"So there is knowing and there is knowing and there is knowing." I found "Speaking Truth to Power with Books" by Howard Zinn to be such an insightful piece. As someone who appreciates the power of words and books, Zinn's words were very meaningful to me. I have read it about five or six times now and each time I find some new insight into his words. Zinn writes that sometimes people think they know something but truly what they believe to be the truth is really false and books have the power to make people question what they know. He gives an example, which I'm sure all of us have experienced to an extent, about how students, teachers, and parents were stunned to find that Columbus was not the great hero he was presented to us to be. I remember learning something new every year in middle school and high school that contradicted what I had learned the previous year. When we face something like this it makes us wonder what else has been hidden from us and what lies we have been told. We begin to stop taking everything for granted and ask questions about the things that are presented to us. I think this is such an important function of books and writing--to make people analyze what they hear and read. It wasn't until I came to John Jay that I realized the importance of questioning surveys and studies. I learned to ask where was that study conducted? Who conducted it? What methods and subjects were used? Was it reviewed?...Zinn goes on to say that when you tell someone something they didn't know or reveal a truth to them, it can move them to do something about what they've heard. I loved the example he gave about Rachel Carlson because I remember reading a book by her when I was in middle school, and it moved me to become an enviornmental brat of sorts who went around to everyone saying things like "How long has that AC been on? Do you know you're releasing CFC's into the atmosphere?"
I think realizing the power of words is especially important for us as future social scientists and social justice workers. We often forget how important our writing can be as students who do and write/help write research. The research we write can affect policies and laws, change the criminal justice system, and impact the lives of people. How we word something, how accurate our information is, and how well written is, can all have an affect on the impact of the writing on peoples lives.
In class we discussed how writing has become dry, ambigous, and at many times unreadable or incomprehandable. We all know the difference between reading Professor Waterston's description of Nora and the Woodhouse women and a research article. One captures our attention and is fascinating and the other can often times be a boring or even torturous read even though the subject matter is usually interesting. However, in a field where quantitative studies are often considered superior to or more "scientific" than qualitative studies, how do we get people to take us seriously if we don't write dryly and plainly. If we insert more narrative into our writing, take out unnecessary words, and make our writing simple, will we lose the respect or interest of professors and other scholars? How do we find a balance between dry facts and pure emotional narrative?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
How do we find a balance between dry facts and a purely emotional narrative? I’ve had luck when imagining myself as the reader. I had to write a paper on the cognitive mechanisms (thought processes which guide behavior) of a terrorist. I chose Pablo Escobar after learning that his charm both won over the support of Columbians and gave him power to sell cocaine in and around the country. Pablo Escobar is such an interesting dude and I battled for weeks between telling his story and sorting through a list of psychological jargon for how we think. Interesting = When Pablo was arrested, he was allowed to build his own prison where he continued making a fortune selling cocaine. Not interesting = the terms “dissonance” and “attribution error.” This paper was on its way to a five page max write up, 2 hour long read. I always give my papers to my father to read before I submit. He’s got a touch of dyslexia so if he tells me the contents of the paper are clear, for me, it’s the highest compliment. I decided to write a draft of Pablo’s story in first person. Recalling numerous accounts of Escobar, I put myself completely in his head which enabled me to progress from describing an experience as a youth in violent Columbia to understanding the desire to help support Columbia’s self-sufficiency and relieve them of their poor economic conditions (even if the mode was somewhat immoral). When I was finished, I wrote another draft changing all "I" statements to "Escobar". Then I looked at my list of cognitive mechanisms & inserted them where it was clear they were occurring. Anytime there was a word to please my professor, there was perfectly clear example of it for my father and I. Good writing is about prepping with well-rounded research, perspective-taking and giving yourself the time to write and re-write, giving it to your harshest critic and ammending and finally re-writing. Although it sounds incredibly time-consuming, a hard document of your progress that teaches something in an interesting unique way is worth it.
I completely agree with you Neethu. I was thinking the same thing during the seminar. If we don’t conform to the norms of writing, we probably won’t be taken serious in the field of our choosing as scholars trying to advance the knowledge of that field and we will not be able to conduct much change. Professor Waterston said it herself, now that she has tenure she has more leniency and can write whichever way her heart desires. She has gone through the motions and now has a writer’s license to speak her mind without having to comply much to the dry methods by which academic writing is known for.
