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.

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.

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.