Blogs, as a relatively new medium, functions differently than most well-established types of rhetoric. For one, blogging is very accessible. Whereas print media are relatively expensive, cumbersome, and sometimes difficult to locate, Blogger (a popular blogging website) is advertised as a ‘free publishing tool’ and is available to anyone who has the ability to use the internet. Any person with a working mind and two functioning hands can create a blog, record their thoughts, read other blog posts and circulate them around the internet. The nature of the internet has made the process of disseminating published materials incredibly easy. Many writers utilize this medium simply for this fact, hoping that their texts will ‘go viral,’ much like the work of bloggers Perez Hilton and Arianna Huffington. With this, comes a great deal of social responsibility. Blogging, as an agenda-setting medium, is held (at least partially) accountable for creating or perpetuating important topics of discussion- that is, news stories, opinion pieces, critiques and much of the like. This is where scientific and technical bloggers begin to diverge from the masses; for their topic of choice focuses much less on opinion and much more on fact and referencing to the work of others. Their ability to argue a point still lies in their capability to frame situations and how they develop their ideas. Having recognized the nature of the blog, we can see that this creates an interesting rhetorical situation to which they have chosen to respond. In order to address these rhetorical situations, scientific and technical writers must focus heavily on intertext to create a sense of trust between themselves and the reader in order to not only engage them, but have them accept their points. I have taken two scientific writers, Jonah Lehrer and David DiSalvo, and compared their respective blog posts to analyze them with the ideas of Bazerman’s ‘intertext’ and Grant-Davie’s ‘rhetorical situation’ to see how they develop a sense of trust with their audience while advancing their own argument simultaneously.
David Disalvo, on September 15th 2012, wrote an article that was titled “Is Your Cat Hosting a Human Suicide Parasite?” Once you were drawn in by the more-than-slightly concerning title, you read a page and a half long claim that the ordinary housecat housed a parasite that, once in contact with humans, caused an increased likelihood of suicidal tendencies. The rhetorical situation of this certain text is obscured- was there an alarming amount of cat owners who were contemplating suicide? I believe the answer to that question is no. Grant-Davie explains the importance of the third and fourth stases when considering the rhetorical situation of a text, which are cause and value. We are currently in an age of an increased awareness of the toxicity around us- from H1N1 to anthrax, from HIV to superbugs. These instances do not act as catalysts and this article is not so much as a response to them as it is a response to the air of concern that has been created. The value of this piece is then found in its informative characteristics; not so much in Disalvo’s attempt to quell a rising panic or provide a prevention technique (or lack thereof). That being said, it is important to look at Disalvo’s purposeful use of language in order to craft a rather absurd argument.
In the very first paragraph of the post, there is a correction that was clearly editing in after the post had been published, clarifying that cat feces were not the only method of contracting the bactria. This was important because, even though it may have not been purposeful, Disalvo gains the credibility of a fair and honest author. After the correction, the blog post decidedly lacks an increased use of technical terms, save for the use of the bacteria Toxoplasma Gondii- which Disalvo thankfully reference as T. Gondii for the remainder of the post. Disalvo also made a large effort to create lists of examples for his audience, rather than giving a broadened term and expecting the reader to understand what he meant. This was noticeable when he wrote about the suicides the women experienced, and again when he touched on subsequent mental illnesses. This can possibly serve to create a sort of ‘internal lingo’ that is shared between the reader and the writer, reflecting Bazerman’s 5th technique of intertextual representation, ‘using recognizable phrasing’. To bolster his assertions, Disalvo’s article is comprised almost entirely of summaries of past studies done on this subject and quotes from the scientists. Relying so heavily on the concept on intertext brings the readers some context to the situation, so that they are able to understand that this feline problem as a long-standing issue which requires years and years of research. There is even a momentary reference to future research that will be done. This frequent use of intertext can also been seen as challenging- not that the frequently references are directly challenging his own assertions, but that they are challenging the audience’s understanding of the subject. Perhaps, if the audience realizes how little they understand on the subject, they might be more likely to take Disalvo’s words at face value.
The rhetorical situation in Jonah Lehrer’s article is more defined than that of Disalvo’s. Mostly everyone who reads his blog post will know what Las Vegas is and gambling- but not many people understand just why this happens. The value of this text is also obvious, because if people understand the psychology behind the ‘almost-win,’ they might understand the addiction a little bit more. What is first noticeable about Jonah Lehrer’s article about gambling is that the tone is notably more relaxed. Although his articles is also entirely composed of other studies He even uses words such as “sucks” and “P.S” which may resonate more with his audience, again echoing Bazerman’s 5th and 6th level of intertextual representation- it even made me giggle. The terminology in the article is also easy to understand and relatable, electing to call it a “kind of casino for rats” rather than a heavy scientific term and referencing “rolling a pair of pair of dice on a green felt table,” an image which almost everyone can relate to. But does this work to create a sense of trust with the audience- or does it make his argument seem too simple, and therefore, ungrounded in science?
Who exactly are the audiences that Disalvo and Lehrer trying to reach? The subjects are apples and oranges, but both apply crafty techniques which defines their audiences. Grant- Davies urges us to think of an audience not as “those people who read the text” but as a dynamic group of individuals, that are constantly being defined by the constraints of the rhetorical text. That is, that the author takes an active part in creating his own audience. Lehrer, by writing about an easier-to-understand and more relatable topic, assumingly begins his article appealing to a larger crowd than does Disalvo, who’s more biological topic is constrained by factors of cat ownership, location (many studies were located in Denmark) and mere interest. Lehrer’s own article is also constrained by factors of internet accessibility and understanding of the scientific method but includes many other factors that appeal to difference audiences, such as me, who may have otherwise not read the article (for example, he provides the instance of learning to shoot a basketball for those who do not gamble). Disalvo, though repeated references to complicated professional titles and terminology, appears to be unconcerned with creating a universal audience, but rather appealing to the audience he already has. It must be recognized that Disalvo writes on a great majority of topics and must have a large amount of ‘followers’ who read his articles. By creating a relationship with his narrowed audience, he assures himself an effective and engaging text.
These rhetors are part of a multiplicity- meaning they play multiple roles in these rhetorical situations. Being that these texts are online, we do not have a face to put to these words more are we limited geographically. For this reason, the audience may find the idea of an author obscured- especially when the texts are constantly referencing and drawing upon the work of other scientists. In some situations, the idea of an unknown author, who actually consists of many different scientists and writers, may turn an audience off from a certain text. Variably, this ‘trust’ between the rhetor and the audience wavers. However, within the scientific community, I believe that this effect is used to its advantage- if it’s in the majority, it is more likely to be correct. Each author is capable of identifying and creating their own dynamic audience, knowing how to develop their own argument while making sure the audience is at a comfortable level of understanding. It’s because of this constant flow of replicable facts from one scientist to the other that makes the genre, as a whole, author-less.
Works Cited
Bazerman, Charles. “Intertextuality.” What Writing Does and How It Does It: And Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practice, Ed. Charles Bazerman and Paul Prior. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004. 83-96.
Disalvo, David. “Is Your Cat Hosting a Human Suicide Paracite?” The Daily Brain. 15 September 2012. Web. 17 January 2013.
Grant-Davie, Keith. “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents.” Rhetoric Review 15.2 (Spring 1997): 263-279.
Harmon, Jonah. “The Near-Miss Effect.” Ideas. Wired.com. 28 March 2011. Web. 17 January 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment