« February 2007 | Main | April 2007 »
March 20, 2007
follow the rootdoctors advice
Take some advice from rickydoc and ping this site:
http://www.panafricanliteraryforum.com/
Enough of us do it, we can make the needed difference.
Posted by cageyer at 10:30 PM | Comments (0)
March 15, 2007
More on Skills
Via 43 Folders, where Merlin really liked item 5, comes this gem that should be cut out and pasted to every administrater's door in every district in every state.
See especially Item 2.
Yeah. What he said.
Posted by cageyer at 10:48 AM | Comments (0)
March 11, 2007
Assistance needed on the blogging aisle, please
I added my own blog to Bloglines, so I could see how my posts look to others. Wow.
If I'm gonna keep up with these long entries, I gotta figure out how to make the except feature and that whole "extended entry" part work so that only the short part shows up on the aggregator. I use the Extended entry feature all the time for these longer posts, but don't know how to make the break work the aggregator. I tried doing an excerpt too, but that didn't work either.
Help, blogging friends, please?
Posted by cageyer at 01:51 PM | Comments (1)
March 10, 2007
Tales of Discourse Analysis
Two time periods, two texts on discourse theory, two distinct approaches to analyzing discourse.
James Kinneavy's A Theory of Discourse was first published in 1971. In his preface, Kinneavy identifies the state of the composition field in that time: freshman comp as a stepchild of English, not a legitimate study for grad students, not recognized as a subdivision by MLA, etc. (What a difference 35 years does—and doesn’t—make). His book attempted to bring together several theories about teaching composition into one overall framework in a text that would be suitable for teaching a course about teaching composition, and as a beginning for further research.
Kinneavy is careful to situate his effort in the midst of competing interests. He defines discourse as full texts in oral or written situations, and offer four referends: "rhetoric, composition, communication, and discourse” (3). He summarizes his project thusly:
A theory of discourse then will comprise an intelligible framework of different types of discourse with a treatment of the nature of each type, the underlying logic(s), the organizational structure of this type, and the stylistic characteristics of such discourse (4-5).
From Kinneavy's perspective, rhetoric had left the English department with the speech folks, and logic fled to philosophy (and mathematics) so that "discourse education," formerly the "locus of traditional liberal arts education" effectively ceased. Like other scholars of that period, Kinneavy's work is aimed at re-centering discourse education, to re-establish the importance and centrality of learning about language, its uses and its effects.
The communication triangle that came to be known in later scholarship as the "Kinneavy triangle" is cited by Kinneavy as emerging from classical rhetoric. He demonstrates how the triangle, the “interrelationships of expressor, receptor, and language signs referring to reality," pervades Aristotle's Rhetoric (18). The components of the triangle get different names in different areas of study, but the structure is the same, which gives the grounds for a more unified theory.
Kinneavy draws for other fields of language study to enhance his explanations of discourse. For example, he is careful to establish his disource theory as being "constituted by 'text'" (22), rather than the compenent parts of the speech act:
Discourse, therefore, is characterized by individuals acting in a special time and place (Gardiner, t, 71); it has a beginning, a middle, a closure, and a purpose (cf. Pike 1, I, 9, 39, 44, 64 ff.); it is a language process, not a system, and it has an ‘undivided and absolute integrity,’ (Hjelmslev, p, 36-39, 12); it establishes a verbal context and it has a situational context and a cultural context (Slama-Cazacu, 1, 215-16)….In each case there is a stress on the whole, not just the isolated linguistic part (22).
He also notes the multiple levels of context for the text, including the immediate situation, and the cultural context (ref. Sapir).
This text includes a great chart that breaks the triangle down into multiple levels of study. At level A, the field of English gets broken down into three components: syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics (the study of discourse). Level B breaks down each of those parts, and finally, Level C breaks down the divisions of pragmatics (arts, or signs of discourse, and media, or channels of discourse, modes, aims). These categories for these are:
Arts of Discourse: speaking, writing, listening, reading
Media of Discourse: the channels of the signals under arts (with distinctions for the number of decoders: monologual, small group, large group, mass).
