he wants to solve, determined to see if it was all worth it or not.
Interview
Regarding interviews, the writer wants to use one or more specific members in mind: the writer's sister, his own parents--consisting of a mother and father--and his grandparents.
Texts
For text, the writer is open to the possibility of using the following tools: emails, posts from various websites, PowerPoint presentations, the answers of homework problems, the text of books one member likes, notes written all over the location of the community, and cellphone texts (or Facebook comments) if needed.
Conclusion
As an English freshman, the writer believes that since he has a major impact as a member of one specific community, he will bring a complexity to the text that will bring interest for readers to go through. Once finished, he hopes, the project will help further expand his education on how he should approach discourse communities; help clarify his own thoughts on that involvement as a member. Then he can figure out if his opinion will help him out when he goes out on his own, as an individual of society.
Sources
Wardle, Elizabeth, and Doug Downs. Writing about Writing: A College Reader. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011. 468-80. Print.
Reading Response #16
"Materiality and Genre in the Study of Discourse Communities" is a series of articles written by Amy J. Devitt, Anis Bawarshi, and Mary Jo Reiff--all either a professor or assistant professor of English at a university (so there's a strong possibility these articles were written for specific academies)--that attempts to mold discourse communities into more tangible concepts, simplifying its' purpose into a craft; a set of tools for those who cannot fully grasp the potential within the complex context those communities have. The answer the articles thinks about then relates to genres, specially, how to be "responsive to such questions and link patterns of language use to patterns of social behavior," or simply "provide discipline and focus to the study of discourse communities" (Reading About Writing, 98).
To respond to the suggestion that "genre analysis contributes to the use of ethnomethodology as a research technique that focuses on language and society," the main article use the main point of all three separate articles to further prove on how useful each would alert on genre inside each discourse community works (Reading About Writing, 98). To summarize, Devitt comments that "much of our civic lives involves genres that come out of a community of specialists, whether lawyers, legislators, or government employees," (Reading About Writing, 100) leaving the social matters of voting at a ballot, or serving as a jury member in court, to be at odds with the "users who would ideally reproduce the ideologies and agendas of the legal community" (Reading About Writing, 103). As such, the genres "created within one professional community to be used by nonmembers of that community" (Reading About Writing, 99)--the jury process and the ballots--must now be self-conscious to the problem that "the communal agendas of those who create genres may conflict with the interests of those who use them," leaving those who want to provide good effects to people lives to study their cases at hand and work towards a better understanding of each side (Reading About Writing, 103).
Meanwhile, Bawarshi, instead of paying attention to socially relevant events, looks at a Patient Medical History Form (PMHF)--"a commonly used medical genre"--to "demonstrate how genre analysis gives access to the workings of discourse communities in a way" to "characterize what we are referring to in this essay as discourse communities" (Reading About Writing, 104). To bring this idea into the forefront, she mentions that since the document "helps organize and generate the social and rhetorical environments within which patients and doctors speak to one another," the PMHF becomes "a genre [...] within the medical profession" that forms life as a "part of other social practices (relations between doctors and patients, nurses and doctors, doctors and other doctors, doctors and pharmacists, and so on)" (Reading About Writing, 105). Therefore, using genre analysis, students can now "reduce their abstract, symbolic, status" and make those communities "more visible and accessible to ethnographic inquiry" (Reading About Writing, 106).
Reiff, relating back to the inquiry, sees that "ethnography has become an increasing presence in composition as a research method and a pedagogy," between "the general as well as the particular" (Reading About Writing, 107). So, if one uses her idea that "ethnography is both a genre "a research narrative) and a mode of genre analysis--a research methodology used to grasp cultural beliefs, and ideologies," (Reading About Writing, 107) along with using the label of 'mini-ethnographies', which revolves around studying more specific literacy events, to carry about certain teaching instructions, then ethnographics can be teached inside the classroom while the students are using it within that discourse community with the tools, such as observation or interviews, with them. In other words, if done correctly, students "assume the role of investigators who are learning to speak from their authority as researchers" to further grasp what it is for them to "compose communities while composing in communities" (Reading About Writing, 109)
All these articles sets out exactly what John Swales wanted discourse communities to be in "The Concept of Discourse Community." After laying out his own version of how discourse communities should be conceptualized, he reminds the reader that "those interested in discourse communities have typically sited their discussions within academic contexts, thus possibly creating a false impression that such communities are only to be associated with intellectual paradigms or scholarly cliques" (Writing About Writing, 473). But the approach the cluster of writers all share with one another, compared to Swales, is that simplification of how discourse communities can expand beyond certain contexts into individuals going into their own communicates only stabilizes "an imaginary consensus and a shared purpose that do not reflect real experience within communities" (Reading About Writing, 98). Therefore, the solution does not lie on the individual, but on an ethnomethodology technique that "contribute to the pedagogy of text-dependent subject matter" not for the student's benefit, but for teachers, researchers, AND the student (Reading About Writing, 98).
All in all, I find it interesting that for this article, instead of one writer articulating his point to come across the article, the person editing this article decides to look at the purposes of three individuals writers, find relations to one another, and puts them all into a context that serves to apply what the article is all about: genre within discourse communities. With those various perspirations, I can see what exactly the editor wants to accomplish in that article, and appreciate reading different opinions to further expand my own personal opinion on the concept. Hopefully those purposes will help me out on how I should frame discourse communities to everyday objects beyond certain individuals, and I have a feeling that since I hold no objections to the text within, I think it will work out just fine.
To respond to the suggestion that "genre analysis contributes to the use of ethnomethodology as a research technique that focuses on language and society," the main article use the main point of all three separate articles to further prove on how useful each would alert on genre inside each discourse community works (Reading About Writing, 98). To summarize, Devitt comments that "much of our civic lives involves genres that come out of a community of specialists, whether lawyers, legislators, or government employees," (Reading About Writing, 100) leaving the social matters of voting at a ballot, or serving as a jury member in court, to be at odds with the "users who would ideally reproduce the ideologies and agendas of the legal community" (Reading About Writing, 103). As such, the genres "created within one professional community to be used by nonmembers of that community" (Reading About Writing, 99)--the jury process and the ballots--must now be self-conscious to the problem that "the communal agendas of those who create genres may conflict with the interests of those who use them," leaving those who want to provide good effects to people lives to study their cases at hand and work towards a better understanding of each side (Reading About Writing, 103).
