Final Reflection
First of all, my definition of composition has not changed very much since the first day of class. I remember sitting there when asked, “What is composition?” and thinking “Well what kind of composition are we talking about?” My answer to that first question was, “expressing ideas, feelings, fact, etc. through writing.” This was my school answer. I was trying to write the correct answer for a class in College Composition. I knew from day one that composition stretched across multiple genres and multiple facets of life. What I had failed to consider was how many of these genres may be necessary to consider in the realm of the classroom. While my definition of composition has not changed, my ideas about composition in the classroom have expanded greatly.
I want to start talking about my progression of ideas in the context of an analogy. When I was a kid growing up, I had to learn how to ride a bike. So my parents bought me a bike, strapped on the training wheels, and walked next to the bike while I got comfortable. After a little practice, my parents stopped walking next to the bike but they left on the training wheels. After I was comfortable with the training wheels, my parents took them off and gave me the control of the bike.
Now let’s talk about composition in the context of this analogy. Our students need to learn how to compose. So we give them a pen, paper, a computer, use training wheels (i.e. 5 paragraph essay, general strategies, How-to, persuasive and narrative technique), and peer over their shoulder to guide them in correctly implementing these strategies. Later, we take the less active role and allow our students to practice writing on their own within the framework of their training wheels. Now, eventually we need to allow the students to take off the training wheels, and compose without the constraints, while still needing to maintain balance.
Now keeping with the thread of the analogy, there are questions to be asked. Why will I ride my bike? Where can my bike take me? What if I don’t want to ride my bike, I prefer a skateboard? These are the questions that are answered by this class. Why will I write? Where can writing take me? What if I don’t want to write, I want to use another media? As teachers we need to make sure we put on the training wheels or our students may fail to ever get on the bike, but once they are up and running, we need to give them freedom and reason to grow.
Let us start with the first question, “Why will I write?” This class put into perspective the power of composition. I enjoyed being shown a very convincing argument about the progression of human beings. Each step of the animals-language-rhetoric-writing progression was interesting to ponder. The fact that language separates us from animals gives me a new respect for language. The idea that all language is rhetoric and we live in a rhetorical world stresses the importance of being persuasive through rhetorical methods, as opposed to being persuasive by physical or natural circumstances. The fact that writing brings a new humanistic perspective to the table shows a level of importance of writing that I have never considered. While I do not think that Utopia is obtainable, I would consider myself a humanist because I think that people can improve their position by their own means. We don’t need some idealistic end, utopia, to continue to progress. We simply need to improve the world we live in, and I am convinced that I have the power to change things because of language, rhetoric, and writing.
Next let’s address the second question, “Where can writing take me?” This question is a little subjective. I believe the answer to be anywhere you want to go. If you hone your skills as a writer, then through the power of rhetoric you can progress through life as a successful person. Whether it be for dealing with administration in the school you are working, or voicing your opinion through government avenues, or wooing the love of your life, composition can take you somewhere. I am convinced of the power of rhetoric after reading the articles by Berlin and others. I truly believe that writing can take people to new places.
Now, for the third and final question, “What if I don’t want to write, I want to use another media?” I want to address this question from the perspective of a future teacher. I am a little more open to other forms of media in the classroom. While I believe traditional composition will remain important, I recognize the emerging importance of other composition such as video, graphic representations, or audio. With the growing technology of our society and our students increasing familiarity with the technology, there is a need to recognize other forms of composition. Our demonstration of web page format opened my eyes to the subtle importance of color and images in even the most text driven sites. Now to draw more from the analogy, sometimes I am afraid that we fail to recognize the importance of growing trends like skateboarding due to our affliction for the methods of the past like biking. Just as these two forms of transportation can coexist, so can traditional composition and newer forms of composition. We as teachers need to do our best to familiarize ourselves with both techniques or we will lose a part of this coexisting audience.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Final Paper
The New Rhetorical Team: How Modern Composition Theory Relates to
Coaching Sports in the Modern Era
Introduction
In this paper I plan to present the some of the important concepts in the rhetorical view of teaching. I then plan to show how some of these same concepts can be used to better a team from a coach’s perspective. There are some natural parallels between the concepts of communication and negotiation that the rhetorical view promotes and the uses they can have in the classroom and on the playing field.
Empowering students or players, building a strong community, and recognizing the complexities of the classroom or playing field are all important aspects of teaching or coaching. These concepts are all emphasized by the New Rhetoric view. If coaches can familiarize themselves with the concepts provided by the rhetorical world view and implement them on the playing field like some of the examples presented in this paper, then maybe we will have more successful coaches and more content athletes.
New Rhetoric in Traditional Composition
First of all we will look at the theory behind the model I intend to discuss. By understanding the implications of this theory, we can see how a rhetorical world view can change composition on the page, which I will later relate to composition on the field of play. James Berlin presents an argument for the pedagogy of New Rhetoricians (766). He states, “For the New Rhetoric, knowledge is not simply a static entity available for retrieval. Truth is dynamic and dialectical, the result of a process involving the interaction of opposing elements” (Berlin 774). He is presenting a view that truth is not something that you simply find, or teach, or absorb, but it something that is negotiated. This idea is important because he emphasizes the power of negotiation. We solve problems largely through communication. Understanding the power of language can motivate someone to better their communication skills. In order to get what you want, or get out of trouble, or advance through life, or build strong relationships, you need to be able to communicate. In the rhetorical world you can achieve many things through communication and negotiation. In the rhetorical world, it is the individual who can defend his position verbally who wins the battle. It steers us away from winners based on position or strength. There are many situations where rhetoric is important. Berlin shows how it is important in the classroom by relating it to pedagogy theories. He stresses its importance by stating, “We are teaching a way of experiencing the world, a way of ordering and making sense of it” (Berlin 776). Berlin is hinting that by teaching students to compose their thoughts in a rhetorical way, we are teaching them to attack the world in the same ways. If they welcome the thoughts of others and expand on them in their composition, then maybe they can welcome the thoughts of others and expand on them in other areas of life, such as their personal lives, their jobs, their choice of recreation, and for the purpose of this paper; sports.
James Berlin received criticism from Richard Fulkerson for his stance on the positive aspects of New Rhetoric in Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories. Fulkerson feels that Berlin’s New Rhetoric fails to “serve the best interests of our students “in every way”” (82). Fulkerson concludes that students “must also learn what constitutes reliable knowledge, even while understanding that reliable does not mean absolute now and certain for all time” (84-85). I like Berlin’s response to Fulkerson’s critique presented within the same article. Berlin says:
Truth is sanctioned and validated by a discourse community. It arises within a community of discussants and is based on rules of evidence peculiar to that particular community. This is what I meant in asserting that truth is the product of a dialectal process comprised of the elements that make up the communication situation- writer (speaker), audience, reality, and language (85).
