I met with Brett yesterday to discuss my arguing to inquire paper. When I first walked in the room, Brett gave me my rhetorical analysis back, and we discussed what it’s flaws were and how I could improve it. I think the most important concept that I took away from our discussion was the importance of understanding who the audience is in a particular argument.
For my rhetorical analysis, I wanted to analyze an argument about the use of the word schizophrenia in literature and how it affects individual’s identities. However, if you read my earlier blogs, you would know that I felt that the speaker at the conference didn’t realize that her blog wasn’t just scholars in rhetoric, but also everyday run-of-the-mill college students whose studies were not the mirror image of hers. If I would have wrote about her speech, I would have analyzed how important it was to know who your audience is. But, I didn’t understand her comments and I thought that writing a paper that said “ I didn’t understand anything from this conference” was going to fulfill the 3-5 page requirement.
Therefore, I decided to write about Obama’s speech on healthcare, because it was the first relatively recent speech that came to mind. However, when I wrote my rhetorical analysis, I just wrote about how Obama was speaking to the American people. But, is that really who his audience was. Brett and I discussed how important it was to analyze who it was that Obama was speaking to, and a generic audience like “Americans” was a bit too vague. Was Obama speaking to Congress? Was he speaking to middle class Americans? How about to low-income communities? To those with insurance? Or those without? Sure, he adressed all of these audiences in his speech, but who was it really directed toward? In my opinion, I believe it would be those Americans who have fallen on hard times, or have always been in the negative. The audience would be those Americans who would most significantly gain something from healthcare reform, even though the President tried to make sure that all Americans were semi-satisfied with his proposal. Sure, Obama was speaking in front of Congress, but he wasn’t speaking to them, at least not for most of the speech. He was trying to elicit emotions in the un- and under-insured to make them agree with him, to fight with him, and to make sure that the issue didn’t fall to the wayside. To Congress, would healthcare reform have been at the top of their agenda if the President had given the speech just to them? I think the obvious answer is no. Congress already knew that there were people who have inadequate healthcare, not because they choose not to have it, but because they can’t afford to have it. But yet they didn’t make any significant advances on the issue. The president’s speech was needed because he needs the support of the American people. After all, this is a country that is supposed to be led by the people, not just by the people that we elect into office.
My argument here is not whether healthcare reform is good for everyone, because obviously it isn’t. Insurance companies would no longer to reap the same benefits and those who have affordable insurance now may see their premiums go up when the underinsured and the terminally ill who have been rejected in the past would now be given the right to have health insurance for a price similar to what everyone else pays. When costs go up, the insurance company isn’t going to eat the costs; they are going to pass them on to you to the best of their ability.
My argument instead is that whenever analyzing an argument, make sure you know who the argument is directed towards. And, when you are making an argument, make sure you know who your audience is. Otherwise, you won’t get the point and reasons for another person’s argument, and you won’t address the needs of your audience if you have a mindset that you are speaking to a different audience than you actually are.
I have never put any emphasis on audience before; that is something I definitely wish to change.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Research papers...not as easy as I once thought
For those of you who are interested, I made it to the next stage in the Teach for America process! As I nervously logged into the system (which let me tell you, it felt like an eternity!), I knew that my fate was relying largely on the phone interview that I had done a week ago, and in my honest opinion, it was wishy-washy. But, then the page loaded, and “CONGRATULATIONS! You have been invited to participate in an in-person interview” popped up. My project this semester of writing about teachers and identity still seems that it is applicable to my future, and I feel more of a passion about writing it and figuring out what makes a teacher successful and what causes burnout in so many teachers; after all, I don’t want to burnout in my two years in the program, and with this paper, maybe I will be able to figure some of that out (still assuming I do well in the final interview, still keep your fingers crossed, please).
Anyway, onto my real blog topic.
Before this class, a research paper seemed so simple: you would think of a general topic, find a plethora of resources that surrounded your topic, and then essentially write a summary of those articles with a little bit of your own opinion. Of course, you wouldn’t JUST use the opinions of those sources, and you would throw in a little of your own personal flair. Of course, you would have the responsibility of making the paper flow, avoid grammatical errors, and it would be best to develop a dialogue between the articles. However, beyond some basal level of understanding, you could succeed with fairly little effort.
Now, in my current argumentative writing class, the research paper seems so much more difficult. Whereas before I always would use newspaper articles and a text book, now each resource is a journal article that is 20 to 40 pages long, and even after filtering through numerous abstracts on my topic, half of these papers that I read end up not being relevant. Additionally, I have come to find that what used to only require regurgitation of the main idea of resources isn’t really the point of a research paper, especially an inquiry paper.
When I started researching my topic, all I knew was that I wanted to research teachers and Arlie Hochschild’s idea of identity which includes the true and false selves. For any reader who may stumble on this blog and isn’t in English 225.021 this semester (or for those students in our class who haven’t read The Self We Live By), a true self is the identity that you would be able to reveal in a completely uninhibited situation, whereas the false selves are those identities that we present in social situations that are appropriate to the situation at hand. False selves do what Hochschild calls “emotion work,” which is the act of intentionally suppressing what you truly feel and instead expressing those emotions that are appropriate to the situation at hand or would be more likely to produce a positive effect (such as a teacher who suppresses their feelings of despair and angst and instead smiles and speaks in an upbeat tone, or for professors it could be the act of being polite and reserved to the student who fervently argues with them and tells them that even though the professor has a Ph.D. on the subject and has spent 30 years in a lab laying the foundation for the concept, the student’s choice of answer B is correct even though the professor knows the correct answer is obviously A).
However, despite knowing that I wanted to explore this issue, I had few questions about the topic beyond how teachers fit into this identity scheme. Instead, I should have tried to think of a spin on the topic, like “does presenting false selves and suppressing the true self contribute to low self-esteem and high burnout rates for teachers in low-income communities.” Or, I should have at least looked into other’s view of teacher identity, and how their concepts differed from Hochschild’s ideas. Additionally, I thought that since I was not the authority on the subject, that the only arguments I should put forth would be those that other professionals had made. Instead, I should be looking for sources that fit with my ideas, although perhaps not always perfectly. Also, I should be looking for more conflicting views, because without giving the opposing view an adequate opportunity to change your mind, a mountain of research on one side of the issue doesn’t establish your claim no matter how mind-blowing their reasoning and research may be. What seemed so simple and easy before can in fact be very difficult. It’s not that I don’t know how to think in depth when writing a paper, it’s just that often deep comprehension and contemplation isn’t necessary, so I feel a little rusty.
Finally, I would like to say that although textbooks are often boring, I have learned something particularly helpful from Aims of Argument. Before, I often did a lot of research and a week later would realize that a source I passed up and thought was irrelevant, was now in fact relevant to my paper, but I wouldn’t be able to find the source at that later time. In Aims of Argument, they present the importance of a “research log” in which you write down every possibly relevant source and how you got there, a record that could serve particularly helpful at a later time. After all, what I am arguing now in my paper differs significantly from what I was originally arguing (or rather, regurgitating), and it may significantly change by the time I turn in my final draft. Wasting time looking for a resource you already found is completely counterproductive, and now I don’t have that problem.
I could say more in this blog, but doing so may bore you silly, so with that I will say please continue to cross your fingers for me for Teach for America, and more importantly, have a good week :D
Anyway, onto my real blog topic.
Before this class, a research paper seemed so simple: you would think of a general topic, find a plethora of resources that surrounded your topic, and then essentially write a summary of those articles with a little bit of your own opinion. Of course, you wouldn’t JUST use the opinions of those sources, and you would throw in a little of your own personal flair. Of course, you would have the responsibility of making the paper flow, avoid grammatical errors, and it would be best to develop a dialogue between the articles. However, beyond some basal level of understanding, you could succeed with fairly little effort.
Now, in my current argumentative writing class, the research paper seems so much more difficult. Whereas before I always would use newspaper articles and a text book, now each resource is a journal article that is 20 to 40 pages long, and even after filtering through numerous abstracts on my topic, half of these papers that I read end up not being relevant. Additionally, I have come to find that what used to only require regurgitation of the main idea of resources isn’t really the point of a research paper, especially an inquiry paper.
When I started researching my topic, all I knew was that I wanted to research teachers and Arlie Hochschild’s idea of identity which includes the true and false selves. For any reader who may stumble on this blog and isn’t in English 225.021 this semester (or for those students in our class who haven’t read The Self We Live By), a true self is the identity that you would be able to reveal in a completely uninhibited situation, whereas the false selves are those identities that we present in social situations that are appropriate to the situation at hand. False selves do what Hochschild calls “emotion work,” which is the act of intentionally suppressing what you truly feel and instead expressing those emotions that are appropriate to the situation at hand or would be more likely to produce a positive effect (such as a teacher who suppresses their feelings of despair and angst and instead smiles and speaks in an upbeat tone, or for professors it could be the act of being polite and reserved to the student who fervently argues with them and tells them that even though the professor has a Ph.D. on the subject and has spent 30 years in a lab laying the foundation for the concept, the student’s choice of answer B is correct even though the professor knows the correct answer is obviously A).
