Questions for Research

I began my research hoping to look into the question of how folklore alters or reflects culture when translated into another language. This question proved too specific. I had trouble finding any relevant articles, so I expanded my question to be : “How does language reflect and/or create culture?”

With this question in mind, I was able to find an article dealing with with the connection between language and social practice. The article examines the use of the term “war”  and how that usage can impact an audience’s beliefs, values, emotions and actions. (I borrowed these terms from the abstract) The author “asserts that when language is corrupted it can lead to corrupted thinking and distorted politics.” (784) When applied to my question, this article implies that language creates culture.

The audience belongs to the UC Berkeley journal Cultural Analysis, a journal intended for critical discourse among professors in interdisciplinary fields related to culture studies. Since the writer of this article has a PhD, she might appeal to the sophisticated audience of Cultural Analysis. The article also works well for my audience because it deals with two of their topics of interest: culture and language.

In addition, this article brings up some new questions: What other terms or phrases exist worldwide with the purpose of fabricating meaning, and how can deceptive language be counteracted? The article also made me wonder about different groups who use language to create meaning, so the final question I hope to answer is:

What differences exist between language used by political activists to change culture, and the language used by contemporary society to strengthen existing culture?

Journal of Folklore and Cultural Analysis

The latest issue of UC Berkley’s journal Cultural Analysis examines the topic of memory in relation to folklore studies. The journal, “an interdisciplinary forum on folklore and popular culture,” publishes an annual issue based around a theme concept. Every issue, as implied by the description of the journal as “interdisciplinary,” accepts articles from all over the world from scholars of many backgrounds. The diverse group of submissions connects many different disciplines under the banner of culture.

For this particular issue, the interdisciplinary purpose of the journal takes on extra importance, because, as written in the introduction to the journal, “Memory studies continue to have a need for meaningful and substantial cross-disciplinary dialogue, as work from a variety of disciplines continues to expose the very different aspects of memory.” The articles for the issue are written by scholars in cultural studies, history and neuroscience. They are from Israel, Scotland, and the Netherlands as well as the United States. Since the scope of the journal is broad, its readership goes beyond academics interested in folklore to other members of academia.

I’ve always been interested in ancient writings and folklore, so this journal appeals to me. I also appreciate that it looks at topics from multiple perspectives, because I prefer comparing multiple subjects to becoming myopically absorbed in one. This issue of the journal particularly intrigues me in that it asks about the nature of memory from both biological and cultural standpoints. It’s interesting to try and define which parts of modern society come from which background: biological or cultural. A journal that examines culture definitely offers that opportunity. Ultimately, the journal offers reading on language, literature, and global cultures with diverse disciplines mixed in.

As a postscript, here are some other interesting journals I found:

Media, War and Conflict
Marvels and Tales
Image TexT: Interdisciplinary Comics Studies
Trans/Forming Cultures

Visual/Text inconsistencies in ghostwriting blog

The visual structure and text of Dustin M. Wax’s blog post seem well coordinated unless one reads the article. Beginning the post, two elements stand out: the title and graphic. The viewer reads “Working in the Shadows: Ghostwriting, Freelancing, and Work Without Recognition” then sees a photograph of a vague human figure behind wet glass. The title anchors the photo by explaining the anonymous figure as a ghost writer. The image also shares pathos with the title; the reader expects a somber story about the lack of recognition in the ghost writing profession because of the word “shadows” in the title and the rain in the photograph.

The first three paragraphs fit this mood; Wax explains his unglamorous career and its downsides. However, after these paragraphs his tone shifts to optimism. He rationalizes the downsides of ghostwriting and gives encouragement about the advantages of the profession. This doesn’t fit with the photograph and title. Of course, by the time the reader has reached the end of the article, s/he has scrolled past the picture, so it doesn’t directly contradict the shift. Instead, two pull quotes emphasize especially optimistic moments in the post and create the same contrast as an image might. A list at the end of the article of benefits of ghostwriting also supports the new tone, as well as adding some visual organization — logos — to the post.

