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!
Saturday, November 28, 2009
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?
Friday, November 13, 2009
Now I will preach. Tell me later if I'm practicing!
In my last blog, I discussed some of the merits of my fellow English 225 classmates blogs. However, rather than just appreciating their blogs, it's time to learn from them! How can I improve my own blogs?
First off, I think that one way to improve my blogs would be to try to be more creative with my titles. I really do try my best to make my titles seem interesting and draw in the reader, but sometimes they fall flat. Rather than just saying what I am going to write about, perhaps I should try to put funny quotes or phrases, or even something more serious in the titles.
Additionally, I think that some of the time, my titles get too long and offer too much information. For instance, in my blog “Low-income schools + many students - motivated Teachers = A need for someone like you” I tried to incorporate visuals. I thought my title was clever, and obviously it did bring in some readers (thanks Payel for your input!), I think it may have been a little bit on the long side. Perhaps in some cases I should even put just one or two words that are particularly controversial or funny, or stand out in some other way; that way, the reader will be interested, and will need to actually read the blog, not just the title, to know where the blog will be going.
Be succinct! Oh, this is a problem I don’t know if I will ever be able to overcome. I try really hard to be straight to the point, but I know I often am not. I do feel that it is important to explain my reasoning and the ways in which I interpret something because others may not see the concept the same way and will not understand my logic. But, being long winded can keep some readers from starting to read the article, or once they have started, they may stop reading. I know that my schedule can often get hectic, and although I may find someone’s blog title and first paragraph interesting, I may only skim the rest of the blog if I don’t have the time to commit to reading it in depth. Therefore, I will try to be a little more condensed so that others who are turned off by the length of my blog will be more likely to read it.
And, if I don’t make my overall blogs shorter, I will try to at least break them into shorter paragraphs to keep the mind from wandering!
Use visuals, James! I think the blog that I enjoyed writing the most, and the one that perhaps also had the most impact, was the one in which I used visuals from Teach for America and other sources. Visuals can attract the audience, or they can make their own statements, sometimes even in closing the argument. As they say, a pic is worth a thousand words...often, it’s worth much more! Although I can throw statistics at my readers until the cows come home (or yes, I did use that phrase, lol), it’s more likely they will remember the visuals at the end of the day.
Who are you? OK, this will be the last improvement I will mention. In reading Matt’s and Lauren’s blogs, I didn’t even have to actually know them outside of the class to know their personalities: I could “see” them just by reading their writing. Their comedic effects, short sentences, bold arguments, and controversial issues helped me know who they were. I often think of writing this blog as one thing: an assignment. In forgetting to have a little fun with the blog, I think I often lose my voice, and I will try to bring more of who I am and what I am feeling to my blog, whether that be my current feelings of despair (3 exams next week, ugh!) or my fun loving, sarcastic personality.
Thanks for reading! Make sure you keep me in line in future blogs…if I’m too long winded or dry, feel free to tell me!
First off, I think that one way to improve my blogs would be to try to be more creative with my titles. I really do try my best to make my titles seem interesting and draw in the reader, but sometimes they fall flat. Rather than just saying what I am going to write about, perhaps I should try to put funny quotes or phrases, or even something more serious in the titles.
Additionally, I think that some of the time, my titles get too long and offer too much information. For instance, in my blog “Low-income schools + many students - motivated Teachers = A need for someone like you” I tried to incorporate visuals. I thought my title was clever, and obviously it did bring in some readers (thanks Payel for your input!), I think it may have been a little bit on the long side. Perhaps in some cases I should even put just one or two words that are particularly controversial or funny, or stand out in some other way; that way, the reader will be interested, and will need to actually read the blog, not just the title, to know where the blog will be going.
Be succinct! Oh, this is a problem I don’t know if I will ever be able to overcome. I try really hard to be straight to the point, but I know I often am not. I do feel that it is important to explain my reasoning and the ways in which I interpret something because others may not see the concept the same way and will not understand my logic. But, being long winded can keep some readers from starting to read the article, or once they have started, they may stop reading. I know that my schedule can often get hectic, and although I may find someone’s blog title and first paragraph interesting, I may only skim the rest of the blog if I don’t have the time to commit to reading it in depth. Therefore, I will try to be a little more condensed so that others who are turned off by the length of my blog will be more likely to read it.