At the same time, research writing, although as Neethu has mentioned, has a very interesting subject, its writing can seem boring and dreadful but at the same time it is necessary in order to differentiate between the variables. Professor Reitz mentioned how the older generations have dedicated their lives observing and submitting to academia jargon and will defend it to no end. It is understandable. But I also agree with professor Reitz in that it is changing. The new generation knows what it wants and is starting to break from the monotone meaningless jargon into attentive writing with a message and a vivid image. I think it’s a real talent to be able to write something of mast importance in an interesting way that is clear and concise and in which the words used does not divert the attention of the actual meaning of the whole piece.
Danielle describes her method of writing a good paper; I would love to read your paper on Escobar, I also always found him incredibly interesting. It’s funny how a person can be a hero to some and a complete foe to others, just like Castro and many others. Doesn’t it make you think whose enemy you’ll end up being by following your heart of helping others?
Writing...writing is a difficult subject to discuss in the sense that there are so many different types of writing styles and so many different types of writing techniques. What makes a writer a good writer? It is difficult to say what a good writer is, when what may seem good to one is apparently awful to another. I agree with Neethu, in regards to the class discussion on much of the current day writing having become “dry, ambiguous” and difficult to comprehend. This raises the question and concern as to why…why is this happening? In trying to understand the situation we currently face, I would like to agree with Neethu and Marling, this is happening because as marling said “If we don’t conform to the norms of writing, we probably won’t be taken serious in the field of our choosing as scholars trying to advance the knowledge of that field and we will not be able to conduct much change”. This is an unfortunate truth we must face. It does not matter how intelligent we may actually be. If our form of writing and the terminology we decide to use is not up to part we may be robbed of things we may truly deserve. It may also be obvious to most that this does not only apply to writing but also applies to verbal and non-verbal language and is an essential part of our daily lives where we are constantly being judged by others as to how we speak, how we carry ourselves, on our appearance and how we interact with others and also our body’s non-verbal language. We live in a world in which unfortunately a certain socially constructed sophistication is needed to reach a high level of success.
I also liked Zinn's description of the purpose of writing. We should analyze and think critically about everything we read and see; it helps us develop our opinions of life and situations. For example, when I first went to college I knew that there was a difference of social classes and that the rich has the means to get into the best schools. But after reading Karl Marx I saw the world differently. It was not just a world of accepting “that is how the cookie crumbles,” but rather it made me look at whose hand it crumbles. Society has a way of keeping us divided and we just accept this as just the way it is, but after reading Dyson, Marx, Rousseau, and others I was inspired to fight against all of the constraints that my social class (and sometimes racial stereotypes) has held against me.
I also noticed that although writing can open are minds, sometimes we become caught up by the media that we read tabloid magazines instead of actual scholarly material. I’ll admit I do pay a visit to perezhilton.com every so often, but after I read the opinion section of New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof. ( I try not to let the media blind me from what is going on in the world.) Nicholas Kristof reports on real life issues in the Sudan and recently wrote a book called “Half the Sky, turning oppression into opportunity for women worldwide.” His stories and his writing are so phenomenal, truthful, and critical that it makes you want to change your life completely. He is the reason why I took out a $2,000 loan just to study for a month in the Dominican Republic. He inspired me to research about the injustice on Haitians and how they have become the invisible and stateless workers of the Dominican Republic. I though slavery was over, but by seeing the sugar cane fields that scatter D.R. and the bateys (which look like underdeveloped versions of concentration camps) this may not be true. These extraordinary group of people are constantly abused and trafficked into the Dominican Republic daily without remorse or justice. His writings have exposed and inspired me to this truth.
In regards to your question, will we lose respect for professionals if they wrote more simply, I honestly do not think so. As a professional they should clearly state the issue they are speaking about, which will show that they know what they are talking about. I also think that reader will actually feel grateful for the simplicity of their writing, especially if its captivating. Reading shouldn’t have to be a task, but a pleasure that inspires us.
Wow, great post, Neethu, and great comments so far. I'm sympathetic with your collective anxiety about what is at stake in conforming to a particular academic style, and also really impressed that you have grasped this already! I have always loved to write; I even would make up stories in my spelling sentences in elementary school or in my narrative math tests (I didn't do very well in math.). This childhood love of writing carried me happily through work on my high school newspaper, my college newspaper and my undergrad major (eventually English -- I simply could not learn the Russian language and so dropped out of being a Soviet Studies major). Of course I thought that English graduate school would be more of the same. I was dead wrong. It took years of getting back papers dripping in ink from critical professors and reading criticism in language oh-so-unlike the beautiful prose of my favorite writers to realize that professions had different understandings of what made for good writing. I do think, and I did have to accept, that you must know how to talk to the talk. Having said that, one of the reasons why I worship George Orwell is that I think there is a higher truth that sits above all of the different disciplinary jargons and vocabularies. This truth requires that even as we speak in the vocabulary of our fields, we always ask ourselves those questions: what do I mean? what is the simplest, most direct way of expressing it? have I said something unavoidably ugly? I did manage to learn how to balance my love of good storytelling with the need to adopt the structures and vocabulary of literary criticism. It was not fun, but I'm probably a better writer now for the process.
A separate thought: Zinn mentions a few books that really shaped him (Dickens, I might note). What are some of the books that shaped you and why?
Another absolutely wonderful week of blogging.
Yesterday, I was in the New York Public Library at 42nd Street. It is an amazing place in all ways--the architecture, the archives, the book collections, places to sit and read (book, periodicals). I wish I could just go there with all the books I've not yet had a chance to read, pull up a chair at one of those beautiful library tables, and curl into it.
But for now, I dream. And wrote down two quotations to share with you here:
"A good Booke is the pretious life-blood of a mafter fpirit, imbalm'd and treafur'd up on purpofe to a life beyond life." [NOTE: In Old English the letter "s" appears as a kind of "f." Translation: A good book is the precious life-blood of a master spirit, embalmed and treasured up on purpose to a life beyond life."]
Here's the second quotation:
"Access to knowledge is the superb, the supreme act of truly great civilizations. The New York Public Library is, in this regard, both symbol and act of what the best of civilization has to offer." Toni Morrison, 1986
And then last night I heard a lecture by Tony Judt (he spoke to a huge audience of about 750 people or so) who gave an outstanding lecture with great eloquence. His words were learned, clever, smooth, and with a cadence that I found enthralling and enlightening (though I did have some issues with some of his statements--it was a talk about the failures of the state--what is "living and dead in social democracy"--all stuff totally relevant to our Vera seminar discussions, by the way). The lecture was all the more remarkable since Judt was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease) one year ago and is now paralyzed from the neck down. He needs an oxygen mask to breathe. Yet he spoke for about an hour and a half, then responded to questions. He told the audience, he is literally a "talking head."
Yesterday was amazing--the library in all its richness, and Professor Judt who revealed himself committed to the life of the mind and to political engagement. And books are at the center of the place (the library) and the man.
It is interesting how different topics are brought up every week. Reading Neethu's post, I remember learnign about the negatives of Christopher Columbus here in John Jay. To add to the comment that history teachers endulge elemenetary and high school students with only the accomplishments made by Christopher Columbus, it reminds of my history class. The class, thought by Professor Aman and Professor (cannot remember his name but he's a great professor), made me discover what I had been ignorant of--and that being that Christopher Columbus was also a slave holder as well as a heartless punisher. The book that helped me uncover/read about the other side of Christopher Columbus is "The Lies My Teacher Told Me" cannot remember the author of the top of my head, but it is a great read. The book uncovers a lot of other truths behind other important, historical characters that have shaped American History.
The reality is that history books only address the accomplishments of these important figures because 1) the authors want to sell their product, 2) it is too early to begin telling young kids the negatives of important figures they hold as role models or that teachers praise as being the founding fathers and discovers, and 3) if they do tell the kids about the other side of these people, children/young adults will not know what to believe. It may have been exactly how I felt then. we read about all of these great important figures that helped shape and modernize society, yet textsbooks only tell us what we want to hear, not what we would repel as immoral and un justifiable.
You have all heard about “publish or perish”. In our town (academia) one’s worth is often premised on the poundage of one’s letters, on the amplitude of scholarship the professor or student produces rather than its novelty, passion, thoughtfulness, or ability to express clearly an idea of great value. Someone once suggested to me that they had never read an academic book that wouldn’t have made a great article, the exact inverse of what generally happens. Professing endlessly on some arcane subject is what got us here in the first place; professing is what being a professor (or potential professor) is all about. I have noticed that the more learned we become, the more longwinded we are, clinging to each of our needless rhetorical elaborations, every word we utter so dearly beloved (by ourselves) that we cannot throw even one of them out of the ever growing manuscript we nurse way past infancy, sometimes to obsolescence. And in case you fellows were feeling superior, student papers are no exception.