I like his emphasis on community. This emphasis is not as ever present in his initial article, Pedagogical Theories, which is striving to get students to recognize their value as individuals because they can shape the world around them. His response recognizes that there is a place for reliable truth, but it may differ by community. These individuals should seek the reliable truth, but should not be scared to shape it. They should actively learn and share their experience with the experts. For example, psychologists have a certain set of guidelines and values when composing their literature, which composes their theory, which eventually leads to practice. They have different places to look for their information, but they know to look for experienced scientists for opportunities to learn and they know to format their arguments in the ways that psychologists like to see it, i.e. APA format. Within the Psychology community, there are rules and there are experts, but everyone shapes the truth of psychological science. Whether it is a small comment by the inexperienced undergraduate assistant who influences the doctor trying to get published, or the doctor influencing his undergraduate assistants with great lectures, everyone has a part. Everyone contributes to the truth of the community. You can take this same concept of community and apply it to the world of sport and coaching.
We need to see why some feel the world is best viewed as a rhetorical world and then consider how these complexities transfer to a smaller but still complex area of interest. Berlin presents a world that is too complex too simply soak in. Using a quote from Young, Becker, and Pike, he states:
Constantly changing, bafflingly complex, the external world is not a neat, well ordered place replete with meaning, but an enigma requiring interpretation. This interpretation is the result of a transaction between the events in the external world and the mind of the individual-between the world “out there” and the individual’s previous experience, knowledge, values, attitudes, and desires. Thus the mirrored world is not just the sum total of eardrum rattles, retinal excitations, and so on; it is a creation that reflects the peculiarities of the perceiver as well as the peculiarities of what is perceived (25).
This statement captures the complexities of our world. Every situation requires so much interpretation that it is difficult to simply rely on your senses, or the interpretation of an expert, or your experiences, etc. In all situations we should consider the perception of the audience and, in situations that require communication, the perception of the speaker as well. Some of these concepts translate easier into the “real world” than they do in composition. While in the world of composition we still have to worry about the anonymity of the individuals who shape our truths, in many “real life” situations we directly contact the individual who shapes our truth. There are many factors that establish ethos, such as tone of voice, or experience, or style of dress, etc. This breadth of things allows us to gain perspective on the individuals who shape our reality. There are many things that affect our perception in the world of composition and those things grow exponentially in the “real world.” In a truly rhetorical world we all shape reality. We can do it through composition or we can simply shape the world immediately around us. Either way, we need to take action and make our voice heard, as well as think of how to best get across our point. We also need to make sure we recognize the value in the differing opinions and perspectives around us. While it is not necessary to abandon the ideas in your head, everyone can learn from the experiences of other individuals within the same community.
In summary, New Rhetoric is valuable for giving students the chance to make their voice heard and hear the voice of others. As one academic states, “In the end, the liberatory power of rhetoric may not give voices, only offer space so that they may be heard” (Alkidas 106). This sharing of voices may strengthen the community. We, as teachers of composition, can enable our students with this school of thought. We, as teachers of composition, can also learn from our students. We are involved in worlds more complex than we sometimes imagine. By recognizing the perspectives of others we can help shape our worlds or communities for the better. These ideas may translate into a better classroom composition and better composition overall. Now, some of these ideas may translate into the world of sports. If the teacher can better the world of his/her students, then, can the coach not better the world of his/her athletes with the same principles? If we view the classroom composition or community as the team, the composition as the product left on the field when the game is over, and the coach as the teacher, then we can begin to draw parallels.
Rhetorical Principles in the Coaching Realm
The world of sport offers a great location to test some of the theories behind Berlin’s thoughts. Some coaches are already moving away from the autocratic methods of the past into new more democratic methods. The medium of sport is an excellent place to test theories. The results are immediate. In most sport, the goal of the game is to win. You can gauge success of a coaching style immediately by comparing it to the coaching style of the past. It is a complex world, so it is impossible to hold all other variables constant, but there is a large amount of data for statisticians to study. First, we will try to point out the possible benefits of incorporating a New Rhetorical mindset into coaching team sports.
First of all, by teaching the ideas behind a negotiated reality we can encourage our players to listen to their coaches and to each other. As the coach of a team, you would need to learn to listen to the ideas your team presented you. Coaches can learn from their players. At least two coaches in the NFL already implement an approach that harps more on the Rhetorical theory and its emphasis on communication and negotiation. When Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith faced each other in the Super Bowl in 2007, a lot of attention was given to the fact that two black coaches were going to face each other at the Super Bowl for the first time. Less was made of their coaching styles. Some observers noticed the difference in their philosophies when compared to the rest of the league and past generations. In an article in the New York Times, one writer stated, “They put unblinking trust in their players. They seek their opinions. Without handing over authority, Smith and Dungy treat their players the way a good boss treats an employee, or a teacher treats a student. For whatever reason, those social rules have not always applied in coaching” (Branch). Judging by the success of these coaches, it may be an approach worth considering. Many of the statements made by Branch sound like they come straight from a “benefits of rhetorical world view” manual. They hand over authority and listen to their players. While they are still the leaders of their team, they help the team composition by making it work more like a unit. They don’t always just give their players directions to follow. They “listen to their opinions” (Branch). Lovie Smith gives some of the logic behind his method, “Believe me, you start raising your voice to me right now and I’m getting ready to turn you off. But you start talking to me like a man, and I’m going to listen to what you have to say” (Branch). Like a good teacher, Lovie is encouraging his players to communicate effectively and often with their superiors. Lovie is helping his players create the world, or community (team) in which they can thrive.
In this rhetorical team atmosphere there can still be a source of reliable information, or the coach. The coach simply provides the space for the players to be heard, much like a teacher “provides the space for their students to be heard” (Alkidas 106). A coach that stifles the players’ ability to affect their community will in effect stifle the community (team). For example, over the past few years the Dallas Cowboys have had an old school disciplinarian coach, Bill Parcells. The results of the Cowboys have been sub par. Now with much of the same team in 2008 that they had in 2007, the Cowboys are arguably the best team in the NFC. The big change: a switch from Bill Parcells to Wade Phillips. In the preseason, an article was written about the coaching change. In this article Terrell Owens said about Wade Phillips, “I think everyone knows he’s a laid back coach, a little different than Bill. I don’t think you have to be a disciplinarian to get your point across. We’re going to win for him” (Brown). This shows at least one player who appreciates the added leeway in his approach. You can contrast this with the feeling of the team under the reign of Bill Parcells; in an article by NewsOK.com there is a quote from Renfro which states, “From the comments I heard from the players, not only last year but this year, they couldn’t express themselves. They were always too tight, too nervous about what was going to happen, what was going to be said” (NewsOK.com). Parcells pushed for a more authoritative view and it hurt the composition of his team. Their inability to communicate with the top man caused a lot of tension. Now that tension is relieved and the team is on its way to better things with their coach who encourages more negotiation and communication. In Brown’s article you get a feel for how Phillips’s strategy gives more of the reigns to his team, “The players have taken quickly to Phillips’s defensive system, which they said gave them more leeway than Parcells did.” This leeway allowed the players to incorporate their strengths and cover their weaknesses by giving them the chance to influence the system. The team negotiated a more effective system for winning games on the defensive side of the ball.
