I'm doing my project over discourse surrounding the portrayals of the FDA and USDA in popular media. In my research I've come across a lot of information about food labeling and nutrition information that has caused me to look at cereal boxes a little differently.
You may have been walking down the cereal aisle at the grocery store and seen the front of of a box of frosted flakes. On the front of the box you might see in large letters, "Long Lasting Energy,10 grams of whole grain, a good source of Fiber!" When deciding between this brand of frosted flakes and another equally priced box of frosted flakes from a different company without these claims, those words in large print may be the deciding factor. You might think to yourself, "If the food company was allowed to print this on their box it must be true. Why not get something healthier?" Your terministic screen in dealing with claims on the front of food packages causes you to trust and view the claims with legitimacy. But the real question you should be asking is, "Is it healthier?"
According to Michael Pollan's book, Food Rules we should avoid foods which make health claims. He writes,"If a food has a health claim, it probably has a package and that means it's very likely processed. Moreover, the FDA's "qualified" health claims" are all but meaningless." After learning this information, I became much more suspect of health claims on the front of food packages.
My terministic screen had changed. I no longer look at claims on the front of food packages with total legitimacy. I'm more sceptical. I think to myself, "If they have to put this on the front, lets see what they are compensating for on the back." Then I turn it around and view the Nutritional Facts. Notice they are "facts" not "claims" and they are the only food label I know trust.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Food Inc and Sustainability
I recently viewed the film Food Inc, a documentary that explores the origin of many foods and industrialization of the food industry. It explores how the food industry’s focus on maximizing output instead of focusing on quality has led to foods that are less healthy and less safe, environmentally damaging farming practices, and the poor treatment of both workers and animals.
The film treads on material in relation to this class in its attention to sustainability. Corporate large-scale farms are juxtaposed with a small, local, pasture based farm in order to show their stark differences. The corporate farm system is based around producing as much food as possible at increasingly cheaper and faster rates. In order to produce as much meat as possible farmers overcrowd cattle and chicken into warehouses and small fenced in pens. Since the animals are in such close contact with one another and unable to graze, they often tread in their own feces, which makes for an optimal breeding ground for disease or bacteria. We the consumer then injest this meat along with any of the bacteria or infections it has gained in the process.
Cows on these farms are fed corn instead of grass because of its cheap cost, fattening effect, and the fact that these cows are not kept in areas where grass is growing from the ground. The only problem is that cows stomachs are not meant to digest corn and they often develop dangerous E-coli infections as a result. There have been several cases of E-Coli infected beef causing illness and even death.
The simple act of feeding and disposing of the manure from these cattle has turned into a massive operation. Loads of corn and grain must be shipped in constantly, which adds more fossil fuels into the environment worsening the effects of global warming. Manure must be shipped out, which amounts to the same problem.
The local, free pasture based farm on the other hand keeps things simple. Cows graze in large grassy fields eating and moving at their own pace. The system self-sustainable and environmentally safe since there is no need to ship out manure or ship in food. The cows poop in the fields, which fertilizes the grass allowing more to grow for them to eat, which leads to more manure and so on.
I’d say this documentary falls somewhere between informative and persuasive on Kinneavy’s aims of discourse. It informs of how our food is made and how the food could negatively effect us in the hopes that we consumers may be persuaded to eat and buy differently in the future.
The film treads on material in relation to this class in its attention to sustainability. Corporate large-scale farms are juxtaposed with a small, local, pasture based farm in order to show their stark differences. The corporate farm system is based around producing as much food as possible at increasingly cheaper and faster rates. In order to produce as much meat as possible farmers overcrowd cattle and chicken into warehouses and small fenced in pens. Since the animals are in such close contact with one another and unable to graze, they often tread in their own feces, which makes for an optimal breeding ground for disease or bacteria. We the consumer then injest this meat along with any of the bacteria or infections it has gained in the process.
Cows on these farms are fed corn instead of grass because of its cheap cost, fattening effect, and the fact that these cows are not kept in areas where grass is growing from the ground. The only problem is that cows stomachs are not meant to digest corn and they often develop dangerous E-coli infections as a result. There have been several cases of E-Coli infected beef causing illness and even death.
The simple act of feeding and disposing of the manure from these cattle has turned into a massive operation. Loads of corn and grain must be shipped in constantly, which adds more fossil fuels into the environment worsening the effects of global warming. Manure must be shipped out, which amounts to the same problem.