However, despite knowing that I wanted to explore this issue, I had few questions about the topic beyond how teachers fit into this identity scheme. Instead, I should have tried to think of a spin on the topic, like “does presenting false selves and suppressing the true self contribute to low self-esteem and high burnout rates for teachers in low-income communities.” Or, I should have at least looked into other’s view of teacher identity, and how their concepts differed from Hochschild’s ideas. Additionally, I thought that since I was not the authority on the subject, that the only arguments I should put forth would be those that other professionals had made. Instead, I should be looking for sources that fit with my ideas, although perhaps not always perfectly. Also, I should be looking for more conflicting views, because without giving the opposing view an adequate opportunity to change your mind, a mountain of research on one side of the issue doesn’t establish your claim no matter how mind-blowing their reasoning and research may be. What seemed so simple and easy before can in fact be very difficult. It’s not that I don’t know how to think in depth when writing a paper, it’s just that often deep comprehension and contemplation isn’t necessary, so I feel a little rusty.
Finally, I would like to say that although textbooks are often boring, I have learned something particularly helpful from Aims of Argument. Before, I often did a lot of research and a week later would realize that a source I passed up and thought was irrelevant, was now in fact relevant to my paper, but I wouldn’t be able to find the source at that later time. In Aims of Argument, they present the importance of a “research log” in which you write down every possibly relevant source and how you got there, a record that could serve particularly helpful at a later time. After all, what I am arguing now in my paper differs significantly from what I was originally arguing (or rather, regurgitating), and it may significantly change by the time I turn in my final draft. Wasting time looking for a resource you already found is completely counterproductive, and now I don’t have that problem.
I could say more in this blog, but doing so may bore you silly, so with that I will say please continue to cross your fingers for me for Teach for America, and more importantly, have a good week :D
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Language Games and Nodal Points
In “The Self We Live By,” many different theories of what the self has been in the past, and what it currently is now are presented. There are those that question whether the “self” is a created by the mind by what we think others think we are (Cooley) or what others label us as (Berger), and there are those that selves can be other-directed (developed as one conforms to the wants and needs of others) or inner-directed (whose conformity is only defined by an underlying framework set by the community with much room to grow), such as Riesman suggests.
Then, while examining the postmodern self, there are theorists like Baudrillard (termed skeptical postmodernists) who believe that nothing is more real than the image which represents it. Therefore, the “me” or the self that we may refer to in regular conversation does not really exist because it is just a compilation of the images that others see us as or the images that we compile to say what we are, and there is no division between what is a represention of something and what is actually real. According to Baudrillard, at least to my understanding, the self has no reality; it is “hyperreal.”
In contrast to the radical view of the skeptical postmodernists, Holstein and Gubrium turn to Lyotard’s definition of the self comes from “’nodal points’ of specific communication circuits.” Each person can lie somewhere along the line of two extremes in many different possible communities, being white or black, rich or poor, man or woman, and although we are powerless at times, we can modify the result to some extent, and shape who the self is. Also, the self involves more active involvement in its development, acutally interacting with and describing itself within the communities; just labelling itself as something is not enough for it to exist.
In relation to Lyotard’s self in “The Self We Live By,” the authors write, “Where does such a self [discursive / fractured] stand in relation to truth and authenticity? Certainly, postmodern narratives of self cannot be evaluated in terms of their universal truth value; they can only be truths in relation to ‘interpretive communities,’ as Stanley Fish (1980) might put it.” (70)
Here, I believe the point being made is that you must talk about yourself (using personal pronouns) in relation to the community to which you belong and must interact with that community, and in doing so, you give yourself substance and a reality in that community. From Baudrillaud’s argument, there is no separation between something’s representation and what it is, therefore it may not exist beyond its representation. In a culture where we can look at images and say “that’s me,” makes defining one’s self too easy and representational, rather than real. However, if the self lies within an actual community and is recognized by the community, not just defined by the person who thinks their self belongs there, then the self actually has substance. The act of using “language games” to discuss who we are in relation to these nodal points is what allows us to make the self a reality, not just a fake “hyperreal” self that has no substance. Then, it the combinations and intersections of these identities that help us define who we are, as no one explanation of the identity can lie alone.
Therefore, within my own field, if I wish to define who myself is, I can’t just adopt the image of another scientist or student and believe that that is who I am. I must think about and discuss where I am within multiple different communities which may interact to produce who I am. This definition of myself cannot just be formulated in the mind, but must also interact and discuss with the communities to which it ascribes, or it will not truly exist and will be nothing more than a representation of what I would like to think that it is. I must perform experiments and come to conclusions and then discuss my actions and self with others within the scientific community to be a part of that community, and must do the same with every other community to which I believe I exist. At the same time, this definition of my self is not stagnant, but is dynamic and ever changing, and must continually contribute to different communities to keep its reality alive. The self that exists within the scientific community and U of M student body today, need not exist tomorrow.