Sport is a fairly complicated environment that relies on the input of many to keep the process going. Some may say you need democratic values. Eduard Lindeman lays out the framework for the democratic necessity of sport in his article, “Leadership: A Function of Democratic Experience”:
The coach (expert) has taught the team to use means which he believes will be successful in reaching the ends involved. The umpire’s duty is to see that these means do not transgress the established rules. The captain’s function is to choose those specific means that seem adequate for the immediate situation. We see here how it comes about that in a democracy a wide variety of leadership may be utilized (388).
Every person plays a role. If this is truly a democracy than the players should have just as much input as the leaders listed in Lindeman’s example. They should play a part in providing the coach information for his master scheme. They should have ability to change those rules that are dated or inform the official what they are missing. Granted, this is a liberty that could be abused, but I can say from my experience as a referee that sometimes you have to listen to the players. Sometimes the players’ desire is different than what the official usually calls, and if the game is meant for the players, which it is, then the officials should adjust the way they are calling the game. The captain should not only be working with his own expertise, but also with a bank of working knowledge provided by his teammates. The perspectives of the players should be accounted for in the different leaders at the game. If everyone plays their role, and everyone listens, and everyone participates, then the game should go smoothly. This shows that sport is democratic, and therefore a coach should be aware of the components and perspectives working throughout the dynamic of a game.
Conclusion
If coaches can recognize the principles presented in this article, learn from the examples presented, and work to empower their athletes in the same ways, then we may help move the coaching profession in a new direction. The same flaws of autocratic teaching present themselves for the autocratic coach. The rhetorical world view presents possible solutions to teachers and these solutions look like they carry over into the world of sports. By empowering students or athletes, building a community, and using multiple perspectives to grasp a complex situation, teachers and coaches can both help to create the concept of true democracy. It is possible that by implementing these concepts into the foundation and recreation activities of school and sport we can advance the larger concept of democracy supported by the rhetorical world view. By changing the communities of the classroom and the playing field, we may change the larger community, society.
Works Cited
Alkidas, Laurie. “Another Approach to Our Role as Rhetoricians.” College Composition and Communication. 48.1 (1997): 105-107
Berlin, James. “Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories”
College English. 44.8 (1982): 765-777.
Branch, John. “Dungy and Smith Are Proving Nice Coaches Can Finish First.” 2 Feb. 2007. The New York Times Online. 30 Nov. 2007.
Brown. “Cowboys Camp is Peaceful, at Least for Now.” 15 May 2007. The New York Times Online. 30 Nov. 2007.
Fulkerson, Richard. “A Comment on Pedagogical Theories in Contemporary Composition”
College English. 46.1 (1984): 82-85.
Lindeman, Eduard. “Leadership: A Function of Democratic Experience.” Journal of Educational Sociology. 17.7 (1944): 386-391.
NewsOK.com. “Bill vs. Wade” 24 Oct. 2007. NewsOK.com. 30 Nov. 2007..
Young, Richard E, Alton L. Becker, and Kenneth Pike. Rhetoric: Discovery and Change. Harcourt Brace & World. 1970.
Coaching Sports in the Modern Era
Introduction
In this paper I plan to present the some of the important concepts in the rhetorical view of teaching. I then plan to show how some of these same concepts can be used to better a team from a coach’s perspective. There are some natural parallels between the concepts of communication and negotiation that the rhetorical view promotes and the uses they can have in the classroom and on the playing field.
Empowering students or players, building a strong community, and recognizing the complexities of the classroom or playing field are all important aspects of teaching or coaching. These concepts are all emphasized by the New Rhetoric view. If coaches can familiarize themselves with the concepts provided by the rhetorical world view and implement them on the playing field like some of the examples presented in this paper, then maybe we will have more successful coaches and more content athletes.
New Rhetoric in Traditional Composition
First of all we will look at the theory behind the model I intend to discuss. By understanding the implications of this theory, we can see how a rhetorical world view can change composition on the page, which I will later relate to composition on the field of play. James Berlin presents an argument for the pedagogy of New Rhetoricians (766). He states, “For the New Rhetoric, knowledge is not simply a static entity available for retrieval. Truth is dynamic and dialectical, the result of a process involving the interaction of opposing elements” (Berlin 774). He is presenting a view that truth is not something that you simply find, or teach, or absorb, but it something that is negotiated. This idea is important because he emphasizes the power of negotiation. We solve problems largely through communication. Understanding the power of language can motivate someone to better their communication skills. In order to get what you want, or get out of trouble, or advance through life, or build strong relationships, you need to be able to communicate. In the rhetorical world you can achieve many things through communication and negotiation. In the rhetorical world, it is the individual who can defend his position verbally who wins the battle. It steers us away from winners based on position or strength. There are many situations where rhetoric is important. Berlin shows how it is important in the classroom by relating it to pedagogy theories. He stresses its importance by stating, “We are teaching a way of experiencing the world, a way of ordering and making sense of it” (Berlin 776). Berlin is hinting that by teaching students to compose their thoughts in a rhetorical way, we are teaching them to attack the world in the same ways. If they welcome the thoughts of others and expand on them in their composition, then maybe they can welcome the thoughts of others and expand on them in other areas of life, such as their personal lives, their jobs, their choice of recreation, and for the purpose of this paper; sports.
James Berlin received criticism from Richard Fulkerson for his stance on the positive aspects of New Rhetoric in Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories. Fulkerson feels that Berlin’s New Rhetoric fails to “serve the best interests of our students “in every way”” (82). Fulkerson concludes that students “must also learn what constitutes reliable knowledge, even while understanding that reliable does not mean absolute now and certain for all time” (84-85). I like Berlin’s response to Fulkerson’s critique presented within the same article. Berlin says:
Truth is sanctioned and validated by a discourse community. It arises within a community of discussants and is based on rules of evidence peculiar to that particular community. This is what I meant in asserting that truth is the product of a dialectal process comprised of the elements that make up the communication situation- writer (speaker), audience, reality, and language (85).
I like his emphasis on community. This emphasis is not as ever present in his initial article, Pedagogical Theories, which is striving to get students to recognize their value as individuals because they can shape the world around them. His response recognizes that there is a place for reliable truth, but it may differ by community. These individuals should seek the reliable truth, but should not be scared to shape it. They should actively learn and share their experience with the experts. For example, psychologists have a certain set of guidelines and values when composing their literature, which composes their theory, which eventually leads to practice. They have different places to look for their information, but they know to look for experienced scientists for opportunities to learn and they know to format their arguments in the ways that psychologists like to see it, i.e. APA format. Within the Psychology community, there are rules and there are experts, but everyone shapes the truth of psychological science. Whether it is a small comment by the inexperienced undergraduate assistant who influences the doctor trying to get published, or the doctor influencing his undergraduate assistants with great lectures, everyone has a part. Everyone contributes to the truth of the community. You can take this same concept of community and apply it to the world of sport and coaching.
We need to see why some feel the world is best viewed as a rhetorical world and then consider how these complexities transfer to a smaller but still complex area of interest. Berlin presents a world that is too complex too simply soak in. Using a quote from Young, Becker, and Pike, he states:
Constantly changing, bafflingly complex, the external world is not a neat, well ordered place replete with meaning, but an enigma requiring interpretation. This interpretation is the result of a transaction between the events in the external world and the mind of the individual-between the world “out there” and the individual’s previous experience, knowledge, values, attitudes, and desires. Thus the mirrored world is not just the sum total of eardrum rattles, retinal excitations, and so on; it is a creation that reflects the peculiarities of the perceiver as well as the peculiarities of what is perceived (25).
This statement captures the complexities of our world. Every situation requires so much interpretation that it is difficult to simply rely on your senses, or the interpretation of an expert, or your experiences, etc. In all situations we should consider the perception of the audience and, in situations that require communication, the perception of the speaker as well. Some of these concepts translate easier into the “real world” than they do in composition. While in the world of composition we still have to worry about the anonymity of the individuals who shape our truths, in many “real life” situations we directly contact the individual who shapes our truth. There are many factors that establish ethos, such as tone of voice, or experience, or style of dress, etc. This breadth of things allows us to gain perspective on the individuals who shape our reality. There are many things that affect our perception in the world of composition and those things grow exponentially in the “real world.” In a truly rhetorical world we all shape reality. We can do it through composition or we can simply shape the world immediately around us. Either way, we need to take action and make our voice heard, as well as think of how to best get across our point. We also need to make sure we recognize the value in the differing opinions and perspectives around us. While it is not necessary to abandon the ideas in your head, everyone can learn from the experiences of other individuals within the same community.
In summary, New Rhetoric is valuable for giving students the chance to make their voice heard and hear the voice of others. As one academic states, “In the end, the liberatory power of rhetoric may not give voices, only offer space so that they may be heard” (Alkidas 106). This sharing of voices may strengthen the community. We, as teachers of composition, can enable our students with this school of thought. We, as teachers of composition, can also learn from our students. We are involved in worlds more complex than we sometimes imagine. By recognizing the perspectives of others we can help shape our worlds or communities for the better. These ideas may translate into a better classroom composition and better composition overall. Now, some of these ideas may translate into the world of sports. If the teacher can better the world of his/her students, then, can the coach not better the world of his/her athletes with the same principles? If we view the classroom composition or community as the team, the composition as the product left on the field when the game is over, and the coach as the teacher, then we can begin to draw parallels.
Rhetorical Principles in the Coaching Realm
The world of sport offers a great location to test some of the theories behind Berlin’s thoughts. Some coaches are already moving away from the autocratic methods of the past into new more democratic methods. The medium of sport is an excellent place to test theories. The results are immediate. In most sport, the goal of the game is to win. You can gauge success of a coaching style immediately by comparing it to the coaching style of the past. It is a complex world, so it is impossible to hold all other variables constant, but there is a large amount of data for statisticians to study. First, we will try to point out the possible benefits of incorporating a New Rhetorical mindset into coaching team sports.
First of all, by teaching the ideas behind a negotiated reality we can encourage our players to listen to their coaches and to each other. As the coach of a team, you would need to learn to listen to the ideas your team presented you. Coaches can learn from their players. At least two coaches in the NFL already implement an approach that harps more on the Rhetorical theory and its emphasis on communication and negotiation. When Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith faced each other in the Super Bowl in 2007, a lot of attention was given to the fact that two black coaches were going to face each other at the Super Bowl for the first time. Less was made of their coaching styles. Some observers noticed the difference in their philosophies when compared to the rest of the league and past generations. In an article in the New York Times, one writer stated, “They put unblinking trust in their players. They seek their opinions. Without handing over authority, Smith and Dungy treat their players the way a good boss treats an employee, or a teacher treats a student. For whatever reason, those social rules have not always applied in coaching” (Branch). Judging by the success of these coaches, it may be an approach worth considering. Many of the statements made by Branch sound like they come straight from a “benefits of rhetorical world view” manual. They hand over authority and listen to their players. While they are still the leaders of their team, they help the team composition by making it work more like a unit. They don’t always just give their players directions to follow. They “listen to their opinions” (Branch). Lovie Smith gives some of the logic behind his method, “Believe me, you start raising your voice to me right now and I’m getting ready to turn you off. But you start talking to me like a man, and I’m going to listen to what you have to say” (Branch). Like a good teacher, Lovie is encouraging his players to communicate effectively and often with their superiors. Lovie is helping his players create the world, or community (team) in which they can thrive.
In this rhetorical team atmosphere there can still be a source of reliable information, or the coach. The coach simply provides the space for the players to be heard, much like a teacher “provides the space for their students to be heard” (Alkidas 106). A coach that stifles the players’ ability to affect their community will in effect stifle the community (team). For example, over the past few years the Dallas Cowboys have had an old school disciplinarian coach, Bill Parcells. The results of the Cowboys have been sub par. Now with much of the same team in 2008 that they had in 2007, the Cowboys are arguably the best team in the NFC. The big change: a switch from Bill Parcells to Wade Phillips. In the preseason, an article was written about the coaching change. In this article Terrell Owens said about Wade Phillips, “I think everyone knows he’s a laid back coach, a little different than Bill. I don’t think you have to be a disciplinarian to get your point across. We’re going to win for him” (Brown). This shows at least one player who appreciates the added leeway in his approach. You can contrast this with the feeling of the team under the reign of Bill Parcells; in an article by NewsOK.com there is a quote from Renfro which states, “From the comments I heard from the players, not only last year but this year, they couldn’t express themselves. They were always too tight, too nervous about what was going to happen, what was going to be said” (NewsOK.com). Parcells pushed for a more authoritative view and it hurt the composition of his team. Their inability to communicate with the top man caused a lot of tension. Now that tension is relieved and the team is on its way to better things with their coach who encourages more negotiation and communication. In Brown’s article you get a feel for how Phillips’s strategy gives more of the reigns to his team, “The players have taken quickly to Phillips’s defensive system, which they said gave them more leeway than Parcells did.” This leeway allowed the players to incorporate their strengths and cover their weaknesses by giving them the chance to influence the system. The team negotiated a more effective system for winning games on the defensive side of the ball.
