Response to Christina's Discussion Post

In Preparation for Kaufer and McDonald...

In Preparation for Kaufer and McDonald...
Response to: http://cmorganfall2014.blogspot.com/ 

According to McDonald in his text, Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation, people become citizens rhetorically by engaging with each other on public topics. Average citizens are not usually a part of the contribution to socialtechnical controversies because they lack expert knowledge. However, these controversies give credibility to this type of audience in particular whose public lives are influenced by sociotechnical stock issues.

McDonald selected Le Suroit, the gas-fired power plant, as a case study in his text because it is a perfect example of when public opinion got in the way of a new technology being introduced into society, regardless of their lack of knowledge of the issue. This was a controversial issue that was highly supported by individuals, such as the government and scientists, who have expert knowledge of the technology. However, the public was very critical of the Suroit project and asked that it be discussed, and was eventually turned down because of their disapproval. In this particular case, “deliberation” and “citizenship” because "this case has all of the characteristics of a socialtechnical controversy" (McDonald 204).

McDonald's "inductive, rhetorical approach is similar to Kaufer's "Levels of Policy Conflict Analysis" in that they both organize their texts in a way that the audience can follow chronologically. Meaning, Kaufer and McDonald write out their texts in a sequence of events that a controversy would naturally go through in reality. The difference between the two is that McDonald is focused on educating public citizens to deliberate effectively, whereas the purpose of Kaufer's work is to teach his audience how to develop policy arguments.

McDonald's justification for why there is a need to deliberate better is that it allows individuals with conflicting ideas to realize that they share common views, and that both had valid arguments that needed to be discussed. By doing so, many groups are able to find common ground. The Suroit case is an example of when rhetorical democracy existed. It's all about accepting what adversaries have to say because it brings common points from differing parties to the forefront. "Thus, through public deliberation over the heterogeneous topics that are an integral part of sociotechnical controversies, parties initially opposed realize that their opinion differ less than they first thought" (McDonald 214). This acceptance of what the other party believes enables all individuals involved to find common points and possibly even a solution that everyone supports.

"Stock issues are points of disagreement that recur regularly when people deliberate on questions of justice or public policy" (Kaufer 57). Stock issues are not enough because in order for an issue to be fully addressed, there needs to be expert information concerning both sides, not just opinions that arise among public citizens. 

https://campus.fsu.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-6800550-dt-content-rid-38255100_2/courses/ENC4404-0001.fa14/kaufer.pdf

https://campus.fsu.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-6800548-dt-content-rid-38255099_2/courses/ENC4404-0001.fa14/mcdonald_i_agree_but.pdf

Analytic Reflection of the Sci-Tech Blog Post, “Urban Sprawl Is Giving Us Cancer”

Lindsey Marcus

ENC 4404

Professor Graban

September 24, 2014

Analytic Reflection

The foundational principals of my Sci-Tech blog post, “Urban Sprawl Is Giving Us Cancer”, are based on the theories from the critical texts “Rhetorical Situations” by Grant-Davie and “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community” by Porter. Grant-Davie's and Porter's texts each significantly influenced my creation of this blog post. They illuminated the purpose of deconstructing Stratton's "New Ruralism" and understanding how one work can relate to another intertextually. These theories explain the way society and the human mind function, which was especially useful in deciding what kind of information to bring into the blog post and how to present it to the audience.

            Grant-Davie's "Rhetorical Situations" taught me the power of exigence, "an imperfection marked by urgency; it is a defect, an obstacle, something waiting to be done, a thing which is other than it should be" (Grant-Davie 265). The exigence of the blog post was the harmful effects urban sprawl has on food sources and the environment. The exigence is the cause of urban sprawl and the harmful effects it has on various aspects of society. The problem presented in the blog post can be understood with the rhetorical discourse presented. The exigence was a way to persuade the audience discretely and made the piece more interesting to read.