This is my understanding of what is meant by the question, “Where does such a self [discursive / fractured] stand in relation to truth and authenticity?” Although I have tried to analyze it and myself in relation to this question, I am not terribly sure that I have gotten the idea right. If you believe that I am off base, please tell me! Like I have said in previous blogs, the concepts of the self are confusing to me, and I’d like to know if I need to redefine my understanding of these concepts.
Then, while examining the postmodern self, there are theorists like Baudrillard (termed skeptical postmodernists) who believe that nothing is more real than the image which represents it. Therefore, the “me” or the self that we may refer to in regular conversation does not really exist because it is just a compilation of the images that others see us as or the images that we compile to say what we are, and there is no division between what is a represention of something and what is actually real. According to Baudrillard, at least to my understanding, the self has no reality; it is “hyperreal.”
In contrast to the radical view of the skeptical postmodernists, Holstein and Gubrium turn to Lyotard’s definition of the self comes from “’nodal points’ of specific communication circuits.” Each person can lie somewhere along the line of two extremes in many different possible communities, being white or black, rich or poor, man or woman, and although we are powerless at times, we can modify the result to some extent, and shape who the self is. Also, the self involves more active involvement in its development, acutally interacting with and describing itself within the communities; just labelling itself as something is not enough for it to exist.
In relation to Lyotard’s self in “The Self We Live By,” the authors write, “Where does such a self [discursive / fractured] stand in relation to truth and authenticity? Certainly, postmodern narratives of self cannot be evaluated in terms of their universal truth value; they can only be truths in relation to ‘interpretive communities,’ as Stanley Fish (1980) might put it.” (70)
Here, I believe the point being made is that you must talk about yourself (using personal pronouns) in relation to the community to which you belong and must interact with that community, and in doing so, you give yourself substance and a reality in that community. From Baudrillaud’s argument, there is no separation between something’s representation and what it is, therefore it may not exist beyond its representation. In a culture where we can look at images and say “that’s me,” makes defining one’s self too easy and representational, rather than real. However, if the self lies within an actual community and is recognized by the community, not just defined by the person who thinks their self belongs there, then the self actually has substance. The act of using “language games” to discuss who we are in relation to these nodal points is what allows us to make the self a reality, not just a fake “hyperreal” self that has no substance. Then, it the combinations and intersections of these identities that help us define who we are, as no one explanation of the identity can lie alone.
Therefore, within my own field, if I wish to define who myself is, I can’t just adopt the image of another scientist or student and believe that that is who I am. I must think about and discuss where I am within multiple different communities which may interact to produce who I am. This definition of myself cannot just be formulated in the mind, but must also interact and discuss with the communities to which it ascribes, or it will not truly exist and will be nothing more than a representation of what I would like to think that it is. I must perform experiments and come to conclusions and then discuss my actions and self with others within the scientific community to be a part of that community, and must do the same with every other community to which I believe I exist. At the same time, this definition of my self is not stagnant, but is dynamic and ever changing, and must continually contribute to different communities to keep its reality alive. The self that exists within the scientific community and U of M student body today, need not exist tomorrow.
This is my understanding of what is meant by the question, “Where does such a self [discursive / fractured] stand in relation to truth and authenticity?” Although I have tried to analyze it and myself in relation to this question, I am not terribly sure that I have gotten the idea right. If you believe that I am off base, please tell me! Like I have said in previous blogs, the concepts of the self are confusing to me, and I’d like to know if I need to redefine my understanding of these concepts.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Are the selves that I follow only the dark ones?
Today, I continued to contemplate which idea of the self presented by “The Self We Live By” is worthy of writing a paper about.
Perhaps it’s naivety, but no matter how much I get confused while reading the TSWLB or while in class discussion, I seem to see merits in all of the concepts of what the self is, especially in those that represent “the dark side.” This makes me start to question, is the self that I live by dark and in despair? Am I attracted to the comfort provided by Whyte’s “organization man,” and will my self be torn away by the tyrant leading to conformity? Or, do I belong to Berger’s idea of what the self has become, subject solely to what others label me as? It seems that being a victim of labels is quite evident in my past. If it wasn’t for my family and friends labeling me as the smarty pants of the family, I don't think I would have chosen to go to college. Sure, I have the work ethic to succeed, but higher education was something I felt pushed into, not something I chose. Then again, is that to say that labeling is a bad thing all the time? After all, in a few months I will have a bachelor’s degree and the opportunity to possibly pursue medical school, optometry school, or another high ranking profession which will provide me with financial security, and hopefully a fulfilling career which I would not have had the ability to do without my degree. However, what if when I was in elementary school I had a learning disability that went undiagnosed and therefore struggled in all of my classes? I perhaps would have been labeled by my peers as being dumb or as a slacker. I probably would have lived up to expectations, barely made it through the rest of my school years, and associated with other kids who had been labeled in the same manner. Would my path still have led to Ann Arbor, or any college town for the matter? I think the unfortunate answer is probably not. Luckily, that was not the case.
Then again, perhaps I am not completely naïve but that in fact many of these theories of the self are true, but it is our age and maturity that determines which of them we follow. I recently applied to Teach for America (which is on my mind right now because I find out in fifteen minutes whether I made it onto stage 2...cross your fingers for me) despite comments from my friends and family such as “do you really want to teach” or “don’t you think that’s a waste of your potential?” Despite their comments, and the label “future money making machine” I feel has been stamped on my back, I have applied to this program because I want to make a difference in these kids’ lives and because I have always enjoyed explaining difficult concepts to confused students. It’s not that I don’t want to become a doctor; in fact, "become M.D." is still at the top of my future goals checklist. However, I want to take a break and pursue a life goal that was always mine and no one else’s. If I was still fully a victim to labeling as I was in high school, I don’t believe that I would have taken this step. But, just because I have moved away from one model of the self, that doesn’t mean that I may not adopt another self. Perhaps now that I have moved out of Berger’s idea of the self, I will move onto Hochschild’s self (or already have), further developing my “true” and “false” selves. In fact, after being prompted in class to discuss which self you are most intrigued by, it is Hochschild’s self which I wrote about. I wonder, if the false self is shaped by social expectations with the intent of catering to what people want, will I develop false selves that protect my true self in my future career as a teacher or doctor? I have always been quiet, but when I am at work I put forward a positive, eager, and boisterous disposition. Perhaps when I am working, my true self starts presenting a false self that does “emotion work,” so that my quiet self can be protected from others. This may be a defense mechanism; after all, if you don’t provide a cheery yet strong self to the patients, they will walk all over you. Then again, is the false self I present at work more closely related to my true self, or is it the quiet, reserved self that I present at school that more closely resembles my true self? Honestly, I don’t know.
Perhaps I am even getting Hochschild’s, Berger’s, and Whyte’s ideas completely wrong; I know that I was completely lost when I first read the second chapter of TSWLB, and still am a little confused about Cooley and Mead. Philosophy and English were never my strong points, which is perhaps why I stuck to what I am good at, math and science. Or, perhaps I stuck with science because, as mentioned earlier, I was living up to what other’s labeled me as, a good science and math student. In the end, I’m happy with where I am, and feel that if it is Hochschild's self that I am beginning to follow, at least I only project false selves in order to protect my true self, despite my inability to know who/what that is.
Perhaps it’s naivety, but no matter how much I get confused while reading the TSWLB or while in class discussion, I seem to see merits in all of the concepts of what the self is, especially in those that represent “the dark side.” This makes me start to question, is the self that I live by dark and in despair? Am I attracted to the comfort provided by Whyte’s “organization man,” and will my self be torn away by the tyrant leading to conformity? Or, do I belong to Berger’s idea of what the self has become, subject solely to what others label me as? It seems that being a victim of labels is quite evident in my past. If it wasn’t for my family and friends labeling me as the smarty pants of the family, I don't think I would have chosen to go to college. Sure, I have the work ethic to succeed, but higher education was something I felt pushed into, not something I chose. Then again, is that to say that labeling is a bad thing all the time? After all, in a few months I will have a bachelor’s degree and the opportunity to possibly pursue medical school, optometry school, or another high ranking profession which will provide me with financial security, and hopefully a fulfilling career which I would not have had the ability to do without my degree. However, what if when I was in elementary school I had a learning disability that went undiagnosed and therefore struggled in all of my classes? I perhaps would have been labeled by my peers as being dumb or as a slacker. I probably would have lived up to expectations, barely made it through the rest of my school years, and associated with other kids who had been labeled in the same manner. Would my path still have led to Ann Arbor, or any college town for the matter? I think the unfortunate answer is probably not. Luckily, that was not the case.
