Finding Sources

So I was just browsing for maybe 10 minutes and found maybe 10 sources total for everyone's papers (i have emailed those people letting them know about sources).

Finding possible sources should feel like binge drinking. Let me explain. You should be constantly clicking and typing--looking at bibliographies and searching those articles, etc. etc. You aren't worried about the effects its going to have on your body--you just want to get drunk (with texts)--you want to saturate your possibilities until your body can't take it anymore! Once you start reading and reflecting, undoubtedly some of it will be indigestible, or useless to your body--that will be expelled and you will never have to deal with again. But after you expel it, you will feel refreshed. At first, it might hurt---your head with pound with a swirl of titles and word searches, but eventually you will regain your composure and be ready to sit down and eat a good meal (or write a good paper). Your annotated bibliography will be the small amount of stuff left in your body after a good ol' next-morning purge.

Another metaphor: Research should feel like you are romping through a field of research at warp speed plucking flowers without bothering whether or not they make a pretty bouquet.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret: researching is different than reading (I may have already said this in a previous post). Researching is about gathering possible useful material--researching is fast, furious, and almost unreflective (at first). Researching is RE-SEARCHING or RE(S)EA(R)CHING --reaching. . .reaching out.


Reading Articles (a process) 

To narrow down your article selection:

1.) Read abstracts
2.) Read the first couple paragraphs (quickly)
3.) Read the conclusion. 
4.) If it still seems relevant, skim paragraphs. 
5.) If it is a "useful" article, read most of the article and write an annotated bibliography.

My Susan Bordo Source

So, I know I told you all to focus on a textual source. But I am going to suggest that one of the most popular sources that you all found, "“It’s a Face-Lifted, Tummy-Tucked Jungle Out There,” New York Times, June 9." by Amy Spindler, is exemplified in the brilliant corporate satire/horror film American Psycho. 


This film portrays a corporate sociopath, who murders people--women and men--for no real reason. Below is the opening scene of the film, which suggests a creepy marriage between corporate life, beauty, and violence. Unfortunately, youtube will not let me embed this, so I have to merely provide a link: 


Patrick Bateman's opening scene


"There is an idea of a Patrick Bateman. Some kind of abstraction. But there is no real me." 

Synthesis Essays--Class Notes

Class,

I was pretty happy overall with the synthesis essays. I think that our work with organizing paragraphs and the sense of an argument's "movement" really helped you all improve your writing. I also think that the out of class peer review had something to do with the overall improvement of the writing. I'd like to believe that you all took a lot from each other's reviews. Yeah getting those out of class peer reviews in were a pain--not to mention, a pain to grade--but I think it ultimately served a purpose.

I hope that the style lecture on Friday helped you think about your writing on a more sophisticated sentence level. Feel free to review it via the embedded Prezi.

A couple of grammar/style/convention things I saw all across the board:

1.) Titles of essays are ALWAYS in "quotations." Italics are for books and full length featured films (among other things). Thus,  "Achievement of Desire," and not Achievement of Desire.


2.) In-text citations always go at the end of sentence right before the period. Thus, 


Rodriguez introduces the concept of the "scholarship boy," a concept culled from Richard Hoggart's Uses of Literacy (Rodriguez 516).


3.) Punctuation and quotation marks: If you are citing part of a text and you use a comma afterwards, the comma goes within the quotations. Thus, 


Wallace writes that education's purpose is to "just a little less arrogant," a little bit less self-certain (Wallace). 

4.) If you cite a passage that is 4 lines of text, use a bloc quotation, indented 1 full inch to the right. Bloc quotation do not have quotation marks around them. 


5.) A semi-colon can only be used when you have two independent clauses (two complete sentences) to join together.  Thus, 


Correct: Rodriguez argues that the scholarship boy is a great mimic; Freire would agree with this. 


Incorrect: Rodriguez argues that the scholarship boy is a great mimic; and Freire may see it the same way. 


With the addition of the "and,' the second clause becomes a sentence fragment. 


6.) In general, Watch out for run-on sentences. Sometimes we get too carried away and forget to PUNCTUATE. 

Style: The Basics of Clarity and Grace

Style: The Basics of Clarity and Grace on Prezi

Annotated Bibliography

Annotated Bibliography on Prezi

Student Summary/Analysis example take 2--More on Transitions

To transition means to "cross over." Transitions can take lots of time, but I hope I have no mystified them. Transitions should flow easily if the paragraphs are in the "right" order. Transitions are mostly about signalling to the reader where you have been and where you are going. As writers, it is our responsibility to "signal" to readers.

An example (from the previous student example):

In addition to body language, Kanye West’s choice of words to describe himself and to address his critics highlights his egocentric personality. West admits that he “embodies every characteristic of the egotistic,” and in the chorus, he refers to himself as a “21^st century schizoid man.” Schizoid, according to the Cleveland Clinic, is a type of personality disorder characterized by aloofness and detachment from others, little desire or enjoyment for close relationships, “difficulty relating to others, indifference towards praise or criticism, and daydreams or vivid fantasies about complex inner lives.” These characteristics may well describe Kanye West, but it is the deliberate insertion of the phrases “embodies every characteristic of the egotistic” and “21^st century schizoid man” that one realizes that West is fully aware of his arrogant, self-centered personality. This awareness empowers him to ward off any form of criticism hurled at him.

 

The above paragraph deals with the concept of "schizoid." A part of 'schizoid' is an "indifference to praise and criticisms." The writer makes the claim that Kanye West is aware of this condition (because he is referring to himself as the "21st Century Schizoid Man") and argues that this awareness (from the previous sentence) empowers him to ward off criticism. 

 

The below paragraph, then, deals with this "criticism." The topic sentence does not directly say "criticism," but describes criticism: "In the music business, great power draws greater scrutiny from the media and the public." If we wanted to maybe connect these two paragraphs even further, we could start with the word criticism: "Criticism from the media and the public at large is a common phenomenon in the media and the public." This both makes it clear how it connects to the previous paragraph, as well as tells us what the writer will discuss in the next paragraph.  

 

 

              In the music business, great power draws greater scrutiny from the media and the public. As Kanye West points out in his lyrics, many of his critics believe that West is an “abomination of Obama’s nation” or a hated figure in present-day American society.  While such a comment may have at first offended West, West simply shrugs it off and reminds critics that “at the end of the day goddamn it he is killin’ [it]/[he] knows damn well [his critics and supporters] are feelin’ [it].” In other words, despite people’s abhorrence toward him, he continues to excel in both album sales and song charts. His music still resonates with people, and based on his prolonged success in record sales and on billboard charts, people continue to value his music, which is what matters to him most.    


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A less "powerful" transition, because there is not as much connection on a "thematic" level, comes from the same paper:


. . .West deliberately positions these Athenian female characters below him to indicate that women are inferior to him. Throughout the entire video, West stares straight ahead

at the viewer, paying no attention to the characters surrounding him; by doing so, West insinuates that his focus is on his career and that he will not let anyone keep him from attaining and maintaining success in the music industry. 

 

The previous paragraph is mostly "summary," but focuses primarily on body language to show West's opinion of his own position. The next paragraph begins with a simple "cue" to the reader that they are moving on to another point: "In addition to body language. . .etc." We are to assume that body language also "highlights his egocentric personality" (which is less explicitly said in the previous paragraph, but his clearly implied-- "by doing so, West insinuates that his focus is on his career," etc.). Still, the "in addition to body language" signals to the reader that this is another "aspect" that highlights the same thing. Consider how there is a difference between that and merely saying "Also, Kanye West's choice of words." This is still acceptable, but the reader is not reminded of the previous point, which makes it seem as though this is a tacked on point, a "by the way, I also noticed this." 

 

In addition to body language, Kanye West’s choice of words to describe himself and to address his critics highlights his egocentric personality. West admits that he “embodies every characteristic of the egotistic,” and in the chorus, he refers to himself as a “21^st century schizoid man.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope these two close-readings of transitions helped you understand what I am looking for.

Synthesis Theses

Through speaking with a student, I have figured out a way to explain how to come up with (or "generate") a thesis for the synthesis. The general structure of a synthesis thesis is something like:

All these essays relate to one another, but. . . .

The key is to make this relation and these differences meaningful by making the thesis specific to the three essays.

The only way to do this is through READING and RE-READING. Your thesis may be the last thing that you actually write down on the page. It is only through moving through these essays, noticing patterns and divergences, similarities and differences, that thesis (and thus, meaning) will emerge, as I noted in our lecture. Its through looking at the concrete connections and then distinguishing them that paragraphs will emerge, which will lead to an organization, which will lead to your own thoughts about the essays. You already have ideas about each of the essays independently, the task now is to think about all three essays as a whole.

If you do not have a thesis, but have "readings" of each of the texts, hopefully your peer reviewers can help you draw one out.

I recommend that you write a little paragraph TO each of your peer reviewers about what you feel like you need to work on that your peer reviewers can help you with (in addition to the assigned tasks). I want you to read each other's papers as if they were your OWN papers that you would have to turn in. I want you to help each other write each other's paper as a collaborative effort. This is not "cheating"--this is collaboration and realizing that meaning rarely comes from one's own head alone.

Good luck!

Organizing Paragraphs

Today, I will be sending you a Word document of the completed (rough draft) of my essay with explanations about the paragraphs and organization.

I hope that I have shown the importance of organization and topic sentences. I feel like when I first learned about topic sentences that they would make my writing sound mechanical and boring (and indeed, I learned topic sentences out of the context of an actual paper). But really, they (along with transitions) are essential aspects of a paper.

As such, this will be something heavily weighed in the Synthesis assignment.

Thank you everyone for such great classes today. Participation was great (due to the very helpful suggestion to return to the cards) and I felt like we were all engaged.

Liberal Arts, Politics, and Education: A Response to Rick Scott, Rick Perry and university education reform

Class,

I'm not sure if this will be of interest to you, but figured I'd post this on both my academic blog and this class blog:

"This university without conditions does not, in fact, exist, as we know only too well. Nevertheless, in principle and in conformity with its declared vocation, its professed essence, it should remain an ultimate place of critical resistance--and more than critical--to all powers of dogmatic and unjust appropration" --Jacques Derrida, "University without Condition"  


In class, we have been discussing endlessly the idea of "education," as understood in Richard Rodriguez's "Achievement of Desire," Paulo Freire's "Banking Concept of Education," and David Foster Wallace's "Address to Kenyon College." All three of these pieces, we could generalize, are inspired by the spirit of the liberal arts, a spirit that maintains that education is more than information or "knowledge." It involves, to use Freire's terms, a "humanization" of the world. As such, a lot of emphasis is placed on the power of the humanities. The university, although it has extended its range (particularly as a state university) has always been rooted in 'humanistic' discourses, as even the notion of "science," in the classical university hardly concerns the producing of "jobs"--which seems the primary goal of Rick Scott: "“If I'm going to take money from a citizen to put into education then I'm going to take that money to create jobs,” Scott said. “So I want that money to go to degrees where people can get jobs in this state.” Rather, the university has always been a place of discovery and invention of knowledge.

Now, I am a far cry from disagreeing that we need jobs in the state and people that are qualified for those jobs. However, is it not the case that most jobs are a function of "on the job training"? In other words, does it hurt people that  majored in English, Philosophy, Sociology, or Psychology? Is the University supposed to give anyone the practical know-how to succeed in a job right out of college? Are there not other institutions, aside from the four year State university that can prepare someone for a job better? Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, is not "humanistic" thinking conducive to innovation. I mean, is it an engineer's courses (for example) or their creative thinking that will lead to innovation? Is it not precisely the kind of out-of-the-box thinking that comes from an individual's creativity that "creates" new jobs.

I realize that I am asking several questions rather than giving answers. I guess what intrigues me about this whole "university reform" thing is how the terms of the argument keep slipping. At the beginning of the article, we have the idea that they want to eliminate Humanistic disciplines. Somehow this is linked to other changes, such as "weeding out unproductive professors and rethinking the system that offers faculty job security."

We might ask what he means by "unproductive professors." At University of Florida, we have, for example, and insanely productive faculty in terms of publications, research, and conferences. Of course, because English would be considered one of the degrees with the "least" job prospects, I suppose this makes English research irrelevant. So "unproductive faculty" seems to be a euphemism for professors who are producing "humanistic research," which, these politicians may argue, is not "research" at all.

And so we get to the other issue: Job security. Namely, that term that makes every conservative politician shutter: tenure. Tenure, people like Texas businessman Jeff Sandefer (who wrote a policy paper for Perry), argue "places too much emphasis on research. To be promoted, faculty must publish original work. As a result, they spend less time in the classroom and often delegate teaching to graduate students" ("Liberal Arts"). Agreeing with this sentiment, former Wall Street Journal Editor Naomi Riley claims, "there really needs to be a refocus on the students in front of you [. . .] They use the people at the bottom to do the teaching" ("Liberal Arts").

Ok, so, the logic is that by abolishing tenure, professors will focus less on research and more on students, which will somehow help produce jobs? But, again, I ask, are the courses that "Science and Math" students take going to help create jobs or simply qualify them for jobs that already exist? Is it not the case that abolishing research (in the sciences) will not allow such benefits of research that should eventually benefit our society?

Riley (Naomi Riley, above--not me--god I'm embarrassed that I have the same name as this person) claims that " top professors produce the kind of work that ensures job security, making tenure irrelevant" ("Liberal Arts"). But as many better and more qualified writers than me have pointed out, tenure is less about merely "job security" and more about academic freedom (see Cary Nelson) . Academic freedom allows professors to inquire and research into what they want to research in. It allows academics to research topics that may not align itself with certain ideologies or market imperatives, thus allowing the research (ideally) to be less influenced by people who, say, might threaten their livelihood if they don't produce the right results. This freedom is just as important in the sciences as it is in the humanities (think climate change research). Thus, tenure is not irrelevant, because it keeps people like Rick Scott from getting rid of departments that don't seem to be doing the right kind of research that supports a particular conception of a university's purpose.

So who is focusing on our students? Well, first off, tenured professors. In the English department, our faculty not only prolifically produce research, but most are teaching undergraduate courses in English. So the fact is, faculty, at least in the Humanistic disciplines, are focusing on undergraduates. Furthermore, it is true that a lot of our basic "survey" courses in English are taught by Ph.D. candidates. My question is, how exactly are we the ones "at the bottom" as if we were completely unprepared to handle undergraduates? Why can't we think about these people positively as those "future professors"?

If teaching in the Humanities is less about merely "transferring" knowledge--if teaching is instead about a co-creation of meaning and knowledge, about facilitating and creating conditions inside and outside the classroom for students to explore and learn, then how does a Ph.D. qualify me any more or less to teach survey courses in English, or, as I do, composition courses? A Ph.D. would qualify me as an expert in my field in research. This is why tenured faculty do research as well as teach.

Clearly, although the politicians try and justify what they do through utilitarian arguments about jobs and the functioning of society, this kind of thinking is an attack on thinking that disrupts the status quo's values. Although I am not someone who believes that my writing heralds the coming revolution or creates the possiblity for utopia, my research and thinking that I do in graduate classes produces the ideas and attitudes that I teach even in my composition class. For me, as for those like Blanchot, writing is disrupting and ambiguous. I would extend that and say that the "humanities" are ambiguous--even the status of humanistic "knowledge" is ambiguous. We deal in questions of value, questions of value that sometimes exceed immediate market gain or merely economic progress in terms of jobs. However, I would argue that it is precisely creative, innovative, and resistant thinking--in whatever discipline--that creates jobs and, ultimately, new human possibilities.By eliminating fields of knowledge,  we close down the possible and, perhaps, more importantly, the (im)possible.  As Jacques Derrida writes,

"I will speak of an event that, without necessarily coming about tomorrow, would remain perhaps--and I underscore perhaps--to come; to come through the university, to come about and to come through it, thanks to it" (Derrida 213).

Works Cited

Taking the liberal arts out of a state university education?

Derrida, Jacques and Peggy Kamuf. "The University Without Condition." Without Alibi. California: Stanford University Press, 2002. Print.

Synthesis Outline

Technology's Peril and Potential 

I. Introduction

       Introduces context

       Summary of texts

       Synthesizing thesis 

II. Compare and contrast of text's "problem" focus

      provides examples and elaboration

III. Compare and contrast text's "response" to this problem

      provides examples and evidence to support point

IV. Synthesis on "moral" questions

      Provides examples from own life/student's "own" thinking

V. Conclusion: reiteration of points, shifting to "we," offers reflection on "warnings" of technology. 

This is a basic outline of the article I sent you all as an example. Again, I'd like to reiterate that you can use these three texts in different ways in order to get your point across. However, the main thing I will be looking at in this synthesis is the flow/structure of the argumentation. I want you to "get somewhere" in the paper.

DFW blogs and Future Synthesis

A lot of you definitely got what DFW was saying in the commencement speech. I realize that this was the "easiest" piece we have read because it was originally given orally and it is a genre that we are all familiar with. Freire's work in particular is of a "theoretical/philosophical" genre that makes it more difficult to comprehend and Rodriguez's was a lengthy scholarly essay.

In your syntheses, it will be really important to not merely erase the several differences among these 3 articles. Indeed, I would recommend that you discuss the three articles in a particular order, showing their relations through making your own argument. Many of you seem to be partial to DFW's point, which is fine. One of the best ways to actually write something meaningful is looking at each piece as a "challenge" to the other. I would argue that much of Freire's piece challenges DFW's piece in ways that we have not explicitly discussed.

The best way to do this is to pay close attention to each of the texts. It will be imperative that you move past summary into more close reading. You will most likely  have to re-read Freire (and Rodriguez) since they have probably faded a bit from your mind.

David Foster Wallace

"I just think that fiction that doesn't explore what it means to be human today isn't art"

short and sweet today. Can't concentrate. Looking forward to seeing what you all wrote about the speech!

"Applying" Knowledge

A lot of you have talked about how we need to learn how to "apply" knowledge rather than just merely learn facts. But is the issue merely one of "application?" Application seems to imply knowledge as something we "use." Indeed, I tend to use the phrase "tool for thinking" when I discuss the ways your book frames the writing process.

However, is there a kind of knowledge that resists use? In a world where everything is in an instrumental relationship with everything else, in a world where our lives operate smoothly and without a hitch, is there room for disruption? Is there room for knowledge, attitudes, or skills that resist this dominant way of engaging with the world?

Is this not what Freire seeks? Knowledge that resists those that oppress others? "The problem-posing method presents this very situation ["the situation within which [we] are submerged"] to them as a problem." Indeed, it is our very situation, our very condition, our very "natural" attitudes and practices that become problematic--that become an invitation to change and resistance.


Food for thought.

Synthesis of Green Day and Toby Keith

In class today, we discussed both these videos, addressing themes such as the enemy (from within or externally), the American Flag, colors of the video, and mediation.

I'd like to "synthesis" Keith's video with another analysis I may have mentioned in class: nocaptionneeded's discussion of the amount of flags shown in a particular photo.

http://www.nocaptionneeded.com/2011/09/inflating-the-na

 

In this post, titled "Inflating the National Value," the author argues that "What the photograph reminds us is that as with the effects of inflation on the dollar, the flag simply doesn’t buy as much as it used to.  And more, that at some deep level we know that but don’t want to admit it."