            While collecting sources for the blog post, I remembered Porter's idea that there is no original work. Meaning that each piece of writing has some level of intertextuality, pieces of the past and pieces of other texts. The blog post was completely inspired by other works, whether it be Stratton or articles from The International New York Times. "Examining text 'intertextually' means looks for 'traces', the bits and pieces of Text which writers or speakers borrow and sew together to create new discourse" (Porter 34). The exigence was inspired by texts that already existed prior to the formation of the blog post and they all derive from the same network.

            A major part of Porter's theory that I implemented into the blog post is his idea that there are two types of intertextuality, Iterability (using references, quotes, allusions, and traditions) and presupposition (the assumptions a text will make about its reader and context). The iterability of the blog post is the quotes from other texts that I brought in to bolster my exigence. The blog post's presupposition is that the audience cares about their health and the wellbeing of the environment and that they would be interested in learning about solutions to a pressing issue.

Overall, Porter's and Grant-Davie's theories are very different, but they both helped tremendously when it came to understanding how bringing in certain sources strengthened the power of exigence and why intertextuality is so important when forming an argument. The repeatability and presupposition of complicated the exigence and audience's reaction to the blog, influencing its success.

Works Cited

Grant-Davie, Keith. "Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents." Rhetoric Review. 2nd ed. Vol. 15. London: Taylor & Francis, 1997. 264-279. Spring, 1997.

Porter, James E. "Intertextuality and The Discourse Community." Rhetoric Review. 1st

ed. Vol. 5. London: Taylor & Francis, 1986. 34-47. Autumn, 1986.

Urban Sprawl Is Giving Us Cancer

Urban Sprawl Is Giving Us Cancer

With so many overcrowded cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Miami, there’s a huge overflow of people into surrounding areas, creating urban sprawl. Forests have been ripped down and the land has been transformed into suburban neighborhoods. An astounding relation exists between the lack of connection with nature and our food sources. This particular occurrence is where high demand for mass-produced foods originates from, and with it has come troubling consequences like obesity and cancer from food that contains chemicals.

 

To sustain large population pockets, science has devised a way to grow crops and livestock quicker than ever, feed us all, and have some leftover: frozen foods, factory farms, and synthetic growth hormones to beef up our livestock. As a result of these innovations in agriculture, cancer has become more and more prevalent in the U.S., especially among children.

Artificial food dye makes your food look cool but inhibits nerve-cell development. Waxy preservatives such as BHA and BHT are found in most bubble gums but are linked to cancer and tumors. Arsenic is a chemical injected into poultry to make it appear pink and fresh, but it is poison and can cause death if ingested in large amounts.

Scientists are discovering with much alarm that some very common endocrine disrupting chemicals are found in mass-produced foods. These chemicals have appalling effects for humans including breast cancer, infertility for men and women, genital deformities, diabetes, and obesity.

"Philip Landrigan, a professor of pediatrics at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, says that a congenital defect called hypospadias — a misplacement of the urethra — is now twice as common among newborn boys as it used to be. He suspects endocrine disruptors, so called because they can wreak havoc with the endocrine system that governs hormones" (Kristof paragraph 4).

There is also a significant association between childhood cancer and the consumption of foods exposed to pesticides. Clusters of acute leukemia are found in agricultural countries that use substantial amounts of pesticides.

According to International New York Times article "Chemicals in Food Raise Children's Cancer Toll”: “As documented by the Food and Drug Administration, residues of numerous carcinogenic pesticides are commonly found in most fruits and vegetables. Additionally, milk and other dairy products are often laden with carcinogenic pesticides and antibiotics. Factory farm meat, particularly liver, veal, frankfurters and hamburgers, are also contaminated with carcinogenic pesticides, besides growth-stimulating sex hormones and other feed additives” (Paragraph 4).

In order to end this vicious cycle, there needs to be a major countrywide lifestyle change. The change begins by fixing the root of the problem: city planning and population disbursement need to be organized differently. The answer is New Ruralism.