Meanwhile, Bawarshi, instead of paying attention to socially relevant events, looks at a Patient Medical History Form (PMHF)--"a commonly used medical genre"--to "demonstrate how genre analysis gives access to the workings of discourse communities in a way" to "characterize what we are referring to in this essay as discourse communities" (Reading About Writing, 104). To bring this idea into the forefront, she mentions that since the document "helps organize and generate the social and rhetorical environments within which patients and doctors speak to one another," the PMHF becomes "a genre [...] within the medical profession" that forms life as a "part of other social practices (relations between doctors and patients, nurses and doctors, doctors and other doctors, doctors and pharmacists, and so on)" (Reading About Writing, 105). Therefore, using genre analysis, students can now "reduce their abstract, symbolic, status" and make those communities "more visible and accessible to ethnographic inquiry" (Reading About Writing, 106).
Reiff, relating back to the inquiry, sees that "ethnography has become an increasing presence in composition as a research method and a pedagogy," between "the general as well as the particular" (Reading About Writing, 107). So, if one uses her idea that "ethnography is both a genre "a research narrative) and a mode of genre analysis--a research methodology used to grasp cultural beliefs, and ideologies," (Reading About Writing, 107) along with using the label of 'mini-ethnographies', which revolves around studying more specific literacy events, to carry about certain teaching instructions, then ethnographics can be teached inside the classroom while the students are using it within that discourse community with the tools, such as observation or interviews, with them. In other words, if done correctly, students "assume the role of investigators who are learning to speak from their authority as researchers" to further grasp what it is for them to "compose communities while composing in communities" (Reading About Writing, 109)
All these articles sets out exactly what John Swales wanted discourse communities to be in "The Concept of Discourse Community." After laying out his own version of how discourse communities should be conceptualized, he reminds the reader that "those interested in discourse communities have typically sited their discussions within academic contexts, thus possibly creating a false impression that such communities are only to be associated with intellectual paradigms or scholarly cliques" (Writing About Writing, 473). But the approach the cluster of writers all share with one another, compared to Swales, is that simplification of how discourse communities can expand beyond certain contexts into individuals going into their own communicates only stabilizes "an imaginary consensus and a shared purpose that do not reflect real experience within communities" (Reading About Writing, 98). Therefore, the solution does not lie on the individual, but on an ethnomethodology technique that "contribute to the pedagogy of text-dependent subject matter" not for the student's benefit, but for teachers, researchers, AND the student (Reading About Writing, 98).
All in all, I find it interesting that for this article, instead of one writer articulating his point to come across the article, the person editing this article decides to look at the purposes of three individuals writers, find relations to one another, and puts them all into a context that serves to apply what the article is all about: genre within discourse communities. With those various perspirations, I can see what exactly the editor wants to accomplish in that article, and appreciate reading different opinions to further expand my own personal opinion on the concept. Hopefully those purposes will help me out on how I should frame discourse communities to everyday objects beyond certain individuals, and I have a feeling that since I hold no objections to the text within, I think it will work out just fine.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Reading Response #15
"Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics" is an article written by James Paul Gee--possibly for other linguistics students--that calls in favor for "(writing)-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations," or "Discourses" with a capital D, that shall use language not for "what you say, but how you say it." (Writing About Writing, 483-484) If that primary Discourse is used correctly-- passing through tensions of two secondary Discourses by social practice--, then the primary Discourse will form a distinction of dominant ("secondary Discourses ... brings with it the (potential) acquisition of social 'goods'") and nondominant Discourses ("secondary Discourses ... which often brings solidarity with a particular social network, but not wider status and social goods in the society at large") (Writing About Writing, 485). As its' own two conflicts of someone's Discourses grow, the interference of each opposite Discourse will eventually result in studies that can actually be mastered, making it possible to be affirmative in any language, but doesn't guarantee flowing fluency necessarily. As such, students looking to use such language might "'resist' such 'superficial features of language,' so the connections needed for the Discourses to instruct no longer depends on the benefits of the concepts within those same Discourses, but towards social change students use for attraction not for learning, but to show off to peers (Writing About Writing, 488). In other words, a student has to use language "we must say or write ... while playing the right social role and (appearing) to hold the right values, beliefs, and attitudes," or risk social rejection for ideological reasons (Writing About Writing, 484).
This idea of Discourse communities eventually forming into a social conflict somewhat ties back to John Swales' "The Concept of Discourse Community," where in order to be in one such community, someone has to aware that the concept creates "a false impression that such communities are only to be associated with intellectual paradigms or scholarly cliques" (Writing About Writing, 473), so expectations that someone might look for could be deceiving. As such, the individuals within the communities can move around into various other secondary Discourses if he or she wishes, to be free to ignore the demands needed to benefit each community and easily find communities that "overt instruction and are only fully mastered when everything else in the Discourse is mastered" (Writing About Writing, 488). Swales' sees this as a good thing, where his proposed criteria point in a direction where the non-assimilated ideas as "common public goals," "information exchange," and "a high general level of expertise" will result in a community that allows maximum flexibility for those members withing--"avoid developing multiple personalities, even if, with more senior and specialized students (Writing About Writing, 475-476). Gee, through his 'identify kit' theory on Discourse, thinks on the social aspects of those communities, and find out that because of "how much tension or conflict is present between any two of a person's Discourses" always being present, that flexibly suddenly becomes a threat (Writing About Writing, 484-485). As a respond, the Discourse learning as he sees it is not towards on how beneficial it might be towards the members, but on how much restriction it truly has, so those same members would not move not for how much he is interested in each community, but "their lack of mastery of such superficialities" would be used to interest certain groups of society.
To further explain the impact of a member in Discourses, let's take three activities, and me, I am involved in. For these activities, let's use my computer, the college I'm in, and my home. The three of these were chosen not because most of my time is spent on what goes with each time-frame I spent with each, but rather, the three places have different purposes that each correspond without each being aware of it, each having their own language for me to take care of. For instance, I could take my computer with me in either location and rarely have the events the other two games interfere on the purposes I have towards the computer--which is lurk around on forums and waste time on amusing videos. So, ignoring the language used within the communities of my computer (where it wouldn't surprise me if one concept, or for that matter, meme I read/watch inside the computer would later show up superficially--or actuality--in either location), I would say that what goes on around the house rarely shows up at events within my computer, and the concepts introduced to me within my college wouldn't really be discussed within the hallways of my home, simply for one reason. I simply chose to kept each other separate for the sake of making the lives of each occupation I'm in easily observable in some fashion, where each wouldn't interfere with the other, but that doesn't mean I'll keep them separate. If the moments arrives where a moment that happens in the house was too funny to keep to myself, then I can see myself quoting it inside, say, a Facebook conservation with someone and let them know on how silly it really is, because honestly, it's simply harmless.