And, if I don’t make my overall blogs shorter, I will try to at least break them into shorter paragraphs to keep the mind from wandering!
Use visuals, James! I think the blog that I enjoyed writing the most, and the one that perhaps also had the most impact, was the one in which I used visuals from Teach for America and other sources. Visuals can attract the audience, or they can make their own statements, sometimes even in closing the argument. As they say, a pic is worth a thousand words...often, it’s worth much more! Although I can throw statistics at my readers until the cows come home (or yes, I did use that phrase, lol), it’s more likely they will remember the visuals at the end of the day.
Who are you? OK, this will be the last improvement I will mention. In reading Matt’s and Lauren’s blogs, I didn’t even have to actually know them outside of the class to know their personalities: I could “see” them just by reading their writing. Their comedic effects, short sentences, bold arguments, and controversial issues helped me know who they were. I often think of writing this blog as one thing: an assignment. In forgetting to have a little fun with the blog, I think I often lose my voice, and I will try to bring more of who I am and what I am feeling to my blog, whether that be my current feelings of despair (3 exams next week, ugh!) or my fun loving, sarcastic personality.
Thanks for reading! Make sure you keep me in line in future blogs…if I’m too long winded or dry, feel free to tell me!
As Matt puts it, our group is the "bees knees"
So, for this blog, for once I'm not gonna talk about myself and my interests...hope you enjoy it! This week, I will analyze my favorite English 225 student blogs and why they stick out to me.
First up to the plate...Matt McCrary's Rad Rhetorical Reasoning. One of my favorite things about Matt's blog is the titles that he uses, whether those titles are for his individual posts or even for his blog as a whole. The overall blog title uses alliteration, yet is informal and kinda makes me laugh a little (rhetorical reasoning...rad...really? Oh how I wish rhetorical reasoning was rad. Well, Matt's reasoning seems pretty "rad" most of the time...so, I'll go with it). Then, Matt's personality and fun nature continues beyond the titles of the posts to the content of the posts themselves. In one post, "If Somebody Told Me All I Needed Was Axe," Matt discusses the visual argument made by a picture of a "nerdy" guy at the top and a periodic table full of beautiful women, and how Axe body spray allows this nerd to unlock the gateway to a periodic table of women. Again, not only is the visual intriguing and interesting, but the comedic effect of the title, text, and image fit perfectly with one another and help you understand Matt's arguments, but also allow you to see his personality.
Additionally, Matt's blogs are generally fairly short (well, at least compared to my ridiculously long ones), and straight to the point. I admire this aspect because I know, that as a busy college student, leisure time to thoroughly read a long blog is not probably often attainable. Additionally, I know that I often have a short attention span, and if an article is too long, I likely won't finish the whole thing. One example of the succinct, straight to the point format of his sentence structure is, "Yes, this ad is over the top. Yes, it’s blatantly sexual. But if I wasn’t a Right Guard man, I might just go get myself some Axe." I appreciate that I don't have to meddle through long sentences, and the short sentences really drive the message home. Therefore, for the personality and straightforward nature of his writing, I appreciate Matt's blog (http://matt-mccrary.blogspot.com/).
Another blog that I appreciate is Lauren's blog. Now, in evaluating her blog, I see that it has many of the same characteristics that I liked in Matt's blog. Like in Matt's blog, I really liked the titles of the posts and of the blog as a whole. Titles of posts include, "Halloween: Slutty Nurse, Slutty Cop or Just Plain Slut?" and "Hi, my name is Bill and I have Cancer!" Then, the title of her overall blog is "blogging my way to my identity..." Any of these titles grab the attention of the reader (at least, they got my attention), and made me want to read the blog without already knowing the whole point of the post. I didn't know where the "Hi, my name is Bill and I have Cancer!" post was going to go, but I knew that I wanted to read to find out. Grabbing the readers attention is huge, and Lauren definitely does this, although I believe her titles are a little more controversial than Matt's.
Additionally, I really liked the spacing/paragraph"ing" of Lauren's blog. Her paragraphs were short and succinct. In making the paragraphs short, it made it hard to get lost in the text (AKA, not knowing which line comes next). Additionally, the paragraphs seem very well structured and thought out. In her post "Hitler: can he convince you" Lauren even goes so far as to start out paragraphs with bold titles, thereby making it easy to see the organization of her blog.
Don't worry, Nehal, Angela, or the newest addition to our group, Gilad, I appreciate your blogs too (and the rest of Eng 225, of course)! Everyone in our class writes great blogs, but I particularly appreciate the straightforward, honest, succinct, and often comedic writings of Matt & Lauren.
First up to the plate...Matt McCrary's Rad Rhetorical Reasoning. One of my favorite things about Matt's blog is the titles that he uses, whether those titles are for his individual posts or even for his blog as a whole. The overall blog title uses alliteration, yet is informal and kinda makes me laugh a little (rhetorical reasoning...rad...really? Oh how I wish rhetorical reasoning was rad. Well, Matt's reasoning seems pretty "rad" most of the time...so, I'll go with it). Then, Matt's personality and fun nature continues beyond the titles of the posts to the content of the posts themselves. In one post, "If Somebody Told Me All I Needed Was Axe," Matt discusses the visual argument made by a picture of a "nerdy" guy at the top and a periodic table full of beautiful women, and how Axe body spray allows this nerd to unlock the gateway to a periodic table of women. Again, not only is the visual intriguing and interesting, but the comedic effect of the title, text, and image fit perfectly with one another and help you understand Matt's arguments, but also allow you to see his personality.
Additionally, Matt's blogs are generally fairly short (well, at least compared to my ridiculously long ones), and straight to the point. I admire this aspect because I know, that as a busy college student, leisure time to thoroughly read a long blog is not probably often attainable. Additionally, I know that I often have a short attention span, and if an article is too long, I likely won't finish the whole thing. One example of the succinct, straight to the point format of his sentence structure is, "Yes, this ad is over the top. Yes, it’s blatantly sexual. But if I wasn’t a Right Guard man, I might just go get myself some Axe." I appreciate that I don't have to meddle through long sentences, and the short sentences really drive the message home. Therefore, for the personality and straightforward nature of his writing, I appreciate Matt's blog (http://matt-mccrary.blogspot.com/).
Another blog that I appreciate is Lauren's blog. Now, in evaluating her blog, I see that it has many of the same characteristics that I liked in Matt's blog. Like in Matt's blog, I really liked the titles of the posts and of the blog as a whole. Titles of posts include, "Halloween: Slutty Nurse, Slutty Cop or Just Plain Slut?" and "Hi, my name is Bill and I have Cancer!" Then, the title of her overall blog is "blogging my way to my identity..." Any of these titles grab the attention of the reader (at least, they got my attention), and made me want to read the blog without already knowing the whole point of the post. I didn't know where the "Hi, my name is Bill and I have Cancer!" post was going to go, but I knew that I wanted to read to find out. Grabbing the readers attention is huge, and Lauren definitely does this, although I believe her titles are a little more controversial than Matt's.
Additionally, I really liked the spacing/paragraph"ing" of Lauren's blog. Her paragraphs were short and succinct. In making the paragraphs short, it made it hard to get lost in the text (AKA, not knowing which line comes next). Additionally, the paragraphs seem very well structured and thought out. In her post "Hitler: can he convince you" Lauren even goes so far as to start out paragraphs with bold titles, thereby making it easy to see the organization of her blog.
Don't worry, Nehal, Angela, or the newest addition to our group, Gilad, I appreciate your blogs too (and the rest of Eng 225, of course)! Everyone in our class writes great blogs, but I particularly appreciate the straightforward, honest, succinct, and often comedic writings of Matt & Lauren.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Low-income schools + many students - motivated Teachers = A need for someone like you
(http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs009/1101793155518/archive/1102563242266.html)
We constantly hear in the news (at least I do as a metro Detroit resident) that schools are closing because they just can’t afford to stay open. When I hear that more schools are closing, this makes me think of all the students that need to be bused further away from their home schools if they want to continue their education. It also makes me think of how hard it must be if these kids must then be crammed into other classes like the one below, where some students don’t even get a desk because classes are so overcrowded.
(http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ed-cuts20-2009sep20,0,2312077.story)
But, despite the fact that some classes become overcrowded, this is not really the norm, especially in low income districts. And, even more, especially not in higher level grades like 12th grade. By then, most of the students will have already dropped out. When I think of high school graduation, I think of it being a necessity in order to get a decent job. Hell, when I think of getting a good job, I wonder if an undergraduate degree is even sufficient. Right now, I am on the verge of graduating from college and wonder what it is that I will do once I graduate. So, why aren’t high schoolers getting it? Why don’t they push themselves to get to graduation? Do they just not care? From what I have learned in the Teach for America application process and in reading numerous articles in developmental psychology as well as on the news on this subject, these kids do care, or at least want to care. The problem is that the kids either aren’t challenged enough, and when they are challenged, they are not given the support they need to reach those high expectations. When they aren’t challenged they either know it and feel that they are being treated like kids; they feel that they are undermined. Or, they think that they are up to par, and then they find out when they get a difficult teacher, that they have been betrayed all these years, that they really don’t know what they thought they knew, and then they start to feel like they aren’t smart enough to make it any further. They feel that they are too far behind, and begin to think that it’s not worth pushing forward if they are going to keep failing. So, they quit. Like many of their parents, they end up dropping out of high school, getting a minimum wage job, and live pay check to paycheck like much of the rest of America.
But, is this what they want? No. Who wants to struggle? I’m going to venture to say, no one. Therefore, these kids need to be challenged every step of the way. And, when they fail, someone needs to be there for them to say, “it’s alright. We’ll work together on this. You can do it.” Therefore, motivated, dedicated, caring teachers need to go into the classroom and turn things around. But many question whether it’s really worth becoming a teacher.
Sure, being a teacher can be difficult. That’s why so many teachers drop out of the field within the first few years of teaching. According to Mei-Lin Chang of Ohio State University (UM fans, don’t hate me for using an OSU scholar’s argument!), studies have shown that as many as 40% of teachers will completely change professions within 5 years of starting teaching. This phenomenon of joining the profession and feeling the need to leave is referred to as burnout. So, why do teachers leave the profession? My family argues that teachers don’t get paid enough to deal with “those” rude kids who don’t value education. Madeline Justice & Sue Espinoza argue in their article “Emotional Intelligence and Beginning Teacher Candidates” in the scholarly journal Education. that reasons for burnout include “low salaries,…working conditions, classroom discipline, administrative support, extensive paperwork, lack of respect, lack of parental involvement, and…few career advancement opportunities” (Justice & Espinosa, 2007).
But, beyond the difficulties, there are benefits to being a teacher. If you agree with my coworker Marc, one of the greatest perks of being a teacher is getting that all that vacation time. If you get a run-of-the-mill job, expect 2-3 weeks of vacation a year. If you are a teacher, expect about 3 months of vacation a year. Then, there is the perk that you get health, dental, and vision benefits, not to mention paid leave. But, as most teachers will probably tell you, money and benefits are not the best benefits of being a teacher. If a teacher has the right attitude and emotional abilities, positive emotions are often the best reward. As found by Izhar Oplatka in his June 2007 journal article in The Teaching Record, “[w]hen teachers were asked about what they find satisfying in their jobs, they spontaneously refer to emotions of joy, wonder, and excitement.” One of the reason Teach for America targets the top college students is because they are passionate about the fields they went to college for, and when they get to instruct about what they love, their satisfaction and their students motivation both rise substantially. Therefore, if you have want the highest paying, easiest job in the world, don’t teach. But if you want to make a difference in the world and see graduation ceremonies with seats filled for all students, not just half of them, teach. If you want other students to have the same options that you had, teach. If you want to make a difference in the world, and make a decent (albeit, not rich) living, teach. Otherwise, without your passion and dedication, students will continue to fall behind, and graduation ceremonies will continue to look like the one in the image shown below.
(http://who-will-kiss-the-pig.blogspot.com/2009_08_01_archive.html)
We constantly hear in the news (at least I do as a metro Detroit resident) that schools are closing because they just can’t afford to stay open. When I hear that more schools are closing, this makes me think of all the students that need to be bused further away from their home schools if they want to continue their education. It also makes me think of how hard it must be if these kids must then be crammed into other classes like the one below, where some students don’t even get a desk because classes are so overcrowded.