New Ruralism is a philosophy based on the idea of re-connecting with the land by encouraging smart growth, walkable neighborhoods (aka less gas consumption), and conservation of land while averting away from suburban sprawl, loss of natural habitats, and deserted public areas. New Ruralism depletes the use of miles of pavement, the time spent driving from place to place, and strengthens the connectivity lost to sprawl. It’s a preventative measure that protects rural areas on the urban edge that are at high risk for the intrusion of suburbanization, environmental deterioration, and industrialization. It’s a combination of planning cities around compact neighborhoods and growing sustainable food that promotes environmental health and socio-economic impartiality. New Ruralism promotes the preservation and enhancement of rural areas that are invaluable to the economic, environmental, and cultural livelihood of U.S. cities.

Serenbe is the paradigm of what New Ruralism can be. As described in Emily M. Stratton’s “New Ruralism”, it’s a 900-acre development in Fulton County, Georgia that contains three hamlets, or small villages, each with their own town center, restaurants, and retail shops. The development has its own organic farm, wastewater treatment plant, and enough paths that walking has become more efficient for residents than driving. Serenbe also has a vast amount of preserved land including protected forests, pastures, farmland, and even a wildflower meadow.

Serenbe and other New Ruralist communities across the country are dedicated to organic food products and farmer’s markets because planners and homeowners are aware that industrialized agriculture caused by urban sprawl is harmful to both nature and humans. 

“There is a vaccine against sprawl, a way to ward off the encroachment of those who see the land as an accessory and not a commodity, and it is New Ruralism” (Stratton 7). But it isn’t just a way to combat the overcrowding of metropolitan areas, New Ruralism has the power to give our children—and the world— a healthier tomorrow.  

https://campus.fsu.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-6804317-dt-content-rid-38263933_2/courses/ENC4404-0001.fa14/stratton_ruralism.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/opinion/kristof-how-chemicals-change-us.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw%2C{%222%22%3A%22RI%3A12%22}&_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/16/opinion/l-chemicals-in-food-raise-children-s-cancer-toll-872691.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw%2C{%222%22%3A%22RI%3A12%22}

An Explanatory Genre Piece To Inspire Social Change

An Explanatory Genre Piece To Inspire Social Change

Homes Not Handcuffs: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities is designed to make readers uncomfortable to inspire social change. It feeds readers facts and statistics on the criminalization of homelessness. The organization is one of the more successful aspects of the piece in terms of evoking emotion. It draws on issues including types of criminalization measures, the prevalence of laws that criminalize homeless persons, examples of geographical locations that are both inhumane and humane towards homeless persons, and constructive alternatives to the issue. The writer draws on examples such as "Sweeps of city areas in which homeless persons are living to drive them out of those areas, frequently resulting in the destruction of individuals' personal property such as important personal documents and medication" to make the audience feel terrible for the homeless, thus changing attitudes and behavior.

It is a very powerful piece, and because is designed to inspire social change, it can be considered a citizen's explanatory genre. Homes Not Handcuffs: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities functions in a way that can be compared to Rettberg’s definition of the purpose for social blogs in that both are designed to challenge opinions and expectations, and because both function as an authoritative text.

The audience of this white paper is constructed by the facts that make up the writer's argument. They are individuals who are not homeless and who, perhaps, do not know information about this particular social issue, or maybe they are aware but do not care. This white paper gives them a reason to care. It was designed to change the way homelessness is perceived, because currently, many view homeless persons as subhuman. These individuals are often treated with cruelty when they should be treated with the utmost sympathy.

Don't kick someone when they’re down.

The argument is solidified with a shocking list of laws in U.S. cities that violate the constitution, including freedom on speech, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures, and the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. These actions also violate international human rights law.

The goal of this piece is to convince its audience that instead of criminalizing homelessness, governments and law enforcement officials should work with these people to come up with humane alternatives. Cities are encouraged to allot more resources to creating affordable housing, shelters, and food services for these individuals, because as per the white paper, "When cities work with homeless persons and advocate for solutions to homelessness, instead of punishing those who are homeless or poor, everyone benefits."

This white paper works surprisingly as a mediated discourse because it illuminates inhumane aspects of U.S. society. It inspires emotions in readers such as sadness, embarrassment, and pity, and this complicates the notion of publicly mediated discourse.