The local, free pasture based farm on the other hand keeps things simple. Cows graze in large grassy fields eating and moving at their own pace. The system self-sustainable and environmentally safe since there is no need to ship out manure or ship in food. The cows poop in the fields, which fertilizes the grass allowing more to grow for them to eat, which leads to more manure and so on.
I’d say this documentary falls somewhere between informative and persuasive on Kinneavy’s aims of discourse. It informs of how our food is made and how the food could negatively effect us in the hopes that we consumers may be persuaded to eat and buy differently in the future.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Short Assignment # 4
I chose to discuss how "A question of civility, an open letter to Hu Jintao" functions as sustainable public discourse according to its "symbol-using." In Enoch's article "Becoming Symbol-Wise," he identifies an indexing exercise in which students analyze key terms within a text, and find out what they "equal" or mean within that specific text (Enoch 282). "Certain elements equal "bad or socially inferior while others equate to good or socially superior". In Lung Ying Tai's, Letter words such as censorship, inequality, and dictatorship are equated to violence and wrong, socially inferior positions. On the other hand, the terms value, freedom, respect, and share are associated with good and the socially superior.
Ling Tai's main use of negative symbolism appears in the section entitled "Cut Throat." She equates the Government's forced shutting down of an outspoken Chinese Newspaper, an act of both dictatorship and of censorship, with the violent act of throat cutting and execution (Ling Tai 283.) Execution and throat cutting which both are forms of murder can be confidently identified as "bad" in this context. Since these actions are carried out by the Chinese government which is represented by Hu Jintao, this bad/negative association can be assigned to both the country and its leader.
Ling Tai reveals what she believes to be socially superior in the section entitled what is your true face. Almost in opposition to the prior "negative" terms, she identifies independence, freedom of expression, and honesty as values that correlate most with her identity and that must be present in any place she chooses to live (Ling Tai 4,5). She says that living and growing up in Taiwan has imbued her with the respect for these certain values.
We can see that a definite corollary is set up Ling Tai in the Letter. Taiwan, is the country which is associated with values identified as positive like freedom and respect. The Peoples republic of China is oppositely associated with socially inferior terms like execution, censorship, and lies. Ling Tai states that she is most likely to side with the country which correlates most closely to the values she has identified as positive, and in this case that country is obviously Taiwan.
A word like execution is not always a negative term. Say for instance we were discussing the execution of a serial killer. In this case a government controlled execution might be seen as a positive.
Works Cited:
Lung, Ying-Tai. "A Question of Civility: An Open Letter to Hu, Jintao." OpenDemocracy Ltd. 15 Feb. 2006. Web. 10 Jul. 2010
Enock, Jessica. "Becoming Symbol-Wise: Kenneth Burke's Pedagogy of Critical Reflection." College Composition and Communication 56.2 (Dec 2004)
Part 2.
I would like to analyze and research the organic/natural food movement. In media such the film Food Inc and the book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, the processed, packaged, convenient foods that are consumed by many Americans are blamed for the rising levels of obesity and health problems in this Country. It is argued that eating a diet high in vegetables and processed foods is the healthiest way to live. I'd like to explore the divide between the two opposing sides, those in favor of organic/natural foods and those who for whatever reason see no reason to believe there is anything wrong with processed foods. A brochure or short PSA might be able to capture what I attempt to present.
Ling Tai's main use of negative symbolism appears in the section entitled "Cut Throat." She equates the Government's forced shutting down of an outspoken Chinese Newspaper, an act of both dictatorship and of censorship, with the violent act of throat cutting and execution (Ling Tai 283.) Execution and throat cutting which both are forms of murder can be confidently identified as "bad" in this context. Since these actions are carried out by the Chinese government which is represented by Hu Jintao, this bad/negative association can be assigned to both the country and its leader.
Ling Tai reveals what she believes to be socially superior in the section entitled what is your true face. Almost in opposition to the prior "negative" terms, she identifies independence, freedom of expression, and honesty as values that correlate most with her identity and that must be present in any place she chooses to live (Ling Tai 4,5). She says that living and growing up in Taiwan has imbued her with the respect for these certain values.
We can see that a definite corollary is set up Ling Tai in the Letter. Taiwan, is the country which is associated with values identified as positive like freedom and respect. The Peoples republic of China is oppositely associated with socially inferior terms like execution, censorship, and lies. Ling Tai states that she is most likely to side with the country which correlates most closely to the values she has identified as positive, and in this case that country is obviously Taiwan.
A word like execution is not always a negative term. Say for instance we were discussing the execution of a serial killer. In this case a government controlled execution might be seen as a positive.