(http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ed-cuts20-2009sep20,0,2312077.story)
But, despite the fact that some classes become overcrowded, this is not really the norm, especially in low income districts. And, even more, especially not in higher level grades like 12th grade. By then, most of the students will have already dropped out. When I think of high school graduation, I think of it being a necessity in order to get a decent job. Hell, when I think of getting a good job, I wonder if an undergraduate degree is even sufficient. Right now, I am on the verge of graduating from college and wonder what it is that I will do once I graduate. So, why aren’t high schoolers getting it? Why don’t they push themselves to get to graduation? Do they just not care? From what I have learned in the Teach for America application process and in reading numerous articles in developmental psychology as well as on the news on this subject, these kids do care, or at least want to care. The problem is that the kids either aren’t challenged enough, and when they are challenged, they are not given the support they need to reach those high expectations. When they aren’t challenged they either know it and feel that they are being treated like kids; they feel that they are undermined. Or, they think that they are up to par, and then they find out when they get a difficult teacher, that they have been betrayed all these years, that they really don’t know what they thought they knew, and then they start to feel like they aren’t smart enough to make it any further. They feel that they are too far behind, and begin to think that it’s not worth pushing forward if they are going to keep failing. So, they quit. Like many of their parents, they end up dropping out of high school, getting a minimum wage job, and live pay check to paycheck like much of the rest of America.
But, is this what they want? No. Who wants to struggle? I’m going to venture to say, no one. Therefore, these kids need to be challenged every step of the way. And, when they fail, someone needs to be there for them to say, “it’s alright. We’ll work together on this. You can do it.” Therefore, motivated, dedicated, caring teachers need to go into the classroom and turn things around. But many question whether it’s really worth becoming a teacher.
Sure, being a teacher can be difficult. That’s why so many teachers drop out of the field within the first few years of teaching. According to Mei-Lin Chang of Ohio State University (UM fans, don’t hate me for using an OSU scholar’s argument!), studies have shown that as many as 40% of teachers will completely change professions within 5 years of starting teaching. This phenomenon of joining the profession and feeling the need to leave is referred to as burnout. So, why do teachers leave the profession? My family argues that teachers don’t get paid enough to deal with “those” rude kids who don’t value education. Madeline Justice & Sue Espinoza argue in their article “Emotional Intelligence and Beginning Teacher Candidates” in the scholarly journal Education. that reasons for burnout include “low salaries,…working conditions, classroom discipline, administrative support, extensive paperwork, lack of respect, lack of parental involvement, and…few career advancement opportunities” (Justice & Espinosa, 2007).
But, beyond the difficulties, there are benefits to being a teacher. If you agree with my coworker Marc, one of the greatest perks of being a teacher is getting that all that vacation time. If you get a run-of-the-mill job, expect 2-3 weeks of vacation a year. If you are a teacher, expect about 3 months of vacation a year. Then, there is the perk that you get health, dental, and vision benefits, not to mention paid leave. But, as most teachers will probably tell you, money and benefits are not the best benefits of being a teacher. If a teacher has the right attitude and emotional abilities, positive emotions are often the best reward. As found by Izhar Oplatka in his June 2007 journal article in The Teaching Record, “[w]hen teachers were asked about what they find satisfying in their jobs, they spontaneously refer to emotions of joy, wonder, and excitement.” One of the reason Teach for America targets the top college students is because they are passionate about the fields they went to college for, and when they get to instruct about what they love, their satisfaction and their students motivation both rise substantially. Therefore, if you have want the highest paying, easiest job in the world, don’t teach. But if you want to make a difference in the world and see graduation ceremonies with seats filled for all students, not just half of them, teach. If you want other students to have the same options that you had, teach. If you want to make a difference in the world, and make a decent (albeit, not rich) living, teach. Otherwise, without your passion and dedication, students will continue to fall behind, and graduation ceremonies will continue to look like the one in the image shown below.
(http://who-will-kiss-the-pig.blogspot.com/2009_08_01_archive.html)
Easier said than done
Think back to 1934, as Hitler is continuing to gain power in Germany. Now, imagine that you were a German, and all of your friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. were steadfast dedicated to the goals and means of the National Party. Your friends would look at Hitler, idolize him, and wanted nothing more than your country to be brought together, and saw that Hitler was bringing the nation together. Would you be able to see beyond the desirable front that was being put up, and know to leave the country before the Party gained too much power? From our perspective, and knowing all of the cruel things that Hitler did, sure, you might think it would be easy to identify that Hitler’s schemes were not to be trusted. But, what if you didn’t know about the Holocaust? What if you didn’t know about Hitler’s dirty laundry? My English class explored this idea recently, and have come to conclude that many of us would have just gone with the flow. So, how can we ensure that something similar doesn’t happen again? Perhaps that’s the whole point of taking a class on argument; to understand what makes an argument good, and how to see past the desirable exterior.
In class on Monday, my teacher showed us a film called Triumph of the Will. This black-and-white film was produced by Leni Riefenstahl in 1934 under the funding/guidance of Adolf Hitler. If you are not a history buff, that was 5 years before Germany invaded Poland, and many years before the Holocaust. There were already camps in 1933 for those “undesireables” who broke the laws and fought against those in power, but these camps weren’t limited to one race or group like the Jews. Also, this was following WWI, and Germany didn’t look that desirable to the rest of the world. Therefore, Germany had to build up its image, build up its national character, and make the Germans themselves as well as the rest of the world respect Germany. This is where Hitler came in, and the film made by Riefenstahl aided in that mission.
In the movie, right from the beginning, what you see is desireable. The film starts from a plane floating in the clouds, a scenic view. Then, as the plane landed, a crowd awaited, cheering, happy and content. How could anything be wrong? Hitler was shown in his car driving down the streets. It seemed impossible to fathom that anyone was still in their homes because the sidewalks were so crowded, but no one seemed annoyed by this fact. At night, there were parties, fireworks, live music. During the day, the movie showed women with baskets of food, children eating apples; it seemed like a bountiful time. All of these visuals were arguments that as Hitler was rising to power, people were happy, they were well-fed, and they were united as one people supporting one person. Hitler appealed to people’s ethos by showing that other people gave him the power, and that he was willing and able to accept it. At the same time, there were constant appeals to pathos, in that people were just shown loving Hitler. Hitler was shown holding babies, people were fed; no one had to worry about pain or famine, so people were happy. People were brainwashed by this.
How could you say, “no” this is not OK? If you were brainwashed into thinking that Hitler is equated with food and prosperity and a united nation, wouldn’t you want him to stay in power? If you decided that Hitler was too radical, you would probably be shunned. Think of going to a football game where you’re not welcomed. For example, one of my classmates said how they went to the University of Michigan – Michigan State football game a few weeks ago, and how people booed her, harassed her, and even threw things at her. This would be emotionally difficult for one day; would you really want to deal with this harassment every day, even if you really did love the opposing team? Probably not. Maybe you would fake it and say that you loved State, maybe you’d just keep quiet, or maybe you’d just leave if you could. But if East Lansing was home to you, and the city was prosperous, it seems that it would be difficult to uproot. This may be similar to why even those people who knew something was up stayed in Germany and kept their mouths shut. However, although those people who go against the grain may be ridiculed, those are the people who make the greatest impact in history. Martin Luther King, Jr. , Rosa Parks, Thomas Edison, Amelia Earhart: these people all did what everyone else told them was crazy, wasn’t normal, and they were ridiculed. Sometimes we have to step back and say, maybe the extremists have a point worth examining; I really need to try to see both sides of the story: that’s what argument is. Objectively examining both sides, and coming to a conclusion, that’s the best option. That’s perhaps one reason why pathos is avoided in academic writing: because pathos has a tendency to pull on the heartstrings and make you forget logic.
So, argument can be used to develop an identity for both parties involved: those you are viewing and those that are being viewed. People liked Hitler, because he argued that people liked him; or at least, that’s what Leni Riefenstahl argued in the film she produced. At the same time, the visual and verbal arguments in the movie argued that Germans were united, and that everyone wanted the same thing. Using Riesman’s theory of the conforming self, people were other-directed, worrying about the needs of the other. But, by doing what everyone else was doing, the Germans were convinced that they were really looking out for themselves because the images they saw showed that being other-directed meant being prosperous.