We may be able to understand these two videos in terms of this claim. Green Day acknowledges the kind of "artificiality" of the flag--the flag is just paint as it is in Jasper Johns' famous work. Keith's video only tacitly acknowledges the "inflation" of the flag because in order to get its point across, the video feels the need to barrage us with various images of the flag: the flag on his guitar, the flag on his head, the flag in the photos, the insane amount of flags in the background on the screen, and, finally, the sort of "subliminal message" flashing of the flag toward the end of the video (between other images).

This is precisely the kind of "propaganda" and control by the media that Green Day is attempting to point out. Green Day acknowledges the artificiality of even the music video, as we see a moment where we can see a video camera filming the band (through yet another video camera). Ironically, the flag in this video comes to stand for "more" (as a painted, and ultimately, erasable flag) than the barrage of patriotism in the Toby Keith video, where the flag has become something we can possess and control (in the form of a guitar, in the form of mini-flag int he audience, etc.

By becoming a ubiquitous commodity, the flag is de-valued such that it needs to be repeated and flown in our face over and over again to get the same effect. And yet, the effect the flag has on this viewer is that the overkill of the flag reveals the video's artificiality. In the same way, we see that the photographs that supposedly show some sort of authentic past or the "live concert" atmosphere that shows a connection between audience and performer are all mediated and artificial. The photographs are presented as a computer-generated slideshow and the "live" concert is not "live" at all because there are several concerts spliced together under a unified (recorded) song.

There's more that can be thought here and I welcome comments, questions, and further interpretations/connections.

Synthesis Prezi

Synthesizing Ideas on Prezi

Philosophical Background to "Banking Concept"

Throughout this post I have provided several links to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entries on these major philosophers. I strongly encourage you to explore these pages and prepare to be perplexed at some of the most original thinkers in human history.


Rene Descartes

 

"Cogito Ergo Sum"

I refer you to the the Standford encyclopedia of Philosophy for a more thorough overview of Descarte's philosophy.

Descartes is famous for his "cogito, ergo sum," meaning "I think, therefore I am." This identified the "real" part of the self as the mind and not the body. The body, for Descartes, is a mechanism controlled by the mind. Descartes had a strange idea that the mind was connected to the body by the "pineal" gland in our body. The "mind" for Descartes is also related to what we might call "soul" to use more theological term (its important to note that Descartes is not an atheist and has involved "proofs" for the existence of God based on his philosophy).

For our purposes, we need to realize that for a strict Cartesian the body is part of the world which are "objects" and we, as thinkers, are "subjects." I mentioned the correspondence theory of truth, which means that we need to attach ideas that we have "in our minds" to objective reality "out there." Descartes was a rationalist which means that we did not get our "ideas" from the external world. Rather, our ideas come from our reason.

Edmund Husserl and Phenomenology

Edmund Husserl was a German philosopher responsible for the philosophical movement phenomenology. The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy defines phenomenology as

"the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. The central structure of an experience is its intentionality, its being directed toward something, as it is an experience of or about some object. An experience is directed toward an object by virtue of its content or meaning (which represents the object) together with appropriate enabling conditions." (see above link)

For our purposes, we need to note that phenomenology tries to understand the mind and the body (and the world) for that matter as inextricably intertwined with one another. We are embodied beings and what we called the "world" is not some objective reality "out there" but is created through our experience of the "phenomenon of the world." In contrast, Descartes believed that the mind could be "disembodied" and it would still constitute a subject. Phenomenology led to Sartrean Existential Phenomenology, a major influence on Paulo Freire.


"Intentionality":  "The central structure of an experience is its intentionality, the way it is directed through its content or meaning toward a certain object in the world."

Heidegger

 

We "intend" toward objects because they have meaning for us in the world.


Heidegger, Sartre, and Existentialism'

Jean-Paul Sartre

Existentialism is a difficult term to define. As I said in class, we could define it along with Sartre as "Existence Precedes Essence." Or, we could, along with the Stanford Encyclopedia designate it as "“Existentialism”, therefore, may be defined as the philosophical theory which holds that a further set of categories, governed by the norm of authenticity, is necessary to grasp human existence."

However, I would prefer to look at some of the basic ideas/revolutions in thinking of two major thinkers: Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger

Heidegger

If we remember from above, Husserl claimed that we "intend toward objects" in the world based on the meaning they have for us. Existentialism is a philosophy that speaks about the meaning of human existence and not merely the "fact" of it. As Freire writes, the "Banking concept" does not take into account the meaning of information:

"The outstanding characteristic of this narrative education, then, is the sonority of words, not their transforming power [. . .] the student records, memorizes, and repeats these phrases without perceiving what four times four really means or realizing the true significance of 'capital' in the affirmation 'the capital of Para is Belem" (Freire 318).

A very basic way to understand Heidegger's revolution in thinking is that he thinks about objects as intended objects and affirms that this is the more "essential" way we relate to the world. In other words, we relate to the world not in terms of objects "facts" but what we do with the objects and others that surround us.

The famous example is a hammer. We orient ourselves toward the hammer in order to, for instance, hammer in a nail. We do not see the hammer as an indifferent object, we see it as a tool for use. Heidegger calls this "ready-to-hand" rather than "present-at-hand." Heidegger argues that this is the first way we are in the world. The world is meaningful for us we do not "add" meaning onto an object (as if it were a "quality" added to a "substance").

The "world" is not an objective existence "out there" but rather something formed out of language and meaning. Without man (what Heidegger calls Dasein) there is not world (see Freire pg 325).

Sartre

Sartre's mantra is about human action tranforming the world. We are both "free possibility" and what he calls "facticity." Drawing on Heidegger, we are both "free" and situated. We have many possibilities but we are located in a history (individual and collective). Thus, the situation calls for action from the human subject. For Sartre, the world challenges us to respond and it is only by this response that we in turn act on the world and become.

