For my final blog, I would like to reflect back on my major project of this semester: exploring teacher identity.
First, I would like to ask you, the reader, to actually think of your favorite teacher. Whether this person was your kindergarten teacher, your high school teacher, or a college professor, pick one. What made them a good teacher?
Reflect.
Did you like them because of the class they taught?
Was it their personality?
Do you think that this teacher had the same identity inside the class as they did in the “real world”?
When this semester began, I was applying to Teach for America and was extremely enthusiastic about the idea of teaching. I had always sort of idolized my high school teachers and wished that I could bring the same inspiration to others in the future. My high school chemistry teacher, Mrs. Jones, was so enthusiastic about chemistry that I just couldn’t help myself from pursuing that subject in college. My favorite teacher was Mrs. Fifer. Although I hated English in high school and believed that AP English Composition didn’t help me learn how to become a better writer, when I took Mrs. Fifer’s college writing class, I felt like she cared. Unlike with Mrs. Jones’s class, I thought that the material in Mrs. Fifer’s class was boring. I hated writing. Although they present very different experiences, I would like to share what I learned from both of these teachers, and discuss their identities a little as well. Let me begin:
Despite hating English classes in high school, I loved going to Mrs. Fifer’s class. Although her jokes didn’t often work, Mrs. Fifer tried to be funny. Most of the time, she was strict. But, despite her stern personality, which clashed with my introversion, I respected her. When I got a B on a paper (something unheard of for me in high school), I went after school to ask what I did wrong. Rather than telling me a blatant, “I just thought it was a B paper,” like past teachers had told me (no joke), she asked me to sit down and discuss the paper. She asked me what grade I thought I deserved and why I thought that. Then, she gave me her own comments and asked for my response to those comments. For a one page paper, I received more feedback than I had in years. Why dedicate so much time to me? I believe she dedicated so much time because she truly cared. I think she let more of her true self into the classroom than any other teacher I had ever known. Of course, she did put on a very domineering self, what Hochschild would call a false self (where a false self is a presented identity that differs from the person’s true identity or true self. The false self appropriately deals with the demands of situation, where the true self might otherwise be taken advantage of or would conform to the goals of the situation rather than to that person’s own interests. The false self is protective).
In my opinion, unlike Mrs. Fifer, other teachers presented a different false self in the classroom: one that society expected them to have, or one that they felt protected them best. Some teachers didn’t really care. Some didn’t think that the class was worth their time, it was just a job, something that paid the electric bill. Some took the identity that society or their families told them to: don’t take it personal, they’re high schoolers, it’s not worth your time. These false selves were not enthusiastic. The people who employed these selves stayed at their jobs because they were stuck, unable to get out of the profession.
Although false selves can be ineffective for students when teachers don’t really care, even those who don’t really care can present effective false selves. For example, when I went back to see Mrs. Jones, she was disappointed to hear that I was pursuing chemistry. Although she pretended in class to be enthusiastic, her front was just to help students succeed. “What are you going to do with your degree? There’s no future in chemistry: have you thought about chemical engineering? The only thing you can do with chemistry is teach, and you definitely don’t want to be a teacher.” I was shocked to hear this. “Why did you teach me to love the subject so much if you hate it yourself?” I thought. She did it because she wanted students to succeed. Perhaps when she entered high school teaching, she thought it would be a great career. But, she didn’t end up liking the profession. However, she didn’t let that get in the way of helping her students succeed. She acted enthusiastic, made class interesting, did presentations. In my opinion, she performed a ton of emotion work (faking one’s emotions to elicit an appropriate response/effect). Some of you may be upset that Mrs. Jones wasn’t true to her students. Although I wish she would have been able to switch careers and find something she loved more, I respect her for presenting an enthusiastic false self.
The moral of my whole blog, from my perspective, is no matter what profession you choose to pursue, take all means necessary to make sure that you really love it first. Through all of high school, I thought that teachers were the most amazing people in the world. Even though my teachers didn’t love their jobs in the long run, I really respect the ways that they tried to help me through my struggles. However, do you really want to enter a profession where you don’t love what you’re doing? Mrs. Jones loved it when past students visited her and told her that she was amazing, but she didn’t really like what she actually did.
I know so many college students who want to become doctors because they know that physicians make good money. Others, like me, may have thought that teaching would be a fun career. For some students, they do everything they can short of getting the diploma to find out more about their profession. Others just read websites about the career. I still am not 100% sure what I want to do, but I have started shadowing physicians, I volunteer at a hospice, and work in a doctor’s office. Although these experiences have given me a glimpse into medicine, I still feel the need to explore it more. Therefore, I am taking a year off to explore my options more thoroughly. It’s nice to go into a profession to help others, and although you may be able to effectively “fake it” like Mrs. Jones did, you won’t feel the same satisfaction as others do. Find a job that correlates the best with who you are, and then the false selves you present will lie more congruent with your true self, and that will be healthy for all involved….or, at least that’s what I think.
I think I learned more in this class about the writing process and about myself than any other class I have taken. It was great getting to meet everyone & good luck in finding a career where you find that your true self and false self agree, rather than clash. I’m still on the journey and I hope that my words (although from one of your peers and not a wiser elder) help you in your journey as well.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Improving my identity as a writer...
Who am I today?
In my first blog, I was a terrified science student. I pretended like I was successful, and hid behind the false image of a successful student who had many job and volunteer experiences. Also, my identity at that time was largely tied up in high school; in my first blog, I wrote about the clubs I was in during high school, where I grew up, and so on. And although I had just received my concentration release and knew I was almost to graduation, I didn’t feel that “college student” was a large part of my identity. This semester I took smaller classes, led two study groups, and worked in a lab. Now, I feel like I have become more of a scientist and college student, although I still strongly associate with my home life. I feel like a beginning expert in the field of biochemistry, rather than just a student taking introductory classes because they are required. And through exploring the Teach for America program and other career paths, I feel like I am more confident in my decision to pursue medicine. Although I wasn’t accepted into Teach for America, I feel like I learned a lot about the interview process, the “real world,” and my wants and interests. Overall, I feel like I have made more changes in my self-image than during this semester than any other, and am appreciative for the successes and failures I have experienced.
In evaluating my first blog and my identity as a writer, my writer identity was somewhat grim. In that blog, I tried to put all of my accomplishments out on the table with the hope that my English teacher and English class would see that I was a hard worker, even if I wasn’t a good writer.
Before this class, I always thought that I was a mediocre writer. Although I still believe that I am better at science and math than English, I definitely believe that I have improved my writing. Before this class, I often got good grades on writing assignments in other classes by just following the rubric. Now, I understand the value of analyzing each rhetorical move I make. Rather than just using a quote because it looks good, I try to evaluate if it will elicit the effect I think it will have in the reader, and whether that effect is conducive to the my argument.
When I started writing my blogs, I had two audiences in mind: my teacher and myself. When I wrote my blogs, I wanted to impress Brett, so I added statistics, quoted a few sources, and tried to integrate my ideas. At other times, I felt like the blog was a space to just get my ideas out of my mind and on paper so I could clarify what I was thinking. At the start of the semester, I had no intentions of appealing to my classmates or to my readers; I just wanted a good grade. I think that my mindset has changed. Now, when I write a paper or a blog, I think more thoroughly about who will be reading it (although occasionally my blogs are mostly for reflection and personal interest). Rather than just delving into my argument, I give background information. For example, if I want to discuss how Hochschild’s theory applies to teachers, I now realize that the audience may not even know what Hochschild’s theory is. Therefore, I explain background information before making my argument. Also, when I persuade, I feel like I have to make my audience identify with my general opinions or find a common ground to relate to them and make them feel comfortable. As Maurice Charland explains, you must “constitute” your audience by hailing them and making them comfortable with the perspective you are coming from. Unless you get your audience to identify with what you are arguing, you will never be able to motivate them to action or even agree with you on an issue.
Also, when I started writing in this class, I always felt like writing was a required task, not something that I could enjoy or that had many everyday uses. I also didn’t think that writing was worth much time and that writing papers actually made me more confused. Now, I feel like writing is important in my life both in and outside the classroom. Writing doesn’t cloud my mind; it shows me what I am thinking, even if what I’m thinking is a little cloudy and convoluted. Then, by examining what I am thinking on paper, I am better able to reflect on my thoughts and realize which thoughts are genuinely useful and logical and which are worthy of disposal. When I feel stressed about family affairs or about a bad night at hospice, writing lets me get my emotions out. Writing allows me to think practically about what decisions I make in life and which one are for the best and which are for the worse. Writing is not just something I do in class; it is something I can confidently do in life.
In my first blog, I was a terrified science student. I pretended like I was successful, and hid behind the false image of a successful student who had many job and volunteer experiences. Also, my identity at that time was largely tied up in high school; in my first blog, I wrote about the clubs I was in during high school, where I grew up, and so on. And although I had just received my concentration release and knew I was almost to graduation, I didn’t feel that “college student” was a large part of my identity. This semester I took smaller classes, led two study groups, and worked in a lab. Now, I feel like I have become more of a scientist and college student, although I still strongly associate with my home life. I feel like a beginning expert in the field of biochemistry, rather than just a student taking introductory classes because they are required. And through exploring the Teach for America program and other career paths, I feel like I am more confident in my decision to pursue medicine. Although I wasn’t accepted into Teach for America, I feel like I learned a lot about the interview process, the “real world,” and my wants and interests. Overall, I feel like I have made more changes in my self-image than during this semester than any other, and am appreciative for the successes and failures I have experienced.
In evaluating my first blog and my identity as a writer, my writer identity was somewhat grim. In that blog, I tried to put all of my accomplishments out on the table with the hope that my English teacher and English class would see that I was a hard worker, even if I wasn’t a good writer.
Before this class, I always thought that I was a mediocre writer. Although I still believe that I am better at science and math than English, I definitely believe that I have improved my writing. Before this class, I often got good grades on writing assignments in other classes by just following the rubric. Now, I understand the value of analyzing each rhetorical move I make. Rather than just using a quote because it looks good, I try to evaluate if it will elicit the effect I think it will have in the reader, and whether that effect is conducive to the my argument.
When I started writing my blogs, I had two audiences in mind: my teacher and myself. When I wrote my blogs, I wanted to impress Brett, so I added statistics, quoted a few sources, and tried to integrate my ideas. At other times, I felt like the blog was a space to just get my ideas out of my mind and on paper so I could clarify what I was thinking. At the start of the semester, I had no intentions of appealing to my classmates or to my readers; I just wanted a good grade. I think that my mindset has changed. Now, when I write a paper or a blog, I think more thoroughly about who will be reading it (although occasionally my blogs are mostly for reflection and personal interest). Rather than just delving into my argument, I give background information. For example, if I want to discuss how Hochschild’s theory applies to teachers, I now realize that the audience may not even know what Hochschild’s theory is. Therefore, I explain background information before making my argument. Also, when I persuade, I feel like I have to make my audience identify with my general opinions or find a common ground to relate to them and make them feel comfortable. As Maurice Charland explains, you must “constitute” your audience by hailing them and making them comfortable with the perspective you are coming from. Unless you get your audience to identify with what you are arguing, you will never be able to motivate them to action or even agree with you on an issue.
Also, when I started writing in this class, I always felt like writing was a required task, not something that I could enjoy or that had many everyday uses. I also didn’t think that writing was worth much time and that writing papers actually made me more confused. Now, I feel like writing is important in my life both in and outside the classroom. Writing doesn’t cloud my mind; it shows me what I am thinking, even if what I’m thinking is a little cloudy and convoluted. Then, by examining what I am thinking on paper, I am better able to reflect on my thoughts and realize which thoughts are genuinely useful and logical and which are worthy of disposal. When I feel stressed about family affairs or about a bad night at hospice, writing lets me get my emotions out. Writing allows me to think practically about what decisions I make in life and which one are for the best and which are for the worse. Writing is not just something I do in class; it is something I can confidently do in life.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Primary and Secondary False Identities?