On Jonah Lehrer's "The Future Of Reading": Why This Work Is A Scientific Discourse and How It Works With Grant-Davie and Porter

On Jonah Lehrer's "The Future Of Reading": Why This Work Is A Scientific Discourse and How It Works With Grant-Davie and Porter

By Lindsey Marcus

Early on in Lehrer’s “The Future Of Reading”, Lehrer gains readers’ trust by making himself relatable to his audience. After all, who hasn't been in the situation where an auxiliary cord was left behind, leaving you forced to listen to the radio? He's extremely casual, clear, unassuming, and as the piece progresses I wonder if he does this to disarm his readers. I mentally prepare myself for him to pull wool over my eyes, metaphorically brainwashing me into believing what he wants his readers to believe. He continues to make himself relatable to the reader, drawing us in moreso with his story about his love for books (perhaps an attempt at forming pathos) and the experience of having an overweight bag at the airport. He confides in his readers about his fear of how our reading technology is changing. Illuminating the prospect of losing the potential for old treasures to exist in the future if new books are exclusively read on Kindles and Nooks. Many avid readers—myself included—share his fear. Lehrer's article becomes publicly mediated when he draws on platforms widely known to the public, such as the eReaders he critiques. He has a strong relation to the public by explaining these experiences that so many have also encountered in their lives.

He also illuminates the reality that is undeniable: the potential of digital texts and e-readers is revolutionary. "For me, the most salient fact is this: It’s never been easier to buy books, read books, or read about books you might want to buy. How can that not be good?" (Lehrer paragraph 4). This new technology is making it easier for us to perceive the content. Lehrer deconstructs eReaders by explaining that by making content easier to attain we trade our understanding and admiration for the novels we love for the ability to perceive the texts, to simply hold them, to read them, but not will not be able to cherish them because they will no longer exist in a physical form. Their words exist on the technology, but will they survive the test of time like Shakespeare's original texts have?

Lehrer breaks down the knowledge of Stanislas Dehaene, a neuroscientist at the College de France in Paris, explaining the neural anatomy of reading. He explains the two ways to read, the ventral route and the dorsal stream. Reading requires a certain amount of awareness. Books printed in clear, popular fonts or illuminated on bright screens are read effortlessly. Whereas unusual, complicated sentences and personal handwriting require more attending to. This phenomenon leads to more activation in the dorsal pathway. "All the extra work – the slight cognitive frisson of having to decipher the words – wakes us up" (Lehrer paragraph 8). His scientific writing becomes a discourse when he analyses aspects of society that affect everyone, and when he voices his concerns and ideas about the influences of the types of reading on the human mind. Something every literate human can relate to.

Thus, Lehrer concludes his argument by clearly stating his exigence. His wish for us to struggle with our reading—for it to be as it once was in earlier times—is actually for our benefit. With less reliance on the ventral pathway there will be no more mindless scanning of words, only contemplation of their meaning and purpose. How better to honor the authors of our beloved favorites.

His scientific discourse: not every sentence should be easy to read. Taking in difficult texts keeps our brain sharp and healthy. Reading something in a physical form inspires analyzation, just like when we read our essay on a screen and don't notice errors, but then print it out on paper and notice a ton.

The rhetorical situation of Lehrer's text is that society is changing in ways that affect the way our brains function, and this is something significant that people need to be aware of. Lehrer's ideas go hand-in-hand with those of Grant-Davie's and Porter's. Essentially Lehrer is deconstructing a medium with which society reads, not unlike how Grant-Davie and Porter illuminate how we understand a text. The theories of these three break down the way society—and the human brain in its neuroanatomy—function. They each illustrate the ways in which historical texts are incorporated into new ones, and also how they can be lost.

This blog post was inspired by Jonah Lehrer's "The Future Of Reading", Grant-Davie's "Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents", and Porter's "Intertextuality and The Discourse Community". 

http://www.wired.com/2010/09/the-future-of-reading-2/