Modes of Discourse: Narration, Description, Evaluation, Classification
Aims: Reference, Persuasion, Literature, Expression
It's interesting to me that the modes portion is so oft repeated in composition texts and the aims portion is not nearly so prevalent. Kinneavy's title emphasizes the Aims. What happened to them after this book? My interest is squarely in the Aims. To me that is the piece that puts discourse education, or rhetorical education, at the center of the liberal arts (including the sciences). Kinneavy shows part of this potential:
emphasis on the encoder or decoder gives person discourse, emphasis on reality to which reference is made gives reference discourse, and emphasis on the discourse product itself gives product discourse. Since person discourse can focus on either the encoder or the decoder, there are two kinds of person discourse; expressive, emphasizing the encoder, and persuasive, emphasizing the decoder. And reference discourse must be further subdivided into scientific, informative, and exploratory (60).
The balance of the book goes on to discuss the aims in detail. I'll follow that part up another time, along with the reception of those ideas in later scholarship.
Meanwhile, in a recent book, James Gee offered a highly efficient little text on discourse theory and method that is long on practicality, if short on detail and explanations. Gee's book is built on lists, beginning with what he calls the "Seven Building tasks" (seven areas or things we use language to build). These include significance, activities, identities, relationships, politics, connections, sign systems and knowledge. The analyst looks at each of these areas and asks how language is being used to enact or build these tasks. His explanation of politics is not just the public realm of legislative arena, but what he calls "the distribution of social goods." The analyst here is looking for the perspective on social goods, which includes values and notions of "right" or "good," that are being communicated. The analysis of sign systems includes recognizing which systems are privileged over what others, as well as what ways of knowing are privileged (11-13).
Gee makes a distinction for what he calls "Capital D Discourse," which is "ways of combining and integrating language, actions, interactions, ways of thinking, believing, valuing, and using various symbols, tools, and objects ot enact a particular sort of socially recognizable identity" (21). The tools of discourse analysis are focused on language-in-use and its effects. "Conversations," which we might think of as the buzz going on across particular communities about different issues, themes, or beliefs, shape the way language is interpreted as always present but not explicit influences. Like Kinneavy, Gee recognizes the social situatedness of discourse, including not only the text but also identity and activities. He says, "Big D Discourses are always language plus 'other stuff'" (26), where "Situated means 'grounded in actual practices and experiences'" (53).
Gee's work synthesizes into a list of 26 questions we ask to analyze discourse. These include identifying the grammars, the social languages, the situated identities and activities, the Discourse(s) involved, the relationships among discourses, the relevant Conversations in play, the role of Intertextuality, the situated meaning of word(s) or phrases both from the point of view of the user (speaker, author) and that of the hearer (interpreter).
Validy for the analysis comes from four criteria: Convergence (the more the answers to all the questions converge, the more reliable the analysis); Agreement (of the speakers with the analysis); Coverage (the more the analysis can be transferred to other data, the more reliable); and Linguistic details (the more tied to details, the more valid).
I don't see Gee's work as a huge departure from Kinneavy's, but rather a succinct and practical set of tools to use in carrying out analysis within the broad framework Kinneavy worked to establish. I still have to work through what came between these two texts, which is a future project, but these make a nicely balanced pair of theory and application.
Works Cited:
Gee, James Paul. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis Theory and Method, 2nd ed.New York: Routledge, 2005.
Kinneavy, James. A Theory of Discourse: The Aims of Discourse. New York: Norton Publishers, 1980.
Posted by cageyer at 11:17 AM | Comments (0)
A variety of varietals
Exam preparation has taken me away from all kinds of other reading, including wine reviews. Here's a bit of a catch-up from a tasting last fall:
Estancia Pinot Grigio, 2004, California
The 2004 includes 13% chardonnary, which gives it a full body. It's a pleasant sipping wine. Reportedly served by the glass as Carrabas.
Estancia Cabernet Sauvignon, 2003, Paso Robles
The 2003 was a bit young at this point, and I found it a little tart and a bit thinner than I usually like in a cab. The tasting notes said "fleshy, succulent, & crafted to be approachable upon release." I found it to be very drinkable, if not as full bodied as some others (or as it might potentially become).
Franciscan Merlot, 2003, Napa Valley
"Elegant & velvety. Lush & Supple." they said. I found it quite dry (which is kinda nice in a Merlot sometimes.)
Simi Russian River Chardonnay, 2004
This wonderful chardonnary comes from a single vineyard in the Russian River valley. The grapes are harvested from six different parts of the Goldfields vineyard, each with different characteristics. The wine aged 14 months in oak, with result that is "rich, ripe & exotic." Tasting it was like drinking wine by a campfire on a starry summer night - fruit up fron, a little smoky, with a beautiful caramel finish. I loved this wine. Retail is about $26, and worth it, but be sure to get the '04.