The article seems credible overall, but has some inconsistencies because of the shift in tone. In terms of ethos the page seems, for the most part, very professional: it has a distinct style and (mostly) consistent theme. The page is designed in blocks which aid in readability and make the format seem polished. The colors are subdued: darkened yellow, an unsaturated tan and a dark gray. The fonts help it appear bold and well-constructed: titles are in a block letters and all text is sans serif.

Where the page runs into problems are the pull quotes and list headers. The pull quotes appear to have been poorly edited: they are different sizes and different fonts. The list headers are made much bigger than the body text. Their size adds contrast, but breaks apart the visual flow of the piece, detracting from its logos. These details make the page seem less professional.

For the overall exigence the article serves its purpose: it gives advice to freelance writers considering ghost writing. The visuals aren’t all consistent, but consistent enough that the page is readable.

Book-defending Blog

Tony Sanfilippo points out the exigence for his blog post “The Book You’re Looking For” in the first sentence of his post. He writes in response to a debate at Syracruse University over whether a large section of books should be sent to a storage facility and replaced with digital counterparts. Taking the side of those against the move, he argues that the physical presence of books has value in education which cannot be replicated by digital media.

To support his claim, Sanfilippo looks into what makes spaces with books different from digital spaces. Search engines and social networking sites (he mentions Facebook) allow for “finding,” he argues, but not for “discovery.” Especially not the kind of “serendipitous discovery” of running across a book on the same shelf as the book one is looking for. This distinction makes up most of Sanfilippo’s argument, and for the most part, appeals to his audience by pathos. Sanfilippo wants his audience to experience the emotions associated with the experience of searching for a book in a library — an experience he makes out to be a pleasurable one.

Sanfilippo also uses logos to prove his point. He cites a study (a good way to improve ethos as well) which shows a correlation between amount of books in a child’s home and that child’s success in school. He nudges the audience to connect this presence of books to improved intelligence. If books at home can improve the intelligence of child, then a library of books should do the same for students at a University. He concludes that a library full of computers won’t have the same effect.

For creativity: a narrative argument

Don S. O’Connor makes a subtle argument in his post to the Poetry Foundation blog, “A/Musing: On Creativity.” He hides his argument in the midst of two narratives about his work as a teacher, and as a result the piece reads more like a creative essay than a piece of rhetoric. Nonetheless, O’Connor is making an argument. He is responding to a very personal exigence: a PTA meeting and teacher workshop where evidence shows that creativity is devalued in schools. O’Connor argues against this discouragement of creativity.

O’Connor divides his post into two labeled parts. The first introduces his concern, and an opponent to his perspective. The mother of one of his students comes for a parent teacher conference wanting to hear how well her daughter is prepared for college, and ignoring O’Connor’s excitement over the student’s talent in his class. Because of the mother’s opposition to creativity, O’Connor gains narrative space to argue for “the power of creative writing” in his responses. Writing, not college, can prepare one for the real world, according to O’Connor. He fails to move the opponent in his piece, but makes a self-conscious emotional appeal. He reveals his excitement, then encourages the reader to empathize with his disappointed when the mother is unmoved by it.

O’Connor’s second narrative takes place during a “Teacher institute day” where he is asked to organize an activity about creativity. The narrative serves as lead up to more argument, which comes in the form of quotes. Teachers gave anonymous opinions about creativity in schools: each quote emphasizes the exigence which O’Connor is examining: schools stifle creativity according to these colleagues. For example, one teacher wrote: “If we practice creativity we become more creative. If we practice routine we become robots.” O’Connor ends his essay on this quote, suggesting its importance. It resonates with the robot-like behavior of the mother in the first part of his post. It refers back to his ideas that creativity isn’t a waste of time (it keeps us from becoming robots). Readers must make the connection on their own, though O’Connor has laid out the logic for them.