Yesterday in English 225.021, I gave my presentation on the importance of educating teachers about emotion management techniques to explain how teachers can become emotionally invested in their classrooms but not to a point where they become overwhelmed. I planned out nearly every single detail of this presentation, followed the guidelines in the textbook, and even looked at online resources to find out what experts say is the best way to make a powerpoint presentation. I tried to appeal to pathos, ethos, logos. I tried to make the slides have the barebone facts and fill in the gaps through my speech, trying to make the audience more engaged. Since I was pretending like I was presenting to school administrators, I tried to appeal to ethos by wearing a suit. I used clips, pictures, statistics, and expert opinion. I even spent a significant amount of time working on a catchy title for the presentation/program I presented (CARE: Coaching Appropriate Reactive Emotions), something I rarely worry about in my writing. Therefore, from a technical standpoint, I feel like I didn't everything I should have. However, despite my classmates trying to convince me that I did a good job, I am wary. When I spoke, I got tongue-tied in quite a few places and forgot to add in details that would have appealed to the audience. And, despite forgetting to add in details, I fell behind and had to rush at the end of the presentation to meet the time allotment (a problem I didn't experience while practicing).
Why is it that when I practice alone or in front of friends and family I can think clearly, but when I speak in front of a group of people I get tongue tied and blank out? Perhaps one contributing factor can be found by using, and adapting Hochschild's idea of identity. According to Arlie Hochschild, we have a true identity and many false identities. The true identity has its own feelings and thoughts which can be exposed only when completely uninhibited, a situation which may never FULLY happen. Although we often say that we have emotions deep within us that represent what we are "really" feeling, even then those emotions may not be coming from our true identity but from the demands of society and the situation. Hochschild says that we have many false identities we present, depending on the demands of the situation. You may be an extrovert, a confident student, a optimistic brother, a family man, a pessimistic hater, a passionate lover, or adopt any other identity depending on what is appropriate to that situation; however, these presented identites are not who you really are. Hochschild says that these identities are necessary for us to get on in life, and to protect our true identity from being injured. However, despite the attempts to protect the true self, the true self may become inaccessible or lost as we present so many false identities that we don't really know who we are.
I have been studying Hochshild's identity theory and emotions in teacher education all semester, so I felt well versed on the topic of emotion training (or the lack thereof) in teacher education. However, I rarely applied this identity theory to myself. Maybe I have found a link by evaluating my speaking abilities...you tell me:
When we speak in front of anyone, even without Hochschild's identity theory, I think most people would agree that we are "not ourselves." For me, I spoke in front of two different audiences: my family/friends and my classmates/teacher. When I spoke in front of both groups, the main surface identity, or what I will refer to hereforth as my primary false identity, I was trying to portray was one in the same (that of a representative for a teacher education program). However, there was another false identity, a secondary false identity, inherent in the presentation: who I, James, actually am to those people. To my friends and family, I am a companion, a friend, someone who they (generally) associate with by choice. In the family situation, I feel that the false self I portray more closely resembles my true self. I feel uninhibited and comfortable with who I am at home. In such a situation, I don't have to be an intelligent academic because I know that these people will not judge me. However, to my teacher and classmates, I am an academic and the class is obligated to deal with me. Unlike the James identity I present to my family, the identity of "academic" is not one I am comfortable with. Of course I do well in school, but I am just a student, not an expert. Thus in the classroom case, my secondary false identity of academic is one I am less comfortable with and is more disconnected from what I believe to be my true identity.
When giving the CARE presentation, I was successful at home but stumbled in class. But, from a surface level, it seems that I was presenting the same identity in both situations, the false professional identity of CARE representative. However, this false identity of CARE representative/speaker must coexist with the other secondary false identity I must present. In front of my family, my secondary false identity was one I was comfortable with. In class, I was not comfortable with the secondary false identity of academic. Therefore, I believe that perhaps one reason why I was successful at home but not at school was because of the comfort level with the identity I present. Depending on how comfortable I am with that second identity, and whether it lies congruent with or antiparallel to the first false identity determines the effectiveness of the execution of the primary false identity.
My take on false identities may not be true, but I think it is intriguing to some extent. From the explanations of Hochschild's identity theory that I have read, there always seems to just be one false identity present in a given situation. However, I don't believe that this is true. Maybe the theory was presented this way because in saying false identities the authors assume that the reader understands that the false identity is always multidimensional. Maybe Hochschild actually did say there are many identities competing in every situation, and it just got lost in translation. After all, I have not taking Hochschild's theory directly from her book, but rather from the interpretations of other.
However, no matter what the truth of the situation, my new beliefs of identity gives me a positive outlook on my potential future speaking abilities. I have always thought that I was a bad speaker and would never be able to command attention and effectively communicate my opinions in front of a large group of people. However, maybe if with time I become more experienced and comfortable with the many false identites I present, I will become a better speaker. Maybe I will finally not stumble while speaking. Maybe.
Why is it that when I practice alone or in front of friends and family I can think clearly, but when I speak in front of a group of people I get tongue tied and blank out? Perhaps one contributing factor can be found by using, and adapting Hochschild's idea of identity. According to Arlie Hochschild, we have a true identity and many false identities. The true identity has its own feelings and thoughts which can be exposed only when completely uninhibited, a situation which may never FULLY happen. Although we often say that we have emotions deep within us that represent what we are "really" feeling, even then those emotions may not be coming from our true identity but from the demands of society and the situation. Hochschild says that we have many false identities we present, depending on the demands of the situation. You may be an extrovert, a confident student, a optimistic brother, a family man, a pessimistic hater, a passionate lover, or adopt any other identity depending on what is appropriate to that situation; however, these presented identites are not who you really are. Hochschild says that these identities are necessary for us to get on in life, and to protect our true identity from being injured. However, despite the attempts to protect the true self, the true self may become inaccessible or lost as we present so many false identities that we don't really know who we are.
I have been studying Hochshild's identity theory and emotions in teacher education all semester, so I felt well versed on the topic of emotion training (or the lack thereof) in teacher education. However, I rarely applied this identity theory to myself. Maybe I have found a link by evaluating my speaking abilities...you tell me:
When we speak in front of anyone, even without Hochschild's identity theory, I think most people would agree that we are "not ourselves." For me, I spoke in front of two different audiences: my family/friends and my classmates/teacher. When I spoke in front of both groups, the main surface identity, or what I will refer to hereforth as my primary false identity, I was trying to portray was one in the same (that of a representative for a teacher education program). However, there was another false identity, a secondary false identity, inherent in the presentation: who I, James, actually am to those people. To my friends and family, I am a companion, a friend, someone who they (generally) associate with by choice. In the family situation, I feel that the false self I portray more closely resembles my true self. I feel uninhibited and comfortable with who I am at home. In such a situation, I don't have to be an intelligent academic because I know that these people will not judge me. However, to my teacher and classmates, I am an academic and the class is obligated to deal with me. Unlike the James identity I present to my family, the identity of "academic" is not one I am comfortable with. Of course I do well in school, but I am just a student, not an expert. Thus in the classroom case, my secondary false identity of academic is one I am less comfortable with and is more disconnected from what I believe to be my true identity.