Estancia Stoneweel Pinot Noir, 2004, Paso Robles
A really nice, lush and fruity pinot noir. I don't normally go for the fruity ones, but once in a while big fruit is the answer.
Mount Veeder Cabernet Sauvignon, 2002, Napa Valley
The tasting notes say, "very concentrated fruit with deep blackberry and dark plum flavors." I found it very tannic, but still soft - balanced, if you see what I mean.
Albet I Noya Xarello Classic, 2004
I'd never heard of Xarello before, but it was a nice discovery. This white wine from the Penedes region of Spain is made from organically grown grapes. It has a delicate nose, with some floral tones, but is very crisp. It's a nice alternative to pinot grigio.
Due Torri Pinot Grigio, 2005
Speaking of pinot grigio, this surprise find from the Veneto region of Spain was beautifully balanced between fruit, softness, and dryness with a lovely straw color.
La Colombaia Pinot Grigio, 2005
Also from the Veneto region, this one is a little fuller than the Due Torri, with more "mouth feel" countered by less distinct fruit.
Rex Goliath Pinot Grigio, 2005, California
This wine enjoyed a significant marketing campaign in New York City (and presumably other places) recently, so it's a bit of surprise now that it hasn't shown up in more places. The tasting notes said, "bright, juicy flavors of citrus and apples with a sweet mineral core." I said, Yup! Nice and clean, a nice pinot grigio at a good price.
Hardy's Stamp Riesling, 2005, Australia
I am not a Riesling fan. Even the dry ones are too sweet for me most of the time. This one was a delicious surprise. It's good a good amount of citrus to complement the tropical flavors, so it's nice and fruity with a crispness about it. It would be great on a warm summer day or with grilled anything. Also an excellent choice for Thanksgiving dinner.
Nottage Hill Pinot Noir, 2005, Australia
I'm a Willamette Valley (Oregon) Pinot Noir snob and the first to admit it. I don't think they are made better anywhere on earth (though the recent ones from France are delightful). So, naturally, I was suspicious of this new entry from down under. I was surprised. It's made in an Oregon style (please don't ask me to describe that just now) with lovely crimson and red hues, and a very nice flavor. Worth a try.
Masi Masianco
This blend of Pinot Grigio and Verduzzo is a dry white that seemed a little citric to me, but one I thought would pair nicely with food.
Yellow Tail Rose, Australia
Another surprise. Rose is just beginning to make a comeback, and this is a very nice version. Another wine that would be great for Thanksgiving, or a summer picnic.
Ca' Bolani Pinot Grigio Aquileia, 2004
This Italian entry has a bright straw yellow color and an equally fresh bouquet. It has a little apple, a little citrus, but no melon, resulting in a full and well-balanced wine. I liked it.
Posted by cageyer at 08:16 AM | Comments (0)
March 04, 2007
Deliberative skills for citizenship, or why I wanted to teach composition
On the list of things many people don't know about me is that I was invited into Phi Beta Kappa when I graduated from the University of Washington. I don't often reflect on that membership, in part because I've been so busy reading for classes and exams and what have you that there hasn't been time. But last spring, several bits in the society's newletter gave me a strong moment of "yeah, that's what I'm talkin' about." This draft has been sitting for months, but as I am wrestling with exam questions, it offers the answer to the primary question of why learn the canon of rhetoric, and why I wanted to teach composition.
"Accepting membership into Phi Beta Kappa, Professor Gnomes reminded us, is an acceptance of the obligation to carry learning into citizenship in a participatory democracy"
The first principle, that learning has a purpose beyond mere knowledge, is as old as rhetoric, as the Sophists teaching the art of speaking to men who needed to represent themselves in a really participatory democracy, a much more direct model than we have in the United States. But it isn't just about speaking well or even winning the moment, because the phrase finishes with a reference to democracy. What is that, in the here and now, and what learning is needed to participate in it?
"we are apt to suppose the whole story of democracy is about majority rule. But a moment's reflection reminds us that democracy is also about the reasons why majority rule is important and about its limits. A bit more reflection discloses that democracy must also be about deliberation into the question 'what is the right thing to do?'"
