Before reading the essays by Davie and Geisler, I had an obvious idea in my head. A discourse is somewhat of an expanded conversation between any number of people, thus, can and will have more than a single direct meaning behind it.
Davie did a great job laying out just what a discourse community is and how it can continue to go by this name. It was Geisler's article that allowed me to apply Davie's translation more theoretically and pair it with topics that flood the news and popular media.
The first subject to stand out was in Geisler's background into rhetorical theory at the beginning of his article. He mentioned rhetoric was originally used to promote a foundational sort of democratic process in ancient communities. Coming from a political family, this got me thinking about modern politics. While I am aware democracy in ancient Greece was a far cry from that in bipartisan America, I cannot help to separate the underlying philosophy of it. Without pursuing an agenda, I think Geisler introduced what could be an important conversation based on Davie's ideas of community discourse.
Politicians stand up at podiums in front of cameras from countless news outlets and say they are speaking for the voters and those who are unable to speak for themselves. When these proclamations are written by (or at least heavily influenced by) speech writers and other advisers, can a candidate really say they are speaking for the people and not to them? Are their messages not commonly edited to satisfy what they believe to be the majority vote? Could there ever be a discourse-motivated candidate on the ballot who could include the wants and needs of every voter into his/her platform? Is it even possible? My answer is no because I think modern politics are skewed at both ends of the spectrum. Much of what the people hear is a simple projection of what a few want the rest of us to hear. This is not discourse in my book.
Politics aside, the other topic that interested me was Geisler's IText and ideas of intellectual property. I took a Gandhian philosophy class a few semesters ago that touched on this very subject. Who ever is the original author to a work if everything written is either based or influenced by another's? Can there be an original author anymore? I think people can be creative with the knowledge they have been given to present something worth wile and innovative--whether intentionally or unintentionally. I think it would be really difficult to be an original, primary author anymore. On the other hand, just a short time ago, blogging and social media were unheard of. Now there is an unprecedented following who rely heavily on these modalities to create and spread their work. Was the first blogger original? Can a future kind of writing not yet invented be the next original form?
I'm hoping time spent in this class will allow me to answer some of these questions.
Hi, i think you bring up some interesting points as well as questions. The originality of writing i think is becoming harder and harder to do. original writing almost cant be done at this point in society through literature because arguably all literature or parts of it are derived off of one another. because of interextuality most (if not all) themes and motiffs have been said. This is "the curse of the modern day writer". I like the point you make about blogs and the first blogger being original... however if no one catches on or follows, does that make you original, perhaps, but maybe not successful--since blogs are intended for the public? I think with technology expounding at a constant, more and more original writing concepts occur but is the writing in itself actually original? i guess i have some confusion on your last two questions and am not clear if you are talking about the originality of the form or the content of the writing (possibly both) in which i think i have discussed both points? As far as politics go, i think most canidates write for what they know needs to be said in order to get them votes and they often say what they think the majority wants to hear. I completely agree with you on the skewed-ness from both ends, and i think political writing maybe some of the most rhetorical writing there is if we were to put it onto a rating scale of some kind. I am appriciative of your example though, because it gave me some more application to think about--as i had not thought of politics as rhetoric yet...
ReplyDeleteIn regard to your confusion, I think both the form and content come into question. It would be difficult to strike every writer ever from authorship status based on some of these ideas of intellectual property and originality. While I think authoring a work is a shared effort between writer and those he/she have read or interacted with, I think people are still their own authors and not simply plagiarists. I also belief new forms of expression have yet to be discovered, but I have no concept for what these will be.
ReplyDelete