What isn't harmless is speaking with impeccable grammar and still be "wrong nonetheless." Reading Gee's text, I get the impression that what he meant was that the content within the text, either on how original, convenient, or though-provoking it is, is the core tool needed to really grab people's attention, not just the grammar itself, despite on easily crafted it might be to do so. As Gee himself puts it, "It is not just how you say it, but what you are and do when you say it" (Writing About Writing, 483). It's that ability to describe what the topic is about--and how someone can comprehend it--is what that sentence is trying to say, and speaking from experience of English papers getting praise for the content within, I would say that about matches what I've been taught about grammar--it's necessary, but not the main attraction of a paper.
All in all, I would say that this article was a bit lighter compared to the last few responses, so as a result, I feel as if this response focused a little too much on what it was trying to say in much greater detail than the questions I were to answer, probably because figuring out what the article meant has my attention more than the questions. Despite that, I do like the brisk pace Gee works out, where to get his point across, he tells his audience what he wants to do through repetitive ideas. Looking at the article broadly, he tells what's going on, followed by an example that shows his point with amusing business, which is then shifts explain more on his point, eventually thinking about the concepts in details in an orderly fashion, then shifting back to the topic towards a bigger concept (society), then ending it all with another example. It's that directness I appreciate with the schedule I currently have, and if future articles retain that directness, then my gratitude certainly won't be rejected by my own account.
This idea of Discourse communities eventually forming into a social conflict somewhat ties back to John Swales' "The Concept of Discourse Community," where in order to be in one such community, someone has to aware that the concept creates "a false impression that such communities are only to be associated with intellectual paradigms or scholarly cliques" (Writing About Writing, 473), so expectations that someone might look for could be deceiving. As such, the individuals within the communities can move around into various other secondary Discourses if he or she wishes, to be free to ignore the demands needed to benefit each community and easily find communities that "overt instruction and are only fully mastered when everything else in the Discourse is mastered" (Writing About Writing, 488). Swales' sees this as a good thing, where his proposed criteria point in a direction where the non-assimilated ideas as "common public goals," "information exchange," and "a high general level of expertise" will result in a community that allows maximum flexibility for those members withing--"avoid developing multiple personalities, even if, with more senior and specialized students (Writing About Writing, 475-476). Gee, through his 'identify kit' theory on Discourse, thinks on the social aspects of those communities, and find out that because of "how much tension or conflict is present between any two of a person's Discourses" always being present, that flexibly suddenly becomes a threat (Writing About Writing, 484-485). As a respond, the Discourse learning as he sees it is not towards on how beneficial it might be towards the members, but on how much restriction it truly has, so those same members would not move not for how much he is interested in each community, but "their lack of mastery of such superficialities" would be used to interest certain groups of society.
To further explain the impact of a member in Discourses, let's take three activities, and me, I am involved in. For these activities, let's use my computer, the college I'm in, and my home. The three of these were chosen not because most of my time is spent on what goes with each time-frame I spent with each, but rather, the three places have different purposes that each correspond without each being aware of it, each having their own language for me to take care of. For instance, I could take my computer with me in either location and rarely have the events the other two games interfere on the purposes I have towards the computer--which is lurk around on forums and waste time on amusing videos. So, ignoring the language used within the communities of my computer (where it wouldn't surprise me if one concept, or for that matter, meme I read/watch inside the computer would later show up superficially--or actuality--in either location), I would say that what goes on around the house rarely shows up at events within my computer, and the concepts introduced to me within my college wouldn't really be discussed within the hallways of my home, simply for one reason. I simply chose to kept each other separate for the sake of making the lives of each occupation I'm in easily observable in some fashion, where each wouldn't interfere with the other, but that doesn't mean I'll keep them separate. If the moments arrives where a moment that happens in the house was too funny to keep to myself, then I can see myself quoting it inside, say, a Facebook conservation with someone and let them know on how silly it really is, because honestly, it's simply harmless.
What isn't harmless is speaking with impeccable grammar and still be "wrong nonetheless." Reading Gee's text, I get the impression that what he meant was that the content within the text, either on how original, convenient, or though-provoking it is, is the core tool needed to really grab people's attention, not just the grammar itself, despite on easily crafted it might be to do so. As Gee himself puts it, "It is not just how you say it, but what you are and do when you say it" (Writing About Writing, 483). It's that ability to describe what the topic is about--and how someone can comprehend it--is what that sentence is trying to say, and speaking from experience of English papers getting praise for the content within, I would say that about matches what I've been taught about grammar--it's necessary, but not the main attraction of a paper.
All in all, I would say that this article was a bit lighter compared to the last few responses, so as a result, I feel as if this response focused a little too much on what it was trying to say in much greater detail than the questions I were to answer, probably because figuring out what the article meant has my attention more than the questions. Despite that, I do like the brisk pace Gee works out, where to get his point across, he tells his audience what he wants to do through repetitive ideas. Looking at the article broadly, he tells what's going on, followed by an example that shows his point with amusing business, which is then shifts explain more on his point, eventually thinking about the concepts in details in an orderly fashion, then shifting back to the topic towards a bigger concept (society), then ending it all with another example. It's that directness I appreciate with the schedule I currently have, and if future articles retain that directness, then my gratitude certainly won't be rejected by my own account.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Reading Response #14
"The Concept of Discourse Community" is an academic article written by John Swales--to contribute to "an ongoing academic argument over the social (constructed) nature of language use" (Writing About Writing, 466)--that analyzes the various definitions of discourse communities to figure out hoe much of an impact those communities truly have towards writing. Swales, a "professor of linguistics," (Writing About Writing, 466) has trouble figuring out what exactly constitutes a 'discourse community,' mentioning that the many interpretation of the concept needs "a set of criteria sufficiently narrow that it will eliminate many of the marginal, blurred and controversial." (Writing About Writing, 469) Responding to his own dilemma (and ignoring the possible connection some readers might make with both discourse and speech communities), Swales lays out six principles summed up in the first sentence of each explanation:
1. "A discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals."
2. "A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its
members."
3. "A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide
information and feedback."
4. "A discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one of more genres in the
communicative furtherance of its aims."
5. "In addition to owning genres, a discourse community has acquired some specific
lexis."
