This time I will try to apply the definition of arrangement in rhetoric and the new terminology to a different subject. A couple of weeks ago in class, we discussed that we could apply and understand the concepts of rhetoric in a broader set of topics and media besides advertisement. We were talking about pathos and the emotional proof. It was very interesting for me that Dr. Kearney asked us to look for the use of pathos in architecture, for example. Furthermore, we discussed the use of rhetoric in a whole city such as Washington DC. Thus, I would like to try to apply this week’s concepts to the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial in DC. This memorial is very special for me. It is the first memorial that I visited when I came to spend Christmas with my dad when he had moved to live in the US. A close friend of his took us to see it. He was so passionate about the building and knew so much about its symbolism and FDR’s life that the visit was a remarkable experience.
Even though my dad’s friend’s guided tour was so good, this happened about 8 years ago, so there are many things that I don’t remember very well. For the purpose of the analysis of this week’s topic, I will use an article called FDR Memorial: The newest Presidential Memorial Around the Tidal Basin by Jennifer Rosenberg that I found online. It has comments about the building and pictures which were very helpful.
The memorial is located along the Cherry Tree Walk on the Western edge of the Tidal Basin near the National Mall. This memorial, unlike the ones dedicated to Jefferson and Lincoln, cannot be seen at once. In this case, the viewer needs to walk through it. In fact the memorial is 7.5 acre, and it is a long path waiting to be explored. Since FDR served four terms, the architect designed four rooms to represent each one of these terms. According to the official site online, “this is a memorial not only to FDR, but also to the era he represents”. During his term, the US experienced WWII and the Great Depression, so the memorial in some way refers to those moments of the US history as well.
When you first come into the memorial the location of the big walls, “made out of red South Dakota granite” as described by Rosenberg, guides you through the pathway and gives you hints as to the best way of walking through it. The memorial can be accessed from different points, but I will discuss the chronological order in which it was designed. This arrangement allows us to walk through the rooms in the order in which the events happened in history.
The first wall you encounter serves as an introduction. It has FDR’s full name over his title as president of the US and the years he served. In addition, it has a statue of FDR in a wheel-chair. FDR suffered from polio and had to use a wheel-chair, but he never used it in public. This first presentation of his introduces him as a very human and determined person, and also gives us a hint of the realism intended in the whole memorial. According to the official site, “at the very beginning of the memorial in a prologue room there is a statue with FDR seated in a wheelchair much like the one he actually used”. I would say that this "prologue room" serves as the narrative as well because it states the issue that will be discussed: his four terms as president, as well as his human side when being a president of a powerful nation. The division of the building into four rooms serves as the partition. It states that FDR’s presidency terms are what we will encounter when visiting the memorial.
Since most people that visit the memorial have an interest on it, we could say that this would be a case of honorable quality. For this same reason, we don’t find arguments of refutation. The rhetor has immediate support from the audience (296). Thus, the arguments of confirmation are the different sculptures and quotes that we find in each of the rooms. In the first room, for example, it is predominant the representation of the people that lived in the country at the time. The depiction of those people is very compelling. They are shown in their daily activities and we feel as if entering into their lives. In my opinion, this statues depict FDR as a president that governed for the people. In fact there is a quote, next to one of the statues, that says “I never forget that I live in a house owned by all the American people and that I have been given their trust”. The statue is a man listening to the radio, apparently, to one of FDR’s speeches.
On another note, I see that the realism and expressive power of the sculptures is a strategy that intends to make the audience attentive and receptive. Additionally, the fact that the viewer needs to walk through it, and read the quotes gives him or she an active role that also aids to achieve their attention and receptiveness. In fact, I find very interesting the sculpture called “Breadline”. This shows a line of people apparently waiting to receive some bread during the Great Depression. Many visitors, including me, stand in line behind them and have a photo taken (Rosenberg). Likewise, the quotes carved on the walls are very poetic. They are inspiring and moving using the appeal to emotions.
The waterfalls used throughout the memorial also have a special meaning. They work as a symbol of the situations that the country experienced during the time (Rosenberg). For example, in the third room/third term WWII was the major event. In this room the waterfalls are bigger and the sound of the water is stronger. The use of this symbol is another device to capture the attention of the viewer. The sound and beauty of watching the water fall engages the visitors into the experience of the memorial.
At the end of the memorial we find the biggest waterfall of all. This waterfall serves the purpose of the conclusion. According to Rosenberg, this waterfall possibly represents the strength and endurance of the US. I think that it also represents FDR’s strength and, at the same time, his inspiring spirit which is represented by his words found throughout the pathway.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Arrangement
Chapter 9 is another meaty chapter, but it I found it refreshing to transition out of Invention and into Arrangement. I thought Crowley and Hawhee did an interesting job of explaining the various aspects of argument. The chapter expanded the importance of kairos from previous chapters to include its importance in arrangement, in that kairos in arrangement means knowing when and where to marshal particular proofs (p. 293), as well as weighing the merit of using a proof at all. With attention once again emphasizing the importance of a rhetor knowing how to approach topic with a select audience, as well as choosing and arranging the order of proofs to include in an argument, this chapter cements the idea that rhetoric is indeed an art form.