The relevant idea in Sartre is that if we think that we are "completely free" or "completely determined" we are in what he calls "bad faith." Sartre offers some very concrete examples of what it means to be in "bad faith"


"Sartre cites a café waiter, whose movements and conversation are a little too "waiter-esque". His voice oozes with an eagerness to please; he carries food rigidly and ostentatiously. His exaggerated behaviour illustrates that he is play acting as a waiter, as an object in the world: an automaton whose essence is to be a waiter. But that he is obviously acting belies that he is aware that he is not (merely) a waiter, but is rather consciously deceiving himself.^[1]

Another of Sartre’s examples involves a young woman on a first date. She ignores the obvious sexual implications of her date's compliments to her physical appearance, but accepts them instead as words directed at her as a human consciousness. As he takes her hand, she lets it rest indifferently in his, refusing either to return the gesture or to rebuke it. Thus she delays the moment when she must choose either to acknowledge and reject his advances, or submit to them. She conveniently considers her hand only a thing in the world, and his compliments as unrelated to her body, playing on her dual human reality as a physical being, and as a consciousness separate and free from this physicality.^[2]

Sartre tells us that by acting in bad faith, the waiter and the woman are denying their own freedom, but actively using this freedom itself. They manifestly know they are free but do not acknowledge it. Bad faith is paradoxical in this regard: when acting in bad faith, a person is both aware and, in a sense, unaware that they are free." (from wikipedia)


Applied to Freire and education, if we believe that our students are "passive" we deny their ability to act freely and transform the world. However, at the same time we have to be aware that each student is coming from their own history and facticity. To quote from Freire:

Accordingly, the point of departure must always be with men and women in the 'here and now', which constitutes the situation within which they are submerged, from which they emerge, and in which they intervene. Only by starting from this situation--which determines their perception of it--can they begin to move. To do this authentically they must perceive their state not as fated and unalterable, but merely as limiting--and therefore challenging (Freire 327)

It is here where Freire begins to define "problem poses education as the "problem of situation." By becoming aware of their situation (coming to consciousness as a class or even as an individual) students are able to realize that the very (historical) situation they find themselves within is a "problem" to be questioned and one to be acted upon.


Hegel and Marx: Transforming History

Karl Marx

G.W.F. Hegel

 Hegel

Marx worked out of the tradition of Hegel, a prolific philosopher who basically thought he had accounted for all of history and human thought. Anyone working in the tradition of "continental philosophy" nowadays is working both with and against Hegel (he is a figure to be reckoned with).

In "The Banking Concept," Freire refers to not Hegel's theory of history (which I very very quickly explained in class today), but Hegel's "master-slave dialectic":  "The students, alienated like the slave in the Hegelian dialectic accept their ignorance as justifying the teacher's existence--but, unlike the slave, they never discover that they educate the teacher" (319). The master-slave dialectic recognizes that the relationship between master and slave is complicated because the master, in order to be a master "needs" the slave (or else, he would not be a master). This example is much more complicated than this, so I refer the interested reader to the wikipedia page for more elaboration.

Marx

 Marx wrote in his Theses on Feuerbach, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."

Indeed, the whole text of the "Theses" is about moving from description of the world to transforming the world as Freire writes in his text:

The world--no longer something to be described with deceptive words--becomes the object of that transforming action by men and women which results in their humanization. (328)

 This is basically what Marx/Freire means by praxis--human action and theory are inevitably intertwined. Theorizing about the world is also acting in the world.

We act in the world and try and transform the world in order to overcome alienation. While "alienation" has some everyday language connotations, Marx is talking about a specific form of alienation--alienation of labor:

It is important to understand that for Marx alienation is not merely a matter of subjective feeling, or confusion. The bridge between Marx's early analysis of alienation and his later social theory is the idea that the alienated individual is ‘a plaything of alien forces’, albeit alien forces which are themselves a product of human action. In our daily lives we take decisions that have unintended consequences, which then combine to create large-scale social forces which may have an utterly unpredicted effect. In Marx's view the institutions of capitalism — themselves the consequences of human behaviour — come back to structure our future behaviour, determining the possibilities of our action. (from Stanford Enyclopedia entry on Marx)

Thus, just as we are alienated from our labor in Marx, so Freire argues that we are alienated from our own education. What is the consequence of this? The Banking Concept of Education.

 Conclusion

I hope I have shown both in and out of class the complex history and background of Freire's thought. It is not merely an exploration of the classroom situation, but the very idea of education and its relation to authority, power, subjectivity, freedom, possibility, and revolution. It is philosophically grounded in Marxist, Existentialist, and Phenomenological thinking.


Despite having spent about an hour on this post, I have only scratched the tip of the iceberg of these thinkers. Without the texts of these philosophers before me, I feel like I have done them a disservice in my explanations, but we have to start somewhere.

"The Banking Concept of Education"

Banking-Concept

Deposit
passive
Teacher as Subject Student as objects
memorization
Student as container
mangageable beings
Being-for-others
Dichotomy between human beings and world
adapting
necrophily
dead knowledge
oppression'
dehumanizing
mythologizing
Authority
Profit (economy)
Alienation

Problem Posing

Creation
Life/biophily
Student-teacher, teacher-student
consciousness
Revolution
transforming
Subject
intentionality
humanizing
critical
Historicality
Situated
Change
De-mythologizing
emancipation
liberation
Being-for-Self
Action
Authenticity
Inquiry

Taxes, Poor People, and the rhetoric of the animal

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Context: Here, John Stewart is criticizing conservatives claim that raising the taxes on the rich would not help balance the budget.

1.) He shows how conservatives contradict themselves when they say that "we have to start somewhere" (meaning cutting programs), but say that raising taxes on the rich will not produce enough revenue to help the budget.  "When its cuts its a million dollars, but when its taxed its 700,000,000 milion dollars. . ."  

2.) Rather than taxing the rich, the conservatives argue that we should consider that "51%" of Americans pay nothing at all. The solution: we should "broaden the base,' which means that we need to make sure everyone pays something in income taxes. This yields the claim: The poor are on a 'free ride'

a sub point that Stewart makes between the main arguments is that these people don't have a job. Furthermore, his rhetoric "esta over" is a (not so) subtle claim that the poor are mexican immigrants (who are purportedly 'taking our jobs away'). This is not so much an argument, but a suggestion by Stewart that the conservatives may be targeting a particular class of people--immigrants. This is significant because immigration is another important issue in today's political climate.

3.) Conservatives: Taxing the 'poor' (euphemistically said 'broaden the base) will help balance the budget.

4.) Stewart: The poor control 2.5% of our nation's wealth. Stewart rounds this figure to about 1.4 trillion dollars "of everything they have on this earth."

5.) Stewart proposes let's take half of that. That's a 50% tax on the poor's income, which is an insane tax rate that would never pass. The conservatives are merely calling for a contribution, but surely even they would not tax 50%!

6.) Half of 1.4 trillion is 700,000,000 ---Where does this number sound familiar?

7.) 700,000,000 dollars is the amount of revenue (within 10 years) that would occur if we raised the tax rate on the top 2% only minimally (at least that's the way I understand it. For more information about this see:  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/politics/obama-tax-plan-would-ask-more-of-millionaires.html?pagewanted=all).

8.) Conservatives claim this is only a "fraction" of the government's budget, but this is precisely the amount that we would be able to generate if we took half of what the nation's poor owned in this world.


So, even if the tax base is "broadened" and everyone pays something (the bottom 50% included), considering that no sane person would consider taxing the poor 50% of what they own, this will generate less revenue in order to balance the budget.


The bottom line: a wavy one at that. . .

Since the conservatives  can no longer appeal to an economic incentive, their argument can only be justified by what one might call "fairness." The question we would then have to ask is, is it fair for the "makers" to carry the "takers" in the society? Is it fair for the rich to be burdened with balancing the budget?

This is a complex question and one that depends on your beliefs of the role of government, the role of business, and the role of the nation's wealthy. As Stewart points out in another segment regarding our "first world" status, we may be considered "third world" in that we have a VERY large gap in income inequality.

Now, the argument we might make is that these "rich" people are job creators and producers in society whereas many of the poor are not. However, we have to ask if our society would even function if all of these people stopped working their more mundane jobs that are supposedly created through the rich's benevolence. Who is more "productive" in society: the cleaning ladies at a hotel or big investors?

I want to make clear that this is not an easy question and it rests on one's values and definitions. However, there does seem to be a kind of misunderstanding or disregard for people we consider poor. Before we claim that it is "unfair" for the rich to carry such a burden, we need to remember that we are not all on an equal playing field. Rather, there are historical circumstances that have advantaged some people at the expense of others. To claim that the status quo is not already implicated in a kind of "class warfare" does not take into account the socio-political history of this country.

Furthermore, the fact that the "poor" have "modern conveniences" just show how necessary it is to have things like cell phones to participate in today's society.

Rhetoric of the Animal

 Indeed, if these people did not have these "modern conveniences" we may consider them more like "animals" because they are still using "primitive" methods. So, it seems as though we are saying that having these modern conveniences doesn't make them any less of an animal. As Stewart points out, this rhetoric is already employed in conservative arguments. The poor are described as:

Parasites
racoons
"irresponsible animals"

Ascribing animals status to those of us who are different than us in order to persecute them is a common tactic when we want to commit some sort of injustice against them. As an analogy, we used the same kind of language to designate Jews (they were "rats") who were destroying the economy. I make this statement NOT to suggest that the conservatives are like "Hitler," but rather that the use of these terms have justified some pretty horrible stuff. I refuse to engage in the hyperbolic rhetoric that calls Obama Hitler or Bush Hitler, but it is a fact that calling the poor "parasites" and "racoons" resonate with historical rhetorical tactics.

Compare this "animal rhetoric" with the way Buffet (and sometimes conservatives) claim they are being treated:

"These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species" (Buffet, "Stop coddling the rich").

Buffet is not the only one to use this rhetoric, as Stewart points out in another segment.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Moneybrawl - The Extinction of Subway, Bill O'Reilly & the Super Rich
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

The Rhetoric of the Endangered Species

So let's recap here. We have a contrast between 2 types of animal:

The Poor are parasites, racoons, , 'animals' (in general) 

These are all animals that we consider "pests" who mooch off those who are "producing." But, of course, we would have to take into account that racoons are only mooching off, say, the middle class, who are not producing that rotten produce that they throw away because its a day old, but bought it at a grocery store. A grocery store that probably shipped that rotten tomato from some poorer country, who are producing the 'produce' we sell in the store.

The Rich are endangered species

Why do we protect endangered species? Do they add something essential to our ecosystem? Have we forgotten the idea of natural selection?

I'd like to suggest that perhaps we protect endangered species because they are beautiful to behold. To be really cynical, its as if we protect them so we have a more diverse zoo for human beings to look at. Endangered species are the "exceptions" to the animal realm--they are the rare ones that are difficult to attain. Sound familiar? Are we creating diversity or are we valuing these animals because they are rare like how we value people of an exceptional nature and in the same way that we except ourselves from the designation "animal"?

To end my exploration, I'd like to return to the response to Warren Buffet's article:

"The best way to balance the budget is for the economy to produce a lot more American success stories like Warren Buffett." (Stephen Moore, "Warren Buffet is wrong on Taxes"). 


Just as we see endangered species as exceptional, rare, and important, we see millionaires/billionaires as exceptional, rare, and important. Why do we look up to these people as if they were superhuman beings? Do we really want to be them?

Sequence versus Structure

When you read "The Banking Concept of Education," I want you to focus on the structure of the argument. This is slightly different from the 'sequence'

The 'sequence' of the argument would be "then Freire argures. . .then this. . .then this. . ." Talking about the "sequence" lends to paraphrasing the entire argument.

Instead, I want you to focus on the structure. So try to focus on how Freire transitions between paragraphs and then how the paragraphs work together to create a linear argument. The question to ask is not "what's next" but why is what's next in that position? Why did F. argue this before this? Are there 'premises' at the beginning that are necessary for F. to argue his further points. What contrasts does F. set up?

Great Student Example of Summary/Analysis

Summary/Analysis of Kanye West’s “Power”

            Rapper Kanye West, well-known for his cleverly-constructed yet controversial song lyrics and videos, compares his rise in the music industry to the rise to the superiority of Greek gods in his video “Power”. In this one minute and forty-three second video, a stern and omnipotent West plays the role of a Greek god as a number of subordinate Athenian characters slowly and gracefully move around him. West, who gradually marches forward in front of the open gates of heaven, exerts dominance and resilience even in the growing presence of these characters, which symbolize what he calls “the cruel world”. In both the lyrics and video, Kanye West reminds critics that his rise to the elite as a rapper has given him such power and responsibility that no one can knock him off his pedestal except for power itself.

Through his body language, Kanye West captures the role and journey he has taken as a song artist. He embodies a tough-as-nails persona through his piercing eyes and bull-like charge in his walk. As West steps forward, he encounters a growing crowd of Athenian figures, most of which are females portrayed as sex symbols. West’s forward walk signifies his ascending toward the pinnacle of his music career. The encounter of the female characters as well as the two male characters that leap in the air and draw their swords refer to the distractions that West himself inevitably faces in his career: women in search of fame, sex, or money; criticism from the media; and feuds with other artists. Just as notable is the placement of the female figures that resemble runway models; West deliberately positions these Athenian female characters below him to indicate that women are inferior to him. Throughout the entire video, West stares straight ahead

at the viewer, paying no attention to the characters surrounding him; by doing so, West insinuates that his focus is on his career and that he will not let anyone keep him from attaining and maintaining success in the music industry.