6. "A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of
relevant content and a disbursal expertise." (Writing About Writing, 471-473)
In his own words, if someone uses these principles towards an interest any party, and that interest eventually peaks (like he did as a member of the Hong Kong Study Circle), then all 6 ideas will not only be assimilated into nothing, or threaten newcomers with multiple power each community has, but will overall imply two consequences:
a. "individuals may belong to several discourse communities"
(Writing About Writing, 476)
b. "individuals will vary in the number of discourse communites they belong to and
hence in the number of genres they command." (Writing About Writing, 476)
However, as he mentions, his thinking is "somewhat removed from memory," and as such, if someone wants to read his dialogue, then they should not look at it as a final conclusion of an intertextuality concept, but simply as "a matter for future study." (Writing About Writing, 478)
This idea of forming 'discourse communities' into contexts beyond the various definitions made under academic usage goes back to Deborah Brandt's purpose of her text in "Sponsors of Literacy": as long as sponsors "deliver the ideological freight that must be borne for access to what they have," then sponsors can be anything, anyplace, or anybody at anytime, just as various 'discourse communities' could be separate itself into different groups without violating its' core. (Writing About Writing, 335) As such, it is attractive to see both articles support in favor of letting communities beyond an individual think about his writing for him, arriving at conclusions the author himself might not bother to arrive on in the first place. While appealing, Swales' article, however, presents a problem Brandt had no problems explaining. As she puts it, she wasn't planning to tie various definitions of sponsorship into a easily grasped list of principles, but thanks her research of 20th century life, she instead tries to "connect literacy as an development to literacy as an economic development." (Writing About Writing, 334) Swales, meanwhile, has to go away from "creating a false impression that such communities are only to be associated with intellectual paradigms or scholarly cliques," and as such, has to rely on his own experience and his own judgment of those scholarly articles to arrive at the principles he outlined. Of course, using such material is never a bad idea for arriving at specific conclusions, but for comparison sake, that is the big hurdle to take into consideration if one wants to make his or her own conclusion of comparing two articles of mechanical differences.
Meanwhile, as for the description of a time I've felt "out of place," I would pretty much point to some of my school years. From my view, I wasn't into a lot of things other students were passionate about, and whenever I did get into something they did, I usually didn't share their enthusiasm--always on an outside perspective--, so to prove my existence towards them, I either tried whatever I could to grab some kind of attention--rather than letting it gradually develop among a group of friends--or just forget it and leave it alone. Because of this inability to connect to those group of friends, that could protect me at any moment, I had to develop my own pathway during activities, and as such, it wouldn't be a surprise that others saw me walk around the elementary school, just by myself, not really playing with the students or saw me get really passionate on minor social activities, such as quoting cartoons that hold my interest at that time and lurking around the book fair whenever it came around. As such, when my social image was crafted beyond my control, it wasn't one out of whatever it is I did during school time , or not to easily identifiable extremes: I didn't had the energy to become a handsome athlete, I wasn't passionate about my hobbies to become a well-known nerd, and I had no interest in becoming a well-respected singer, so sitting around at home, doing nothing in particular was a regular part of my day. Instead, it was towards how I acted towards others, and as such, I felt like I was at odds with that image, so I had to either battle against that image, or forgot about it and hope it wouldn't interfere on how I saw others. Why did I feel this way? If I had to make a guess, it would probably be a decision I made long ago: if I can't interest others to what I was, what is the point of trying to see where I came from? Whenever or not I made the right decision, and whenever or not I should blame myself or my surrounding for the circumstances that lead me toward that decision, reminds to been seen.
So, to think a 'discourse community' I am in, to tie it to the last paragraph, I'm going to look at my own family and describe the six characteristics of a 'discourse community' by using them. How does it meet the characteristics? Summing it up, we look out for one another, no matter who or what we are. If I have to follow the rules the order...
1. As a family, each of us must stick together and work to the best of our abilities to
reach whatever it is we want to get done. If we can better ourselves as individuals by
doing so, and if it possible to get the job done quicker by working together, then don't
be surprised if each of us have to call each other to get by.
2. If each of us need help, then scream out someone's name and make sure they
understand what it is they want to get.
3. If one of us messes up on something, or when any of us does something stupid, then
they better know as soon as possible, or else risk embarrassment both for themselves
and the family at large.
4. No matter what it is we're into, we have to respect that it's part of who we are, and as
such, we have to go with it, accept that it happened, and let them be who they want to
be.
5. The simpler our language is towards one another, the more likely we can return to
whatever attracts us; try not to elongate your urgent pleas if it can be simplified.
Furthermore, if we get passionate about something, we are fully aware that we're
doing it, so don't remind us we're doing it. Same principal applies if we use language
that is socially unacceptable.
6. If any of us gets in trouble, the chances that one of us has already gone through with
it in the past has already happen. As such, we can offer support, no matter how out of
hand it becomes, so if we have to only communicate through new technology, do so.
If it's brand new, any of us are ready to work with it, together.
All in all, I have once again worked on an article that has allowed me to look at a literary concept and figure out on how that idea can apply to how I look at my own life. After looking into the defining characteristics of Swales' perspective of a discourse community, I realized I was using it all this time, just that I now can think about it conceivably than stumble through it clumsily with the language I previously knew. As such, I am now ready to apply it in the future if it's needed, but until then, I appreciate learning about it now, despite reading what is really part of a larger text analyzing a related subject. Either way, I am ready to return writing more of these, and if it involves learning clarification towards concepts I have really thought about in a certain way, once again, bring them on, I am ready.
1. "A discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals."
2. "A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its
members."
3. "A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide
information and feedback."
4. "A discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one of more genres in the
communicative furtherance of its aims."
5. "In addition to owning genres, a discourse community has acquired some specific
lexis."