So here is the writing challenge implied by Zinn and Watereston: imagine your writing as a way of organizing your mind, instead of the other way around. Write to find out what you know instead of to tell what you know. Think of writing as process instead of a product, sort of like that old saw about Michelangelo being asked how he made the incomparable statue of David and answering, “well I just took my chisel and chipped away everything that wasn’t David.”
It is so interesting that Amanda noted the work of Nick Kristoff who, along with his wife, the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Sheryl WuDunn, has not, I believe, written about the plight of the world’s women, as much as given them voice. The way that Waterston gave voice to Nora, the way I tried to give voice to the imprisoned men I interviewed. Voice, which through the instrument of a scholar’s pen, makes known what was unknown, (or vaguely known but repressed). And that’s exactly where Neethu started.
I remember the time when I finally learned the truth about Christopher Columbus – I was blown away. All my life, I’ve been told stories about how he was such a great explorer who discovered America, etc. but never told about the other side – the truth. This only teaches us to ask questions and allow those questions to lead to more.
“How do we find a balance between dry facts and pure emotional narrative?” To answer your question Neethu, it’s so hard. I remember writing a research article for my experimental psych course and it was a struggle for me to keep it interesting although my topic interested me a lot. Because we had to deal with so many variables within the article and it had to stick with a specific structure, it turned out to be quite boring. To prepare our research article, we also had to read quite a few journals which contained dry/boring facts so I usually just jumped straight to the conclusion of the paper (& of course the professor deterred us from doing so) where the core of the subject matter was. Danielle, your example was an excellent strategy on how to keep your research paper interesting. You were able to put together a research/narrative paper which still conformed to the structure of what your professor was looking for, yet you were able to keep it interesting.
When we talk about writing and careful usage or words, it makes me think about when I’m studying for the LSAT’s (the test is under a rigorous time constraint). There is a reading comprehension part of the test that we are trained to read what the writer feels about the subject matter, rather than read for details. We are trained to look for key words (for example - therefore, although, hence, etc) to see where the ideas shift. It’s so hard because we have been trained all our life to read for information and for detail. It’s kind of interesting when you’re asked to do that and I’m learning a lot about how to figure out what the writer feels about the subject matter.
“So here is the writing challenge implied by Zinn and Watereston: imagine your writing as a way of organizing your mind, instead of the other way around. Write to find out what you know instead of to tell what you know.” Professor Stein, that was very well said. I remember when I decided to go to college after taking a few years off and writing my first paper. All I did was take all the facts and threw them all together into that one paper. Although I didn’t do so well on my first paper, I learned a lot about organizing my thoughts and to be clear and concise in my writing.
I remember hearing somewhere that history is written by the winners. It is not a big surprise then why we are taught from a very early age to celebrate Christopher Columbus, and to forger about the thousands of Indigenous people that were slaughter. I wonder why we are still feeding lies or simply omitting relevant facts to our children? I try my best to teach my daughter both sides of history. What is told and what is omitted. I know she is only six years old, but I want her to learn to question everything. I don't want her to simply believe something because the person who said it is a so called expert in the field. I think that one of the main problems in our educational system is that we are not taught to think for ourselves. It is always listen to the teacher and spit back out the information at tests. I don't remember being force to think about subjects deeply until I got into college. Even here at college I know many students who would rather write an essay on a question given by a professor than writing about their own questions.
I also found very interesting when Prof. Stein wrote, "Write to find out what you know instead of to tell what you know." I remember having to write a paper about Kooning's "Woman" painting during my freshmen year. I had absolutely no idea how I was going to write a five page paper about a painting. I was not very exposed to art critiques, and I didn't understand art very much.I was in agony for about two weeks thinking about what I was going to write, and had already begun to panic because my brain was blank. I final decided to sit down and write. I had not a clear idea of what I was going to say, but I wrote anyway. I dissected the whole structure of the painting. I looked at the colors, shape, and brush strokes all separately. I assembled all my ideas together and looked at my final product. I was blown away by my paper. I found in the painting a depth that I had missed before, and I felt a strong connection with this art work. I was also very glad when my professor gave me an "A" and said I had picked the hardest work on his list and had done a great job. If I had to choose my favorite paper I would have to choose this one. It was the only one in which I had not idea what I wanted to say or how I wanted to say it. In all my other papers I always formulate a clear thesis ahead of time and I find it restricts my writing in many ways. It makes it less passionate and less exiting. It could be just me but my best works are those that are shaped by the overall writing process.