In addition to body language, Kanye West’s choice of words to describe himself and to address his critics highlights his egocentric personality. West admits that he “embodies every characteristic of the egotistic,” and in the chorus, he refers to himself as a “21^st century schizoid man.” Schizoid, according to the Cleveland Clinic, is a type of personality disorder characterized by aloofness and detachment from others, little desire or enjoyment for close relationships, “difficulty relating to others, indifference towards praise or criticism, and daydreams or vivid fantasies about complex inner lives.” These characteristics may well describe Kanye West, but it is the deliberate insertion of the phrases “embodies every characteristic of the egotistic” and “21^st century schizoid man” that one realizes that West is fully aware of his arrogant, self-centered personality. This awareness empowers him to ward off any form of criticism hurled at him.

 In the music business, great power draws greater scrutiny from the media and the public. As Kanye West points out in his lyrics, many of his critics believe that West is an “abomination of Obama’s nation” or a hated figure in present-day American society.  While such a comment may have at first offended West, West simply shrugs it off and reminds critics that “at the end of the day goddamn it he is killin’ [it]/[he] knows damn well [his critics and supporters] are feelin’ [it].” In other words, despite people’s abhorrence toward him, he continues to excel in both album sales and song charts. His music still resonates with people, and based on his prolonged success in record sales and on billboard charts, people continue to value his music, which is what matters to him most.                                                                                                                       

Finally, in an unexpected turn of events, Kanye West adds a suicidal element to the end of the song when he reiterates that he is “jumping out the window [and] letting everything go”. While West accepts and embraces the power that he has gained through his success as a music artist, West knows that he is vulnerable to the added pressure and scrutiny that comes with power. This overwhelming pressure can eventually lead to the demise of the powerful, but West sees this tragedy as a “beautiful death”. In this paradox, West suggests that there is beauty in the reassuring fact that by achieving success in his career, he has obtained the freedom and power to rid himself of everything he has gained. One may question why West would want to purge himself of his accomplishments. In response, West implies that he is only human and that one can only take so much pressure before he or she can no longer handle the demands of the media and the public, thus leading the almighty to dispose his or her power.

In the video “Power,” Kanye West appears not as a human being but as a god; a force that shows no sign of slowing down or losing strength, but beneath his tough exterior lays this vulnerability that feeds on growing power. As shown in his dominant stride, West, infamous for his detached, self-absorbed personality, embraces his egotism in order to protect himself from those figures—women, critics, foes--that take advantage of him or that wish to see him fail. In the lyrics, West considers himself “chosen” in a “white man’s world”, given the adversities that those particularly in the black community are going through such as poverty, education, and incarceration, and yet he still struggles with his own hardships, including taking on adult responsibilities as a prominent musical figure in society. For West, “reality is catching up with [him] taking [his] inner child [while he is] fighting for custody,” his “inner child” being that comfort zone that allows him to use his imagination and to engage in complex and creative thinking. This obstacle suggests that while Kanye West’s critics are not a major threat to his power, he, however, is.

Summary/Analysis: Reflections

 Organization/Paragraphing
The biggest problem I saw with the summary/analysis was the way paragraphs were formed and organized. Although sentence level issues related to grammar and style were frequent also, they are less important as they can always be fixed and honed.

If you organized your paragraphs as a kind of "chronological" analysis, your paragraphs were uneven and rarely focused on one point. Instead, they drift off in other directions. In order to write about any text, you must be able to create your own "temporality" that you can write within. Your argument should somehow "develop" or "move" and you need to be able to signpost these movements with words like "Although," "However," "But," "In contrast," rather than merely saying "x" represents this. Although this may be a great way to take notes (simply moving through the video and interpreting all the images), it produces a disorganized and non-unified paper.

I suspect that some of this stems from your wish to speak in terms of "symbolizing." Now, I am not saying in the least that there are not symbols within the Kanye West video (Sword of Damocles, Horus Chain, daggers,etc), but you have to be able to say something with these symbols more explicitly than that they "relate" to power. When discussing things" symbolically, it seems as though you think that the argument does not have to move linearly in some sort of logical progression. Furthermore, its important to show how these symbols connect with each other. These images cannot be interpreted in isolation of one another--they are all part of the same 'image'/painting/video.

 You have to decide what your paragraphs will be "about"--this is what teachers have meant by "topic sentence" and then you can take paragraphs, move them around, and think about how to transition between them. What is the connection between one paragraph and the next? What is the connection between a paragraph on the women surrounding Kanye and the men that replace them? Is it one of contrast? analogy? etc. etc.

This "movement" of paragraphs  is what Bartholomae and Petrosky mean by writers "punctuating" essays. We will talk more about this as we move through the other texts we will be using.

Sentence-Level issues


A couple of common ones:

• avoid "you" as much as possible
• avoid using contractions (don't, can't, etc.) in any formal writing--it sounds too colloquial 
• check for unneeded words and passive voice. Examples of unneeded words are intensifying adverbs and adjectives  like "completely," "obviously," "clearly," "very," "really." 
• Unneeded passive voice--this only obscures what you are trying to say (or poorly masks that you have nothing to say)

Argument

 Prezi: 

Classical Argument on Prezi

Syllogisms and Enthymemes

I hope you all enjoyed your little logic lesson in Syllogisms and enthymemes. Just to review, I will post an example of the syllogism I wrote on the board today in class.

Major Premise
Minor Premise
Conclusion

A is B
B is C
Therefore, A is C

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal

Enthymeme:  A syllogism that is missing one of its premises, which assumes an underlying connection between the first and third premise.


Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal.  The implied premise here being all men are mortal.

The "underlying assumption" is the point I wanted to get across most forcefully in class today. An underlying assumption tends to be a value held by a particular audience or group of people. By identifying these values, one can understand where an argument is coming from. Attacking the underlying assumptions is a great way to attack an argument!

An underlying assumption in a lot of arguments can be framed as an imperative, that is, as what one "should" or "ought" to do. 

For example, in 3rd period class, we did an exercise (on pg 345) "Creating argument schemas.

Claim with reason: We should buy a hybrid car rather than an SUV with a HEMI engine bceaues doing so will help the world save gasoline.

underlying assumption: we should save gasoline (even more specific: we should help the world conserve gasoline). Or, "saving gasoline is good" (the "good" and the "should" sort of amount to the same thing here)

Taxing the Rich--Readings for Friday

Class,

Please print out these articles and read them through for FRIDAY. We will talk about the strengths and weaknesses of these two writer's arguments.