Works Cited:
Lung, Ying-Tai. "A Question of Civility: An Open Letter to Hu, Jintao." OpenDemocracy Ltd. 15 Feb. 2006. Web. 10 Jul. 2010
Enock, Jessica. "Becoming Symbol-Wise: Kenneth Burke's Pedagogy of Critical Reflection." College Composition and Communication 56.2 (Dec 2004)
Part 2.
I would like to analyze and research the organic/natural food movement. In media such the film Food Inc and the book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, the processed, packaged, convenient foods that are consumed by many Americans are blamed for the rising levels of obesity and health problems in this Country. It is argued that eating a diet high in vegetables and processed foods is the healthiest way to live. I'd like to explore the divide between the two opposing sides, those in favor of organic/natural foods and those who for whatever reason see no reason to believe there is anything wrong with processed foods. A brochure or short PSA might be able to capture what I attempt to present.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Into the Blogosphere assignment
1.
In summer before my junior year of highschool, my parents went out of town for 5-6 days to visit some family on the east coast. They left me at home alone with instructions to feed the cat and lock the door whenever I left the house. They also said I could have some friends over to the house as long as there weren’t too many people. The day after they left, my friend Mike and I had the great idea that we should throw a party in my now vacant house. We created a MySpace event and invited lots of people. More people ended up coming than we had imagined, and my house and backyard were completely packed. At the peak of the party’s attendance, I received a call from my father. He effectively told me that he knew what was going on, and that I’d better get everyone out of the house immediately. Someone had apparently tipped him off. I quickly declared the party over and rushed everyone out of the house. Mike and I spent the rest of the night (early morning) cleaning up the house, and returning it to its former condition.
By the time my parents arrived the next day, there was no evidence that any large gathering had taken place. The house, carpet, and furniture were just as clean and in the same arrangement that they had been when my parents left. Regardless, my parents were still very upset with what I had done. They argued that I had violated their trust.
I argued that there was no reason for them to be angry. I said things like, “The house looks the same as it did when you left. I didn’t get in any trouble. Its as if it never happened. You would not be mad about this if someone hadn’t called you and told you about it. There are no negative consequences stemming from this party whatsoever, therefore you have no reason to be upset.” They disagreed because they didn’t base their anger not on whether or not the house was clean, but rather on whether or not I had obeyed their warning not to have too many people over.
This is a level 3 disagreement because different evidentiary weight is given to what ought to constitute being upset in this situation. I believed that the most important thing that should factor into their emotional response upon their return to the house should be the state of the house. I thought that as long as the house looked the same as it did when they left, there should be no reason for them to care what happened in-between. They gave less weight to what the house looked like, and much more to whether I had obeyed them or not. This disagreement could have been resolved by my using some common sense and acknowledging that my parents had appropriate reason for being upset, but that would have meant admitting guilt. Instead I took my punishment acting as if I still had no idea how my parents were upset.
2.
Mario Savio’s analogy, “Sproul Hall is to student rights as Mississippi is to civil rights,” serves to shed light on the similarities between two situations that may at first glance seem unrelated. In 1964, Mississippi was the epicenter of the civil rights movement; a movement led by mostly black citizens who sought to end discrimination by whites against blacks. The discrimination came in many forms including barred participation from voting for public office, segregation of schools based on race, and “whites only” signs on many public businesses and establishments among others. On Berkley’s campus Savio says that students rights have been violated by university bureaucrats issuing “edicts suppressing student political expression” and then refusing to discuss the action or take student opposition to the edicts seriously.
Savio’s analogy seeks to relate his situation as a student in Sproul Hall on at Berkley’s campus who is unable to express himself politically or have any bearing on the rules at his school because of unwilling university bureaucrats, to that of a black person living in Mississippi who is unable to vote or go to most restaurants because discriminatory laws and attitudes. One way that Savio sees these situations as similar is the fact that neither the Berkley student nor the discriminated Mississippian, is allowed, “to participate citizens in a democratic society.” A democratic society must, among other things, have laws “arrived at legitimately only by consensus of the governed.” Since blacks in Mississippi were barred from voting in many instances, they were are unable to participate in the shaping of many laws they had to follow. In the instance of students at Berkley, they were unable to voice their opinions freely and therefore unable to have any say in regards to university regulations they are governed and ignored by.
Savio describes the situation at Berkley as “Kafkaesque,” which can refer a situation, which is needlessly hard to understand or complex. I believe he is referring to how difficult and complex it is communicate with administrators and get responses from them. He specifically describes meeting with the Dean of Students and the difficulty he had in trying to get her to give a straight answer about student’s rights. The situation can be identified as “Kafkaesque” because no matter how hard or forcefully students have tried to have their opinions and voices recognized by the university administrators, they have not been able to get through to them. That’s definitely hard to understand.