6. "A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of
relevant content and a disbursal expertise." (Writing About Writing, 471-473)
In his own words, if someone uses these principles towards an interest any party, and that interest eventually peaks (like he did as a member of the Hong Kong Study Circle), then all 6 ideas will not only be assimilated into nothing, or threaten newcomers with multiple power each community has, but will overall imply two consequences:
a. "individuals may belong to several discourse communities"
(Writing About Writing, 476)
b. "individuals will vary in the number of discourse communites they belong to and
hence in the number of genres they command." (Writing About Writing, 476)
However, as he mentions, his thinking is "somewhat removed from memory," and as such, if someone wants to read his dialogue, then they should not look at it as a final conclusion of an intertextuality concept, but simply as "a matter for future study." (Writing About Writing, 478)
This idea of forming 'discourse communities' into contexts beyond the various definitions made under academic usage goes back to Deborah Brandt's purpose of her text in "Sponsors of Literacy": as long as sponsors "deliver the ideological freight that must be borne for access to what they have," then sponsors can be anything, anyplace, or anybody at anytime, just as various 'discourse communities' could be separate itself into different groups without violating its' core. (Writing About Writing, 335) As such, it is attractive to see both articles support in favor of letting communities beyond an individual think about his writing for him, arriving at conclusions the author himself might not bother to arrive on in the first place. While appealing, Swales' article, however, presents a problem Brandt had no problems explaining. As she puts it, she wasn't planning to tie various definitions of sponsorship into a easily grasped list of principles, but thanks her research of 20th century life, she instead tries to "connect literacy as an development to literacy as an economic development." (Writing About Writing, 334) Swales, meanwhile, has to go away from "creating a false impression that such communities are only to be associated with intellectual paradigms or scholarly cliques," and as such, has to rely on his own experience and his own judgment of those scholarly articles to arrive at the principles he outlined. Of course, using such material is never a bad idea for arriving at specific conclusions, but for comparison sake, that is the big hurdle to take into consideration if one wants to make his or her own conclusion of comparing two articles of mechanical differences.
Meanwhile, as for the description of a time I've felt "out of place," I would pretty much point to some of my school years. From my view, I wasn't into a lot of things other students were passionate about, and whenever I did get into something they did, I usually didn't share their enthusiasm--always on an outside perspective--, so to prove my existence towards them, I either tried whatever I could to grab some kind of attention--rather than letting it gradually develop among a group of friends--or just forget it and leave it alone. Because of this inability to connect to those group of friends, that could protect me at any moment, I had to develop my own pathway during activities, and as such, it wouldn't be a surprise that others saw me walk around the elementary school, just by myself, not really playing with the students or saw me get really passionate on minor social activities, such as quoting cartoons that hold my interest at that time and lurking around the book fair whenever it came around. As such, when my social image was crafted beyond my control, it wasn't one out of whatever it is I did during school time , or not to easily identifiable extremes: I didn't had the energy to become a handsome athlete, I wasn't passionate about my hobbies to become a well-known nerd, and I had no interest in becoming a well-respected singer, so sitting around at home, doing nothing in particular was a regular part of my day. Instead, it was towards how I acted towards others, and as such, I felt like I was at odds with that image, so I had to either battle against that image, or forgot about it and hope it wouldn't interfere on how I saw others. Why did I feel this way? If I had to make a guess, it would probably be a decision I made long ago: if I can't interest others to what I was, what is the point of trying to see where I came from? Whenever or not I made the right decision, and whenever or not I should blame myself or my surrounding for the circumstances that lead me toward that decision, reminds to been seen.
So, to think a 'discourse community' I am in, to tie it to the last paragraph, I'm going to look at my own family and describe the six characteristics of a 'discourse community' by using them. How does it meet the characteristics? Summing it up, we look out for one another, no matter who or what we are. If I have to follow the rules the order...
1. As a family, each of us must stick together and work to the best of our abilities to
reach whatever it is we want to get done. If we can better ourselves as individuals by
doing so, and if it possible to get the job done quicker by working together, then don't
be surprised if each of us have to call each other to get by.
2. If each of us need help, then scream out someone's name and make sure they
understand what it is they want to get.
3. If one of us messes up on something, or when any of us does something stupid, then
they better know as soon as possible, or else risk embarrassment both for themselves
and the family at large.
4. No matter what it is we're into, we have to respect that it's part of who we are, and as
such, we have to go with it, accept that it happened, and let them be who they want to
be.
5. The simpler our language is towards one another, the more likely we can return to
whatever attracts us; try not to elongate your urgent pleas if it can be simplified.
Furthermore, if we get passionate about something, we are fully aware that we're
doing it, so don't remind us we're doing it. Same principal applies if we use language
that is socially unacceptable.
6. If any of us gets in trouble, the chances that one of us has already gone through with
it in the past has already happen. As such, we can offer support, no matter how out of
hand it becomes, so if we have to only communicate through new technology, do so.
If it's brand new, any of us are ready to work with it, together.
All in all, I have once again worked on an article that has allowed me to look at a literary concept and figure out on how that idea can apply to how I look at my own life. After looking into the defining characteristics of Swales' perspective of a discourse community, I realized I was using it all this time, just that I now can think about it conceivably than stumble through it clumsily with the language I previously knew. As such, I am now ready to apply it in the future if it's needed, but until then, I appreciate learning about it now, despite reading what is really part of a larger text analyzing a related subject. Either way, I am ready to return writing more of these, and if it involves learning clarification towards concepts I have really thought about in a certain way, once again, bring them on, I am ready.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Reading Response #13
"The Sticky Embrace of Beauty" is an article written by Ann Frances Wysocki, possibly written for a classroom that aims to learn for the basic constructions of sexuality, that attempts to figure out one central question after anger from a picture in The New Yorker: How can students learn a understanding of visual means of writing, when the per-determined mindset that everybody has known by now is limiting that understanding into concepts that make sense on a technical (or artistic) level, but not on rhetorical principles? The result is formality that depends not on the time and place--or gravity of ascetic proportions-- those principles are known for, but on this judgment of universal understanding that can change the way students think of what exactly the purpose of a suggestive piece of something--in this case, the photo for Kinsey--is truly is.
It's this search for better understanding that brings back to mind of Sherman Alexie's "Superman and Me," where his love for his father brought him into personal literacy? Why bring him up? Because both Alexie and Wysocki were both inspired by what they personally believe in eventually evolved into dedication to their craft; Alexie with his "aching devotion" (WOW 363) to his father that eventually made him a writer that believes of "trying to save our lives" (WOW 365), while Wysocki observation that "we all [...] are pushed to see women only as sexual objects, as objects serving as the means to the ends of others" (ROW 93) eventually led her to teach her students, as a teacher herself, to "learn the social and temporal expectations of visual composition" and "change some of the results" of what she learned (ROW 97). The only big difference between the two is that one managed to get personal satisfaction of what he learned and used it out of a love for writing, while the material of Wysocki's only put her into a state of determination for her and her students to understand what it is that makes social expectation of womanhood so frustrating to many.
Now, in this regularly organized Pre-Reading exercise, I'm going to do something different; if you, the reader, want to join me in looking at the following question ("Spend 10-15 minutes looking up one or more of the following: Kant, Frankenstein, and the Kinsey Institute" it says), go ahead and do what it says and look up "Kinsey Institute" on your search engine and click away for 10 minutes. If successful, you will learn on how the institute researches information for "more effective intervention programs for sexual compulsion and risk-taking that would contribute to reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS," [1] learn about the history of sexology, and discover an archive that can further reader's opinion of various sexualities. Go ahead, we got time to spare.
Okay, where were we? Oh yes, the structure of these reading responses. Well, thinking now of the relationship of Bernhardt and Wysocki, Berhardt explains that the sort of text that "display their structure, providing the reader/ viewer with a schematic representation of the divisions and hierarchies which organize the text." (ROW 35) Because of this existence, with "multiple considerations of audience and purpose functionally constrain the text, influencing its shape and structure," (ROW 39) the visual work Wysocki sets up will work for many people, but shows detriment to searching for the point for readers like myself, where, despite proving the article's purpose of seeking form that's separate from time and space, provides little to the imagination of some readers and the most benefit of the author herself. Does that make it a low-visual text? Possibly; if reader follow Bernhardlt's rule that they "can move about, settle on certain sections, read some sections lightly, some intently, some not at all, and still have a good idea of what the text is about" (ROW 41) without worrying about rhetorical context of the text itself--focusing on the form of the paragraph--then Bernhardlt's explanation apply to the article easily.
Then there is the ad work from Peek. At the least, does it has my interest? Well, it does, but not in a different way. Wysocki mentions that the body "has been made into form, has been departicularized [...] we are seeing a body only through the distant, universalized, formality," (ROW 93) meaning that the nudity within the picture is not one of purity on behalf on the women, but of the representation she stands for. As a reader, curiosity will then strike, leading to a bunch of questions Kinsley probably intended: What this representation is suppose to attract? What does this institution offers to this nudity towards The New Yorker readers? Is this picture telling me the appeals of taking such photography? Sure, the body attracts me, but as a product to arrive at an end, I can't help but ask questions about the personal context, because the motivations/question behind the product overtakes my personal feeling about the nudity itself.
So, is beauty indeed the eye of the beholder? That's a question I'm afraid to answer. See, if a thing is indeed beautiful, what are we suppose to judge it on? I would guess it would either involve my own feelings on the matter, or what someone else who tells me what is beautiful. But when that happens, then I arrive at disputation with others, and myself. What would happen if, say, someone who is really into international programming thinks [x], [y], and [z] is absolutely beautiful, and once I finally get around to seeing it for myself, and I find the beauty to be nothing but artificial, unemotional manipulation in my eyes? Maybe it's because those programming being beautiful doesn't come for the material within, but what the purity is already formed by others. Same thing applies if it applies to myself; what if I tell someone that character [x] is the most flexible construct to form stories, but once another sees the character, they just see that character at their own observation? I guess the answer would be somewhere in the middle: If I can find beauty, it's not because of what it represents, but because it appeal to my already predetermined guidelines of my own attractions; a personal subjectively that applies only to myself and others can agree or disagree at. So to answer the question, yes, but not to either argument, but towards both; the social forces of beauty is out there, and it's possible for that beauty to be inherent, but towards beauty itself, it's all subjective. Beauty in a social context has its' place, but it has to come at an universal level in order for it to work in that context, despite the arguments of what it truly is will eventually be debated into pure subjectively.
Oddly, this fits to a statement Wysocki brings up later on in her article:
"There is no question that there is a certain necessity to effective visual
composition because a design must fit a viewer's expectation if it is to
make sense… but if design it to have any sense of possibility—of
freedom—to it, then it must also push against the conventions, the
horizon, of those expectations" (ROW 97).
What does they have to do with the article? They further explain what Wysocki is angry about the picture, where she believes that, in bold, that the objectification of pictorial bodies are "as inseparable from the formal approaches we have learned for analyzing and making visual presentations of all kinds." (ROW 93) As a result of disconnected frustration over social expectations at work, she now becomes aware of this appreciation of the freedom such imagery can actually bring beyond its' aesthetic senses, so she now, instead, aims towards "its particularities" to "make visible the limitations of the forms we have been asked to grow into but [...] cannot" (ROW 94). In others words, she is not against what the image represents, but against the expression the picture isn't from the three morals she brings up from Kant: the study of nature, the study of morals, and the study of taste and aesthetics (ROW 87). It's this frustration she would probably have to deal with sometime once she goes past photo advertising and looks into the art of drawing, where the line between the purity of the artist's expression and the interpretation of its' audience is now at even greater odds, and the studies she brings up is now sustained by the rules of drawing: negative spaces, spacing, the form, and the various different tools needed. Therefore, the approaches are now even further complicated, while the rules from earlier still serving as the foundation, so the difference between a nude photo and nude drawing will all depends on whenever or not the person seeing it gets personal joy from it or not, despite the differences each brings.
All in all, the article brought up a lot of topics that's worth for my consideration, and I'm glad I got the opportunity to read it. The topic of sexuality and what exactly what it means to be to be seen as one thing by one person but can be something else entirely, which then opens up the possibility that each of their own virtues to a conclusion of a specific individual can eventually form into a even more complicated discussion of the article itself, which is this case, is how form should be treated, has this great complexity I'm eager to explore sometime in the future (what can I say, I love understanding what I think and having it confirm by others). I say bring on more like it.
1. http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/compulsive.html
It's this search for better understanding that brings back to mind of Sherman Alexie's "Superman and Me," where his love for his father brought him into personal literacy? Why bring him up? Because both Alexie and Wysocki were both inspired by what they personally believe in eventually evolved into dedication to their craft; Alexie with his "aching devotion" (WOW 363) to his father that eventually made him a writer that believes of "trying to save our lives" (WOW 365), while Wysocki observation that "we all [...] are pushed to see women only as sexual objects, as objects serving as the means to the ends of others" (ROW 93) eventually led her to teach her students, as a teacher herself, to "learn the social and temporal expectations of visual composition" and "change some of the results" of what she learned (ROW 97). The only big difference between the two is that one managed to get personal satisfaction of what he learned and used it out of a love for writing, while the material of Wysocki's only put her into a state of determination for her and her students to understand what it is that makes social expectation of womanhood so frustrating to many.
Now, in this regularly organized Pre-Reading exercise, I'm going to do something different; if you, the reader, want to join me in looking at the following question ("Spend 10-15 minutes looking up one or more of the following: Kant, Frankenstein, and the Kinsey Institute" it says), go ahead and do what it says and look up "Kinsey Institute" on your search engine and click away for 10 minutes. If successful, you will learn on how the institute researches information for "more effective intervention programs for sexual compulsion and risk-taking that would contribute to reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS," [1] learn about the history of sexology, and discover an archive that can further reader's opinion of various sexualities. Go ahead, we got time to spare.
Okay, where were we? Oh yes, the structure of these reading responses. Well, thinking now of the relationship of Bernhardt and Wysocki, Berhardt explains that the sort of text that "display their structure, providing the reader/ viewer with a schematic representation of the divisions and hierarchies which organize the text." (ROW 35) Because of this existence, with "multiple considerations of audience and purpose functionally constrain the text, influencing its shape and structure," (ROW 39) the visual work Wysocki sets up will work for many people, but shows detriment to searching for the point for readers like myself, where, despite proving the article's purpose of seeking form that's separate from time and space, provides little to the imagination of some readers and the most benefit of the author herself. Does that make it a low-visual text? Possibly; if reader follow Bernhardlt's rule that they "can move about, settle on certain sections, read some sections lightly, some intently, some not at all, and still have a good idea of what the text is about" (ROW 41) without worrying about rhetorical context of the text itself--focusing on the form of the paragraph--then Bernhardlt's explanation apply to the article easily.
Then there is the ad work from Peek. At the least, does it has my interest? Well, it does, but not in a different way. Wysocki mentions that the body "has been made into form, has been departicularized [...] we are seeing a body only through the distant, universalized, formality," (ROW 93) meaning that the nudity within the picture is not one of purity on behalf on the women, but of the representation she stands for. As a reader, curiosity will then strike, leading to a bunch of questions Kinsley probably intended: What this representation is suppose to attract? What does this institution offers to this nudity towards The New Yorker readers? Is this picture telling me the appeals of taking such photography? Sure, the body attracts me, but as a product to arrive at an end, I can't help but ask questions about the personal context, because the motivations/question behind the product overtakes my personal feeling about the nudity itself.
So, is beauty indeed the eye of the beholder? That's a question I'm afraid to answer. See, if a thing is indeed beautiful, what are we suppose to judge it on? I would guess it would either involve my own feelings on the matter, or what someone else who tells me what is beautiful. But when that happens, then I arrive at disputation with others, and myself. What would happen if, say, someone who is really into international programming thinks [x], [y], and [z] is absolutely beautiful, and once I finally get around to seeing it for myself, and I find the beauty to be nothing but artificial, unemotional manipulation in my eyes? Maybe it's because those programming being beautiful doesn't come for the material within, but what the purity is already formed by others. Same thing applies if it applies to myself; what if I tell someone that character [x] is the most flexible construct to form stories, but once another sees the character, they just see that character at their own observation? I guess the answer would be somewhere in the middle: If I can find beauty, it's not because of what it represents, but because it appeal to my already predetermined guidelines of my own attractions; a personal subjectively that applies only to myself and others can agree or disagree at. So to answer the question, yes, but not to either argument, but towards both; the social forces of beauty is out there, and it's possible for that beauty to be inherent, but towards beauty itself, it's all subjective. Beauty in a social context has its' place, but it has to come at an universal level in order for it to work in that context, despite the arguments of what it truly is will eventually be debated into pure subjectively.
Oddly, this fits to a statement Wysocki brings up later on in her article:
"There is no question that there is a certain necessity to effective visual
composition because a design must fit a viewer's expectation if it is to
make sense… but if design it to have any sense of possibility—of
freedom—to it, then it must also push against the conventions, the
horizon, of those expectations" (ROW 97).
What does they have to do with the article? They further explain what Wysocki is angry about the picture, where she believes that, in bold, that the objectification of pictorial bodies are "as inseparable from the formal approaches we have learned for analyzing and making visual presentations of all kinds." (ROW 93) As a result of disconnected frustration over social expectations at work, she now becomes aware of this appreciation of the freedom such imagery can actually bring beyond its' aesthetic senses, so she now, instead, aims towards "its particularities" to "make visible the limitations of the forms we have been asked to grow into but [...] cannot" (ROW 94). In others words, she is not against what the image represents, but against the expression the picture isn't from the three morals she brings up from Kant: the study of nature, the study of morals, and the study of taste and aesthetics (ROW 87). It's this frustration she would probably have to deal with sometime once she goes past photo advertising and looks into the art of drawing, where the line between the purity of the artist's expression and the interpretation of its' audience is now at even greater odds, and the studies she brings up is now sustained by the rules of drawing: negative spaces, spacing, the form, and the various different tools needed. Therefore, the approaches are now even further complicated, while the rules from earlier still serving as the foundation, so the difference between a nude photo and nude drawing will all depends on whenever or not the person seeing it gets personal joy from it or not, despite the differences each brings.
All in all, the article brought up a lot of topics that's worth for my consideration, and I'm glad I got the opportunity to read it. The topic of sexuality and what exactly what it means to be to be seen as one thing by one person but can be something else entirely, which then opens up the possibility that each of their own virtues to a conclusion of a specific individual can eventually form into a even more complicated discussion of the article itself, which is this case, is how form should be treated, has this great complexity I'm eager to explore sometime in the future (what can I say, I love understanding what I think and having it confirm by others). I say bring on more like it.
1. http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/compulsive.html
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Reading Response #12
"From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technologies" is an article written by Dennis Baron, possibly for those who study the context of language usage (along with searching for the origins of writing itself) that talks about expanding technology beyond working on certain machines; a new and exciting writing development that takes "word processing as a given." (WAW 423). As an example, Baron looks at, from engineer Henry Petroski, the "development of the wood-cased as a paradigm of the engineering process." (WAW 426) Looking at the "paradigm of the development of literacy" caused by the pencil, he finds out that pencils went "through a number of strikingly similar stages," which consisted of "accessibility, function, and authentication" (WAW 424) once it gets past
"a restricted communication function ... available only to a small number of initiates." (WAW 424) The result is that most people will eventually see the technological breakthroughs as natural means of working, despite arguments of various educators that deem the technique ruining already established crafts, either as masters (Thoreau vs. Telegraphs) or as members of various institutions (Math Teachers against Calculators).