The Warren Buffet Controversy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?ref=opinion

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903999904576466541882356616.html

Peer Review Process

This first 30 minutes of class will be silent. We will not talk to the person who has our draft. We will keep reading, re-reading, and writing notes that will help us discuss the draft.

I. Exchange drafts with a partner

II. Read Draft once all the way through, marking only places that you are confused are are particularly good (without comments)

III. Identify and write down what you consider their "thesis sentence." Now rephrase their thesis in your own words. If you cannot find a thesis, mark that.

III. Identify 4 things:

1.) At least one spot in the draft you are reading where you were confused; explain why in "readerly" terms ("I was confused when. . .because. . ." rather than "your sentences are confusing)

2.) At least one place where the ideas seem "thin" and may need more development/elaboration

3.) At least one place where you do not see the significance of what the other person is saying--why is it there? so what?

4.) At least one place where you could play "devil's advocate" or 'object' to the writer's ideas.

IV. Check for grammar/spelling/syntax errors.

V. Edit for "style" (if you think things can be said better).

VI. Write a final "summary" of the review. What are its "strong points" what are its "weak points" Make two-three suggestions for revision.

For the remaining 15-20 minutes of class, discuss your notes on the student's draft. This is also the time when you can raise your hand and ask me questions.

PETA is freaking nuts

Thanks to Frank Carleton for posting this about the lengths PETA will go to get people to go veggie:

http://news.yahoo.com/peta-plans-porn-website-promote-message-171544732.html

Richard Rodriguez's "The Achievement of Desire"

Today, we had a couple of really great discussions about this essay. Mostly we focused on "content" oriented comments rather than form, but this is a great essay for students to relate personally to. My hope is that the essay resonated in a way that Biss may not have as all of you are currently involved in separating from your parents, whether or not they are like Rodriguez's parents.

In the first section, I forced all of you to talk for 15 minutes (you talked for 25) without me saying a word. I was impressed by the class's ability to mediate and facilitate their own discussion! I want to do more of this because I believe in fostering conversation among students and not just addressing me as the teacher-as-judge "well yes, that is very interesting, but. . ."

I hope that writing for a bit at the beginning of class helps you all have something to say--these essays are hard to hold in one's head. Furthermore, you may be able to just transfer some of that stuff to your blog!

We talked about several things:

• The difference between college and high school with regard to parents expectation
•  
• The idea that Rodriguez was "bookish" but not necessarily a good reader
•  
• How we tend to get "lost" in reading and questioning whether the kids of today have a harder time reading because of the various distractions. 
•  
• Personal connections with trying to balance your family's culture/language and the "educated" language one learns in college. How one's family can seem "ignorant" but not "stupid." This comes with a sense of guilt.
• 
  
• I think it was Shirley who said something about being the "translator" for one's family and how frustrating that can be. "Why don't you just learn English?"
• 
  
• Katie discussed how she could not imagine a childhood without reading with her parents. We found that not everyone had that luxury. 

In the other class, because of the set-up, we were unable to do the same activity, which is unfortunate. Katie, Micole, and Brianna discussed how Rodriguez's experience reminded them a lot of Matilda (a great movie and a good connection!)


Elina discussed how she understands where Rodriguez is coming from because english is her 3rd language (which astounds me given Elina's mastery of spoken English!).


Zach talked about how some people have the opposite experience of Rodriguez--where many kids who have "genius" parents (a word that Micole used to describe her parents) cannot or do not want to live up to that (or feel like they HAVE to). This can also present problems. This reminds me of Laura's point (in the other class) that since her dad is an engineer, she can do complex physics problems with him in a way that may isolate other members of her family.


Arti asked a question about Rodriguez's capitalization of Romantics. I explained that the Romantics are a literary/artistic movement. Poets include Shelly, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Goethe (German), Edgar Allen Poe, etc. There are also Romantic painters. Romantics tended to praise the working-class and, as Rodriguez argues, because it is "and adult way of life."


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


For my blog today, I want to talk about some of the rhetorical techniques Rodriguez uses to write about his experience.


1.) Repetition


Rodriguez repeats several phrases throughout the text, the most significant one being "Your parents must be proud." Why does he repeat this phrase? I see two reasons: First, he hears it over and over again so he mirrors that fact in his prose. Second, he wants to show how that phrase constantly has changed meaning with the context in which it was spoken. At first, he has an answer, but then he is not so sure.


2.) Incorporating other people's language into his prose


Beginning with the above phrase, we notice that Rodriguez quotes people so as to make his essay more like a narrative. Sometimes these are explicit, such as "Hey Four Eyes!" and when he tells his father "I'll try to figure it out some more by myself" (516).


But other times, he puts the discourse in parantheses. examples: ("Your parents must be proud. . ."), his father's words, for instance when Rodriguez is explaining his father's past: "He had great expectations then of becoming an engineer. ("Work for my hands and my head")" (522). The reader can assume that this is how is father speaks and explains his choices. Another example might be helpful here: "Later he became a dental technician. ("Simple")" (522).

We get the sense that his father is a man of few words. This recalls for me Rodriguez's interest in the "complex sentences" of his teacher rather than the "Sentences of astonishing simplicity" that seemed lifeless (525). Perhaps his father's discourse is like the lifeless, simple sentences? Contrast his mother and father's discourse with the big, bloc quotes from Hoggart's text, filled with complex sentences. What is the effect of Rodriguez incorporating quoted lines from people he describes? Why does it have this effect?


 3.) Varying sentence length (sometimes breaking conventions): "I kept so much, so often, to myself. Sad. Enthusiastic. Troubled by the excitement of coming upon new ideas [. . .] Alone for hours. Enthralled. Nervous." (520).

Why these one word sentences? Is Rodriguez here struggling to describe his emotions?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is left out?

What is left out is more traces of his Hispanic origins! We have two spanish words cited, both from his mother and father, in the entire essay.

gringos (520) (although, for some reason, this word is not in quotation marks. Rather, the word in quotation marks is "shown." Why is that? I'm not sure) Denotes foreignness--particularly people from the United States.

iPochos! (519)

What is a Pocho? (and why the I? is this a grammatical construction particular to Spanish?)  How does this word, this one Spanish word, relate to the whole essay? Why is it that he only uses these two Spanish words?

I looked it up--will you?