I found several sections of this chapter to be of particular interest. Page 295 states that, “Cicero warned his readers about the futility of composing the introduction first. … you can’t introduce arguments haven’t yet been composed.” I completely agree with this approach to persuasion as an adult, while the same time, as an elementary teacher, I find myself wondering if this might be a new approach to teaching our persuasive essay. (You know, the infamous five-paragraph essay?) Perhaps fourth grade is too early to make this type of distinction when teaching the basic modes of writing, but perhaps not. I’ll have to let the idea ferment for a while…
Another interesting, and helpful, part of this chapter was the example of, “Keeping Parents Off Campus.” After reading in detail about the various parts of a rhetorical piece, I truly found that labeling the various parts in an actual example helped bring the pieces together. After analyzing the example as presented, I found myself trying to figure out how I would change the information presented if the audience were to change (as suggested in one of the post-chapter activities).
Finally, my favorite sections of the chapter, while obviously not the most important focus, were the sections on imitation, reading aloud, and copying. In reading texts for other writing classes, these ideas resonate through authors such as Elbow, Fletcher, and Goldberg. Even prior to taking classes on writing, I found myself keeping a notebook of words, phrases, and sections of writing that I found interesting or intriguing for one reason or another. It’s a great place to go back to and reflect on some previous readings, as well as write down ideas for future writings. Additionally, while I already read aloud daily to my students, and most days to my own children, I’ve never considered the idea of reading my own writing aloud. I have, however, tried reading students’ works aloud to them in an effort to help them listen for strong and weak points in their pieces. I look forward to further pursuing these ideas in my classroom, and in my personal writing.
This idea of rhetoric might be growing on me -- scary!
The section on How to make the audience attentive and receptive is intriguing because I have a situation going on in my life right now that relates to it. I am having an issue completing my masters degree because Shippensburg University is not offering the courses that are required for graduation. This is my fourth year in the Curriculum and Instruction program with an emphasis in English. The program requires four 500 level English courses. In the past years that I have been a student in this program, there has been one 500 level English course offered. It began the week that I got married and was on my honeymoon, so obviously that class was not an option. I can transfer 3 courses from another university, so I still need that one 500 level course from Shippensburg. I have been sending emails to the head of the English department for about 2 years now. This is should have made more of an impact than it actually did. I was simply told that they were trying their best to offer these courses. Oh, and at one point I was told that I was a really nice girl and they are sorry to hear about my situation. Who cares? This does not help me obtain a degree. Do not offer a degree in a program that you do not offer the classes to match the requirements! When I realized that Ship was once again not going to offer a required course this spring, I decided that something else needed to be done. According the authors, “Rhetors should tie their claim to something that the audience will think important or interesting” (300). This was not getting through to the English department, so I took my issue to the Dean. This issue should be important to the dean and if it matters to the dean, then it should definitely matter to the English department. I’ve also learned to add multiple people to the emails (the dean, the education department chair, the English department chair, and my advisor). For some reason, I found that these people are more efficient when I am contacting more than one at a time. I was securing goodwill in hopes that the audience would be more receptive to my wants. According to Cicero, “goodwill is to be had from four quarters” from our own person, from the person of the opponents, from the persons of the jury, and from the case itself” (qtd. 300). I am trying to reach all levels in order to establish that goodwill from all angles. Here is my latest idea. I would like to establish an independent study with a professor, or take a 400 level course that is being offered and complete additional assignments to make it worth a 500 level. Well, I presented both ideas to the dean who thought they would work and told me to present them to my advisor. The independent study was shot down and I was told that they would not change the number of a course and should petition to have an additional 400 level course count in the place of a 500 level. My advisor wrote the petition and definitely played on ethos. He mentioned that I am a “working public school teacher” and the need to complete my degree in a timely manner. He sent that information today, so this conversation will have to be continued.
Another example that I found interesting that shows the importance to having/creating a receptive audience is the Bin Laden book example found on page 302. The author, Robinson, manages to make the audience feel sympathetic towards the family of the most wanted man in the world. This parallels in a fictional setting. Author, Jodi Picoult, manages to gather sympathy for a school shooter in the novel 19 Minutes. Generally the public is not sympathetic towards a student who chooses to open fire in a high school killing and injuring many students. However, Picoult delves into the years leading up to this massacre; the years of bullying and the ignorance and denial of the teachers and adults in the shooter’s life. The author manages to make his appear as both the person at fault as well as the victim. It is a difficult task. Overall, if the audience cannot be touched or reached in one way or another, the task at hand will not be successful.
Another example that I found interesting that shows the importance to having/creating a receptive audience is the Bin Laden book example found on page 302. The author, Robinson, manages to make the audience feel sympathetic towards the family of the most wanted man in the world. This parallels in a fictional setting. Author, Jodi Picoult, manages to gather sympathy for a school shooter in the novel 19 Minutes. Generally the public is not sympathetic towards a student who chooses to open fire in a high school killing and injuring many students. However, Picoult delves into the years leading up to this massacre; the years of bullying and the ignorance and denial of the teachers and adults in the shooter’s life. The author manages to make his appear as both the person at fault as well as the victim. It is a difficult task. Overall, if the audience cannot be touched or reached in one way or another, the task at hand will not be successful.
Arrangement
I’ll admit, I am little lost in the details of this chapter. This has to do with my inexperience with much of the terminology in this chapter, but more to do (I think) with my regular use and instruction of arrangement.
