Video on language

Here’s a video i thought I’d share.  I was just browsing through the NYtimes and found this video on dying languages and NYC.  What I found most interesting was how the father in the beginning explains how his children go out to hear and speak English, but at home they learn their native language.  I remember out discussion about the melting pot ( or the tossed salad ) and thought this might interest some people.  I also wondered why the preservation of these languages are important. I don’t have an answer to that, but maybe someone else does.

Del Gandio says

My language expresses my heritage and my heritage expresses my language (110).

By losing these languages are we not also losing a heritage?  That man who is the only known person in America who can speak that language obviously holds his cultural heritage, but after he is gone that culture is no more.  I think that’s interesting (and sad).

here’s the video

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/04/28/nyregion/1247467719180/city-of-endangered-languages.html?WT.mc_id=VI-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M147-ROS-0510-HDR&WT.mc_ev=click

I doubt anyone will read this, but if you do I’d like to hear your thoughts.

Take a look everyone!

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

George Carlin
US comedian and actor (1937 – 2008)

http://wolfgrl89.wordpress.com/

TIF: where politics is headed

A lot of this chapter was kinda boring to me (sorry to anyone who liked it!). I also had trouble understanding some of the main points. However, I took away one key thing from the chapter: the TIF method of discussion is where politics is headed (and in some cases it’s already there). A lot of the ways in which we can understand opinions that conflict with our own is by sitting down and having a thought-provoking conversation with the opposer. This only works unless a few rules are followed, such would be: 1. listening to the other person while they are talking, and allowing them the right to speak about what they believe 2. talking to each other in a calm way so that a fist fight doesn’t break out and 3. being open minded to things the opposer (or other people) say. If a group of discussers follows these GENERAL, basic rules, everyone will have a chance to have their voice heard–which is important in a GROUP discussion.

I think this is why TIF was so successful at Temple. The students and faculty wanted to find a way to allow others (who want to) to speak their mind on certain issues. It became even more successful when the issues directly affected them and their campus. Having an open public forum allows for lots of people to come and feel comfortable speaking their mind. Adding a moderator and a panel encourages organization…so people aren’t just yelling at each other. These were all ways in which TIF was successful.

This is why I feel TIF’s basic model is where politics is headed. Many people feel very strong towards one side of an issue, while others STRONGLY disagree. What’s the right way to let that all out without killing each other? Public debate and discussion.

It all made sense. I guess it was just another way of looking at rhetoric and democracy. And as an after thought, I like this way because it focuses on how rhetoric and democracy can play a part in our lives…even on the local level. No need for bells, whistles, thousands of people, and big cities. We Pennsylvania folk can join the discussion too. And that’s a pleasing thought.

Groneck And The Cyberpolitical Culture

I found the article a little dull in the beginning with the inclusion of the Greek language and the meanings behind it, but overall, I think his article touched upon a very important aspect of rhetoric, that being his “electric rhetoric”. Going on about how we use radio, film, television and the computer to send our thoughts to the masses so others could read them, I think that this is a new important horizon we as a generation as seen. Years before, people wrote letters and staged riots and did all of that to get their point across, but now, all we have to do is jump online and write what we feel. Case in point, this blog. Anyone who is searching for this topic -  radicalism and rhetoric and everything else in between – can just get on Google and search for it. Using an example from my last blog post where I attracted the attention of an Alinsky biographer, I think now that the state of the cyber world is as essential as forever. But I digress, back to my point.

The Internet has become the premier gateway to share ideas. All we have to do is have access. Anyone with an idea can share it. Whether they be intellectuals or scholars or even regular students, one little post is all it takes to introduce the world to a radical new idea. Of course, this could have consequences, but that’s not the point: we shouldn’t deter anyone from introducing or proposing progress of any sort. If it’s a good idea, then we must elaborate on it and give it importance. And the language in this electric rhetoric is indeed radical rhetoric – because it’s on the Internet shouldn’t change anything at all. Language is language – it’s how you use it, how you push it forward. And some people call the Internet a burden – and believe me, at times, it is – but we should never scoff the power of it. We can do anything we want to do with it and Gronbeck’s article definitely proves that.

some final thoughts on del gandio

for the majority of this course i have personally struggled with ideas and notions surrounding the intelligentsia–the elite class of subsequent rulers based primarily on the fact that they are educated beyond the capacity of your average citizen.  in much of the readings we have encountered we are to believe that this class strata of individual is the last and only defense the bewildered herd has against both themselves and the greater power structure at large–hello marx–and this is where i draw exception.  the books, propaganda, and general message we receive is both tailored and manufactured by this said class.  now this poses an interesting problem when the lower classes are attempting to organize.  they must ask themselves: “who and or what is really behind this uprising?”, “am i just a pawn in a struggle for control?”, and “who the hell are these people?”.  i have come to the realization that we are to believe they are a distinguished group driven by their altruistic intent without a corruptible bone in their body.  these fevered drum banging elitists try to convince the masses of their invaluable contributions to the organizational spirit at large and their unique abilities to navigate the power structure–sounds suspect.