Then again, perhaps I am not completely naïve but that in fact many of these theories of the self are true, but it is our age and maturity that determines which of them we follow. I recently applied to Teach for America (which is on my mind right now because I find out in fifteen minutes whether I made it onto stage 2...cross your fingers for me) despite comments from my friends and family such as “do you really want to teach” or “don’t you think that’s a waste of your potential?” Despite their comments, and the label “future money making machine” I feel has been stamped on my back, I have applied to this program because I want to make a difference in these kids’ lives and because I have always enjoyed explaining difficult concepts to confused students. It’s not that I don’t want to become a doctor; in fact, "become M.D." is still at the top of my future goals checklist. However, I want to take a break and pursue a life goal that was always mine and no one else’s. If I was still fully a victim to labeling as I was in high school, I don’t believe that I would have taken this step. But, just because I have moved away from one model of the self, that doesn’t mean that I may not adopt another self. Perhaps now that I have moved out of Berger’s idea of the self, I will move onto Hochschild’s self (or already have), further developing my “true” and “false” selves. In fact, after being prompted in class to discuss which self you are most intrigued by, it is Hochschild’s self which I wrote about. I wonder, if the false self is shaped by social expectations with the intent of catering to what people want, will I develop false selves that protect my true self in my future career as a teacher or doctor? I have always been quiet, but when I am at work I put forward a positive, eager, and boisterous disposition. Perhaps when I am working, my true self starts presenting a false self that does “emotion work,” so that my quiet self can be protected from others. This may be a defense mechanism; after all, if you don’t provide a cheery yet strong self to the patients, they will walk all over you. Then again, is the false self I present at work more closely related to my true self, or is it the quiet, reserved self that I present at school that more closely resembles my true self? Honestly, I don’t know.
Perhaps I am even getting Hochschild’s, Berger’s, and Whyte’s ideas completely wrong; I know that I was completely lost when I first read the second chapter of TSWLB, and still am a little confused about Cooley and Mead. Philosophy and English were never my strong points, which is perhaps why I stuck to what I am good at, math and science. Or, perhaps I stuck with science because, as mentioned earlier, I was living up to what other’s labeled me as, a good science and math student. In the end, I’m happy with where I am, and feel that if it is Hochschild's self that I am beginning to follow, at least I only project false selves in order to protect my true self, despite my inability to know who/what that is.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Analyzing an article using the Toulmin method
For Monday’s blog (I realize I’m a little late considering it is early Wednesday morning), I was asked to do an analysis of the Toulmin method. Considering that I am juggling the idea of aspiring towards a career in the health industry, I chose to analyze a New York Times article entitled, “To Explain Longevity Gap, Look Past Health System.” After all, it seems that many people like to point their fingers at the health system and claim that it is the cause of all of America’s health misfortunes, rather than reflecting on what they could be doing to make the status of their health more favorable.
First, before even utilizing the Toulmin method to analyze the argument, I looked up the author (John Tierney) to verify his credibility. Although probably a fairly respectable reporter considering that he writes for the NY Times, it seems that Tierney writes about many different topics, and doesn’t specialize in health issues. The sources that he uses, Dr. Preston, a demographer at UPenn and his colleague Jessica Ho seem respectable, but they seem to be as the only experts on the issue in his article, with little other outside opinion.
Now, onto the Toulmin method. The first step in analyzing the claim is to find the claim, and in this case the claim is that Americans live shorter lives on average than those in other countries because of reasons other than the failure of the health care system. Although he qualifies that there are problems with the health care system such as lacking in preventative care, he states that the longevity gap is primary due to other reasons. Additionally, he admits that the American healthcare system is flawed in that it is expensive and requires unnecessary treatments, but it is also expensive because people get more thorough treatments and we get sick more often than other countries do.
Secondly, we must analyze the reasons behind Tierney’s claim. One reason that Tierney uses to justify his claim is that life expectancy in America is skewed to the left because there is a particularly high rate of sickness and death among middle-aged Americans. This seems like a legitimate claim assuming it is factual, and definitely supports the thesis. Additionally, Tierney claims that Americans are more ethnically diverse; unfortunately, perhaps I am missing something, but I don’t see how being ethnically diverse, meaning that we have more people from these other cultures with high life expectancies is what is lowering the U.S. life expectancy. However, he does point out the importance of poor lifestyle choices such as the growing trend towards obesity in the U.S. An argument that he depends more strongly on in his article is that Americans were heavy smokers for a long time, and this is also bringing down the life expectancy and is one way that our lifespan is decreased, but not necessarily due to medical care reasons.
Third, we need to analyze the evidence presented. Unfortunately, this is where it seems that Tierney is lacking. I think that it is obvious that obesity and the health complications associated with it don’t require too much evidence, but beyond saying that Americans are fat, Tierney doesn’t really explore this issue. In terms of the life expectancy being lowered by middle aged people with high death rates, one piece of evidence is that per-capita cigarette consumption was higher in the U.S. than anywhere in the developed world for four decades, a statistic that may have a huge impact on bringing down middle age expectancies. Additionally, he added that once American reach age 80, the longevity gap disappears and these people are likely to live longer than as in other countries; although this seems like a great fact, Tierney didn’t cite any source for this information, and one must question where he got this information from.
