The Language of Change

The documentary "Waiting for Superman" has opened up the airways for our nations to speak freely about American public education.  The film urges the public to look at the state of education today and question how it has become to unequal for the students.  While the film does spend much of the time criticizing the current state, the filmmakers do back their word and provide the audience with solutions to the problem.  their mission is four-fold.  With these changes, they believe America can drastically turn around education for the better.  The four solutions are: great teachers, prepared students, excellent schools and increased literacy.  The problem here lies in the fact that these generic words "great," "excellent" mean very little.  If someone were to look at the stases on which these improvements were defined, they would appear to be meaningless.  What qualifies a "great" teacher, or an "excellent" school?  These words were thrown around carelessly in the film and only added to the superior tone some critics felt this movie took.  In order to be more effective, I would have liked to have seen how Guggenheim (the director) qualified these value terms.

The 11th Hour (...and 59th Minute)

About two months ago our class went to see a screening of the documentary "The 11th Hour."  The film revolved around the central theme that we (our current global population) is now in the 11th hour in the crisis of global warming.  Although personally I support sustainability efforts, I could not help but think about how those who doubt global warming would have viewed this movie.  Similarly to when I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" I was captivated by the rhetoric and persuasiveness of the narrator, but was soon faced with a barrage of voices screaming about the film's propaganda and skewed statistics.  I did not understand how a movie that revolved around science could end up with such a polarizing effect.  When I went into "The 11th Hour" I had that thought in the back of my mind.  If I were to look at this movie from the point of view of a person who did not buy into this type of rhetoric, I most likely would have ignored the entire film.  Looking back on my notes I realize that most of the quotes I took down were reductions of dramatic sound-bites.  I think this use of over-simplification hurt the movie's chances of appealing to a broader audience.  The film really needed to carefully consider their audience construction in this piece to avoid what "An Inconvenient Truth" did- which was to separate public opinion about global warming even more than it already was.  These films are classics examples of "preaching to the choir."  Yes, people who act to prevent global warming will continue their belief after seeing this movie, but will anyone actually start to believe in it or act upon it because of this movie? I think of the people who believe global warming is a phenomenon made up by politicians and think of how the would react to this.  And I cannot help but feel that sound bite after sound bite would only make them role their eyes.

SA #4

In Enoch's article "Becoming Symbol Wise," she discusses Burke, and his method of debate.  This is seen most clearly- and explicitly in Ledbetter and Daniels' article "Forum: Is There a Decline in Literacy?"  Enoch explains the point that students do not have to arrive at one final all-encompassing solution.  Instead she says- it is better highlight the positions taken and then introduce a "third piece that would transcend questions of 'for' and 'against'." (286).  In Ledbetter and Daniels' article, the argumentation of the debate is clearly show, both sides are arguing the "for" and "against" side of the literacy debate.  What is not seen clearly, though, is that third transcendent argument.  However, I believe by constructing thier arguments in the way that they do-by making their arguments by definition different- the forum reaches that third level implicitly on its own.  This allows the article to come to two highly developed positions without having to choose a "right" or "wrong" side in the end.

With election season over, and candidates safely in their seats for another two years, I feel that it is now time to discuss the manor in which political rhetoric reaches (and mainly fails to reach) students.  We live in a society where the act of not voting is a a disgrace and shameful, yet we still live in a world where the joke "I had to text my dad to see who to vote for" exists.  How on earth, in an age of social media overload, do students still not understand what is involved with voting, the election process, and candidates' platforms?  Is it more that they do understand, but do not care? Or that they simply feel lost in the sea of red and blue?  I hope to (somehow) figure out a way to penetrate the barrier between government and student life, and how to find a way to make election processes more accessible for students who are not as politically minded as others.

Thursday's Workshop

Question #1: The most recent disagreement I had was with my sister, who is a freshman here at IU.  Last weekend we were making the long haul back to Chicago, and carpooling with two of my sister's friends from our hometown.  The argument started when I decided at the last minute to come home, upping the amount of laundry and baggage that would occupy the valuable trunk space.  You might think that since we were only going home for a weekend, we wouldn't need that much stuff.  That is where you would be sorely mistaken.  Four girls can occupy a full trunk and back seat space without batting an eye.  This is where the argument began...
After seeing the 3 weeks of laundry I was planning on taking home, my sister yelled saying it would never fit and told me I had to make room for her friends' stuff.  I yelled back and said it was my car and I can take whatever I wanted.  We were arguing on the third level.  We "each g[a]ve decisive weight to a different evidence" according to Kaufer.  She valued that since it was she and her friends were the originally planning the trip they should have first dibs on trunk space.  I valued however, that since it was my car, and I would be driving the five hours home, I had the right to take as much stuff as I wanted.  Neither of our evidences were incorrect- she and her friends had originally planned the trip, but it was my car.  This couldn't have been resolved over redefining a frame or reference, we had to decide which evidence was more important.
Sadly we did not resolve the issue with words, we just slammed the trunk closed until it all fit.

Question #2:
The Brave New World is novel in which a bureaucracy turns out cookie cutter citizens.  The analogy of Brave New World in Savio's speech is tying the imagery of the novel to his perception that the university is acting like a the bureaucracy, with the mission of "suppress[ing] the most creative impluses that [the students] have...turn out people with all the sharp edges worn off."  The conflict level that this supports is level 4.  This analogy supports level 4 because he sees the university as doing something very different that the university does.  Savio and the University each see their goals as the most important which is why they cannot come to an agreement.

Question #3:
By arguing on the stasis of cause and showing the audience that historically poor African-American communities have not received proper post-disaster assistance, he is proving a pattern in the U.S. government.  If he hadn't shown past disasters, one might have thought that this was simply FEMA or the Red Cross' error, a one-time accident.  But showing the continuous cycle only reinforces his claim, and disproves skeptics.  If Savio was to employ this strategy it would make his speech more plausible.  Currently the speech is dramatic- he references futuristic worlds and a writer concerned the complexities of menacing bureaucracies.  If he were to reference more familiar scenes that were more directly relate-able to his claims, then the audience would have more reason to rust him, instead of thinking that he is being exaggerated and over-the-top.  A sense of a historical would help the audience build trust and give him a stronger platform on which to present his claim.

S.A. #3 The Future of Reading

When most people think of scientific papers, a contemplation on the future of Nooks and Kindles is probably not the first thing to come to mind.  However,  Johan Lehrer uses the arrangement of a scientific paper in his article "The Future of Reading."  Although not blatant catagorized, or clearly labeled as a a normal paper of that sort should be, Lehrer cleanly lays out his paper following Alan Gross' model of introduction, results, discussion. 

Alan Gross is the author of "The Arrangement of the Scientific Paper," and says in this essay "a picture of the discovery process as a path-like sequence of logical steps." (89).  Lehrer follows this path begining his article with an introduction.  He starts with the background of what he thinks to let the reader know from what beliefs he will be arguing, saying immediately "I think it’s pretty clear that the future of books is digital."  He also gives the reader a condensed history of the radio as a model to compare the evolution of books against.  This gives the readers a context to place this argument in.  Gross states that "reports begin by placing the incidents they report in the context of a research program whose goal is the discovery of natural laws." (89).  Lehrer then moves to the "results" portion of his article showing the readers facts that came from a nueroscientist.  Showing the readers his methods, helps gain their support and trust. 

At the end of his paper, Lehrer summarizes his thoughts and concludes that if Nooks, Kindles and the like were to make it more difficult for people to passively read, the reader would comprehend things much better "We won’t just scan the words – we will contemplate their meaning."  By following Gross' model this article transforms itself from a blog post of pure opinion, to an intellectual article of thought and intention.  To follow Gross' logical steps will help other writers as well form clear and easy to understand arguments.  