If I were a university administrator listening to this argument, I would disagree with his analogy. I would say a University campus is not a good comparison to an entire city since they are both governed by different rules. Mississippi is under the jurisdiction of the United States and all citizens living there are entitled to the rights promised to them under the constitution. On the other hand, students on a university campus are also citizens of the United States, but by enrolling in a college they agree to abide by the rules of the university; even if that means curtailing some of their aforementioned constitutional rights. Therefore I’d come to the conclusion argument is not valid.
The disagreement is definitely on level four. It seems as though students like Savio believe that the quality of a university should be judged on a school’s ability to act as a nation following the U.S. Constitution and the ability to which it allows students to question “the conditions of their existence.”
According to Savio, the school administrators believe the duty of the college is to “turn out people with all the shard edges worn off, the well-rounded person.
3.
Robert Bullard uses past history to show how the government has responded hurricanes in areas populated by African Americans in the past, and how that might show how the government will respond to Hurricane Katrina. He uses examples such as the response to hurricane Betsy in 1965 to predict what the response to Hurricane Katrina will be like.
By arguing in the stasis of cause, he gives legitimacy to his argument and has real facts and instances from which he can base his predictions on and point to if challenged. A detractor might argue, “Bullard, your predictions are ludicrous. You are biased to sympathize with African American populations because you yourself are black.” If Bullard was arguing from the stasis of value (black people are important too and need to be protected just as much as white people do) then this detractor might be able to make a valid case against Bullard. But since Bullard is basing his is predictions and judgments on prior events and history rather than solely personal bias, he is protected from such attacks.
Savio could construct an appropriate ethos for his audience by maybe providing more specific violations of students’ rights at the beginning of his speech. I think that by giving the audience specific examples of what has happened in the past, they may be more likely to follow him when he begins vilifying the university administrators and comparing the university to a “machine.” These are strong claims to make without much evidence.
Ida B. Wells-Barnett already does a very good job of outlining the history of lynching and provides many examples from history to underline her argument.
In summer before my junior year of highschool, my parents went out of town for 5-6 days to visit some family on the east coast. They left me at home alone with instructions to feed the cat and lock the door whenever I left the house. They also said I could have some friends over to the house as long as there weren’t too many people. The day after they left, my friend Mike and I had the great idea that we should throw a party in my now vacant house. We created a MySpace event and invited lots of people. More people ended up coming than we had imagined, and my house and backyard were completely packed. At the peak of the party’s attendance, I received a call from my father. He effectively told me that he knew what was going on, and that I’d better get everyone out of the house immediately. Someone had apparently tipped him off. I quickly declared the party over and rushed everyone out of the house. Mike and I spent the rest of the night (early morning) cleaning up the house, and returning it to its former condition.
By the time my parents arrived the next day, there was no evidence that any large gathering had taken place. The house, carpet, and furniture were just as clean and in the same arrangement that they had been when my parents left. Regardless, my parents were still very upset with what I had done. They argued that I had violated their trust.
I argued that there was no reason for them to be angry. I said things like, “The house looks the same as it did when you left. I didn’t get in any trouble. Its as if it never happened. You would not be mad about this if someone hadn’t called you and told you about it. There are no negative consequences stemming from this party whatsoever, therefore you have no reason to be upset.” They disagreed because they didn’t base their anger not on whether or not the house was clean, but rather on whether or not I had obeyed their warning not to have too many people over.
This is a level 3 disagreement because different evidentiary weight is given to what ought to constitute being upset in this situation. I believed that the most important thing that should factor into their emotional response upon their return to the house should be the state of the house. I thought that as long as the house looked the same as it did when they left, there should be no reason for them to care what happened in-between. They gave less weight to what the house looked like, and much more to whether I had obeyed them or not. This disagreement could have been resolved by my using some common sense and acknowledging that my parents had appropriate reason for being upset, but that would have meant admitting guilt. Instead I took my punishment acting as if I still had no idea how my parents were upset.
2.
Mario Savio’s analogy, “Sproul Hall is to student rights as Mississippi is to civil rights,” serves to shed light on the similarities between two situations that may at first glance seem unrelated. In 1964, Mississippi was the epicenter of the civil rights movement; a movement led by mostly black citizens who sought to end discrimination by whites against blacks. The discrimination came in many forms including barred participation from voting for public office, segregation of schools based on race, and “whites only” signs on many public businesses and establishments among others. On Berkley’s campus Savio says that students rights have been violated by university bureaucrats issuing “edicts suppressing student political expression” and then refusing to discuss the action or take student opposition to the edicts seriously.