In one sense, the arrangement on my day is prescribed. I know what I’ll be doing at most hours of the work day, and I know the students that I’ll be teaching. As far as what I’m teaching, most of that is prescribed and passed down from curriculum writers of years before. On the other hand, I do have control of how I arrange my lessons, and I felt that the authors’ discussion on arrangement. Similar to Jeanne’s response, I also base my arrangement on the group that is in front of me and am constantly considering what my students already know, what they need to know, what their interests are, and what they struggle with.
I unconsciously consider the author’s “Topics for Making Audiences Attentive and Receptive” with every class. If I don’t explain it, I’m usually aware of why a particular issue/lesson is important. And while I don’t always succeed, I attempt to explore how the concepts I’m teaching affects my students and people in general. That’s one of the vital components to the study of literature. As teachers of literature (and other subject areas) we discover and explore the human experience. We compare our lives and experiences to the experiences and lives of the characters we read about in hope of coming to a greater understanding of human nature and each other.
In terms making audiences receptive, I think that topic number two is important: weaken ethos of those who oppose rhetor. The langue the authors use here comes across as being harsh, but I don’t see it playing out that way. The authors suggest that a rhetor can bring those who oppose his or her view “into hatred, unpopularity, or contempt…by showing that they have misused any extrinsic advantages they enjoy” (301). Under no circumstances do I feel a teacher should evoke hatred or contempt from his or her students, but I do think they need to expose students’ weaknesses. By first strengthening his or her own ethos, a teacher can help students to understand that they still have things to learn and that they still need guidance and mentorship by exposing their weaknesses. If weaken others’ ethos isn’t paired with showing them respect, a rhetor will lose credibility, trustworthiness, and effectiveness.
The section on Enhancing Ethos (pg 313), which provides a detailed look at the sixteen topics for peroration – and those designed to arouse the pity of the audience. Why does this work so well, and why does it often feel impossible to achieve success in the final part of discourse? I think about how certain commercial and ad campaigns are so effective because they are willing to “stoop” to such low levels of emotional appeals. By no means am I saying I’m above that, but I just can’t bring myself to do it in the eye of the public. I’m sure I’ve resorted to this in personal affairs, but it seems too desperate to do in public. I think we’ve all seen those commercials that are disturbing and difficult to watch. By feeling that way, we are confirming the rhetor’s appeal. I don’t know of many people who go unaffected by graphic images of poverty, suffering, and unethical activity, so it seems like “cheap” argument. At the end of the day, I guess it’s the same thing as showing happy, beautiful, and successful people using certain products and wearing a particular brand. They are both making emotional appeals to illicit action (charity or consumption), but the former seems to be using unfair means to do so.
I should probably include examples:
Calvin Klein One - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmcDpsX4FpQ
ASPCA Commercial - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idCwzy7vNRQ
The conclusions these two commercials use the same device, but in a much different way.
I hoped to explore the second half of this chapter a little more, but my response seems winded at this point and is losing focus. As I mentioned at the start, the amount of terms presented in this chapter overwhelmed me a bit, but I am hopeful that we will get to the topic of Imitation in class tonight.
Arrangement and Politics
Nowhere can Cicero's definition of peroration be demonstrated clearer than in politics. It seems to me that political ads, speeches, debates, etc are composed mainly of conclusions rather than any of the other parts of discourse. Just to refresh the definition according to Cicero (C&H, 310): "A rhetor may do three things in peroration:
1. Sum up her arguments
2. Cast anyone who disagrees with her in a negative light
3. Arouse sympathy for herself, her clients, or her case.
I'm mainly concerned at observing 2. With less than 2 weeks to go in this year's mid-term election, many of the political ads seen on television are created specifically with the goal of making the opponent look like an impostor, a 'socialist' or 'fascist', a Wall Street insider, un-patriotic, etc. The political strategy in the ads of recent years is that each candidate spends more time and money making their opponent look evil, rather than convincing the public why he/she should be elected. Not to reveal anything about my political affiliations, but it appears that Republican Pat Toomey has been employing this method since spring/summer of this year. When I think of recent negative attack ads, his commercials always tell the viewer/potential voter why Joe Sestak should not be elected. They go to great lengths even to convince people why Joe Sestak is the wrong man for the job. Here's an example of what I mean, he attacks Sestak but then does not say why we the voters should elect him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=9Eq2kDyPKs8
Now I'm sure Sestak has his share of negative attack ads but Toomey's stick out to me the most when thinking over the last few months of campaign ads. Here's a Sestak ad, which paints Toomey somewhat negatively, but at least Sestak explains what the differences are between the two candidates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVBl0p7lx5w&feature=player_embedded
In the section entitled Enhancing Ethos, Cicero mentions sixteen topics for arousing pity of the audience. The first and second topics made me think of politics again, "a rhetor can show in her peroration that the state of affairs she opposes is much worse than it used to be, that currently things are very bad, or that they will continue to be deplorable in the future," (C&H, 313). In 2008 when Obama and McCain were running, it was the strategy by Democratic candidates to paint the previous 8 years as a terrible time in the US and that by electing another Republican we would be committing ourselves to another 4 years of Bush-era politics. Even in the current elections Democrats are using the same strategy, 2 years later. The Republicans are now using the similar strategy to rally voters to recognize that "currently things are very bad" and that they will continue to worsen unless they vote for a Republican. They are using such rallying points as high unemployment, the current issues of Don't Ask/Don't Tell, the continued wars in Iraq/Afghanistan among others. Their strategy is trying to convince that if they elect a Republican, the economy will instantly improve and unemployment will drop down to levels seen during the Bush years.