When giving the CARE presentation, I was successful at home but stumbled in class. But, from a surface level, it seems that I was presenting the same identity in both situations, the false professional identity of CARE representative. However, this false identity of CARE representative/speaker must coexist with the other secondary false identity I must present. In front of my family, my secondary false identity was one I was comfortable with. In class, I was not comfortable with the secondary false identity of academic. Therefore, I believe that perhaps one reason why I was successful at home but not at school was because of the comfort level with the identity I present. Depending on how comfortable I am with that second identity, and whether it lies congruent with or antiparallel to the first false identity determines the effectiveness of the execution of the primary false identity.
My take on false identities may not be true, but I think it is intriguing to some extent. From the explanations of Hochschild's identity theory that I have read, there always seems to just be one false identity present in a given situation. However, I don't believe that this is true. Maybe the theory was presented this way because in saying false identities the authors assume that the reader understands that the false identity is always multidimensional. Maybe Hochschild actually did say there are many identities competing in every situation, and it just got lost in translation. After all, I have not taking Hochschild's theory directly from her book, but rather from the interpretations of other.
However, no matter what the truth of the situation, my new beliefs of identity gives me a positive outlook on my potential future speaking abilities. I have always thought that I was a bad speaker and would never be able to command attention and effectively communicate my opinions in front of a large group of people. However, maybe if with time I become more experienced and comfortable with the many false identites I present, I will become a better speaker. Maybe I will finally not stumble while speaking. Maybe.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Getting better at whacking the piñata
Today I re-read all of my blogs. My blogs are long, so it took a long time to read them all. However, I learned a lot about my writing and how it has improved over the semester. I now feel that I am able to analyze every rhetorical move I make and be more successful in English. Borrowing Brett’s analogy, I am no longer blindfolded and trying to whack a piñata. I feel that I am getting better at making educated decisions in my writing rather than just making random decisions and hoping they work. From reading my blogs, I have learned the following:
Long sentences are sometimes appropriate, but short sentences are often better. I remember when I got my rhetorical analysis back, I was upset with my grade. Then, I looked at Brett’s class-wide comments online and saw that one recommendation was to stop using long, flowery sentences. Initially I reacted negatively. “Yeah right. Brett, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Long sentences are who I am and I am good at writing them.” Despite thinking that long sentences were good, I tried to change my writing. In reviewing my blogs, I have noticed that writing in shorter sentences has paid off. When I re-read earlier blogs, I often didn’t understand what I was trying to say and it took me a long time to read the entries because the sentences were indeed “flowery” and confusing! For instance, in my blog “Analyzing an article using the Toulmin method,” I typed, “Tierney also stated that some opponents of the U.S. healthcare system argue that the U.S. only has better caner survival rates because cancer is detected early in the U.S., but this doesn’t show that we don’t treat cancer well, and in fact early detection is the best protection against the negative effects of cancer, so this complaint seems unworthy.” Now, this sentence seems like 4 sentences combined in one to me. Additionally, because I didn’t use separate sentences, it is unclear which ideas are mine and which were Tierneys’. When commenting on constitution of audience, nearly none of my sentences go beyond 2 lines long, and this makes the entry more readable and clear. I still use long sentences, but much less frequently, and often more effectively.
Don’t ask questions unless you give the answer. Another cardinal sin that I was guilty of at the start of this class was asking rhetorical questions. In my 09/17/2009 blog, I questioned, “Many people get tattoos of Chinese words or sayings, but why not just get the saying tattooed in English? My first impression of someone with a tattoo like this is, do they even really know what it says?” Well, what if the reader has these tattoos and says yes t o both questions? In such a case, they probably will stop reading having felt that they were disrespected or that the writer isn’t thinking about them. Instead, when I asked questions in later blogs, I followed nearly all questions with an answer. There are many examples of this improvement, but just one example (not to mention the one 2 sentences ago) is from the blog on constitution of audience where I ask, “But is acknowledging another audience the same as ‘creating’ them? I’m not really sure. I don’t think I create them.” I believe that when I ask questions like these, it gives the reader insight into how I am thinking. Also, it doesn’t leave them confused or unsatisfied because I answer the question rather than leaving it open ended. Sometimes it is OK to not give the answer such as when directly addressing the blogger audience and asking them what they think, but this is the exception, not the rule.
Engage your audience. In my first blog, I just talked about me. In my second blog, I talked about identity and me. In my third blog, I talked about tattoos and my feelings about them, not addressing the other side of the issue. In addition to ignoring anyone else’s opinions/ideas in these blogs, I started to use concepts from class without giving some background that the general public would need. For example, in my fourth blog, I asked myself whether I identified with Hochschild’s theory of true and false selves in my own life. However, in that blog I didn’t explain Hochschild’s theory or what the true and false selves are. Therefore, many of my early blogs were egocentric with little interest in the audience. Again, although I commit this offense regularly, I believe I have improved. In my 10/01/2009 blog, I gave brief descriptions of the theories of Cooley, Berger, Baudrillad, and Lyotard before making arguments about which ones were right and wrong. And, on 10/15/2009, I defined Hochschild’s theory before explaining the logistics of my convincing paper. And, in relation to not directly addressing the audience, I improved in this domain as well. In my blog “Easier said than done,” I directly asked the audience to “Think of going to a football game where you’re not welcomed,” or asked them “How could you say ‘no,’ this is not OK?” I think it is very important to make the readers feel involved, especially in the blog: readers want to know what you think, but they also want you to show that you are thinking about them and not just writing a journal. I guess this is one of the points where I started to realize that blogs shouldn’t just serve the purpose of saying what you think, but about engaging the reader too. Considering I didn’t even know what a blog was before I enrolled in English 225.021, I think I have learned a lot about this genre of writing.
