The importance of being flexible to the needs of your audience

Last Friday, I went to a panel presentation at the Making Meaning Conference. I did this not necessarily because I thought it would be the most interesting or engaging experience in my academic career, but because I had to write do an assignment on rhetorical analysis and this conference was one option for analysis. Trying to find some way to relate to the panel, I decided that since I am interested in medicine, the conference "What is so “Schizophrenic” About that Text? A Disability Studies Approach to the Usage of “Schizophrenic” in Critical Theory and Academic Discourse" would be interesting and applicable to my academic and intellectual career.

The topic above was presented by Elizabeth Brewer from Ohio State University, whom I believe was writing her Ph.D. thesis. First of all, when reading the document I cringed to an extent, just because she was from OSU, but I tried to let college rivalries not get to me; after all, U of M football, although a big part of the college experience, is not something that I dedicate much time to.

Finally, at about 4:20 (20 minutes after the conference was supposed to begin because the first speaker didn’t show), the coordinator warmly invited Elizabeth to the front of the room with applause from her 7 member audience. At this point, with her paper in hand, Elizabeth turned to face the audience, sat in a chair, and her first words were, “I’m just going to read my paper for you.” And so she began. Reading off of a stack of approximately 20 – 30 pages, Elizabeth began to analyze the usage of the word “schizophrenic” in academia.

Of course, I still had some anticipation that the topic would be interesting, if not the presenter’s lack of communication with her audience. But, to my dismay, my hopes came crashing down. Certainly, Elizabeth’s use of a quote at the beginning of her presentation drew the audience into her topic, and she cited many examples and support for her arguments. However, within the first two minutes, I came to realize that I wasn’t going to understand much of the point of Elizabeth’s topic. She continually cited theories from Foucault and someone I think was named Delouse and Guatari. She cited books such as Anti-Oedipus (I think that’s how it’s spelled), and presented her critique of the ideas presented. However, I found that much of the information she presented was inaccessible to the average person. I realize that this was a topic on rhetoric, but one of the points of a good argument is being able to connect with your audience, and she definitely didn’t connect with me. Perhaps if she would have introduced some of the theories with background information or explained the ideas of Foucault, the general audience would have been able to better understand her argument.

However, despite my inability to understand much of Elizabeth’s presentation (or reading, rather), I felt that she showed that she does feel passionately about the fact that the term schizophrenic should not be thrown around in regular conversation in the way that it is. Just as saying “moron” or “that’s so gay” when the literal definitions are not being applied, the word schizophrenic doesn’t have a place in regular conversation. After all, when terms and labels are used out of their intended context, they often can have negative effects on the people who the terms actually apply to. Schizophrenia is part of a person’s identity, and the term should not be thrown. This was my understanding of one of Elizabeth’s arguments or reasons.

On the other hand, the second speaker, Patrick Barry, was a law student at the University of Michigan and his thesis was "What is Walt Whitman Doing in a Supreme Court Case on Loitering? The Role of Literary Allusions in Judicial Opinions." Although law is not a serious interest of mine, I felt that Patrick’s delivered his arguments to the audience in a much more effective manner. Patrick, although visibly nervous at times, constantly kept eye contact with his audience, presented a more personable attitude, and stopped at points in his argument to offer clarification.

Patrick discussed how literary and biblical references in law intrigue him, and he wonders why these allusions make it into the court room when there are so many law books to cite from. He answered saying that when the law doesn’t seem to answer questions to a satisfactory level, judges use literature as a rhetorical tool because it fills in the gaps that law hasn’t. Additionally, he explained that literature offers social perspectives from which to make judgments, and help guide judges in their rulings, even though judges often get the allusions wrong. He presented numerous cases as evidence of references to the bible and women’s oppression and Regina v. Dudley and Stephens. In the latter example, the court utilized Paradise Lost and the story of Jesus dying on the cross saying that just because there is necessity for something like cannibalism when stranded, that doesn’t mean that that necessity is good enough reason to kill another. This made me come to understand that no field is perfect and interdisciplinary references and comprehension can definitely add substance to an argument.

In the end, I am glad that I went to the conference, because I definitely learned the importance of using clear examples and the power of quotes in grabbing the attention of the audience. At the same time, I came to understand the necessity to not assume that your audience understands the topic of which you are discussing, and to make sure that any subject specific material that may not be understood by those outside your field of study needs to be explained if your audience is to ever understand where you are coming from. Otherwise, conferences like this (or essays that use similar assumptions) will never be effective except to those that dedicate their lives to the topics at hand.