Sport is a fairly complicated environment that relies on the input of many to keep the process going. Some may say you need democratic values. Eduard Lindeman lays out the framework for the democratic necessity of sport in his article, “Leadership: A Function of Democratic Experience”:
The coach (expert) has taught the team to use means which he believes will be successful in reaching the ends involved. The umpire’s duty is to see that these means do not transgress the established rules. The captain’s function is to choose those specific means that seem adequate for the immediate situation. We see here how it comes about that in a democracy a wide variety of leadership may be utilized (388).
Every person plays a role. If this is truly a democracy than the players should have just as much input as the leaders listed in Lindeman’s example. They should play a part in providing the coach information for his master scheme. They should have ability to change those rules that are dated or inform the official what they are missing. Granted, this is a liberty that could be abused, but I can say from my experience as a referee that sometimes you have to listen to the players. Sometimes the players’ desire is different than what the official usually calls, and if the game is meant for the players, which it is, then the officials should adjust the way they are calling the game. The captain should not only be working with his own expertise, but also with a bank of working knowledge provided by his teammates. The perspectives of the players should be accounted for in the different leaders at the game. If everyone plays their role, and everyone listens, and everyone participates, then the game should go smoothly. This shows that sport is democratic, and therefore a coach should be aware of the components and perspectives working throughout the dynamic of a game.
Conclusion
If coaches can recognize the principles presented in this article, learn from the examples presented, and work to empower their athletes in the same ways, then we may help move the coaching profession in a new direction. The same flaws of autocratic teaching present themselves for the autocratic coach. The rhetorical world view presents possible solutions to teachers and these solutions look like they carry over into the world of sports. By empowering students or athletes, building a community, and using multiple perspectives to grasp a complex situation, teachers and coaches can both help to create the concept of true democracy. It is possible that by implementing these concepts into the foundation and recreation activities of school and sport we can advance the larger concept of democracy supported by the rhetorical world view. By changing the communities of the classroom and the playing field, we may change the larger community, society.
Works Cited
Alkidas, Laurie. “Another Approach to Our Role as Rhetoricians.” College Composition and Communication. 48.1 (1997): 105-107
Berlin, James. “Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories”
College English. 44.8 (1982): 765-777.
Branch, John. “Dungy and Smith Are Proving Nice Coaches Can Finish First.” 2 Feb. 2007. The New York Times Online. 30 Nov. 2007.
Brown. “Cowboys Camp is Peaceful, at Least for Now.” 15 May 2007. The New York Times Online. 30 Nov. 2007.
Fulkerson, Richard. “A Comment on Pedagogical Theories in Contemporary Composition”
College English. 46.1 (1984): 82-85.
Lindeman, Eduard. “Leadership: A Function of Democratic Experience.” Journal of Educational Sociology. 17.7 (1944): 386-391.
NewsOK.com. “Bill vs. Wade” 24 Oct. 2007. NewsOK.com. 30 Nov. 2007.
Young, Richard E, Alton L. Becker, and Kenneth Pike. Rhetoric: Discovery and Change. Harcourt Brace & World. 1970.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Post 10: Reflection
Overall, this course has given me a greater perspective on the power of language and composition. I also feel I have a greater understanding of the elements necessary for effective composition. I still don’t think I can pigeon hole myself into the objective view, or the subjective view, or the rhetorical view, but luckily this isn’t the point. The point is to consider the possibilities. The point is to be able to defend methods of teaching that value multiple perspectives. The point is finding some way to give students a reason to care about composition. I think if we can find a way to illustrate the overall effect that composition has had on our world, and more importantly, demonstrate the smaller more personal ways that our students’ composition can affect their own world, then we may be able to inspire a few students to work a little harder.
Not only do I like that we are learning how to demonstrate the power of language, but I like the ideal behind the power. I think negotiation is undervalued and worthy of being emphasized in the classroom. The idea that through the power of language we negotiate our world gives power and places emphasis on the word “negotiation.” In a world full of “inherently selfish” beings (still don’t know if I believe this but there are plenty of examples in our world), it is nice to think of students learning the value of negotiation.
This class also encouraged me to get a little more up to date on technology. I felt fairly confident in my technological capabilities, but this class reminded me of the pace at which technology grows. It also reminded me of my times as a student with teachers who made some effort to keep up, but they were still more comfortable with their archaic formats. Whether these formats worked or not in their time is not really important; what is important is the fact that they lost the engagement of their students who had moved on to different more progressive, though debatably better means of learning.
Not only do I like that we are learning how to demonstrate the power of language, but I like the ideal behind the power. I think negotiation is undervalued and worthy of being emphasized in the classroom. The idea that through the power of language we negotiate our world gives power and places emphasis on the word “negotiation.” In a world full of “inherently selfish” beings (still don’t know if I believe this but there are plenty of examples in our world), it is nice to think of students learning the value of negotiation.
This class also encouraged me to get a little more up to date on technology. I felt fairly confident in my technological capabilities, but this class reminded me of the pace at which technology grows. It also reminded me of my times as a student with teachers who made some effort to keep up, but they were still more comfortable with their archaic formats. Whether these formats worked or not in their time is not really important; what is important is the fact that they lost the engagement of their students who had moved on to different more progressive, though debatably better means of learning.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Post 9: Technology and ethics
I agree with Rice’s claim that we should let the pedagogy guide our technology. Our experience in the MOO was a perfect example of the reverse idea, letting technology drive the pedagogy. If we come in with a plan to actually teach our students within the technological environment, it can be successful. I would like to think that the classroom will never become solely technological, but I fear it is very possible due to the convenience and cost friendly possibilities. Therefore, we should try to get prepared to deal with some technological issues. We all kind of laugh at the idea that books could become extinct in our lifetime, but I think it is a very legitimate possibility. Look at how many people actually went to the library to search through the stacks to find an article for their report. I think there has been one person so far. It is a reality that the convenience of technology is lessening the importance of print media. Sure, we all printed out our articles to read them, but convenience won out over that old favorite, the book.
So we need to learn how to use this technology ethically and teach these ethics to our students. I don’t think this process will be too much different than the ways we have dealt with ethically treating print media. For as long as I have been in school it has been drilled into my head to consider the source of the information. We are encouraged to find articles written by experts, and reviewed by experts. This same thought process can apply to electronic media. In terms of education, and not culture, we can address the issue with a little micromanagement. We can encourage certain sources and exclude others. Whether technology is having a negative impact on the world is an issue larger than education. One can make a convincing argument about how television has reduced society. We can talk about the negative effects of too much television, but people love television. I’m a little bit cynical about how much we can do as teachers to truly change the impact technology has on society.
So we need to learn how to use this technology ethically and teach these ethics to our students. I don’t think this process will be too much different than the ways we have dealt with ethically treating print media. For as long as I have been in school it has been drilled into my head to consider the source of the information. We are encouraged to find articles written by experts, and reviewed by experts. This same thought process can apply to electronic media. In terms of education, and not culture, we can address the issue with a little micromanagement. We can encourage certain sources and exclude others. Whether technology is having a negative impact on the world is an issue larger than education. One can make a convincing argument about how television has reduced society. We can talk about the negative effects of too much television, but people love television. I’m a little bit cynical about how much we can do as teachers to truly change the impact technology has on society.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Post 8: Moooo
First of all, I don’t think our session in the MOO resembled a typical class in the MOO. We touched on many of the reasons the session in the MOO was a failure while in class on Tuesday and I thought most of the criticism was right on. I think the MOO is a flawed classroom system for many of the reasons that people mentioned; lack of facial expression, lack of tones, too much to keep up with, lack of organization, necessity of technical (typing) skill, lack of filter for the people who demand the attention of the class, etc., but I do think things would go better in an actual class held in the structure of the MOO.
First of all, if one was taking a class in the MOO they would receive a syllabus by email before coming to class. Within this syllabus would be a list of expectations, classroom procedures, participation policies, etc. There would also probably be a pre-class training time so people could learn the technical stuff needed to effectively communicate within the structure, i.e. comments directed at specific people (so you can tell who is responding to who) or the whisper command where only one person receives the message as opposed to the whole class. There would be an obvious leader in the classroom, not someone who dominates the conversation, but someone to guide it effectively in the correct paths. Overall, there would be a lot more direction, so while it is hard to focus on teaching one specific thing, I do think it is possible to have worthwhile discussion in the MOO.
I say some of this because I took classes in the MOO this summer and they did not at all resemble class last Thursday. Granted, they were graduate level courses and ‘development’ levels were a little different, but I think the instructor set a tone and the class followed. I never met my instructors or my classmates but I feel like I know quite a bit about them. We all shaped the discussions, the teachers gave guiding questions and most people shared their ideas. I don’t think anyone took any one specific thing from the classes, but I do think we all learned. I did not love the MOO. I felt like my typing skills were too slow, my ideas were too similar to the ideas already presented on the screen, my deficiencies as a student were exposed, etc., but I do think the classes had value. I don’t think learning in this environment is worthless, just different.
First of all, if one was taking a class in the MOO they would receive a syllabus by email before coming to class. Within this syllabus would be a list of expectations, classroom procedures, participation policies, etc. There would also probably be a pre-class training time so people could learn the technical stuff needed to effectively communicate within the structure, i.e. comments directed at specific people (so you can tell who is responding to who) or the whisper command where only one person receives the message as opposed to the whole class. There would be an obvious leader in the classroom, not someone who dominates the conversation, but someone to guide it effectively in the correct paths. Overall, there would be a lot more direction, so while it is hard to focus on teaching one specific thing, I do think it is possible to have worthwhile discussion in the MOO.
I say some of this because I took classes in the MOO this summer and they did not at all resemble class last Thursday. Granted, they were graduate level courses and ‘development’ levels were a little different, but I think the instructor set a tone and the class followed. I never met my instructors or my classmates but I feel like I know quite a bit about them. We all shaped the discussions, the teachers gave guiding questions and most people shared their ideas. I don’t think anyone took any one specific thing from the classes, but I do think we all learned. I did not love the MOO. I felt like my typing skills were too slow, my ideas were too similar to the ideas already presented on the screen, my deficiencies as a student were exposed, etc., but I do think the classes had value. I don’t think learning in this environment is worthless, just different.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Post 7: Cell phones
I love my cell phone. I remember having to scrounge up quarters so I could call for a ride home from the mall or the theatre. I remember being pissed when they raised the price on these calls from 25 cents to 35 cents. Now a quarter was not enough. How inconvenient. My how a cell phone would have been nice. I don’t have the same necessity to call for rides, but I never have to look for a phone. The cell phone is convenient. It is a privilege. Some abuse the privilege. I wish all people had to take a cell phone etiquette class, but I love the convenience of my cell phone.
I am not a person who enjoys talking on the phone. I enjoy talking to people, but in person. I would always rather be doing something than talking about the things that I have done. It just seems like a waste of my time. That is why I constantly talk while I’m driving. I’m still getting one thing accomplished, getting from point A to point B, while holding my obligatory phone calls. The cell phone allows me to keep contact with my friends at a distance, while not stealing any of the immediacy of my life like a stationary phone. Perhaps I am abusing the privilege by endangering the lives of others, but it allows me to live more of my life, and ironically waste less time talking though I spend more time doing so.
I think I value simplicity. I like text messaging for this reason. When I have a chatty friend, I can simply send a text and avoid the difficulty of getting off the phone. Message sent; idea taken; idea comes back; no filler. I enjoy being able to cut the small talk out of conversation sometimes. It is a valuable form of composition in my life. It saves me a lot of time and headache. This way I can get together with my friends without asking about their day twice.
Text: Let’s meet at Starbucks at 7:30.
A: OK.
This is so much more efficient and leaves me with more to say when I actually come in contact with the person, thus enriching the experience. I feel like I spend more time in actual valuable human contact, due to my impersonal cell phone. It’s all in how you use the tool.
I am not a person who enjoys talking on the phone. I enjoy talking to people, but in person. I would always rather be doing something than talking about the things that I have done. It just seems like a waste of my time. That is why I constantly talk while I’m driving. I’m still getting one thing accomplished, getting from point A to point B, while holding my obligatory phone calls. The cell phone allows me to keep contact with my friends at a distance, while not stealing any of the immediacy of my life like a stationary phone. Perhaps I am abusing the privilege by endangering the lives of others, but it allows me to live more of my life, and ironically waste less time talking though I spend more time doing so.
I think I value simplicity. I like text messaging for this reason. When I have a chatty friend, I can simply send a text and avoid the difficulty of getting off the phone. Message sent; idea taken; idea comes back; no filler. I enjoy being able to cut the small talk out of conversation sometimes. It is a valuable form of composition in my life. It saves me a lot of time and headache. This way I can get together with my friends without asking about their day twice.
Text: Let’s meet at Starbucks at 7:30.
A: OK.
This is so much more efficient and leaves me with more to say when I actually come in contact with the person, thus enriching the experience. I feel like I spend more time in actual valuable human contact, due to my impersonal cell phone. It’s all in how you use the tool.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Post 6: Rhetoric and the classroom
I have to say that I consider myself most attracted to the rhetorical theory of composition. I have always believed that truth is constructed and not necessarily a concrete item we can find, or discover through science, or ever really know. This rhetorical view gives me a model to reference which summarizes some of my own beliefs that I have held for a long time. I constantly modify my own values. I think it is healthy to be open to some form of change in opinion at all times. This change in truth does not necessarily have to be absolute swing from one side to the other, merely little tweaks here and there. I think I have my opinion on the world, and I am entitled to that opinion, and it is an educated thoughtful opinion. I also think you have an opinion, you are entitled to your opinion, and I enjoy hearing that opinion so I can use it to shape my own.
I think being able to define this viewpoint adds some form of legitimacy to my way of thinking. By adding legitimacy and actual theory to my beliefs, I can focus on a classroom where negotiation is valued. You can take things to a more democratic playing field and when questioned by superiors, parents, or students, reference actual theory. When you want to change things in the classroom it is important to be able to discuss the reason behind it to your administration. Maybe by the time class is over, and I have heard Kevin’s speech about rhetoric and negotiation enough times, I will be able to defend myself when I want to do things beyond the formula.
I think being able to define this viewpoint adds some form of legitimacy to my way of thinking. By adding legitimacy and actual theory to my beliefs, I can focus on a classroom where negotiation is valued. You can take things to a more democratic playing field and when questioned by superiors, parents, or students, reference actual theory. When you want to change things in the classroom it is important to be able to discuss the reason behind it to your administration. Maybe by the time class is over, and I have heard Kevin’s speech about rhetoric and negotiation enough times, I will be able to defend myself when I want to do things beyond the formula.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Post 5: Philosophic jargon
I want to address the concept of humanism and its utopian logic. I want to argue that technology may have us closer to this “utopian” idea than we acknowledged in class the other day. As Jesse said, “The problem with Utopia is that everyone’s utopia is different.” This means that in Utopia, interaction would be different than it is here in this world. Each individual would need their own little sphere to fill as they may please. Let’s say we have two individuals to illustrate the necessity of separate spheres. Say individual #1 wants to be alone on an island with the love of his life, which he messed things up with and divorced in the real world. Individual #2’s idea of utopia is being alone on this same island with the same lover who is #1’s love of his life. With separate spheres and transient selfless beings this may be possible. I think these separate spheres, or at least the transient being, are necessary for Utopia in any domain.
Now virtual reality presents the possibility of these separate spheres. Each individual has their own little room, with their own blueprint or program. Sensors placed on the body give it the sensory experience. Every individual can have what they desire with an experience so encompassing, that you forget it is artificial. In this spectrum both individuals could have what they wanted.
I do not believe in Utopia on earth. I am still undecided on Utopia as a concept. Gaining everything you desire, want, or need does not guarantee happiness. But this idea of Utopia, presented by humanity, is becoming obtainable by the inventions of humanity. The flaw is with the original concept, not necessarily the means to obtain it.
Now virtual reality presents the possibility of these separate spheres. Each individual has their own little room, with their own blueprint or program. Sensors placed on the body give it the sensory experience. Every individual can have what they desire with an experience so encompassing, that you forget it is artificial. In this spectrum both individuals could have what they wanted.
I do not believe in Utopia on earth. I am still undecided on Utopia as a concept. Gaining everything you desire, want, or need does not guarantee happiness. But this idea of Utopia, presented by humanity, is becoming obtainable by the inventions of humanity. The flaw is with the original concept, not necessarily the means to obtain it.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Blog Post 4: Rhetoric and interviewing
The main thing I learned from looking at rhetoric in terms of the top 100 speeches is the importance of appealing to all three facets (logos, ethos, and pathos). I consider myself a logical person, therefore a majority of my arguments thrive on logos, and lack ethos or pathos. Understanding the importance of using all three may be very helpful in my pursuit of many things.
For example, when interviewing for my first coaching position it will be beneficial to address all three elements. I can establish ethos by pointing out my playing experience from the age of 8, progressing through different levels and peaking at the Texas Tech club team. I can point out my coaching licenses and coaching experience. I typically do not enjoy establishing ethos in this fashion. I have a desire to move forward, and discuss the things I plan to do, but for many this experience is crucial to their decision.
I can establish pathos with possible stories of my triumphs over injuries, my decision to play high level soccer after a long four year hiatus, stories of kids I have enjoyed watching progress. Again, these are things I may have left out of the interview process hoping to focus solely on my knowledge, ethics, and plan. But many individuals enjoy hearing these types of stories and as long as they are kept short, they could be beneficial to my argumentation for a new hire.
Then I can appeal naturally to the logos. I can point out my desired formations, adaptations, game plans, and strategies. I can point out my ethical base, and desire to lead by example. I can point out my short-term and long-term goals, making analogies and comparisons to teams I have seen perform well. By appealing to all three facets of rhetoric rather than solely the logical, I can strengthen my argument and hopefully end up in a better situation.
For example, when interviewing for my first coaching position it will be beneficial to address all three elements. I can establish ethos by pointing out my playing experience from the age of 8, progressing through different levels and peaking at the Texas Tech club team. I can point out my coaching licenses and coaching experience. I typically do not enjoy establishing ethos in this fashion. I have a desire to move forward, and discuss the things I plan to do, but for many this experience is crucial to their decision.
I can establish pathos with possible stories of my triumphs over injuries, my decision to play high level soccer after a long four year hiatus, stories of kids I have enjoyed watching progress. Again, these are things I may have left out of the interview process hoping to focus solely on my knowledge, ethics, and plan. But many individuals enjoy hearing these types of stories and as long as they are kept short, they could be beneficial to my argumentation for a new hire.
Then I can appeal naturally to the logos. I can point out my desired formations, adaptations, game plans, and strategies. I can point out my ethical base, and desire to lead by example. I can point out my short-term and long-term goals, making analogies and comparisons to teams I have seen perform well. By appealing to all three facets of rhetoric rather than solely the logical, I can strengthen my argument and hopefully end up in a better situation.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Post 3: The class so far
So far this class has been pretty helpful. First, I really like the format Professor Garrison uses to get his points across. The short, focused lectures allow for a real digging into the main concepts as opposed to survey classes where you are responsible for so much you struggle to truly grasp any one thing. Discussions are usually informative, and with the use of blogs to get our ideas across to everyone we get to see the good ideas from everyone, even the individuals who do not like to talk in class. This format builds a good classroom, close to the democratic classroom we hinted at in class on Tuesday.