This was a very informative chapter and I really liked how C & H created lists throughout the chapter to help understand the topics described.
I look forward to tonight's discussions.
1. Sum up her arguments
2. Cast anyone who disagrees with her in a negative light
3. Arouse sympathy for herself, her clients, or her case.
I'm mainly concerned at observing 2. With less than 2 weeks to go in this year's mid-term election, many of the political ads seen on television are created specifically with the goal of making the opponent look like an impostor, a 'socialist' or 'fascist', a Wall Street insider, un-patriotic, etc. The political strategy in the ads of recent years is that each candidate spends more time and money making their opponent look evil, rather than convincing the public why he/she should be elected. Not to reveal anything about my political affiliations, but it appears that Republican Pat Toomey has been employing this method since spring/summer of this year. When I think of recent negative attack ads, his commercials always tell the viewer/potential voter why Joe Sestak should not be elected. They go to great lengths even to convince people why Joe Sestak is the wrong man for the job. Here's an example of what I mean, he attacks Sestak but then does not say why we the voters should elect him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=9Eq2kDyPKs8
Now I'm sure Sestak has his share of negative attack ads but Toomey's stick out to me the most when thinking over the last few months of campaign ads. Here's a Sestak ad, which paints Toomey somewhat negatively, but at least Sestak explains what the differences are between the two candidates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVBl0p7lx5w&feature=player_embedded
In the section entitled Enhancing Ethos, Cicero mentions sixteen topics for arousing pity of the audience. The first and second topics made me think of politics again, "a rhetor can show in her peroration that the state of affairs she opposes is much worse than it used to be, that currently things are very bad, or that they will continue to be deplorable in the future," (C&H, 313). In 2008 when Obama and McCain were running, it was the strategy by Democratic candidates to paint the previous 8 years as a terrible time in the US and that by electing another Republican we would be committing ourselves to another 4 years of Bush-era politics. Even in the current elections Democrats are using the same strategy, 2 years later. The Republicans are now using the similar strategy to rally voters to recognize that "currently things are very bad" and that they will continue to worsen unless they vote for a Republican. They are using such rallying points as high unemployment, the current issues of Don't Ask/Don't Tell, the continued wars in Iraq/Afghanistan among others. Their strategy is trying to convince that if they elect a Republican, the economy will instantly improve and unemployment will drop down to levels seen during the Bush years.
This was a very informative chapter and I really liked how C & H created lists throughout the chapter to help understand the topics described.
I look forward to tonight's discussions.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Valuing the proper order of things
I really appreciated the breadth offered by Crowley and Hawhee on the topic of arrangement. Despite a relatively heavy use of new terminology, chapter 9 offered a clear and systematic approach to the discussion of the six-part division of discourse touted by Cicero (294).
Perhaps I appreciated their treatment of the issue of arrangement because in my own experiences many of the texts prescribed for use at my own institution (with the exception of a number of the texts used in the developmental writing sequence) do not do such a thorough job in instructing students on why arrangement of ideas is so important or on how to organize ideas for the best effect. And, as the authors suggest, modern rhetorical arrangement has become somewhat formulaic, with an emphasis on genre substituted for the ancient rhetors’ emphasis on rhetorical situation, of which the audience was a key element (292). Although, Crowley and Hawhee’s presentation of the concept of arrangement has a bit of the formula feel to it.
I’d like to think that audience is a primary consideration when I am trying to determine what to cover in a given course (when the text presents more material that can effectively be covered in 15 weeks) and in what order the concepts should be addressed; I look at things such as,
· what is the make up of the class
· what is it likely the students already understand
· what is the curriculum for composition courses they have already taken
· what types of writing have instructors of those courses addressed
· what activities will engage the students and make them active in the learning process
· what will motivate the students
· what has been effective or ineffective in the past with similar groups
and so on. The answers to these questions help to inform my decisions about how to select and arrange the relevant information.
Of course, to generate the answers to some of these questions, I go right to the source and ask the students in the first days of the course, but this option is not always available to the rhetor.
I liken this process to one that is often discussed in courses which focus on writing for the business world. In such courses, and necessarily then in the texts used in those courses, the role of audience is emphasized. Using a model like the PAIBOC method, students are taught the importance of taking their time to find out about their audience and their audience’s needs before composing discourse that will be addressed to that audience. The PAIBOC method asks one to reflect on these issues:
· the Purpose for addressing the audience
· who the Audience(s) is/are and how the issue affects him/them
· what Information the audience needs to be able to act or respond
· what Benefits the audience will enjoy by attending to the discourse
· what Objections the audience might have to what is being said or proposed and how to
deal with those objections
· what the Context of the situation is
While business writing is so fully audience driven, it seems this focus on audience is often overlooked or, perhaps, forgotten in other forms of discourse. There is a tendency to get caught up in the message and saying what one wants to say rather than what will resonate most with those receiving the message.