The organic form of the piece lends O’Connor ethos. Its descriptive language, narrative form and conclusion by quotes show a creative construction which emphasizes its subject matter. O’Connor demonstrates that he is a creative person in the way he writes, and is therefore qualified to talk about the importance of creativity. The narrative form works well for pathos too, by helping readers connect with the story. O’Connor never has to mention straight out that he’s arguing in favor of creativity in schools. He gets the point across thanks to his subtle creative efforts.

Beattie: women in publishing are represented but under-recognized

Literary critic Steven W. Beattie’s  writes “as judgement” in his article “How to make it as a writer: be a man” for his blog That Shakespearean Rag. Beattie’s article deals with women novelists. He explores evidence that suggests that more male writers than female writers are receiving recognition in the publishing field. He cites numerous awards including the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award as well as top book lists which have honored very few or no women. Beattie argues that this shows a persistence of “unconscious sexism” in the publishing industry.

To present his argument, Beattie looks at possible reasons for the low number of women on book lists and receiving literary awards. He concludes that sexism is the most likely cause by first rejecting an alternative explanation — that women simply don’t write as well as men — then looking at how gender might play a role in the way books are judged. He follows the argument of journalist Julianna Baggott that society values “masculine themes” like adventure and war more than feminine ones. In addition, he states that men receive praise for “emotional intelligence” while it is taken for granted as the nature of female writers. Finally, he argues that when women write about “male” themes they are more likely to receive recognition (see his article for examples). All of this adds up to the sexism.

This article deals with two of my disciplines: English and gender studies. The article fits within the concern that women still make less money for doing the same work as men, and remain underrepresented in certain professions (especially positions of power, think CEOs and UN officials). Book publishing has a large female audience and workforce; it seems to be one area where women are well represented. Beattie’s argument is significant because it suggests that some disparity still exists within the field.

Obama’s State of the Union Address

The State of the Union address given by President Obama yesterday responds to a rhetorical situation with two parts. First, Obama’s address fulfills a tradition and requirement of presidential office: to give an annual State of the Union address to Congress. This occasion defines both an audience and an exigence for Obama’s address. The address’ audience is made up of, at minimum, the members of Congress. The fact that the address is required can be considered part of its exigence. It also follows that one purpose of the address is to fulfill a requirement of presidential office.

This first part of the rhetorical situation does not speak very well to the rhetorical content of Obama’s address. The arguments of the address deal with a second part of the rhetorical situation, defined by a second exigence. Many members of the American public currenly believe that Obama hasn’t lived up to his campaign promises. This exigence of political unrest shapes Obama’s choice of argument: he speaks to a second audience, the American public, with the purpose of renewing public confidence that he will fulfill his promises.

In the portion of the address I have linked, Obama uses all three kinds of appeals to achieve his purpose. Obama builds up the ethos of his administration with careful vocabulary choices throughout the address. Not only is his “civil right’s division” prosecuting employment discrimination, it is doing it “once again.” Obama’s administration will also “continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system.” Obama deliberately uses words which imply that he is building on previous successes in order to enhance his credibility.

To address his audience, Obama uses pathos. Obama dedicates a good portion of this clip to discussing American values. By describing Americans “lend[ing] a hand to neighbors” or calling them “generous in spirit,” Obama consciously praises his audience to invoke pride. Elsewhere he appeals to their sense of justice by saying that allowing LGBT Americans to serve openly in the military is “the right thing to do.” These appeals help get the audience emotionally engaged in the address.

Obama uses logos for specific pieces of argument. He argues for an equal pay law with the logical support that “women [would] get equal pay for equal work.” He describes securing the nation’s borders in terms of “enforcing laws.” Obama’s logical appeals are very short because arguing these points is not as crucial to his purpose. The audience wants to hear that Obama will accomplish his promises, but the point of this address is not to explain how.

Obama arguments successfully meet the needs of the rhetorical situation. Obama addresses issues which his critics have accused him of ignoring, such as LGBT rights, and assures the audience that they will receive his future attention. Whether or not Obama succeeds in his purpose of convincing the public of his credibility cannot be determined without surveying the public. Nonetheless, the televised audience seems to have been won over by Obama’s logos, pathos and ethos: after many of his arguments he receives a standing ovation.