This method of looking as technology as objects needed for writing goes back to Deborah Brandt's purpose of "Sponsor of Literacy." In the article, Brandt mentions that "sponsors deliver the ideological freight that must be borne for access to what they have," (WAW 335) where various authorities figures provides the tools needed for someone to live, whenever it be a corporation or a person with power. Meanwhile, Baron says that his theories of technology "comes along and we are thrown into excitement and confusion as we try it on, reject it, and then adapt it to our lives," suggesting that their development is depended on how practical the objects crafted are, and if provides to be so, will go through various stages that will eventually end up be necessary in the lives of many. So, right away, the ways people approach writing is different; Brandt thinks the context of an individual, the sponsors, will influence him or her into what that person will have to do with the tool in regards to the contexts, while Baron believes that the battle for autonomic power over new technology (that will eventually become common place past those battles) and an already established methodology will eventually shape those tools into bare necessities beyond the complaints launched at those objects, resulting in tools that can be use in any sort of context. Either way these two put it, both authors seem to reach similar conclusions for writing: If writing was to remind dynamic for the years to come, the people has to adapt with the evolution of the world around them. The difference between, say, having good conversation skills and writing briefs for a local firm, or a telephone and a telegram might be grand, but the similarities beneath those difference--communication-- will continue to be the foundation of those conventions in the years to come, and the sooner they are aware of these changes, the better off the people will become.
If someone were to ask me what kind of technology I use, it would boil down to either of the following:
-My brain
-Pencil
-Pens
-Computer
-Colored Pencils
As far as I'm concerned, my brain is the main source of my writing, while any of the following is the substandard technology needed for the brain's writings to bloom beyond myself.
So does Baron point about making it "hard to imagine new technologies as fundamentally changing the shape or nature of writing," (WAW 440) or in his own words, new technology really "promises, or threatens, to change literacy practices for better or worse" (WAW 423) has any meaning to the personal nature of writing? I wouldn't have any argument against the idea, and even going beyond his point that writing itself started off with the earliest Sumerian scripting "land sales, business transactions, and tax accounts," (WAW 427) Baron has no problem asserting its' audience of the advantages literacy brings to writing. To him, despite the frustrations previous master craftsman had to the latest writing invention (as seen with Thoreau's crusade for the ruling of pencil technology throughout the text), the idea of writing the thoughts of an individual (or facts for an instructor) fundamentally remained the same of simple economics of their time period.
All in all, Baron's article proposes a topic that I never considered before: instead of treating a dull pencil as a tool as a mean to many ends, picture them as a natural step of an evolution process of writing. In other words, typing this post on a laptop might of been revolutionary radical in the past, but if viewed as one way, it's really as valuable as writing down notes with a Number 2 pencil. Such thinking reaffirms my belief that writing is simply writing; it doesn't really matter where or what someone writes their stories that'll get people's attention, but the way he uses his tools (in this case, whatever he uses to write it) to create a story that engages its' audience that does, or a conversation that grasps what the writer wants to express. But I'm sure everyone knows that, and if Baron's article anything to go by, this line of thinking will continue to be the prevailing thought of writing in the years to come. If I was to change with it to continue surviving, so be it.
"a restricted communication function ... available only to a small number of initiates." (WAW 424) The result is that most people will eventually see the technological breakthroughs as natural means of working, despite arguments of various educators that deem the technique ruining already established crafts, either as masters (Thoreau vs. Telegraphs) or as members of various institutions (Math Teachers against Calculators).
This method of looking as technology as objects needed for writing goes back to Deborah Brandt's purpose of "Sponsor of Literacy." In the article, Brandt mentions that "sponsors deliver the ideological freight that must be borne for access to what they have," (WAW 335) where various authorities figures provides the tools needed for someone to live, whenever it be a corporation or a person with power. Meanwhile, Baron says that his theories of technology "comes along and we are thrown into excitement and confusion as we try it on, reject it, and then adapt it to our lives," suggesting that their development is depended on how practical the objects crafted are, and if provides to be so, will go through various stages that will eventually end up be necessary in the lives of many. So, right away, the ways people approach writing is different; Brandt thinks the context of an individual, the sponsors, will influence him or her into what that person will have to do with the tool in regards to the contexts, while Baron believes that the battle for autonomic power over new technology (that will eventually become common place past those battles) and an already established methodology will eventually shape those tools into bare necessities beyond the complaints launched at those objects, resulting in tools that can be use in any sort of context. Either way these two put it, both authors seem to reach similar conclusions for writing: If writing was to remind dynamic for the years to come, the people has to adapt with the evolution of the world around them. The difference between, say, having good conversation skills and writing briefs for a local firm, or a telephone and a telegram might be grand, but the similarities beneath those difference--communication-- will continue to be the foundation of those conventions in the years to come, and the sooner they are aware of these changes, the better off the people will become.
If someone were to ask me what kind of technology I use, it would boil down to either of the following:
-My brain
-Pencil
-Pens
-Computer
-Colored Pencils
As far as I'm concerned, my brain is the main source of my writing, while any of the following is the substandard technology needed for the brain's writings to bloom beyond myself.
So does Baron point about making it "hard to imagine new technologies as fundamentally changing the shape or nature of writing," (WAW 440) or in his own words, new technology really "promises, or threatens, to change literacy practices for better or worse" (WAW 423) has any meaning to the personal nature of writing? I wouldn't have any argument against the idea, and even going beyond his point that writing itself started off with the earliest Sumerian scripting "land sales, business transactions, and tax accounts," (WAW 427) Baron has no problem asserting its' audience of the advantages literacy brings to writing. To him, despite the frustrations previous master craftsman had to the latest writing invention (as seen with Thoreau's crusade for the ruling of pencil technology throughout the text), the idea of writing the thoughts of an individual (or facts for an instructor) fundamentally remained the same of simple economics of their time period.
All in all, Baron's article proposes a topic that I never considered before: instead of treating a dull pencil as a tool as a mean to many ends, picture them as a natural step of an evolution process of writing. In other words, typing this post on a laptop might of been revolutionary radical in the past, but if viewed as one way, it's really as valuable as writing down notes with a Number 2 pencil. Such thinking reaffirms my belief that writing is simply writing; it doesn't really matter where or what someone writes their stories that'll get people's attention, but the way he uses his tools (in this case, whatever he uses to write it) to create a story that engages its' audience that does, or a conversation that grasps what the writer wants to express. But I'm sure everyone knows that, and if Baron's article anything to go by, this line of thinking will continue to be the prevailing thought of writing in the years to come. If I was to change with it to continue surviving, so be it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)