To this end then, business writing places the information deemed most critical to the audience up front. Paragraphs are short and to the point. Information is often arranged as bullet points or numbered to facilitate the reader’s locating and reading the key ideas (similar to the way in which Crowley and Hawhee number the summative points throughout chapter 9). After all, in the world of business, time is money; lengthy and poorly arranged discourse (letter, memo, proposal, report, cover letter) will not garner much attention. Crowley and Hawhee seem to suggest the same thing about persuasive discourse.
Interestingly, my students recently read a chapter in their freshman comp. textbook that utilized this bullet point method for delineating key points to consider when using evidence. In the students’ written responses to the chapter, I noticed that quite a few commented on the clarity this arrangement of information provided for them—evidence that arrangement really does matter!?
On a final note, I enjoyed the discussion on imitation that concludes the chapter. I have to agree with the premise that great writers are not necessarily born with the ability to write. While the process of writing eloquently may come more easily for some, initial struggles with composing can be overcome through both imitation and practice. For example, I often find that students who are readers tend to produce more effective writing with efficiency; while others may generate good writing, their efforts are frequently more painstaking and time consuming. The readers’ extensive exposure to the written word translates to their own writing.
Pedagogical practices of journaling, paraphrasing and even peer review seem to follow from this belief in practice and imitation. As a technique for encouraging greater writing proficiency, many teachers make use of a journal assignment to promote more frequent student writing. Because a journal is typically treated as an informal mode of writing, students do not have the same insecurities about how their writing will be perceived. Thus, as a teacher responds to the journal entries and encourages deeper thought, the student develops more confidence in himself and his ability to express himself through writing. The journal becomes a tool for critical thinking, writing practice, and writing proficiency.
Paraphrasing is a common form of imitation that helps a writer demonstrate a variety of writing skills as well as an understanding of the text which he is rephrasing. I always enjoy the results of a paraphrasing activity I sometimes do with my students; usually we end up with a multitude of very different ways to say the same thing, which serves to clarify for the students what a resource language can be.
At the heart of peer review, the primary goal is to provide feedback that will allow a writer to effectively revise his written work. However, the process of reading and evaluating another’s writing exposes the reviewer to different techniques, processes and stylistic practices. In recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of another person’s writing, the review can begin to discover these same strengths and weaknesses in his own writing and work toward mimicking those strategies that work most effectively. Once used effectively, they become part of his common repertoire of techniques.
There were so many nuggets of truth found in these latter pages of the chapter that I could probably write a few more pages, but I will save some of these thoughts for Thursday night.
Perhaps I appreciated their treatment of the issue of arrangement because in my own experiences many of the texts prescribed for use at my own institution (with the exception of a number of the texts used in the developmental writing sequence) do not do such a thorough job in instructing students on why arrangement of ideas is so important or on how to organize ideas for the best effect. And, as the authors suggest, modern rhetorical arrangement has become somewhat formulaic, with an emphasis on genre substituted for the ancient rhetors’ emphasis on rhetorical situation, of which the audience was a key element (292). Although, Crowley and Hawhee’s presentation of the concept of arrangement has a bit of the formula feel to it.
I’d like to think that audience is a primary consideration when I am trying to determine what to cover in a given course (when the text presents more material that can effectively be covered in 15 weeks) and in what order the concepts should be addressed; I look at things such as,
· what is the make up of the class
· what is it likely the students already understand
· what is the curriculum for composition courses they have already taken
· what types of writing have instructors of those courses addressed
· what activities will engage the students and make them active in the learning process
· what will motivate the students
· what has been effective or ineffective in the past with similar groups
and so on. The answers to these questions help to inform my decisions about how to select and arrange the relevant information.
Of course, to generate the answers to some of these questions, I go right to the source and ask the students in the first days of the course, but this option is not always available to the rhetor.
I liken this process to one that is often discussed in courses which focus on writing for the business world. In such courses, and necessarily then in the texts used in those courses, the role of audience is emphasized. Using a model like the PAIBOC method, students are taught the importance of taking their time to find out about their audience and their audience’s needs before composing discourse that will be addressed to that audience. The PAIBOC method asks one to reflect on these issues:
· the Purpose for addressing the audience
· who the Audience(s) is/are and how the issue affects him/them
· what Information the audience needs to be able to act or respond
· what Benefits the audience will enjoy by attending to the discourse
· what Objections the audience might have to what is being said or proposed and how to
deal with those objections
· what the Context of the situation is
While business writing is so fully audience driven, it seems this focus on audience is often overlooked or, perhaps, forgotten in other forms of discourse. There is a tendency to get caught up in the message and saying what one wants to say rather than what will resonate most with those receiving the message.
To this end then, business writing places the information deemed most critical to the audience up front. Paragraphs are short and to the point. Information is often arranged as bullet points or numbered to facilitate the reader’s locating and reading the key ideas (similar to the way in which Crowley and Hawhee number the summative points throughout chapter 9). After all, in the world of business, time is money; lengthy and poorly arranged discourse (letter, memo, proposal, report, cover letter) will not garner much attention. Crowley and Hawhee seem to suggest the same thing about persuasive discourse.
Interestingly, my students recently read a chapter in their freshman comp. textbook that utilized this bullet point method for delineating key points to consider when using evidence. In the students’ written responses to the chapter, I noticed that quite a few commented on the clarity this arrangement of information provided for them—evidence that arrangement really does matter!?