Savio’s analogy seeks to relate his situation as a student in Sproul Hall on at Berkley’s campus who is unable to express himself politically or have any bearing on the rules at his school because of unwilling university bureaucrats, to that of a black person living in Mississippi who is unable to vote or go to most restaurants because discriminatory laws and attitudes. One way that Savio sees these situations as similar is the fact that neither the Berkley student nor the discriminated Mississippian, is allowed, “to participate citizens in a democratic society.” A democratic society must, among other things, have laws “arrived at legitimately only by consensus of the governed.” Since blacks in Mississippi were barred from voting in many instances, they were are unable to participate in the shaping of many laws they had to follow. In the instance of students at Berkley, they were unable to voice their opinions freely and therefore unable to have any say in regards to university regulations they are governed and ignored by.
Savio describes the situation at Berkley as “Kafkaesque,” which can refer a situation, which is needlessly hard to understand or complex. I believe he is referring to how difficult and complex it is communicate with administrators and get responses from them. He specifically describes meeting with the Dean of Students and the difficulty he had in trying to get her to give a straight answer about student’s rights. The situation can be identified as “Kafkaesque” because no matter how hard or forcefully students have tried to have their opinions and voices recognized by the university administrators, they have not been able to get through to them. That’s definitely hard to understand.
If I were a university administrator listening to this argument, I would disagree with his analogy. I would say a University campus is not a good comparison to an entire city since they are both governed by different rules. Mississippi is under the jurisdiction of the United States and all citizens living there are entitled to the rights promised to them under the constitution. On the other hand, students on a university campus are also citizens of the United States, but by enrolling in a college they agree to abide by the rules of the university; even if that means curtailing some of their aforementioned constitutional rights. Therefore I’d come to the conclusion argument is not valid.
The disagreement is definitely on level four. It seems as though students like Savio believe that the quality of a university should be judged on a school’s ability to act as a nation following the U.S. Constitution and the ability to which it allows students to question “the conditions of their existence.”
According to Savio, the school administrators believe the duty of the college is to “turn out people with all the shard edges worn off, the well-rounded person.
3.
Robert Bullard uses past history to show how the government has responded hurricanes in areas populated by African Americans in the past, and how that might show how the government will respond to Hurricane Katrina. He uses examples such as the response to hurricane Betsy in 1965 to predict what the response to Hurricane Katrina will be like.
By arguing in the stasis of cause, he gives legitimacy to his argument and has real facts and instances from which he can base his predictions on and point to if challenged. A detractor might argue, “Bullard, your predictions are ludicrous. You are biased to sympathize with African American populations because you yourself are black.” If Bullard was arguing from the stasis of value (black people are important too and need to be protected just as much as white people do) then this detractor might be able to make a valid case against Bullard. But since Bullard is basing his is predictions and judgments on prior events and history rather than solely personal bias, he is protected from such attacks.
Savio could construct an appropriate ethos for his audience by maybe providing more specific violations of students’ rights at the beginning of his speech. I think that by giving the audience specific examples of what has happened in the past, they may be more likely to follow him when he begins vilifying the university administrators and comparing the university to a “machine.” These are strong claims to make without much evidence.
Ida B. Wells-Barnett already does a very good job of outlining the history of lynching and provides many examples from history to underline her argument.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Ecology of Fear: Arrangement
I chose to read and analyze the excerpt, “Living in a Landscape of Fear” by Cristina Eisenberg. Using Gross’s chapter from The Rhetoric of Science, “The Arrangement of the Scientific Paper,” Eisenberg’s piece can definitely be classified as acting scientific. The excerpt contains several aspects of the experimental paper such as hypothesis, methods and materials, and the discussion of prior experiments that led to the field study in question, and a conclusion. I would not go so far in saying that the article is an experimental paper since it definitely ignores some aspects of the sequence of sections and includes several descriptions of personal experiences.