In the end, I guess my point is that although it sometimes may seem easiest or the most logical to go with the flow, we need to step back, reevaluate why we are thinking the things we are thinking, and ask objectively whether the situation we are in really is for the best. It is easy to become brainwashed into thinking that something is the best option or the best way of doing things, but we should always balance our view with the opposing view and underlying reasons for their argument, and decide if we really do respect the side that we argue for. This is easier said than done, but it’s worth the fight.
In class on Monday, my teacher showed us a film called Triumph of the Will. This black-and-white film was produced by Leni Riefenstahl in 1934 under the funding/guidance of Adolf Hitler. If you are not a history buff, that was 5 years before Germany invaded Poland, and many years before the Holocaust. There were already camps in 1933 for those “undesireables” who broke the laws and fought against those in power, but these camps weren’t limited to one race or group like the Jews. Also, this was following WWI, and Germany didn’t look that desirable to the rest of the world. Therefore, Germany had to build up its image, build up its national character, and make the Germans themselves as well as the rest of the world respect Germany. This is where Hitler came in, and the film made by Riefenstahl aided in that mission.
In the movie, right from the beginning, what you see is desireable. The film starts from a plane floating in the clouds, a scenic view. Then, as the plane landed, a crowd awaited, cheering, happy and content. How could anything be wrong? Hitler was shown in his car driving down the streets. It seemed impossible to fathom that anyone was still in their homes because the sidewalks were so crowded, but no one seemed annoyed by this fact. At night, there were parties, fireworks, live music. During the day, the movie showed women with baskets of food, children eating apples; it seemed like a bountiful time. All of these visuals were arguments that as Hitler was rising to power, people were happy, they were well-fed, and they were united as one people supporting one person. Hitler appealed to people’s ethos by showing that other people gave him the power, and that he was willing and able to accept it. At the same time, there were constant appeals to pathos, in that people were just shown loving Hitler. Hitler was shown holding babies, people were fed; no one had to worry about pain or famine, so people were happy. People were brainwashed by this.
How could you say, “no” this is not OK? If you were brainwashed into thinking that Hitler is equated with food and prosperity and a united nation, wouldn’t you want him to stay in power? If you decided that Hitler was too radical, you would probably be shunned. Think of going to a football game where you’re not welcomed. For example, one of my classmates said how they went to the University of Michigan – Michigan State football game a few weeks ago, and how people booed her, harassed her, and even threw things at her. This would be emotionally difficult for one day; would you really want to deal with this harassment every day, even if you really did love the opposing team? Probably not. Maybe you would fake it and say that you loved State, maybe you’d just keep quiet, or maybe you’d just leave if you could. But if East Lansing was home to you, and the city was prosperous, it seems that it would be difficult to uproot. This may be similar to why even those people who knew something was up stayed in Germany and kept their mouths shut. However, although those people who go against the grain may be ridiculed, those are the people who make the greatest impact in history. Martin Luther King, Jr. , Rosa Parks, Thomas Edison, Amelia Earhart: these people all did what everyone else told them was crazy, wasn’t normal, and they were ridiculed. Sometimes we have to step back and say, maybe the extremists have a point worth examining; I really need to try to see both sides of the story: that’s what argument is. Objectively examining both sides, and coming to a conclusion, that’s the best option. That’s perhaps one reason why pathos is avoided in academic writing: because pathos has a tendency to pull on the heartstrings and make you forget logic.
So, argument can be used to develop an identity for both parties involved: those you are viewing and those that are being viewed. People liked Hitler, because he argued that people liked him; or at least, that’s what Leni Riefenstahl argued in the film she produced. At the same time, the visual and verbal arguments in the movie argued that Germans were united, and that everyone wanted the same thing. Using Riesman’s theory of the conforming self, people were other-directed, worrying about the needs of the other. But, by doing what everyone else was doing, the Germans were convinced that they were really looking out for themselves because the images they saw showed that being other-directed meant being prosperous.
In the end, I guess my point is that although it sometimes may seem easiest or the most logical to go with the flow, we need to step back, reevaluate why we are thinking the things we are thinking, and ask objectively whether the situation we are in really is for the best. It is easy to become brainwashed into thinking that something is the best option or the best way of doing things, but we should always balance our view with the opposing view and underlying reasons for their argument, and decide if we really do respect the side that we argue for. This is easier said than done, but it’s worth the fight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)