I think the argument that language is what separates us from animals, whether true or not, definitely stresses the importance of language. Whether language is the single factor that separates us is something that can still be debated, but I do not think we can argue against the importance of language. I like the idea that language is what took us away from settling arguments in a Darwinist, “the strong survive,” fashion. It brings power to individuals with a large mental capacity and the means to improve this capacity. Placing this power in an every day situation, such as settling an argument, as opposed to typical composition situations such as passing a Bill or writing a book, highlights its importance and should make it important to everyone.
The idea that all language is rhetoric is one that I think is helpful as well. I am still a little skeptical, but I can believe that all language may be rhetoric. I think bringing this idea into the composition classroom can serve to improve composition. Composition is very audience oriented. Who are you writing to? Knowing your audience and being conscious of the persuasive possibilities of your writing can only improve your writing. Understanding that even when you are not trying to persuade someone, you may very well be, can bring more focus to even the seemingly unimportant parts of compostion.
I think the argument that language is what separates us from animals, whether true or not, definitely stresses the importance of language. Whether language is the single factor that separates us is something that can still be debated, but I do not think we can argue against the importance of language. I like the idea that language is what took us away from settling arguments in a Darwinist, “the strong survive,” fashion. It brings power to individuals with a large mental capacity and the means to improve this capacity. Placing this power in an every day situation, such as settling an argument, as opposed to typical composition situations such as passing a Bill or writing a book, highlights its importance and should make it important to everyone.
The idea that all language is rhetoric is one that I think is helpful as well. I am still a little skeptical, but I can believe that all language may be rhetoric. I think bringing this idea into the composition classroom can serve to improve composition. Composition is very audience oriented. Who are you writing to? Knowing your audience and being conscious of the persuasive possibilities of your writing can only improve your writing. Understanding that even when you are not trying to persuade someone, you may very well be, can bring more focus to even the seemingly unimportant parts of compostion.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Rhetoric and Persuasion
When I initially heard the argument presented in class that all language is persuasion I was turned off to the idea. But through further thought I tend to agree with the notion. The main reason I was turned off to the idea is the abundance of negative connotation associated with the word ‘persuasion.’ When I hear the word ‘persuasion’ I think of pushy salesmen, crooked politicians, etc. But persuasion can be much more subtle. Speaking with the “proper” dialog persuades peers to look at the speaker as an educated individual. Speaking with slang can persuade (or fail to persuade: e.g. parents) someone to think of the speaker as hip. Simple statements like “I’m going to get the mail” can persuade someone to stick around for the short time you are gone or leave a note when they leave. These subtleties make the idea that all language is persuasion a little easier to swallow. Our use of the term ‘negotiation’ as an interchangeable word for ‘persuasion’ also makes this idea more plausible.
Now whether all language is persuasion or not, I think the idea, “Rhetoric is power,” is a useful place to begin a class on composition. We solve problems largely through communication. Understanding the power of language can motivate someone to better their communication skills. In order to get what you want, or get out of trouble, or advance through life, or build strong relationships, you need to be able to communicate. I enjoyed the very simple demonstration in class that showed the shift of power from physical attributes to intellectual argumentation. By illustrating this shift and importance, you are setting up a base desire to grow based on necessity.
Now whether all language is persuasion or not, I think the idea, “Rhetoric is power,” is a useful place to begin a class on composition. We solve problems largely through communication. Understanding the power of language can motivate someone to better their communication skills. In order to get what you want, or get out of trouble, or advance through life, or build strong relationships, you need to be able to communicate. I enjoyed the very simple demonstration in class that showed the shift of power from physical attributes to intellectual argumentation. By illustrating this shift and importance, you are setting up a base desire to grow based on necessity.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Post 1: Language and Morality
First off I would like to say I have no desire to attack the argument presented in class. One thing I believe in is the complexity of the human condition. I believe there are many external, internal, spiritual, and possibly cosmic factors that influence each moment of each day of our lives. Due to a limited perspective, we can never truly know anything. We can hypothesize, have faith (though this is easier for some than others), prove things with the current scientific method (though this method has failed before and will again), but we never truly know. However, I also feel it is necessary and beneficial to know where you stand, and therefore have an opinion.
In the deductive reasoning model we discussed in class we put down the following algorithm:
If A.) Humans are genetically the same as animals.
And B). Animals are always immoral
Then C). Humans should therefore always be immoral.
My problem with this statement is in part B. I don’t think animals are always immoral. I don’t think all animals are inherently selfish. I think that even without language to scribe some moral code, some individuals would wake up with a desire to better things for other people. It is possible that language has shaped me in such a way that I cannot fathom myself with a completely selfish demeanor, but I cannot imagine it. If I had to hunt, kill, and prepare my own meat I would be a vegetarian. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine the condition that would drive me to eat my own kin, or even someone else’s kin. This difficulty to imagine may stem from a lack of experience in the desired (required) condition, but it may not. I can’t know without the experience and it is an experience I am content to avoid.
I also find difficulty believing we are the only animals that use our depth of language. I think other animals may have patterns similarly deep that we simply don’t comprehend or even hear. We are discovering different ways animals communicate all the time. I found a link on national geographic about the depth of African elephants’ language. The link is: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0221_030221_elephantvocal1.html.
In this article they talk about elephants using a low pitch we cannot understand. They talk about their use of nonverbal communication as well as their sounds and how it helps them maintain the relationships we hold so dear. What if we are just beginning to understand the depth of this language?
In the deductive reasoning model we discussed in class we put down the following algorithm:
If A.) Humans are genetically the same as animals.
And B). Animals are always immoral
Then C). Humans should therefore always be immoral.
My problem with this statement is in part B. I don’t think animals are always immoral. I don’t think all animals are inherently selfish. I think that even without language to scribe some moral code, some individuals would wake up with a desire to better things for other people. It is possible that language has shaped me in such a way that I cannot fathom myself with a completely selfish demeanor, but I cannot imagine it. If I had to hunt, kill, and prepare my own meat I would be a vegetarian. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine the condition that would drive me to eat my own kin, or even someone else’s kin. This difficulty to imagine may stem from a lack of experience in the desired (required) condition, but it may not. I can’t know without the experience and it is an experience I am content to avoid.
I also find difficulty believing we are the only animals that use our depth of language. I think other animals may have patterns similarly deep that we simply don’t comprehend or even hear. We are discovering different ways animals communicate all the time. I found a link on national geographic about the depth of African elephants’ language. The link is: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0221_030221_elephantvocal1.html.
In this article they talk about elephants using a low pitch we cannot understand. They talk about their use of nonverbal communication as well as their sounds and how it helps them maintain the relationships we hold so dear. What if we are just beginning to understand the depth of this language?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)