Since Eisenberg’s piece is an excerpt from a book, we hardly expect that it would follow the rigid standards of an scientific journal article, but nonetheless, many elements which Gross identifies as essential in an experimental or descriptive paper are found in her piece. Gross states that an introduction must indicate the experiments it will relate to and draw from, and where the current experiment fits into these prior studies (Gross 87). Eisenberg does exactly that in her second section, “The Green World Hypothesis.” She begins by summarizing the the first theory by HSS, that “that vegetation patterns are determined primarily by patterns of food consumption by herbivores,” and then by describing the methods and conclusion the first test of this hypothesis by Robert Paine. Paine observed a species of carnivorous sea star that preyed on an herbivorous mussel in a rocky intertidal zone. She describes Paine’s results as being exhibiting “concomitant variation”, which in this case means they were directly related (Gross 88). When Paine removed the carnivorous sea star from the habitat, the mussels would multiply and eat all the vegetation, whereas if he left the sea star species to rule, the vegetation would grow abundantly. The next two sections can also be seen as a continuation of the introduction since they include further theories and counter arguments, which stemmed from Paines experiment, and are important to positioning Eisenberg’s study.
The section entitled, “The Ecology of Fear” can be seen as a methods and materials section. A methods and materials section must detail the methods and materials used by the experimenter, so that anyone who so pleases can easily replicate the experiment. (Gross 87.) Eisenberg does this writing she put “in 57 miles of track transects (materials) in Glacier National Park” in order to track all occurrences of elk, deer, moose” and their numerous predators. Through monitoring the movements of both predators and prey she could find out whether the elk and deer were avoiding certain areas where there were no escape routes. Later in the same section Eisenberg writes that she was, “Using yet another method to determine whether elk fear wolves,” but she did not describe or detail her methods or materials.
Eisenberg does even more positioning of her experiments within the broader scale of research when she describes the journals of Aldo Leopold, which first recounted the negative of effects that the lack of predatation had on his land. He noted that in the absence of wolves, deer were destroying seed and grass saplings. Then Eisenberg herself went in and observed the same land herself to see if much had changed in the 70-80 years since Aldo had recorded his findings.
There is no real one place that Eisenberg lays out her conclusion/discussion. Conclusions are found throughout the paper because she recounts several of her studies/experiments throughout. The main thing that makes this a paper with scientific elements rather than a scientific paper is its organization. Eisenberg goes from describing another researcher’s experiment in depth to recounting how the weather felt on one of her expeditions. The paper does not follow the arrangement layed out by Gross, but I’m sure many of the experiments she described within the paper did.
In observing the nature of how Eisenberg kept relating her research to experiments done in the past, I was reminded of the concept of intertextuality. This study of the shaping of texts by other texts strikes me as very similar to how Bacon describes experimental science; ”A double scale or ladder, ascendant and descendent’ ascending from experiments to the invention of causes, and descending from causes to the invention of new experiments” (Gross 86.) In this way scientific experiments and the writings that go with them, are very similar to all other types of writing in that their impetus is the writing of others.
Since Eisenberg’s piece is an excerpt from a book, we hardly expect that it would follow the rigid standards of an scientific journal article, but nonetheless, many elements which Gross identifies as essential in an experimental or descriptive paper are found in her piece. Gross states that an introduction must indicate the experiments it will relate to and draw from, and where the current experiment fits into these prior studies (Gross 87). Eisenberg does exactly that in her second section, “The Green World Hypothesis.” She begins by summarizing the the first theory by HSS, that “that vegetation patterns are determined primarily by patterns of food consumption by herbivores,” and then by describing the methods and conclusion the first test of this hypothesis by Robert Paine. Paine observed a species of carnivorous sea star that preyed on an herbivorous mussel in a rocky intertidal zone. She describes Paine’s results as being exhibiting “concomitant variation”, which in this case means they were directly related (Gross 88). When Paine removed the carnivorous sea star from the habitat, the mussels would multiply and eat all the vegetation, whereas if he left the sea star species to rule, the vegetation would grow abundantly. The next two sections can also be seen as a continuation of the introduction since they include further theories and counter arguments, which stemmed from Paines experiment, and are important to positioning Eisenberg’s study.
The section entitled, “The Ecology of Fear” can be seen as a methods and materials section. A methods and materials section must detail the methods and materials used by the experimenter, so that anyone who so pleases can easily replicate the experiment. (Gross 87.) Eisenberg does this writing she put “in 57 miles of track transects (materials) in Glacier National Park” in order to track all occurrences of elk, deer, moose” and their numerous predators. Through monitoring the movements of both predators and prey she could find out whether the elk and deer were avoiding certain areas where there were no escape routes. Later in the same section Eisenberg writes that she was, “Using yet another method to determine whether elk fear wolves,” but she did not describe or detail her methods or materials.
Eisenberg does even more positioning of her experiments within the broader scale of research when she describes the journals of Aldo Leopold, which first recounted the negative of effects that the lack of predatation had on his land. He noted that in the absence of wolves, deer were destroying seed and grass saplings. Then Eisenberg herself went in and observed the same land herself to see if much had changed in the 70-80 years since Aldo had recorded his findings.