Finally, we have to ask whether the author examined possible refutations. This is one arena in which Tierney made a decent effort, much better than with factual evidence provided. Tierney says that Dr. Preston didn’t see any evidence for the “much quoted estimates that poor health care is responsible for more preventable deaths in the United States than in other developed countries,” but then again, although Preston didn’t find the evidence, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Tierney also stated that some opponents of the U.S. healthcare system argue that the U.S. only has better cancer 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. Finally, many people argue that the health system fails in that it should prevent disease, not just be good at treating it. Tierney argues that this is true, but he’s not certain that other countries are doing any better at this (not that he provides any statistics to show this), therefore it is probably not significant. On a positive note, Americans are preventing disease in the U.S. has had the largest drop in cigarette consumption of all developed countries over the last 20 years, but I’m not sure that this is necessarily a merit of the healthcare system as much as it is a merit of changing American attitudes towards smoking.
Overall, the argument had a lot of good points, but there was a significant lack of evidence that makes one question whether there is more evidence than just the facts that Americans used to smoke a lot and are obese or if Tierney’s arguments are just the result of an active mind.
First, before even utilizing the Toulmin method to analyze the argument, I looked up the author (John Tierney) to verify his credibility. Although probably a fairly respectable reporter considering that he writes for the NY Times, it seems that Tierney writes about many different topics, and doesn’t specialize in health issues. The sources that he uses, Dr. Preston, a demographer at UPenn and his colleague Jessica Ho seem respectable, but they seem to be as the only experts on the issue in his article, with little other outside opinion.
Now, onto the Toulmin method. The first step in analyzing the claim is to find the claim, and in this case the claim is that Americans live shorter lives on average than those in other countries because of reasons other than the failure of the health care system. Although he qualifies that there are problems with the health care system such as lacking in preventative care, he states that the longevity gap is primary due to other reasons. Additionally, he admits that the American healthcare system is flawed in that it is expensive and requires unnecessary treatments, but it is also expensive because people get more thorough treatments and we get sick more often than other countries do.
Secondly, we must analyze the reasons behind Tierney’s claim. One reason that Tierney uses to justify his claim is that life expectancy in America is skewed to the left because there is a particularly high rate of sickness and death among middle-aged Americans. This seems like a legitimate claim assuming it is factual, and definitely supports the thesis. Additionally, Tierney claims that Americans are more ethnically diverse; unfortunately, perhaps I am missing something, but I don’t see how being ethnically diverse, meaning that we have more people from these other cultures with high life expectancies is what is lowering the U.S. life expectancy. However, he does point out the importance of poor lifestyle choices such as the growing trend towards obesity in the U.S. An argument that he depends more strongly on in his article is that Americans were heavy smokers for a long time, and this is also bringing down the life expectancy and is one way that our lifespan is decreased, but not necessarily due to medical care reasons.
Third, we need to analyze the evidence presented. Unfortunately, this is where it seems that Tierney is lacking. I think that it is obvious that obesity and the health complications associated with it don’t require too much evidence, but beyond saying that Americans are fat, Tierney doesn’t really explore this issue. In terms of the life expectancy being lowered by middle aged people with high death rates, one piece of evidence is that per-capita cigarette consumption was higher in the U.S. than anywhere in the developed world for four decades, a statistic that may have a huge impact on bringing down middle age expectancies. Additionally, he added that once American reach age 80, the longevity gap disappears and these people are likely to live longer than as in other countries; although this seems like a great fact, Tierney didn’t cite any source for this information, and one must question where he got this information from.
Finally, we have to ask whether the author examined possible refutations. This is one arena in which Tierney made a decent effort, much better than with factual evidence provided. Tierney says that Dr. Preston didn’t see any evidence for the “much quoted estimates that poor health care is responsible for more preventable deaths in the United States than in other developed countries,” but then again, although Preston didn’t find the evidence, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Tierney also stated that some opponents of the U.S. healthcare system argue that the U.S. only has better cancer 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. Finally, many people argue that the health system fails in that it should prevent disease, not just be good at treating it. Tierney argues that this is true, but he’s not certain that other countries are doing any better at this (not that he provides any statistics to show this), therefore it is probably not significant. On a positive note, Americans are preventing disease in the U.S. has had the largest drop in cigarette consumption of all developed countries over the last 20 years, but I’m not sure that this is necessarily a merit of the healthcare system as much as it is a merit of changing American attitudes towards smoking.