On a final note, I enjoyed the discussion on imitation that concludes the chapter. I have to agree with the premise that great writers are not necessarily born with the ability to write. While the process of writing eloquently may come more easily for some, initial struggles with composing can be overcome through both imitation and practice. For example, I often find that students who are readers tend to produce more effective writing with efficiency; while others may generate good writing, their efforts are frequently more painstaking and time consuming. The readers’ extensive exposure to the written word translates to their own writing.
Pedagogical practices of journaling, paraphrasing and even peer review seem to follow from this belief in practice and imitation. As a technique for encouraging greater writing proficiency, many teachers make use of a journal assignment to promote more frequent student writing. Because a journal is typically treated as an informal mode of writing, students do not have the same insecurities about how their writing will be perceived. Thus, as a teacher responds to the journal entries and encourages deeper thought, the student develops more confidence in himself and his ability to express himself through writing. The journal becomes a tool for critical thinking, writing practice, and writing proficiency.
Paraphrasing is a common form of imitation that helps a writer demonstrate a variety of writing skills as well as an understanding of the text which he is rephrasing. I always enjoy the results of a paraphrasing activity I sometimes do with my students; usually we end up with a multitude of very different ways to say the same thing, which serves to clarify for the students what a resource language can be.
At the heart of peer review, the primary goal is to provide feedback that will allow a writer to effectively revise his written work. However, the process of reading and evaluating another’s writing exposes the reviewer to different techniques, processes and stylistic practices. In recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of another person’s writing, the review can begin to discover these same strengths and weaknesses in his own writing and work toward mimicking those strategies that work most effectively. Once used effectively, they become part of his common repertoire of techniques.
There were so many nuggets of truth found in these latter pages of the chapter that I could probably write a few more pages, but I will save some of these thoughts for Thursday night.
Accountability vs. Respect
Finally, we have moved away from the topic of invention and are focusing on a new aspect of rhetoric! Not that I dislike invention, of course. It’s probably the most important part of discourse, so long as you’re able to communicate somewhat effectively.
What’s just as refreshing as a switch in rhetorical focus is the difference between the ancient’s way of viewing arrangement as opposed to the rhetoricians of today. Crowley & Hawhee illustrate that on the second page of the chapter when they discuss the less formal and more audience-centered views the ancients had on arrangement. It reminded me of when I formerly wrote for the Williamsport Sun-Gazette.
I wrote two styles of pieces with two separate arrangements: one in the print edition (more geared towards the casual reader) and another on my blog on the paper’s website (geared more towards the hardcore user, as they had to seek the content out). I had much more fun writing the blog, as I could dispense with the formality of making sure everyone followed along and just write for an audience I knew both understood what I was saying and had a desire to go beyond the surface-level of information presented in the paper. It made me happy to know I didn’t have to cater to everyone and could write for those who weren’t outsiders or just reading me by chance.
That was why I was somewhat disheartened to read some of the tips in the lists of topics in this chapter. Crowley & Hawhee state that one topic that can make an audience more receptive was to “Show respect for audience” (302). Now, that seems an easy one for most to agree with, but I think a little negativity towards the audience can absolutely have its place. Otherwise, how can they be expected to believe we are being truly honest? Your audience can’t think there’s any level of objectivity if blame is always on someone else and never on them.
There are endless real-world examples. Politics where a president with a horrible approval rating was elected, as was the case with both Obama and Bush. Scientist who write to the general public on the effects of their own carbon footprints. These audiences need to be held accountable for their choices, and too often “respecting an audience” means to absolve them of any fault whatsoever. That’s certainly the case in today’s media, at the very least.
I’ll use an example that’s a more focused one than the ones above. Many times when I read fantasy sports advice columns, they cite percentage owned or percentage started figures for players in the fantasy universe. Sometimes weeks or even months go by where the author’s recommendations go ignored and those percentage stay either ridiculously high or low. The author often (and rightfully so) criticizes his readers for not taking his advice. And why shouldn’t he? He’s paid to assist them with his opinions. If they don’t take his advice, how much respect can you really give them as an audience?
The argument, of course, can be made that he lacks a quality they can empathize with as a rhetor and that is why they don’t take his advice. Or perhaps they succeed in spite of him, though I sincerely doubt it, at least in the majority of cases. I just dislike the “it’s all about you” mentality we’ve come to as a society. It permeates every level of media, from newspapers to radio to television. The entitlement of everyday people is at an appalling level, and to continue to preach “respect for audience” does nothing to diminish that.
Again, I’m not saying to tell the audience to go f--- themselves (provided they don’t deserve it, of course). I’d just like for accountability to become prevalent once again, something that’s been missing among the common man and woman in this county for a long, long time.
What’s just as refreshing as a switch in rhetorical focus is the difference between the ancient’s way of viewing arrangement as opposed to the rhetoricians of today. Crowley & Hawhee illustrate that on the second page of the chapter when they discuss the less formal and more audience-centered views the ancients had on arrangement. It reminded me of when I formerly wrote for the Williamsport Sun-Gazette.
I wrote two styles of pieces with two separate arrangements: one in the print edition (more geared towards the casual reader) and another on my blog on the paper’s website (geared more towards the hardcore user, as they had to seek the content out). I had much more fun writing the blog, as I could dispense with the formality of making sure everyone followed along and just write for an audience I knew both understood what I was saying and had a desire to go beyond the surface-level of information presented in the paper. It made me happy to know I didn’t have to cater to everyone and could write for those who weren’t outsiders or just reading me by chance.