There is no real one place that Eisenberg lays out her conclusion/discussion. Conclusions are found throughout the paper because she recounts several of her studies/experiments throughout. The main thing that makes this a paper with scientific elements rather than a scientific paper is its organization. Eisenberg goes from describing another researcher’s experiment in depth to recounting how the weather felt on one of her expeditions. The paper does not follow the arrangement layed out by Gross, but I’m sure many of the experiments she described within the paper did.
In observing the nature of how Eisenberg kept relating her research to experiments done in the past, I was reminded of the concept of intertextuality. This study of the shaping of texts by other texts strikes me as very similar to how Bacon describes experimental science; ”A double scale or ladder, ascendant and descendent’ ascending from experiments to the invention of causes, and descending from causes to the invention of new experiments” (Gross 86.) In this way scientific experiments and the writings that go with them, are very similar to all other types of writing in that their impetus is the writing of others.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Short Assigmnent #2 9-11, For a Younger Audience
I chose to analyze the Newsweek article written by Anna Quindlen, “One Day, Now Broken in Two.” She writes a very personal editorial about what the date September 11th now means to American’s, and how she feels day should be thought of one year later. The role Quindlen constructs and the ideal audience she is addressing is clear by her continual use of the pronoun “We”. She begins almost every paragraph by either asking, “Who are we know?” or answering that very question starting with the word “We.” This sets up a Hemingway-like relationship of intimacy and shared experience up with the reader. She feels no need to describe the 9-ll attacks in detail, because she assumes “we” already now the facts. Instead, again like Hemingway she refers to the events very vaguely and expects that we know what she is referring to; “the plane, the flames, the fire.” The “We” she is constructing and addressing are obviously American’s, but more specifically American peers who were old enough in 2001 to be affected by the attacks in the same way she was. It’s fair to assume that because this article appeared in Newsweek, that she might have also been speaking to a liberal open-minded audience.
Now lets say Quindlen was asked by Teen People to write a similar piece for their magazine. She would obviously have to rethink some of the assumptions she makes in the former piece. She addresses the date 9-11 as the day “America’s mind reeled, its spine stiffened, and its heart broke.” For someone older than 18, or someone who felt the side affects of the events first hand, these would be apt characterizations of the day. But for an age demographic younger, and farther removed from the attacks, these might seem like foreign descriptions, justifiable only because they’ve been told what a big deal the attacks were. From personal experience, I can testify that 9-11 didn’t seem like that big a deal when I was thirteen, just a building that got crashed into onto TV. Quindlen would have to do a lot less of reminding the her audience of what they had collectively felt, and a lot more informing the audience of what the attacks meant and telling them how most people felt. Instead of asking “Who are we know?” she might ask, “What did it mean?” The latter question is already assumed to be known by the older group, but that might be the perfect question to answer for a teenage group.
I definitely think the frame of the essay, the fact that 9-11 is also her son’s birthday is something that a teenage audience would be able to relate to. The main argument the story seems to be making is that we must go on living as we did before the attacks, but also never forget that they happened. She must go on celebrating her son’s birthday and enjoy it, and all Americans must go on with their lives every day and enjoy every other day as well. I think the birthday reference is pretty clear and believe that a teenage girl audience would even more easilly be able to understand the gravity that the day by reading that a mother has to remind herself recognize the date as her sons birthday, and not as the date of the terrorist attacks.
Now lets say Quindlen was asked by Teen People to write a similar piece for their magazine. She would obviously have to rethink some of the assumptions she makes in the former piece. She addresses the date 9-11 as the day “America’s mind reeled, its spine stiffened, and its heart broke.” For someone older than 18, or someone who felt the side affects of the events first hand, these would be apt characterizations of the day. But for an age demographic younger, and farther removed from the attacks, these might seem like foreign descriptions, justifiable only because they’ve been told what a big deal the attacks were. From personal experience, I can testify that 9-11 didn’t seem like that big a deal when I was thirteen, just a building that got crashed into onto TV. Quindlen would have to do a lot less of reminding the her audience of what they had collectively felt, and a lot more informing the audience of what the attacks meant and telling them how most people felt. Instead of asking “Who are we know?” she might ask, “What did it mean?” The latter question is already assumed to be known by the older group, but that might be the perfect question to answer for a teenage group.