Overall, the argument had a lot of good points, but there was a significant lack of evidence that makes one question whether there is more evidence than just the facts that Americans used to smoke a lot and are obese or if Tierney’s arguments are just the result of an active mind.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Tattoos--Good or Bad for the "self"?
According to Holstein & Gubrium's book, "The Self We Live By," Charles Cooley's "looking-glass self" has three parts: "the imagination of our appearance to the other person; the imagination of his judgment of that appearance, and some sort of self-feeling, such as pride or mortification." If we take the word "appearance" in Cooley's definition of the self as a physical appearance, tattoos would be a huge part of who our "self" is.
I can see some situations where a tattoo could be positive for the self. My cousin has a tattoo of a four leaf clover on her back because she says its cute and its a tribute to her Irish heritage. Her tattoo is small, subtle, and on her back, so she can live a professional life free of questions about the tattoo, but still in a public enough area that when she goes out on the weekends, she can show it off and build positive feelings for her self.
In a completely different situation, one of my distant relatives lost her baby to a cruel murder, and that is a negative feeling that will live with her forever. However, by having a tattoo of a cross with her baby boy's name and dates of birth and death, she feels that she can keep positive memories of him alive and when the tattoo comes up in conversation, she tries to remember the pleasant and loving relationship she had with him. I personally feel that something like an "in memory of..." tattoo could have positive or negative influences on her self, depending on how she chooses to interpret other peoples' views of her appearance.
But, there seems to be a hugely negative side to doing something so permanent to your body. In "On Teenagers and Tattoos," Andres Martin makes the comment that some tattoos that say the name of a past significant other can become "the only evidence that there ever was such a bond." But honestly, what if two weeks after you get the tattoo, the relationship takes a turn for the worst? What if that person you loved stabs a knife in your back (metaphorically speaking, I hope)? Then, I assume every time you saw the tattoo or someone commented on it, you might become angry or depressed. Not only would the physical tattoo be seen by others, but the tone of your voice would probably change or you'd just try to change the subject. Then, you may wonder whether the other person thinks of you in a negative manner as too impulsive or ignorant to the possible consequences of your actions and this may bring what Cooley would call a negative "self-feeling." This could be bring a lot of negativity to the inner self, especially if the tattoo was on a exposed portion of your arm where it was constantly seen. Perhaps the negative feedback would one day be too much that one day you would want to get the tattoo removed. But have you ever seen someone who has had a tattoo "removed"? The other day I was walking around the mall and saw a girl in a tank top who had some sort of tattoo "removed" from her back. I put the word "removed" in quotation marks because there were still blotches of ink, and the scarring in the remaining patches of skin looked horrific. Then, this scar would probably come up in conversation anyway leading to more negativity. In the end, a tattoo like this just doesn't make sense to me, and I feel like thinking about one's "self," anyone who thinks of getting a tattoo should really contemplate future consequences.
Furthermore, I don't mean to insult anybody who's reading this, but I find many tattoos to be tacky and meaningless. 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? Just because the tattoo artist tells you that what he tattoos means "happy" in another language, as far as you know it could really mean "moron." Unless someone who reads the language reads it and feels the duty to tell you what it really means, you'll never know. Of course, it you thought it meant happy though, you might think positively of the tattoo, think other people find it to be mysterious or artsy and that would bring positive self feelings. What about when someone has a conversation with you and skeptically stares at your tattoo, would you then start to develop a more saddened self? What about people who get a lower back tattoo and later find out that it is more commonly referred to as a "tramp stamp." This seems like it would have to change how they think other people think of them, and only leaving the person with a wounded self. Is getting a tattoo that the general public finds to be trendy now but may be referred to as trashy or disgusting later worth the possible future damage to your self?
Maybe I am skeptical of tattoos because I am terrified of the process. The fact that someone would poke me with a needle that goes back and forth constantly stabbing me and injecting ink seems totally unnecessary. Then again, perhaps I would feel differently and explore the possibility of getting a tattoo if there was something that I felt more passionately about. To this point in my life, I have been fairly fortunate to have not lost anyone particularly close to me where I would even put a "In loving memory of..." bumper sticker on my car, much less ink in my skin. And although I'm proud of my heritage, I don't feel passionately enough to have the Polish eagle become a part of me I want everyone to see.
In the end, I know that we shouldn't worry about what other people think of how we look, but Cooley's "looking-glass self" is too often too true, and I feel that tattoos can be a great way to build up the self, but only if we're sure that they are something we are proud of now and will always be proud of in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)