Visuals were helpful when I used them, but I haven’t used them much. Therefore, I think I can improve in this area. Also, it is important to use a few examples to illustrate each point, not 1 example or 20. Too few examples don’t give enough support, whereas too many can bore the reader or make them confused.
Although I often dislike English classes, I realized today that this class is helping me learn how to be a better writer, and it shows in my blog. Also, blogging helps me practice my writing before approaching my papers.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
"Happy" Holidays...yeah, right
Sorry, this is going to be my rant. It’s not gonna be pretty, and if I don’t want to hear me complain, it may be best to stop reading. This blog is for me to vent…maybe there will be a little rhetorical analysis, but mostly venting…sorry Brett.
Why do people say “Happy Holidays"? Is it because they think that the holidays are a happy time? Is it because they want you to have a happy holiday? Or is it because they think you are having a crappy holiday and saying you “happy” holiday will make it better? Personally, when I say it, I try to say “have a happy holiday.” Why, you may ask? Because for me and my family, the holidays are never “happy.” I cannot remember a birthday I didn’t get yelled at. Nearly every Christmas isn’t merry. There is always a fight.
Let’s go for the most recent example. Thanksgiving was two days ago (yes, that was a Thursday, my blog was due then, sorry Brett, another fail). I started the whole thing off on a negative note although unintentionally. Have you ever accidentally texted the wrong person? Well, I commited this cardinal sin on Thursday. “omg…I’m gonna need a drink to put up with Amy…ugh, it’s awful.” Oh yeah, I sent that to Amy, quite unintentionally. Do you have a relative or have you ever met anyone who is terribly annoying and is impossible to deal with no matter how hard you try? Oh yeah, that’s Amy for me and most of my family members. Bad start, my fault.
Then, we went to my cousin’s house. Well, that was the biggest mistake of the year. When we got there, things were fine at first, but it didn’t last. Shortly after arriving, Amy completely clammed up. What was up? I found out shortly thereafter that my cousin, Lesley, who doesn’t know how to keep her mouth closed, got stuck talking with Amy. During their conversation, Amy disclosed that she is talking about filing for bankruptcy again, for the third time in her life. Lesley, feeling all high and mighty went on to say “well, it must be nice not having to pay your bills. When I acquire debt, it’s I pay it off like an honest person. When money is tight, I don’t buy plasma televisions like you, I eat a little less that month.” Needless to say, the next 4 hours were awkward and quiet. Don’t get me wrong, Lesley had every right to think that, and Amy needed to be called out on her crap, but at Thanksgiving? Really? Couldn’t you just bite your tongue?
I know you don’t have the background, so you may ask why was it such a big deal? Amy is 37 years old. I am 21. My parents don’t help me much with rent, tuition, or books. My debt acrues because I think it's wrong to take advantage of someone else, especially my retired parents. Lesley feels that as she is paying off her student loans, she can’t indulge in the luxuries. Yet, Amy doesn’t get it and always tries to play the victim. She buys new cars, new TV’s, new everything…then, like any normal (although, not good) American, she files bankruptcy. She also mooches off of my parents. She planned a vacation, then had my mom paid for it (despite the fact that my parents haven't been on a real vacation in the last 20 years). When she broke up with her husband, my parents completely furnished her new apartment with all new furniture…just like every other time my parents have bought her anything, she has destroyed it. When bills are tight, she gets a new dog, and treats it to the luxuries…her dog eats more expensive food than I ever have. Then, when the bills pile up, she “borrows” more money from my parents, who, mind you, are retired. I don’t even let my parents pay part of my credit card bill when they offer because I know they are retired and money is tight. But, Amy doesn’t seem to get it. She even said yesterday how it upset her that she couldn’t go to Sears to get the 42” TV at Sears on sale for $500. Then, she mentioned maybe she’ll just ask my mom and dad for the money, or not pay her rent next month (guess whose name the apartment is in? You guessed it; in my parents name b/c my sister has nothing for credit).
Segwaying away from Amy, my other sisters also blew us off for the holidays. My sister, Chrissy, told my mother that she was going over to her boyfriends' house for the holiday. Then, I caught her red-handed online when my other sister (who didn't return our calls about coming over for Thanksgiving) posted that she had a great Thanksgiving hanging out with Chrissy and my nephews. So, she blew us off, and much worse, she lied about it. When I confronted her at work the next day about it (yes, I work with her back at home), she denied ever saying that she was going to her boyfriend's family's home...yeah right.
Now, my parents in the basement are fighting over whose kids are worse and who has handled this whole situation worse (I have no full blood sisters...Amy is my mom's daughter; Chrissy, Carrie, and my two brothers are half-siblings on my fathers' side). I can't wait to get back to Ann Arbor and the peace and quiet.
The first paper I wrote in college was about how my family is broken and doesn't seem to care about anyone but themselves. I thought it only to be in classic fashion to end college on the same note. There are ups and downs in this family, but overall, mostly downs. Sorry to have complained, but maybe you found reading this blog to be interesting like watching a drama or comedy. Please, no sympathy replies...I don't want your sympathy.
So, I guess for English 225, my point would be that you should think next time about it when you say “Happy Holidays” or “Merry Christmas.” I’m not saying don’t say these things, because it is nice to say them to people. My point is just to think about them, and maybe say “I hope you have a merry Christmas” or “Have a good holiday.” I don’t mean to be the scrooge who, in response to the statement “Good Morning,” says “what’s so good about it?” But, saying an extra few words at the beginning of the generic greetings shows that you really do wish the person the best, and that you are not just saying that the holidays are happy for everyone, because they’re not.
I hope you had a Happy Holiday!
Why do people say “Happy Holidays"? Is it because they think that the holidays are a happy time? Is it because they want you to have a happy holiday? Or is it because they think you are having a crappy holiday and saying you “happy” holiday will make it better? Personally, when I say it, I try to say “have a happy holiday.” Why, you may ask? Because for me and my family, the holidays are never “happy.” I cannot remember a birthday I didn’t get yelled at. Nearly every Christmas isn’t merry. There is always a fight.