S.A. #2 Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

In this open letter to President Clinton, a group of concerned men have come together in the interest of the United States and its allies to urge the president to take action and address the need of a new foreign policy in the Middle East.  The group pushes him to use his upcoming State of the Union address to outline his plan of handling the crisis in Iraq. However, the aim is not merely to target the President, but also to engage politically-active citizens in this call for policy change. 

This letter demonstrates how easily Kinneavy's genres can blur.  In his text, Kinneavy describes when a writer "embod[ies] his personal or group aspirations in a discourse, the discourse tends to be expressive." (303).  This would hold true if it were not for the fact that the intended reading of this letter depends entirely on how the audience interprets it.  Due to this, the focus shifts from a genre of expressive to that of persuasive.  The encoders are trying to sway the decoders to follow their intended course of action.  Hopefully, the writers will succeed in subscribing the readers to the determined goal.

The fact that this letter is much more focused on how the reader would have interpreted it, than what the writer actually puts on paper really is decided based on by whom the letter is written.  To the general public, these names may not mean much, but to President Clinton, these names would have completely altered the way he read this piece.  The audience construction is the most crucial part of a political writing (especially for one with an agenda like this).  The writers of this piece know that Clinton is not on their side, and because of that, they have to tailor the letter to make it something that he may actually read without bias or constantly thinking of the writer's motives.  For those not familiar with the signers of this letter, some of the notables are (among many others of the same political party): Elliott Abrams- a senior policy analyst who served for two Republican Presidents, Richard Armitage- the secretary of state who served under George W. Bush, and Donald Rumsfeld- the secretary of defense who also under two Republican Presidents.  Due to these highly politicized writers, Clinton would have taken this writing with some serious doubt in the back of his head. This is why audience construction is so crucial.  The meaning of any writing is useless if the readers does not trust the writer.

Although the explicit goal of this letter was to convince Clinton, and the American public to see the need for a change in foreign policy, this letter can also be read as an example of how a reader's stance or background can determine how a text is read.  If the reader came into the text with no background knowledge of the authors, had no political stance, or personal opinions about foreign policy in the Middle East, the reading and understanding of this text would be altered dramatically.  After reading this text, it is now easier to see how essential writing to the correct audience makes the utmost difference in the understood meaning of a text.

S.A. 1: Honesty is Always the Best Policy

Climate change is controversial.  No one can deny that.  If you asked my dad what he thought of it, he would explain vehemently that scientists made it all up to sell a Prius or two.  But Michael Lemonick presents a very different, non-biased way of handling climate change in his article "Honesty Is Always the Best Policy."

Lemonick is advocating for a different type of scientific writing- one that pushes away from sensationalism and speaks honestly and openly to readers.  Concentrated at the beginning of his article is the most essential part of his entire writing.  Jack Selzer in "Rhetorical Analysis: Understanding How Texts Persuade Readers" calls it "ethos."  He explains that this is "the trustworthiness and credibility of the rhetor" (284).  This is an essential element any writer needs to have in order to have their point taken seriously.  Lemonick uses ethos beautifully in the way that presents himself as a very honest man, one who actually practices what he preaches.

At the beginning he comes straight out with the fact that amidst of a crowd of journalists who want to change the world, he simply does it because it provides him with a way to make a living.  This blatant honesty is rarely seen, and hardly expected by a reader.  By making comments like that, or admiting to the sensationalism of past articles, the reader grows to trust him.  Without this bond between author and audience, the article loses its validity. 

He keeps true to his trustworthy character throughout the article.  When he confesses that he was "tempted" to sensationalize his story, not only does is show flaw and provide him with a more human-esque quality, but it also clearly separates him for the other (guilty) writers who commit this fault.  The constant examples of his honest persona build rapport with the audience, which makes his position all the more believable.  With that kind of writing, he might even convince my dad that all scientists are not the liars he believes them to be.