I definitely think the frame of the essay, the fact that 9-11 is also her son’s birthday is something that a teenage audience would be able to relate to. The main argument the story seems to be making is that we must go on living as we did before the attacks, but also never forget that they happened. She must go on celebrating her son’s birthday and enjoy it, and all Americans must go on with their lives every day and enjoy every other day as well. I think the birthday reference is pretty clear and believe that a teenage girl audience would even more easilly be able to understand the gravity that the day by reading that a mother has to remind herself recognize the date as her sons birthday, and not as the date of the terrorist attacks.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Kantrowitz Supports Feminism
I chose to examine Barbara Kantrowitz’s article, “Its Ms. America to You” using a contextual analysis, and came to the conclusion that the piece is epideictic and in support of commonly accepted standards of gender equality. Kantrowitz recounts a demonstration at the 1968 Miss America pageant kick-started the women’s liberation movement. Through her account of the story Kantrowitz seems to justify the protests.
Kantrowitz uses ethos in the first paragraph by dispelling the commonly held notion that the women protesting the pageant in 1968 burned bras. She also revisits this claim in at the end of the second paragraph when she asks and receives confirmation from one of the former protesters, Robin Morgan, that no bras were burned. By “mythbusting” this bra burning story, Kantrowitz does two things; she shows the audience how reliable and good she is at fact finding (ethos), and she shows that she has some sort of interest in showing that these protesters were not violent, and might even be “elegant.” In order to convince the audience that the women were not in the wrong, she has to make sure they are not thought of unfavorably. The dispositio of the ethos also seems calculated because by placing it at the front of the piece, she gains the audience’s trust before she lays out her main argument.
Kantrowitz then uses pathos at the end of paragraph 4 to justify the actions of the New York Radical women by crediting them with blowing the doors off the “bastions of male power” forcing medical, law, and Ivy league schools to admit women into their ranks. I believe this is pathos because most Americans today; male and female, consider gender equality a deeply held value.
In paragraph five, Kantrowitz’s true colors come out. She is clearly in favor of women’s rights judging by the connotations of some of the adjectives she uses. She says some issues are still “disturbingly” contentious. She would not consider opposition to roe vs. wade disturbing unless she strongly favored the current law. She also describes calls anti-abortion activists’ actions as “ferocious” rather than a less loaded word like persistent or aggressive. Her description of Botox as “poison” clearly shows that she doesn’t approve of the “rigid beauty standards” that were the target of the New York Radical Women.
Although this article could have been analyzed contextually I believe a textual analysis was more effective because Kantrowitz doesn’t really insert herself personally into the piece. She doesn’t outrightly state her positions biases or use pronouns like I or me like E.B. White did. For this reason I thought the best way to unshed her true feelings would be to look deeper at the text itself rather than Kantrowitz herself.
Kantrowitz uses ethos in the first paragraph by dispelling the commonly held notion that the women protesting the pageant in 1968 burned bras. She also revisits this claim in at the end of the second paragraph when she asks and receives confirmation from one of the former protesters, Robin Morgan, that no bras were burned. By “mythbusting” this bra burning story, Kantrowitz does two things; she shows the audience how reliable and good she is at fact finding (ethos), and she shows that she has some sort of interest in showing that these protesters were not violent, and might even be “elegant.” In order to convince the audience that the women were not in the wrong, she has to make sure they are not thought of unfavorably. The dispositio of the ethos also seems calculated because by placing it at the front of the piece, she gains the audience’s trust before she lays out her main argument.
Kantrowitz then uses pathos at the end of paragraph 4 to justify the actions of the New York Radical women by crediting them with blowing the doors off the “bastions of male power” forcing medical, law, and Ivy league schools to admit women into their ranks. I believe this is pathos because most Americans today; male and female, consider gender equality a deeply held value.
In paragraph five, Kantrowitz’s true colors come out. She is clearly in favor of women’s rights judging by the connotations of some of the adjectives she uses. She says some issues are still “disturbingly” contentious. She would not consider opposition to roe vs. wade disturbing unless she strongly favored the current law. She also describes calls anti-abortion activists’ actions as “ferocious” rather than a less loaded word like persistent or aggressive. Her description of Botox as “poison” clearly shows that she doesn’t approve of the “rigid beauty standards” that were the target of the New York Radical Women.
Although this article could have been analyzed contextually I believe a textual analysis was more effective because Kantrowitz doesn’t really insert herself personally into the piece. She doesn’t outrightly state her positions biases or use pronouns like I or me like E.B. White did. For this reason I thought the best way to unshed her true feelings would be to look deeper at the text itself rather than Kantrowitz herself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)