Here's an addendum about the power of words. In today's NY TImes, there is an article about the last reporter covering executions in the U.S. While writing up the human consequence of the death penalty was once mandatory for all major newspapers, it is no longer considered important coverage. The non-coverage of these events in all their grusomeness (and racial bias), leads us to "forget" what a state killing looks like, reducing possible activism against the death penalty.
Second, I caught a news report this morning on Fox TV. There was a two line headline. The first announced "EDDIE MURPHY SLASHES". The line underneath said "THE PRICE OF HIS BEVERLY HILLS HOME". I thought that a large percentage of watchers would probably see the first line and unconsciously finish the sentence "HIS GIRLFRIEND". This is a very subtle demonstration of how words can be used as weapons, in this case against a minority group.
Finally, kudos to Danielle for finding a creative way to find the voice of Pablo Escobar, and put it on paper. That's a great writing exercise for us all.
Ana, I really identified with your comment. I too have had the experience of spending hours agonizing over what to write for papers for which I had no idea what to say. In the end, I always just sit down and write what I know about the subject and somehow these papers always end up to be my best pieces of writing. I end up realizing that I knew so much more about the subject and had so much more to say than I thought.
THE FOLLOWING IS VAUGHN "GOOGLE WAS NOT KIND TO ME" MASON'S COMMENT:
I’ve been reading the posts for days not knowing what to say on the matter because so many great thoughts have been brought up. What could I offer besides a summation to all the very well expressed perspectives? It wasn’t until earlier today (at Auto Zone) that my attention was drawn to the fact that our writing and language isn’t only unclear and or evasive in the more respected professions of society. All professions to some extent use exclusionary tactics in there writing and language. Exclusionary in the inability of an individual not trained to even follow along with the most trivial of conversations. It is to some extent in my mind a defense mechanism which keeps some levels of society almost unattainable. When we enter into a profession or for that most group settings, every one else becomes an outsider. Another manager and I were having a conversation today and it went something like this “so what was the P.C count for yesterday?
115 man, WITTDTJR was number 1 in the D.W.I
That’s what I’m talking about! What was moving, BTPs,BG1S, or BKGs?
Well it was really the COCs that pushed us over the top.
O ok lets keep that up!
There was a customer standing right beside us as well as two of our newer employees. The employees look at us as though we were aliens while the customer who was a professor of educational leadership at near by Fordham University was curious to know what we were talking about. So we explained that the pc was just short for the packet count which was the number of add on items that we sold with products. It includes battery terminal protectors Bulb grease, and brake grease, as well as the “COC” or check out challenge for the month. All of these are classified under one policy called “what it takes to do the job right”. She was intrigued and went on to ask a variety of more personal questions.
Looking back at my own training at auto zone I realized that all of these abbreviations were really made not only to make the business more lucrative but instead to separate those who are in from those who are out. These terms are things you must know if you want to be recognized as a competent employee. However what was most interesting was the little attention paid by those employees who really in retrospect were supposed to be far more enthused than this lady with a PHD. It is a possibility that a certain level of education develops a certain level of inquisitiveness. Curiosity and willingness to learn from our own writing and speech may make us better Writers, thinkers and speakers. Nevertheless is it possible for those world renowned writers, psychologists, anthropologist etc. to recognize well educated scholarly individuals as there selves without putting emphasis on how many SAT words they can use correctly in a sentence? Isn’t this a necessary tool to separate the bad form the good and keep these professions harder to enter, If not what is the alternative?
OMG!!! I LOVE WHAT VAUGHN WROTE!! That is so interesting. I can't wait to show it to Shonna Trinch, a colleague who is a linguist. I love that Vaughn stepped outside his own self to look at what he himself was doing! And how he made the connections between language, turf, the insider-outsider, and that he observed that the new employees were less curious than the customer (herself a trained observer, probably)--and why aren't the new employees all that interested (what does that tell us about alienated labor?!?)? There is so much here in Vaughn's post. I love the whole blog this week! Thank you, all of you.
PS: I wonder if anyone is going to see this since I'm writing this at 4PM on Thursday afternoon--we're now starting our new week!
Post a Comment