That was why I was somewhat disheartened to read some of the tips in the lists of topics in this chapter. Crowley & Hawhee state that one topic that can make an audience more receptive was to “Show respect for audience” (302). Now, that seems an easy one for most to agree with, but I think a little negativity towards the audience can absolutely have its place. Otherwise, how can they be expected to believe we are being truly honest? Your audience can’t think there’s any level of objectivity if blame is always on someone else and never on them.
There are endless real-world examples. Politics where a president with a horrible approval rating was elected, as was the case with both Obama and Bush. Scientist who write to the general public on the effects of their own carbon footprints. These audiences need to be held accountable for their choices, and too often “respecting an audience” means to absolve them of any fault whatsoever. That’s certainly the case in today’s media, at the very least.
I’ll use an example that’s a more focused one than the ones above. Many times when I read fantasy sports advice columns, they cite percentage owned or percentage started figures for players in the fantasy universe. Sometimes weeks or even months go by where the author’s recommendations go ignored and those percentage stay either ridiculously high or low. The author often (and rightfully so) criticizes his readers for not taking his advice. And why shouldn’t he? He’s paid to assist them with his opinions. If they don’t take his advice, how much respect can you really give them as an audience?
The argument, of course, can be made that he lacks a quality they can empathize with as a rhetor and that is why they don’t take his advice. Or perhaps they succeed in spite of him, though I sincerely doubt it, at least in the majority of cases. I just dislike the “it’s all about you” mentality we’ve come to as a society. It permeates every level of media, from newspapers to radio to television. The entitlement of everyday people is at an appalling level, and to continue to preach “respect for audience” does nothing to diminish that.
Again, I’m not saying to tell the audience to go f--- themselves (provided they don’t deserve it, of course). I’d just like for accountability to become prevalent once again, something that’s been missing among the common man and woman in this county for a long, long time.
Monday, October 18, 2010
A Thesis, An Elbow and An Election.
I enjoyed reading this week’s chapter. However, I have to admit that I am having great difficulty in writing this week’s blog. I felt that a lot of my thoughts and comments centered on ideas that we have either already discussed or that I have already mentioned in other blogs. So after a long day in an airport waiting for my flight home, I came up with the idea for this blog. I felt that this week’s chapter dealt at different spots with the ideals surrounding a thesis, a great author (Peter Elbow) and election materials.
All of us in this class are grad students and so we all are working on the thesis. The strength or weakness of the thesis completely depends on the arrangement of one’s materials around the central (and original) point. At the start of the chapter, Crowley and Hawhee quote form Cicero’s De Orante. According to Cicero’s statement, “in my own case when I am collecting arguments fro my cases I make it my practice not so much to count them as to weigh them” (292). The whole point of a thesis is to arrange the text in a way that will support your claim and will hopefully be accepted by the academic community. Thus, a writer will utilize the most vital claims that are supportive to the work. Last year while in HUM 500, we were told to remember that while working on our thesis we were to utilize only the evidence that was needed and not to overdo it. Otherwise, if the writer utilized numerous citations, the readers would be unable to determine the thesis’ point or the author’s scholastic ability. This point supports Crowley and Hawhee’s claim that “attention to kairos in arrangement means knowing when and where to marshal particular proofs. Kairos suggests the possibility of achieving an advantage with optimal placement of arguments…” (293). This statement supports Cicero’s idea on understanding the value and worth of one’s evidence instead of the amount. Hence, this chapter is helpful to those working on their thesis, especially the points on the “six parts” that “were more or less standard” (294).
While reading this chapter, my thoughts drifted towards Peter Elbow. As previously mentioned in another blog, I am reading Peter Elbow in another class. His book, Writing Without Teachers, centers on the idea of encouraging students to embrace writing and see themselves as writers. Elbow discusses the popular technique of cut n paste, which literally allows the student to take apart his or her paper and to rearrange it. While Crowley and Hawhee’s chapter is based on arrangement, it is not this Elbow technique that I wish to discuss. Elbow wants students to write often and to get comfortable with it. Indeed, he seeks to destroy the idea “that great writers are born with an inherent creative ability that is denied to the rest of us” which “is so powerful in our culture that it sometimes discourages people from even trying to learn how to write better” (Crowley and Hawhee 319). Elbow writes that students need to write often and he supports peer reviews and writing groups which foster writing. However, Crowley, Hawhee and Elbow all share one item in common; they both discuss the valuable use of reading out loud. Elbow writes that “Hearing your own words out loud gives you the vicarious experience of being someone else. Reading your words out loud stresses what is most important: writing is really a voice spread out over time, not marks spread out in space” (Elbow 82). Crowley and Hawhee also believe that reading out loud is beneficial. Crowley and Hawhee write “Reading aloud develops an ear for sentence rhythm, and it strengthens reading skills as well. Reading aloud from the work of others may also enable you to absorb some habits of style that are not currently in your repertoire… Read aloud to yourself or to others… In fact, you should get in the habit of reading your own writing aloud; this will help you to spot places where punctuation is needed (or not) and to determine whether the rhythm of the sentence is pleasing to the ear” (322). In other words, reading out loud aids both the speaker and the writer. The writer gains advice and aid, while the speaker gains confidence and control which is important to most political candidates.
