Discourse Communities

Even though this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I like to start my blogs off with a little check-in so that you guys have an idea of what frame of mind I'm in while writing my response. Not two hours ago I spilled water on my laptop and it won't turn on, so now I'm sitting in the computer lab at the library pounding on the keyboard as fast as I can so that I might finish this blog and start studying for midterms. This week just got a whole lot more stressful.

Given my hurried nature, I have made the executive decision to skim the Swales article rather than giving it an in-depth look. One common theme seems to be that nobody has an ideal definition for discourse community. This is strange to me considering there are six defining characteristics. I feel like somebody smart should have come up with one by now. The definition of discourse is "written or spoken communication or debate", and the three best definitions of community are "a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common", "a feeling of fellowship with others, as a result of sharing common attitudes, interests, and goals", and "Community is an American television sitcom created by Dan Harmon that premiered on NBC on September 17, 2009". Can I just write the rest of this blog on the show??? That would be so much easier.

Thanks, Chang. So, Community is a comedy set at a community college in the fictional town of Greendale, Colordao, and follows a group of.... Alright I'm done, back to thinking. If you look at the definitions and combine them, a discourse community is a group of people with similar characteristics who communicate shared ideas and attitudes to achieve a common goal. I'm not sure if this is entirely accurate, but I think its the closest I'm going to get and seems to fit all six characteristics.

Having played and watched sports my entire life, the first example of a discourse community that comes to mind is a team. I will use a basketball team as an example and go through all six defining characteristics. First, a discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals. The main common goal for a team, obviously, is to win. You will rarely find a player who does not want to win, unless they are solely interested in padding their statistics, in which case they are playing for the wrong reason. More specifically, the goal is to win enough to make it to the next round of play, which in this case would be the playoffs and then the championship. Secondly, a discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members. For a basketball team, it is important to establish at least a basic level of camaraderie so that the players will mesh and stay on the same page. The players must be able to communicate with each other in a way that is specific to what they want to accomplish. This is where the coach comes in to play. The coach will go over certain plays in practice with specific names, and later tell the players to run said plays in game. In all likelihood, the other team will be caught off guard because they are not a part of the same discourse community.

As for the third characteristic, discourse communities use their participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback. The only way for a team to get better is for them to improve on their mistakes. This is where practice comes in, and even more specifically, the film room. Coaches will sit their players down and go over film of previous games in order to point out errors and explain how to fix them. This feedback allows the team to focus more energy on specific areas that need improvement, therefore increasing the chances of winning games to come. Fourth, a discourse community utilizes and hence posses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims. Teams communicate using many different genres, including informal oral instruction, the use of written gameplans or playbooks, and video playbacks. Each one of these has the potential to help contribute to a team's goal of winning. The fifth characteristic boldly proclaims that a discourse community has acquired some sort of lexus. Given that the average NBA salary is $5,323,789, this is an easily attainable requirement in the realm of professional basketball, but might not be quite as feasible for some communities. Why this was included as a defining characteristic is escaping me, and leads me to question Swale's motives.

Last but not least, a discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise. Most teams are selected by the "tryout" format in which a large group of players showcase their skills before a coach, and the coach selects the players he wants on the team. As a result, teams normally consist of experienced competitors who know what they are doing on the court.

Even though I had a pretty elementary understanding of what a discourse community is going in to this blog, relating it to something familiar helped me to create a clearer picture. This blog actually took me longer to write than intended, but that's ok because I enjoyed temporarily distracting myself from the $1,000 I just lost as the result of knocking over a cup. I hope you guys enjoy reading this blog almost as much as I enjoy researching new laptops while simultaneously attempting to study for two exams. Cheers!

Opinions

Given that its Sunday, most of my day has revolved amount me stocking up on groceries and watching football and gearing up for classes tomorrow and being tired. That being said, my thoughts might be a bit more scattered and the point a little less clear but the great part about a blog is that it doesn't matter.

In one way, I'm happy that most of the articles are politically based because I'm interested in politics and I'm not as informed this year as I should be or want to be. In another way, this election is such a cluster f that its hard to know what sources to trust.

Similar to what Tali Sharot and Cass R. Sunstein stated in "Why Facts Don't Unify Us", the media has created an absurd amount of polarization this election. Both candidates are being demonized to an extreme without much coverage regarding actual policies or why each candidate would be a good fit for office. This is why I enjoyed reading the aforementioned article, as well as "Trump's history of corruption" by Paul Waldman. Both covered topics that go against the norm and bring up ideas not generally discussed by the mainstream media. Sharot and Sunstein create both ethos and logos by including several statistics and studies in their article. This way the audience knows that the assertions aren't solely opinion based and actually hold some water. I thought that it was a bit lacking in pathos, however, as there didn't seem to be much emotional drive. It was a pretty steady, factual piece that brought up some great points but honestly didn't feel that personal. Waldman, on the other hand, went with a much different approach. He appealed to the readers' emotions by detailing Donald Trump's blatant history of corruption and why we should be enraged that Hillary is receiving anywhere near the amount of flack as him. Flip the coin and you'll see that his article did not include many statistics to back up his claims, making it difficult for me to see him as a credible author with carefully researched examples. This isn't to say he made everything up, just that I thought the piece needed a little more reinforcement.

The last article I read in the way of op-eds was "Criminal rape cases should not be on a ticking clock" by Gloria Allred. What interested me most about this article was that it seems like a large majority of people would completely agree with the argument that Allred is making. Why would you ever put a time limit on how long somebody has to press rape charges? It seems to me that 95% of people who aren't rapist defendants would agree with this assertion. However, it also seems like most people (myself included) would be completely oblivious to this problem in the first place. Even though my core beliefs weren't swayed in any way, this op-ed introduced me to a new way of thinking about our legal system and what changes need to be made.

As for JSTOR, I read "How Does the Language of Headlines Work?", "Viral Black Death", and "Where American Public Schools Came From". These articles went more in-depth and utilized more research and examples to get their points across. Being a fan of history (I know, common theme in this class), I thoroughly enjoyed reading about the roots of our public school system. The article was very brief, but not to a fault. The writing was concise and painted a clear picture in my mind regarding the evolution at hand. Although only one source was used, the piece was pretty much a history lesson and only needed one to get its point across, in my opinion. The other two were longer, more example-filled commentaries, one relating to an extremely poignant current event and the other a look into the world of headlines. I believe both of these articles did an especially good job utilizing all three of the Big 3: ethos, logos, and pathos. They both used colorful language to stress the importance of each topic, while maintaining credibility through the use of research and examples. Like "Criminal rape cases should not be a ticking clock", I gained insightful knowledge surrounding important topics, without the pieces being overly opinionated.

Overall, while both genres were equally enjoyable for me to read, there were some clear differences. The op-eds were much shorter and more opinionated, while utilizing a more casual approach. The JSTOR Daily articles had a more academic feel to them and relied less heavily on opinions. I think both are important, effective ways of communicating thoughts and ideas relevant to today. The op-eds are great discussion starters and ways for people to gain a perspective contrary to their own, while JSTOR offers a more scholarly way of gathering facts that might support or disprove an argument at hand. I must say, I enjoyed this week's reading far more than last week's and hope to further spark my curiosity by diving deeper into these genres.

Genres

Reading Ms. Devitt's article on genre was eye-opening for two different reasons. First, it was written quite eloquently and was a bit hard for me to follow at times due to my limited writing experience and lack of knowledge regarding genre. Second, I have never thought about genre in such an expansive way. Most people, including myself, see the word "genre" and think about either movies or music. I know what my favorite movie genre is: Comedy. I know what my favorite music genres are: Rock and alternative. But I have never considered other types of genres, particularly those involving the written word. In turn, the importance (or futility, depending on how you look at it) of teaching several different types of genres has never crossed my mind. While I agree that it might be difficult for a teacher to effectively convey the ins and outs of more than one unique style, rather than simply teaching the boring five-paragraph essay, I believe that our education system should expand upon what it exposes students to. We aren't effectively training our writing skills to be proficient in multiple different settings. I would rather practice crafting poems, conveying my thoughts through journal writing, learning how to construct a sentence that flows but still maintains conciseness, and creating fictitious narratives that satisfy the creative side of my mind. The concept of how to write a persuasive essay or a research paper has been embedded into my mind, while other, more enjoyable, forms of expression have not. Again, this is why I am excited to be taking an RWS class that does not follow the same stale formula.

Genres create identities for people. For example, somebody who writes a long, dry, detailed research paper and publishes it for outside critique is creating a professional, scholarly moniker for themselves. They want to be seen as relevant and credible. On the other hand, when using the genre of informal communication that has become so popular in the last number of years, we want to be seen as friendly, clever, understanding, and polite. When I refer to informal communication I am talking about text messaging and emailing. These two digital platforms for interaction continue to dominate, especially among the younger population.

Depending on who is being addressed, text messaging allows the user to create their own informal identity. Oftentimes, this identity is much closer to the actual nature of the user than that created by a structured, five paragraph essay. By the same token, it is possible that extensive text messaging has hindered our ability to form coherent, relevant thoughts and trained us to use improper grammar and punctuation. Another form of cyber-communication is electronic mail, a genre that is commonly utilized in a more formal setting. Although some choose to send emails in the same way they might word a text, it is clear that a teacher is more likely to boost your grade if your plea isn't a slang ridden mess. Through email, we create a cleaner, more composed alternative to our text message identities. 

Through her essay "Teaching Critical Genre Awareness", Amy Devitt attempts to show us that genre is not simply black and white. There isn't one specific way of teaching it, and rarely does a genre simply materialize without having grown from another one. Genres morph from culture to culture, shaped by differing ideals and values but coming from the same foundation. Devitt challenges us to study and teach the intricacies of genre so that we might expand our views not only on the written word, but on culture as a whole. In the end, everything seems to come back to music for me. I know it may be a cliché way to analyze genre, but the cultural impact that music has had on the world is immense. Music is, and always has been, a way for people and cultures to express themselves in a way unique to where they come from. I used to scoff at genres of music that I didn't initially like, wondering how somebody could listen to something so different from what I'm used to. But it doesn't matter if the sounds are foreign and the language is different, there are people out there who connect with that genre and draw enjoyment from listening to it. Differing styles of music bring out contrasting emotions within every single one of us, similar to writing genres, movie genres, book genres, and pretty much anything else you can think of. Its all about perspective.