The will of the majority is heavily influenced by a small minority. Political party platforms, religious beliefs as propounded by various Christian denominations, other religious systems, leaders social movements, and more than many would like to believe, the image makers of advertising, movies, and television programming. It wasn't that long ago, compared to the long history of rhetoric, that major legislative decisions were made in the government of the United States as the result of a group of men seated (or standing) in a room, debating, sometimes contentiously, the right thing to do. The men we refer to as the Founding Fathers debated at length and heatedly over the documents that became the (written) backbone of our country. John Quincy Adams was not only a distinguished lawyer, he was a great orator and held the first Boylston chair in... yes, rhetoric, in the United States. The United States Senate history features great speeches and debates from great orators. The United States Congress has its share of great oratory in its history as well, romanticized most notably in Jimmy Stewart's portrayal of a young idealist sent to the great hall in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. But these days, anyone who watches C-SPAN can tell you that often the men and women featured on that screen are reading text to a camera and a fairly empty room. It's not the same thing at all.
But it is also the case that these examples are the top layer of a participation process that begins in the homes and classrooms our villages, towns, and cities across the country. The conversation over dinner shapes what the child believes is true. The message conveyed on the television and other media are screened and filtered through that system, even as they shape it. Later, when that child goes to school, he or she is influenced by the teachers, by the interactions with other students, and by the material offered for learning. By the time a young person is old enough to vote (and old enough to go to college) they bring a value system to that opportunity. The informal spaces are just as important as the formal ones, and the persuasion that takes places in those spaces is often unnoticed.
My interest comes from the moments those beliefs and values come into competition with one another. How do we know how to present and discuss our ideas? In my exam reading, I learned that the "active listening" skills I had endured in high school emerge from a theory of argument developed by Carl Rogers, a model designed to recognize the difficulty is arguing over what is the right thing when competing values are in play. That process is really hard for most people, but the key point of it is that one has to slow down from the emotional outburst and reaction to consider and carefully state one's position (and the other's, as well). This consideration and care of communication is my interest. I used to be a "corporate facilitator." What that means, at its core, is that I facilitated processes whereby individuals in a particular community reflected on their own values, the values they represented as they worked, and the ways they communicated with one another and those outside their community. This subject and this interest is not new to me, it's just really hard to translate into the exam question model. What passes for communication is too often the spewing of emotion and unreasoned, unsupported, opinion. And it's tempting to say that such conversation is okay in the informal realm, but it really isn't, because it's what happens in those spaces that shape what comes to be accepted, to be the "will of the majority" in the public and political realm. To really participate in democracy one has to be able to recognize what is at stake in the sound bytes and slogans that too often pass for truth.
"So Phi Beta Kappa's purpose entails public advocacy of the skills of deliberation that are important to citizenship. What are those skills? Essentially, there are three ingredients:
1. capacities of critical thought that provide an understanding of how to make and evaluate arguments
2. possession of knowledge of the facts whose relevance to things that matter makes them reasons that can be presented in arguments, and
3. discernment about what matters--that is, what is worth deliberating about.
If citizens in a democracy are to deliberate, these are their tools. They need to be able to think; they need facts to think with; and they need a grasp of what is worth thinking about.
So if we want a democracy that is about more than counting votes, a democracy in which citizens are equipped to withstand the skills of manipulators and in which the connection between truth and freedom is clear, we will support the ideals of Phi Beta Kappa."
(all quotes so far from John Churchill, (PBK) Secretary
in The Key Reporter, Spring 2006)
Now, I don't want anyone to think for a moment that I believe everyone should be a member of PBK, because I don't. But I do think its principles are important, and I firmly believe that rhetoric is the key discipline in furthering those principles. All the theories, all the variations, all the methods and terminologies and systems that have emerged over the years are important to know precisely because they are a range of tools for analyzing communication and for crafting communication in an increasingly atomized yet "globalized", individually separate yet increasingly multi-cultural, mutli-value-holding, yet still participatory democracy.
That is only as good as the participation in it.
Only as good as the men and women speaking and writing that shape its ideals, beliefs, legislation and relations. The United States does not sit in isolation. Reasoning out the right thing to do involves many knowledges, the ability to hear and discuss beliefs that are new and sometimes contradictory to our own. It requires rhetorical agility.
Professor Peter J. Gomes's, to whom Mr. Churchill referred in the comment at the beginning of this post, said:
"At the very point where the clarity of ideas, the clarity of the written and the spoken word, the principles of intellectual passion and integrity have never been in greater need or shorter supply - it is at this moment, it seems, that our Society should stand poised to contribute its greatest effort to the well-being of our republic".
Exactly what I think about the art of rhetoric, as both discipline and practice. The art of speaking and writing well needs to be at the center of learning, tools for analysis, practice, and persuasion.