While on the debate team, we were instructed to never let the other team know that they caught us off guard when they would refute our statement. Our voices were trained to not squeak or dip. In order to do this, our coach made us read from various books, speeches, etc. We were never allowed time to review the reading ahead of time. We were randomly called on to read and had to read till told to stop. It aided us in learning how to control our composure while listening to a great refute that we had not even imagined. My next coach trained us to think about every possible refute to an answer. Crowley and Hawhee write that “Sometimes it is necessary for a rhetor to anticipate arguments that might damage her ethos or her case if her audience accepts them” (310). One group of human beings that desperately need to be trained in the practice of refutation is that of political candidates. Their whole campaign is based on their ethos and their acceptance by a voting audience. Thus, they must be constantly ready to respond to allegations. Crowley and Hawhee write that “Thorough attention to invention should disclose arguments that need to be anticipated and refuted” (310). While I was sitting in an airport near a TV waiting for my flight home, I saw continuous proof of refutation in political commercials. It seems that most of the commercials that I saw were based on refuting an attack or anticipating an attack. Thus, one can see that the ancient practice is still relevant in today’s busy world.
I really enjoyed this chapter and am looking forward to Thursday’s discussion.
All of us in this class are grad students and so we all are working on the thesis. The strength or weakness of the thesis completely depends on the arrangement of one’s materials around the central (and original) point. At the start of the chapter, Crowley and Hawhee quote form Cicero’s De Orante. According to Cicero’s statement, “in my own case when I am collecting arguments fro my cases I make it my practice not so much to count them as to weigh them” (292). The whole point of a thesis is to arrange the text in a way that will support your claim and will hopefully be accepted by the academic community. Thus, a writer will utilize the most vital claims that are supportive to the work. Last year while in HUM 500, we were told to remember that while working on our thesis we were to utilize only the evidence that was needed and not to overdo it. Otherwise, if the writer utilized numerous citations, the readers would be unable to determine the thesis’ point or the author’s scholastic ability. This point supports Crowley and Hawhee’s claim that “attention to kairos in arrangement means knowing when and where to marshal particular proofs. Kairos suggests the possibility of achieving an advantage with optimal placement of arguments…” (293). This statement supports Cicero’s idea on understanding the value and worth of one’s evidence instead of the amount. Hence, this chapter is helpful to those working on their thesis, especially the points on the “six parts” that “were more or less standard” (294).
While reading this chapter, my thoughts drifted towards Peter Elbow. As previously mentioned in another blog, I am reading Peter Elbow in another class. His book, Writing Without Teachers, centers on the idea of encouraging students to embrace writing and see themselves as writers. Elbow discusses the popular technique of cut n paste, which literally allows the student to take apart his or her paper and to rearrange it. While Crowley and Hawhee’s chapter is based on arrangement, it is not this Elbow technique that I wish to discuss. Elbow wants students to write often and to get comfortable with it. Indeed, he seeks to destroy the idea “that great writers are born with an inherent creative ability that is denied to the rest of us” which “is so powerful in our culture that it sometimes discourages people from even trying to learn how to write better” (Crowley and Hawhee 319). Elbow writes that students need to write often and he supports peer reviews and writing groups which foster writing. However, Crowley, Hawhee and Elbow all share one item in common; they both discuss the valuable use of reading out loud. Elbow writes that “Hearing your own words out loud gives you the vicarious experience of being someone else. Reading your words out loud stresses what is most important: writing is really a voice spread out over time, not marks spread out in space” (Elbow 82). Crowley and Hawhee also believe that reading out loud is beneficial. Crowley and Hawhee write “Reading aloud develops an ear for sentence rhythm, and it strengthens reading skills as well. Reading aloud from the work of others may also enable you to absorb some habits of style that are not currently in your repertoire… Read aloud to yourself or to others… In fact, you should get in the habit of reading your own writing aloud; this will help you to spot places where punctuation is needed (or not) and to determine whether the rhythm of the sentence is pleasing to the ear” (322). In other words, reading out loud aids both the speaker and the writer. The writer gains advice and aid, while the speaker gains confidence and control which is important to most political candidates.
While on the debate team, we were instructed to never let the other team know that they caught us off guard when they would refute our statement. Our voices were trained to not squeak or dip. In order to do this, our coach made us read from various books, speeches, etc. We were never allowed time to review the reading ahead of time. We were randomly called on to read and had to read till told to stop. It aided us in learning how to control our composure while listening to a great refute that we had not even imagined. My next coach trained us to think about every possible refute to an answer. Crowley and Hawhee write that “Sometimes it is necessary for a rhetor to anticipate arguments that might damage her ethos or her case if her audience accepts them” (310). One group of human beings that desperately need to be trained in the practice of refutation is that of political candidates. Their whole campaign is based on their ethos and their acceptance by a voting audience. Thus, they must be constantly ready to respond to allegations. Crowley and Hawhee write that “Thorough attention to invention should disclose arguments that need to be anticipated and refuted” (310). While I was sitting in an airport near a TV waiting for my flight home, I saw continuous proof of refutation in political commercials. It seems that most of the commercials that I saw were based on refuting an attack or anticipating an attack. Thus, one can see that the ancient practice is still relevant in today’s busy world.
I really enjoyed this chapter and am looking forward to Thursday’s discussion.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)