Defining a Network

In class on Tuesday, in response to Mark C. Taylor’s chapter from The Moment of Complexity, we tried to categorize different types of writing into either “grid” or “network.” Initially, one would think that academic writing, what I always think of as English essays or research papers, belongs under grid because it follows Taylor’s definition of an assembly line: “Separate individuals, entities, and events are joined in a predictable chain where effects are proportional to causes” (Taylor 29). In order to produce a piece of academic writing, the author must follow certain guidelines and the paper is almost always organized in the same way. However, especially if one looks at research papers, it is difficult to say that academic writing belongs only in the “grid” category. For one, several people might contribute to a paper, either through writing or editing, or references could be added to the end, which can be considered “network” attributes.

It is easy to classify non-traditional writing, such as blogs and wikis, as belonging to the “network” category, because they often seem so different from academic writing. The fact that they contain links to other people or other sites is what sets them apart. However, blogs and wikis still have a certain form, and they usually have to follow grammatical guidelines. Should they also be considered grid-like?

I think that we should just forget about trying to categorize writing as either grid or network because there is no clean break. However, I think that looking at the idea of emergence, brought up by Duncan Watts in Six Degrees, is a good way to determine what could be considered a network. Watts says that “emergence” comes about when “the interactions of individuals in a large system can generate greater complexity than the individuals themselves display, and sometimes much less” (Watts 27). In class, it was brought up that neurons working together in the brain, or the expression of several genes to create a functioning organism, are examples of where emergence is happening. Individual behavior aggregates to collective behavior, without one individual standing out as the leader. Maybe I just like this idea of emergence because there was a way to tie genetics into it, and I’m a genetics major, but I think that it really shows the importance of the idea of a network.

If you look specifically at blogging in this class, my individual post is connected to the posts of everyone else, and all of our separate ideas come together in the network in hopes of obtaining a higher level of understanding. This would not happen in a regular English class where all of our assignments would be turned in directly to the instructor. Let’s just hope that our network can create “greater complexity,” that Watts wrote about, instead of something “less.”

Attempt at Writing Cool

This is going to be interesting…

Today in my genetics lecture, my professor mentioned that bananas are going to become extinct in less than 10 years. These beloved fruits are no longer resistant to several diseases and pathogens due to years of genetic engineering so that consumers can get bigger and sterile (seed-less) bananas to go with their ice cream. However, the rhetoric my genetics textbook uses suggests that fruits were originally genetically engineered to help world hunger. And that world hunger, in Faigley’s opinion, is caused by the fact that we are consuming our resources too quickly because of our technological-based, fast-paced lives. It is basically a never ending circle: we try to use new technologies to fix problems, but that just creates more problems, which we then try to fix. And uniform circular motion has constant velocity and centripetal acceleration… I tried to get physics in there, but it doesn’t really relate…

"New Media" in the English Classroom

The majority of my experience with “academic writing” comes from high school. I wrote a few papers for various social science classes, but most of the things I wrote were focused on analyzing literature for English class. Most of the essays were structured the same: five paragraphs with a thesis statement in the introduction and a conclusion. For AP English we wrote so many practice AP test essays that were all exactly the same (pick two elements of style in the passage and describe them in a four paragraph essay), so for any other “writing” assignments my teacher gave us a variety of mediums to use. For a couple of assignments we could make videos, compile an album of songs, or make a PowerPoint. I liked the different options we were allowed to explore because they were a nice departure from monotonous essays.

I think that by introducing “new media” into English classrooms, as my AP English teacher started to do, it would allow student to further explore aspects of literature and composition. It would definitely “challenge” traditional writing because it would help to get students more excited about assignments if they are allowed to choose different methods and be more creative. Also, as Jeff Rice described in “Networks and New Media,” which we discussed on Tuesday, different forms of media will allow students to make more and different connections and relationships that simply writing on paper does not provide.

Another benefit to introducing “new media” is that it will give students invaluable skills and experience with up-and-coming technologies that they will be able to utilize as they enter the workforce.

However, I think there are several risks that come with introducing new media into the classroom. I’ll admit that when I first heard that we were going to be using blogs and web design in this class, I almost switched. I have never been computer-savvy (my laptop and I often get in heated arguments, and I usually lose), and I was afraid I was not going to be prepared. Most people still think of English class as a course focused on writing or typing papers and I think it is going to take a while to change this misconception.

Also, especially at the college-level, students have a mosaic of different experience levels with using computers, videos, the internet, and other forms of “new media. By only focusing on these new forms, students that are not very comfortable with technology might be alienated. Moreover, as we discussed last week, students that can not attend schools that can afford newer technology are going to be left behind in this movement.

I really see this use of “new media” as interesting and exciting change from what I always thought of “academic writing” in the English class. However, I definitely think that getting comfortable with it is going to take time.

The Evolution of Writing in My Life

Reading Notes 1: Wikipedia Discussion

The readings assignments for last week addressed two different view points on how the new world of technology is affecting or could possibly change the English classroom. The first reading, “Made Not Only in Words: Composition in New Key,” was from a speech that Kathleen Blake Yancey gave at CCCC. Yancey compared the emergence of this new technological era to that of 19^th century Britain and the invention of a new, cheaper printing press that allowed more people to read novels. At that time, people became excited about reading and often read together in groups. Yancey believes that composition classes need to embrace new “media” of writing and communication, such as blogs, in order to get students excited about composition. She often praises new technology because it constantly evolves and promotes more depth in composition.

The second reading, “Rhetorics Fast and Slow,” which was written by Lester L. Faigley, addresses the negative aspects of using new technology in the classroom. Faigley often compares “slow rhetoric,” which he describes as “lengthy exposition, explicit logical relations, sobriety, and order,” to “fast rhetoric,” which includes all of the new forms of communication we now use in the 21^st century (Faigley 4). While reading his essay, I felt that Faigley was very antagonistic to fast rhetoric. Instead of seeing the flood of information that is easily attainable today as a good thing, he basically states that it is the cause of war, famine, and environmental problems. He states that this new, fast-paced technology “brings risks” and society needs to learn how to slow down (Faigley 5). I was also surprised to learn from his reading that there exists a Rhetoric Society of America.

In discussion, we read an article describing how professors at Middlebury College have banned students from using Wikipedia. The class discussed how Yancey and Faigley would view the ban. I felt that Faigley would support the ban because Wikipedia is another example of fast rhetoric: anyone can obtain whatever information they want but there is a risk that it is not correct. However, someone is the class (sorry, I don’t have all the names down yet) brought up that Wikipedia was proven to be more correct than Britannica and other encyclopedias. I initially thought that Yancey would not support the ban because she was very supportive of embracing new technologies in the classroom. But someone else brought up a good point that Yancey would probably encourage teaching students to make more “rhetorical choices” and how to properly use a site like Wikipedia, without cutting them off from anything.

The end of the discussion shifted more towards what will happen if some students do not have access to these new technologies. Faigley mentioned that digital technologies are available to people with “disposable income.” If they are the only ones with access, then students in low-income areas will not be exposed and an even larger divide in society will exist. I was very interested in many people’s experiences in inner-city schools. Before reading the assignments and listening to the discussion, I never really thought about how much technology has become so important in my education and how, unfortunately, some are not able to have access to the resources that I have all the time. I feel that it is important to expose students to all of the new forms of technology, but something needs to be done so that every student has the same opportunities.

I was way off.....

Before the readings I had a vague definition of rhetoric. Basically, I thought it was just the way one writes or speaks. I had heard the saying, "that is mere rhetoric," but, to be honest, I did not really understand what it meant. The reading assignments enlightened me on the many extensive definitions of rhetoric and the fact that there is argument over its true meaning.
I think Aristotle had a good basis for rhetoric when he divided speech into logos, which Silva Rhetoricae defined as "logical content," and lexis, which is "style and delivery." This helped to fill me in that rhetorics is about the form or style of what is said or written that adds to the overall meaning that the author or speaker is trying to say.
After reading Herrick's detailed analysis on the art of rhetoric, I realized how large a role rhetoric plays in everyday life, and how important this tool can be for more than just authors and speakers. From this description, I realized that rhetoric is a tool of persuasion that can be used by everyone from politicians and attorneys, to artists, and even dancers. I was especially interested in what Herrick said about how doctors use rhetorics often to persuade patients and other doctors about controversial medical procedures or the effectiveness of a debated medication. At first I thought rhetorics would never pertain to me if I were to become a doctor, but here I was proved wrong!
What really stood out to me was how rhetorics can be very powerful. If one is able to master the "art of rhetoric," then one could possibly shape the beliefs and actions of others. Depending on who masters it, rhetoric could be used for good or evil. After learning this, I was confused as to why so many have argued that learning rhetorics is useless.
After the readings, I have changed my definition of rhetorics to the way one uses symbols, style, and knowledge in order to communicate persuasively their ideas to a specific audience. By using rhetoric, one is able to effectively make their private thoughts public, and perhaps create change in society. This is still a fairly vague definition, as opposed to Herrick's, but I feel like it hits the main points of rhetoric.

Also, I have finally chosen a title for my blog: Che Stress! This is a saying (translation: What Stress!) from a calender featuring a popular Italian comic called Mafalda. It is about a girl, Malfalda, that stresses about everything. My parents bought me this calender when they were in Italy last September because I am always stressing about something. I'm sure being stressed out will be a common theme in many of my blogs. If not, I will do my best to find a more creative title!