Let’s go for the most recent example. Thanksgiving was two days ago (yes, that was a Thursday, my blog was due then, sorry Brett, another fail). I started the whole thing off on a negative note although unintentionally. Have you ever accidentally texted the wrong person? Well, I commited this cardinal sin on Thursday. “omg…I’m gonna need a drink to put up with Amy…ugh, it’s awful.” Oh yeah, I sent that to Amy, quite unintentionally. Do you have a relative or have you ever met anyone who is terribly annoying and is impossible to deal with no matter how hard you try? Oh yeah, that’s Amy for me and most of my family members. Bad start, my fault.
Then, we went to my cousin’s house. Well, that was the biggest mistake of the year. When we got there, things were fine at first, but it didn’t last. Shortly after arriving, Amy completely clammed up. What was up? I found out shortly thereafter that my cousin, Lesley, who doesn’t know how to keep her mouth closed, got stuck talking with Amy. During their conversation, Amy disclosed that she is talking about filing for bankruptcy again, for the third time in her life. Lesley, feeling all high and mighty went on to say “well, it must be nice not having to pay your bills. When I acquire debt, it’s I pay it off like an honest person. When money is tight, I don’t buy plasma televisions like you, I eat a little less that month.” Needless to say, the next 4 hours were awkward and quiet. Don’t get me wrong, Lesley had every right to think that, and Amy needed to be called out on her crap, but at Thanksgiving? Really? Couldn’t you just bite your tongue?
I know you don’t have the background, so you may ask why was it such a big deal? Amy is 37 years old. I am 21. My parents don’t help me much with rent, tuition, or books. My debt acrues because I think it's wrong to take advantage of someone else, especially my retired parents. Lesley feels that as she is paying off her student loans, she can’t indulge in the luxuries. Yet, Amy doesn’t get it and always tries to play the victim. She buys new cars, new TV’s, new everything…then, like any normal (although, not good) American, she files bankruptcy. She also mooches off of my parents. She planned a vacation, then had my mom paid for it (despite the fact that my parents haven't been on a real vacation in the last 20 years). When she broke up with her husband, my parents completely furnished her new apartment with all new furniture…just like every other time my parents have bought her anything, she has destroyed it. When bills are tight, she gets a new dog, and treats it to the luxuries…her dog eats more expensive food than I ever have. Then, when the bills pile up, she “borrows” more money from my parents, who, mind you, are retired. I don’t even let my parents pay part of my credit card bill when they offer because I know they are retired and money is tight. But, Amy doesn’t seem to get it. She even said yesterday how it upset her that she couldn’t go to Sears to get the 42” TV at Sears on sale for $500. Then, she mentioned maybe she’ll just ask my mom and dad for the money, or not pay her rent next month (guess whose name the apartment is in? You guessed it; in my parents name b/c my sister has nothing for credit).
Segwaying away from Amy, my other sisters also blew us off for the holidays. My sister, Chrissy, told my mother that she was going over to her boyfriends' house for the holiday. Then, I caught her red-handed online when my other sister (who didn't return our calls about coming over for Thanksgiving) posted that she had a great Thanksgiving hanging out with Chrissy and my nephews. So, she blew us off, and much worse, she lied about it. When I confronted her at work the next day about it (yes, I work with her back at home), she denied ever saying that she was going to her boyfriend's family's home...yeah right.
Now, my parents in the basement are fighting over whose kids are worse and who has handled this whole situation worse (I have no full blood sisters...Amy is my mom's daughter; Chrissy, Carrie, and my two brothers are half-siblings on my fathers' side). I can't wait to get back to Ann Arbor and the peace and quiet.
The first paper I wrote in college was about how my family is broken and doesn't seem to care about anyone but themselves. I thought it only to be in classic fashion to end college on the same note. There are ups and downs in this family, but overall, mostly downs. Sorry to have complained, but maybe you found reading this blog to be interesting like watching a drama or comedy. Please, no sympathy replies...I don't want your sympathy.
So, I guess for English 225, my point would be that you should think next time about it when you say “Happy Holidays” or “Merry Christmas.” I’m not saying don’t say these things, because it is nice to say them to people. My point is just to think about them, and maybe say “I hope you have a merry Christmas” or “Have a good holiday.” I don’t mean to be the scrooge who, in response to the statement “Good Morning,” says “what’s so good about it?” But, saying an extra few words at the beginning of the generic greetings shows that you really do wish the person the best, and that you are not just saying that the holidays are happy for everyone, because they’re not.
I hope you had a Happy Holiday!
Thursday, November 19, 2009
War in the classroom: now is the time to act!
So, I am currently trying to think of what to persuade my audience to do, or at least what audience to try to address.
In case you haven't read my other blog posts, I'll get you up to speed. I have been writing about teachers and the emotion work that they do in the classroom. Teachers must fake emotions like smiling even when a student makes them angry or seems in despair. Faking their emotions requires that the teachers must supress other emotions. Sometimes, this holding in of emotions is very stressful, and some scholars have argued that this is a large, often overlooked, factor that contributes to teacher burnout (leaving the profession early in one's career). In other cases, teachers may not leave the profession, but may feel extreme emotional stress, even breaking down crying in front of their students or in the hallway. See what you think of the following two clips.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJQTaSu-LPg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg0ecMQXRPs
What would I use these two videos for you may ask?
For the first video, I think a video like this would get the attention of my audience, whoever that is (see below for discussion of this). It would make the audience somewhat scared for the teacher or for other students of the problems that can arise in the classroom. I would probably address my audience and ask them, “what would you do in this situation?” Or, “do you think that the current teacher education system prepares new time teachers for the stress they will encounter in the classroom?” Then, I would move into the rest of the presentation.
On the other hand, the second video shows exactly how teachers get stressed to the point that they cry. Is there potentially a way that we could teachers emotion management and skills that they need that may not entirely eliminate this risk? Probably not; But, according to research from literature, there are some skills that can be beneficial.
So, what do I want to persuade? At this point, there are two options:
First, I was thinking of acting as a representativefor a theoretical teaching program (not that I would present it as being theoretical...) to high school administrators. I would explain that the program would teach teachers the skills that would benefit them so that they don't get to this point in the classroom. I would try to establish and convince to them, just as I did in my paper, that one of the contributing factors of teacher burnout is poor emotion management skills, skills that can be primed and supplemented with training. I would use logos such as the cost and rates of burnout, and explain that the program that would save money in the long run. I believe that the videos shown above may help in the emotional appeal to try to make them feel sorry for their teachers, and try to help them identify with some of the difficult aspects of the teaching profession that incoming teachers would not be prepared for, unless they took my program :D Additionally,I would try to target them as present or future parents, and explain how students feel stress and anxiety when they have to switch teachers constantly, and use student anecdotes or the negative emotions they feel when their teachers leave after teaching their class.