In working through questions for exams, I think in some ways it all comes down to this: how can 2500+ years of theory and practice of an art concerned solely with speech (and writing) be rolled up, adapted, and used to teach and exemplify deliberative skills for citizenship in this participatory democracy at this time?
Posted by cageyer at 09:26 AM | Comments (0)
A sidebar on education
In a letter to the editor of the Spring 2006 issue of The Key Reporter, Robert B. Pomerantz wrote,
"I believe it is a bit naive to expect a student to go directly from high school to college and be able to appreciate the idea of liberal education. One needs a variety of experiences and exposures to develop a certain amount of maturity and awareness beyond academic education"
As a return-to-college student, I complete agree with Mr. Pomerantz. When I was 17 and off to a Jesuit college as an Honors student, I was enrolled in a fine example of a liberal arts curriculum. The program would have, in my first two years, rolled out the history of western thought in history, literature, art, science, etc. in a series of related courses, era by era, over six quarters. I was too young, and far too unaware, to appreciate the value of this educational opportunity. I wasted it - something I still regret. I lost my interest because it seemed boring, these seminar discussions of an ancient world I couldn't understand the value of knowing better. I lost interest because my family wasn't educated (I've since learned that in my current academic community, my family could be described as "working class," though I never thought of us that way and never once thought I wouldn't go to college) in that liberal arts tradition, so it was new to me. And, I suppose, my family's problems at the time had something to do with it (okay, a lot to do with it). But the point is, now I wish I'd had that program. At Columbia University, they have a similar program - still. The geek in me really wishes I could be an undergrad again.
Anyway, the point is, when I face my own students now, I see the same impatience, the same desire to complete the task and get on to the next, and then get on to the job and the good income and all that, and in far too many cases, a complete lack of curiosity, a lack of interest in learning, or thinking about complex topics. I have really begun to think that the general high-school-to-college-track shouldn't be general. Some young people should go directly to college because they have experiences in their lives that have shaped a future. But some young people need some experience, and then they can decide if they need or want a college education when they have a better idea of what they want or need it for. Taking a bunch of classes just to get a diploma misses the greater point of higher education.
The editors in that issue captured that part nicely:
"The point is that, in a world all too prone to treasure only the specialized and the immediately useful, our voice is needed in support of learning whose value may become apparent only over the course of a lifetime."
Sometimes you have to have spent some lifetime to really appreciate the opportunity to have that learning.
Posted by cageyer at 09:22 AM | Comments (1)
March 01, 2007
Exam Questions - Globalization
This isn't as polished as I hoped it would come out when I sat down to write, but it seems more focused that my earlier attempts at developing questions for this area. Comments here are also appreciated.
When Marshal McLuhan introduced the term "global village" and Buckminster Fuller talked about "spaceship earth," developments in telecommunications, television in particular, offered the promise of a more cohesive, peaceful, integrated world where people would live in harmony resulting from better understanding of one another. By the end of the 20th century, the term "globalization" was nearly synonymous with global capitalism, featuring large multi-national corporations, labor outsourced from the United States to factories around the less developed parts of the world, and instantaneous flows of currency across borders. At the same time, patterns of resistance to these developments, sometimes called "globalization from below" developed to promote the interests of indigenous peoples, cultural rights and human rights.
In the academy, globalization has become a focus of scholarship across many disciplines, with a range of observations about the processes of globalization, case studies of its impact in different places, and theories of how it functions and what should be changed about it. Drawing on your reading and your knowledge of theories of rhetoric, identify the principle arguments in globalization discourse and the rhetorical strategies they employ. What are the appeals? Who is the audience? What claims are being made or challenged? What terms are used to describe the world and how do those terms shape the argument? What theories of rhetoric seem particularly useful in sorting through these arguments?
Fredric Jameson claimed that the topic of globalization is "the intellectual property of no specific field, [but] seems to concern politics and economics...culture and sociology....information and the media...ecology...consumerism...daily life." Notably absent from this list is the study of rhetoric. How might you say globalization concerns politics? How might it concern rhetoric? If the job of the university is to prepare students for life beyond the academy, both as workers and as citizens, what are the implications of your answers in terms of shaping that education? If the nature of the world of work has permanently changed, from a Fordist to post-Fordist structure, for example, what are the implications for education, and for the study of rhetoric in particular?
Posted by cageyer at 07:47 AM | Comments (0)