My second option would be to essentially use the same approaches, but present my argument to a board of teacher educators at a conference or something like that. In this case, I wouldn't present a program that I developed for them to buy, but I would explain how much emotion plays into making a teacher good and able to relate to their students, and yet also contributes to burnout. I would then explain that more research needs to be done in this arena, and that in teacher education funds need to be diverted from solely benefitting the students to now also preparing for the teachers. I would explain that in diverting these funds, the students would actually benefit in the long run because positive, healthy, emotionally managed teachers are able to reach their students more, and their classes feel more engaged. I think it would be more important for this crowd to focus on the needs of the student more and explaining how teaching teachers emotion management would be the benefit of everyone involved.
So, which option do you think is better? Presenting a program that would focus on administrators and telling them that in their new teacher screening process they need to assess the emotional stability of their teachers and make them take this program if deemed necessary? Or should I focus on teacher educators and explain the need to do more research on the role emotions play in burnout and how we can develop new techniques to prepare teachers before they enter the classroom? Do you think the visuals above are effective on drawing on emotion and drawing in the audience?
In case you haven't read my other blog posts, I'll get you up to speed. I have been writing about teachers and the emotion work that they do in the classroom. Teachers must fake emotions like smiling even when a student makes them angry or seems in despair. Faking their emotions requires that the teachers must supress other emotions. Sometimes, this holding in of emotions is very stressful, and some scholars have argued that this is a large, often overlooked, factor that contributes to teacher burnout (leaving the profession early in one's career). In other cases, teachers may not leave the profession, but may feel extreme emotional stress, even breaking down crying in front of their students or in the hallway. See what you think of the following two clips.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJQTaSu-LPg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg0ecMQXRPs
What would I use these two videos for you may ask?
For the first video, I think a video like this would get the attention of my audience, whoever that is (see below for discussion of this). It would make the audience somewhat scared for the teacher or for other students of the problems that can arise in the classroom. I would probably address my audience and ask them, “what would you do in this situation?” Or, “do you think that the current teacher education system prepares new time teachers for the stress they will encounter in the classroom?” Then, I would move into the rest of the presentation.
On the other hand, the second video shows exactly how teachers get stressed to the point that they cry. Is there potentially a way that we could teachers emotion management and skills that they need that may not entirely eliminate this risk? Probably not; But, according to research from literature, there are some skills that can be beneficial.
So, what do I want to persuade? At this point, there are two options:
First, I was thinking of acting as a representativefor a theoretical teaching program (not that I would present it as being theoretical...) to high school administrators. I would explain that the program would teach teachers the skills that would benefit them so that they don't get to this point in the classroom. I would try to establish and convince to them, just as I did in my paper, that one of the contributing factors of teacher burnout is poor emotion management skills, skills that can be primed and supplemented with training. I would use logos such as the cost and rates of burnout, and explain that the program that would save money in the long run. I believe that the videos shown above may help in the emotional appeal to try to make them feel sorry for their teachers, and try to help them identify with some of the difficult aspects of the teaching profession that incoming teachers would not be prepared for, unless they took my program :D Additionally,I would try to target them as present or future parents, and explain how students feel stress and anxiety when they have to switch teachers constantly, and use student anecdotes or the negative emotions they feel when their teachers leave after teaching their class.
My second option would be to essentially use the same approaches, but present my argument to a board of teacher educators at a conference or something like that. In this case, I wouldn't present a program that I developed for them to buy, but I would explain how much emotion plays into making a teacher good and able to relate to their students, and yet also contributes to burnout. I would then explain that more research needs to be done in this arena, and that in teacher education funds need to be diverted from solely benefitting the students to now also preparing for the teachers. I would explain that in diverting these funds, the students would actually benefit in the long run because positive, healthy, emotionally managed teachers are able to reach their students more, and their classes feel more engaged. I think it would be more important for this crowd to focus on the needs of the student more and explaining how teaching teachers emotion management would be the benefit of everyone involved.
So, which option do you think is better? Presenting a program that would focus on administrators and telling them that in their new teacher screening process they need to assess the emotional stability of their teachers and make them take this program if deemed necessary? Or should I focus on teacher educators and explain the need to do more research on the role emotions play in burnout and how we can develop new techniques to prepare teachers before they enter the classroom? Do you think the visuals above are effective on drawing on emotion and drawing in the audience?
My confusion with constitution
In English 225 this week, we continued to discuss an article by Maurice Charland entitled "Constitutive Rhetoric: The Case of the People Quebecois." In this article, Charland uses Kenneth Burke's work to discuss how one my use identification in their rhetoric before they can begin to persuade their audience. According to Charland, in the rhetorical process, you must use identification to "hail" your audience. The idea of "hailing" or "interpellating" your audience comes from Louis Althusser, who says that you recruit or transform individuals, making them become subjects of your argument from the very beginning. Of course, the person has the option to just ignore your hailing; in other words, just because you say "hey, you there!" doesn't mean that the person will acknowledge you.
You don't just hail people on the street, you also hail them in your writing and your arguments; or, at least you should! When writing, we often assume that the people who will read our article are already open to the the argument, but this isn't always the case. Instead of just delving into your argument, you must first "constitute" the subject. Honestly, when I first read the article, I kept reading the term "constitutive" and could only relate it to my science classes; in genetics, a constitutive promoter is a DNA regulatory region that makes the gene hooked up to it "always on". Therefore, the first time I read this article, the term "constitutive rhetoric" was confusing. I didn't understand how you could "always" your audience. Instead, our teacher Brett used the constitution to explain that you constitute something, you create it, you form it. Well, although this clarified things, it definitely made me realize the importance of taking other classes, to get myself out of my science classes, and realize that studying just one subject limits your knowledge and approaches to thinking. Anyway, sorry for the side note...moving on...
Do bloggers "constitute" their audiences? We often assume that those reading our posts already know where we are coming from, or what we expect. When I started thinking about writing this blog, I thought whether I constituted my audience. I often just think that English 225 members and Brett were reading my blog, and that's all I really thought about. But, Brett has previously told me to explain my concepts more because this blog is public, and others may be reading it (unlikely, but a nice thought). So, I guess I have changed a little bit in my writing. I try to explain concepts that those in my class already know, not because I want to bore them, but because I am acknowledging my possible other audience. But is acknowledging another audience the same as "creating" them? I'm not really sure. I don't think I create them. I don't often try to build community and relate to those who may not be open to my opinions before I make my arguments, but maybe I do?
Perhaps even more interesting to me is the idea of commercials and whether they "constitute" their audiences, or whether their audience already exists. I think there are definitely two sides to this argument, and I can't say that I agree 100% with either side.
One side of the commercial & constitutive audience argument is that commercials don't constitute their audience because they audience is already created/called out to by the television show that is on. I was watching some court TV shows today (Judge Judy, Judge Alex, etc.) and I noticed that a ton of the commercials were about lawyers and attorneys. Believe me, if you need an attorney, watch Fox between 2-4PM. Nearly every commercial had a lawyer: "only an attorney can help you every step of the way," "call Sam Bernstein," "we'll fight for you." Did these commercials create an audience? I lean towards saying no, because those who are watching the show are already looking to get legal info, are interested in the legal process, or are intrigued by the cases they will see. So, placing these commercials between the legal shows isn't the same as between comedies. If the commercials were in between scenes from "Two & a Half Men," they would call out to the audience more, they would have to create the audience, but that task is already done by Judge Judy when placed after one of her verdicts.
On the other hand, one could argue that, no matter where they are placed, the commercials do create their audience. Even if the type of audience is called out by the type of show that is on, that doesn't mean that the commercials don't have to call out to you. The attorney commercials try to make the audience see that their clients are just like everyone else. The "clients" (in quotation marks since they are actually actors), look just like everyday people, they have everyday cases, and you feel like you can relate to them. Then, they actually call out to the audience: "only an attorney can help YOU every step of the way" or "don't let them take advantage of YOU". It seems that in fact, the commercials are calling out to the viewer, "hailing" them. I agree with this position as well. However, I just think they make their job a lot easier by targetting an already law-interested consumer rather than addressing those who don't follow law. To what extent do commercials between shows that are similar to their claim call out to the audience, and to what extent have they already been created...I wonder, although I'm not sure there's a clear cut answer.
Next time you are watching TV, pay attention to the commercials and the context in which they are shown. Do you think they created an audience, or was the audience already created? Does it depend on the product they are selling (a car commercial vs. a furniture one?)? In either case you have to create or relate to your audience in some way, but to what extent? What are your thoughts?
You don't just hail people on the street, you also hail them in your writing and your arguments; or, at least you should! When writing, we often assume that the people who will read our article are already open to the the argument, but this isn't always the case. Instead of just delving into your argument, you must first "constitute" the subject. Honestly, when I first read the article, I kept reading the term "constitutive" and could only relate it to my science classes; in genetics, a constitutive promoter is a DNA regulatory region that makes the gene hooked up to it "always on". Therefore, the first time I read this article, the term "constitutive rhetoric" was confusing. I didn't understand how you could "always" your audience. Instead, our teacher Brett used the constitution to explain that you constitute something, you create it, you form it. Well, although this clarified things, it definitely made me realize the importance of taking other classes, to get myself out of my science classes, and realize that studying just one subject limits your knowledge and approaches to thinking. Anyway, sorry for the side note...moving on...
Do bloggers "constitute" their audiences? We often assume that those reading our posts already know where we are coming from, or what we expect. When I started thinking about writing this blog, I thought whether I constituted my audience. I often just think that English 225 members and Brett were reading my blog, and that's all I really thought about. But, Brett has previously told me to explain my concepts more because this blog is public, and others may be reading it (unlikely, but a nice thought). So, I guess I have changed a little bit in my writing. I try to explain concepts that those in my class already know, not because I want to bore them, but because I am acknowledging my possible other audience. But is acknowledging another audience the same as "creating" them? I'm not really sure. I don't think I create them. I don't often try to build community and relate to those who may not be open to my opinions before I make my arguments, but maybe I do?
Perhaps even more interesting to me is the idea of commercials and whether they "constitute" their audiences, or whether their audience already exists. I think there are definitely two sides to this argument, and I can't say that I agree 100% with either side.
One side of the commercial & constitutive audience argument is that commercials don't constitute their audience because they audience is already created/called out to by the television show that is on. I was watching some court TV shows today (Judge Judy, Judge Alex, etc.) and I noticed that a ton of the commercials were about lawyers and attorneys. Believe me, if you need an attorney, watch Fox between 2-4PM. Nearly every commercial had a lawyer: "only an attorney can help you every step of the way," "call Sam Bernstein," "we'll fight for you." Did these commercials create an audience? I lean towards saying no, because those who are watching the show are already looking to get legal info, are interested in the legal process, or are intrigued by the cases they will see. So, placing these commercials between the legal shows isn't the same as between comedies. If the commercials were in between scenes from "Two & a Half Men," they would call out to the audience more, they would have to create the audience, but that task is already done by Judge Judy when placed after one of her verdicts.
On the other hand, one could argue that, no matter where they are placed, the commercials do create their audience. Even if the type of audience is called out by the type of show that is on, that doesn't mean that the commercials don't have to call out to you. The attorney commercials try to make the audience see that their clients are just like everyone else. The "clients" (in quotation marks since they are actually actors), look just like everyday people, they have everyday cases, and you feel like you can relate to them. Then, they actually call out to the audience: "only an attorney can help YOU every step of the way" or "don't let them take advantage of YOU". It seems that in fact, the commercials are calling out to the viewer, "hailing" them. I agree with this position as well. However, I just think they make their job a lot easier by targetting an already law-interested consumer rather than addressing those who don't follow law. To what extent do commercials between shows that are similar to their claim call out to the audience, and to what extent have they already been created...I wonder, although I'm not sure there's a clear cut answer.
Next time you are watching TV, pay attention to the commercials and the context in which they are shown. Do you think they created an audience, or was the audience already created? Does it depend on the product they are selling (a car commercial vs. a furniture one?)? In either case you have to create or relate to your audience in some way, but to what extent? What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)