del gandio and alinsky are perfect examples of this notion:  ivory towered purveyors of the “true” and ” righteous course”.  to qualify my particular argument i am willing to make certain concessions,  that yes indeed there is an invaluable resource present within these individuals, and that yes they do seem to master the language of the ruling class, yet they appear to play a game so similar to those they supposedly are against it is disturbing.  that game is the struggle to define–perhaps the exact course of rhetoric itself.  this power i have viewed as invaluable for ideally if you can change the course of the argument you can indeed manipulate or control this argument at will.  the classes that are then to be protected by these individuals are forced to seek out their services–it’s like a protection racket.  perhaps it’s just job security at work, but by keeping the basis of power far from the reach of the protectorate their is no concern of your power ever being taken.  nice and comfortable as the middle-man or buffer all their intelligent diving seems to be nothing more than smoke and mirrors.  i say this because when i think of the proletariat in general i think of individuals who have little or no time to discuss the intellectual course of the power structure or the educational background to understand the dialectic–all in all it is quite worrisome.  obviously this forum is limited in both time and scope and so for the sake of brevity i’ll simply make one final statement: ” beware the snake- oil salesman in sheep’s clothing.”

Gronbeck: Citizen Voices

There were a few points he made, which he summarized and quickly moved on from, which I wish he would he explored a little more.  For example, when he wrote that, “…even as some beat the drum to organize peoples’ marches, actual political activity in the execute and legislative halls seemed more influenced by the numbered voices of the printout than the bull-horned voices of the streets” (23). This point was one in a list of points that he would have made if he had more space.  I personally think it is an interesting one worth contemplating and wish he would have spent more than three sentences on it.  What is he basing this idea on?  Is that meant as a segue into the idea of cyber politics?  His concept intrigued me and then left me unsatisfied.

I have to agree with his later point that a citizen’s building of political identity is just as much a part of civic engagement as attempting legistlative change.  And when a citizen is a critically thinking, he or she can definitely successfully piece together a political identity by taking advantage of internet sources.  A danger does lie, though, in the fact that many internet users may not be aware of the different angles website creators are coming from and may not be able to see past that to use their own experiences to compare and contrast.  Personally, I have a problem with believing too much that I read or hear and therefore must be extremely careful processing information before I go voicing my opinion. It’s true, though, that the internet is certainly not the only place where one must be careful to analyze and criticize sources.  It’s certainly one of the more easily accessible and extensive places.  When armed with the right tools, I think it’s definitely a beautiful place of opportunity for many of the reasons Gronbeck listed in his essay.

ch 3: identification and resistance: women’s civic discourse across the color line

At first, I started to read the other chapter about cyberspace because I’m really interested in the growing fields of technology. However, two pages in I decided that I wasn’t as interested because of all the political jargon. So, women’s discourse it was!

I related MUCH better to this chapter, anyway. As I’ve mentioned before, taking Black Lit: Novel has helped me in this class (RDA) whenever we’ve talked about black rights, rhetoric, power, etc. The class also helped me understand and relate to this chapter in Rhetorical Democracy. In this chapter, women were going to be the subject, plain and simple. Shirley Wilson Logan was going to incorporate both black and white women–across the color line–in her chapter, but she found that finding texts that discussed the black race and the female gender was easier than finding white women discussing race and gender.

On page 35, Logan claims, “My central claim is that effective discourse across the color line or the line of difference must always engage in both identification and resistance.” In short, her thesis is the promotion of both identification AND resistance. To present identification, or to find commonalities is great; but, resistance is also necessary when fighting for more rights for women and racial minorities.

“We need to speak our differences, all of our differences without fear of chastisement or group regulation” (35). I think this quote is important because lots of times people ARE fearful to disagree because they are afraid the group will gang up on them, so they simply agree with the crowd. Pointing this out is crucial for the fight.

While this chapter does explore race through blacks, it definitely exploites the idea that women are discriminated against more because of their gender than they are because of their race. This surprised me a little, because we see racial discrimination still to this day…a LOT. We see gender discrimination, but don’t acknowledge it as much as racial discrimination. Recently in my intro to sociology class I learned that for every dollar a man makes, a woman only makes between 77-78 cents. This is proof that women are facing discrimination.

I loved that Logan ended with an Audre Lorde quote.

The fact that we are here and that I speak these words is an attempt to break that silence and bridge some of those differences between us, for it is not difference which immobilizes us, but silence. And there are so many silences to be broken.

When Worlds Collide

A point of disagreement I have with Del Gandio has to do with part of his doctrine of many realities. I suppose it is largely a problem with the post-modern world view in general. He states “Neo-Radicalism believes that every reality should be accepted, respected and appreciated so long as one reality does not impede another reality.” This raises some questions. Since these two realities are in opposition to each other, how are we to determine which reality is impeding which to the greatest degree. One method is to allow the two to interact, and through epistemological exchange, come to synthesis of these two views. Fair enough. But is this really fair? As I understand the thesis/antithesis exchange, one can dominate the other, not through strength of philosophy, but through the crude, coercive methods of the physical world. We are, after all, engaged in not a detached debate of philosophy, but in changing social institutions, which directly impact the lives of human beings. How would Del Gandio judge realities superior and inferior? “Realities are accepted or rejected based on ideas of social justice.” Basically, Del Gandio is asking whether your world view is moral. He uses the phrase social justice, which suggests organized morality. The phrase “social justice” has been used as a call for charity in religious groups, a rallying cry for left of center activists, and a phrase that causes Glenn Beck to yell “Communism, Communism!” like a political junkie with turrets. Good paper topic: is social justice a logical extension of morality, or a perversion of it?

The End Of Del Gandio

I’m not entirely sure if we’re finished the book by now, because of class schedules and such, but I reached the end of “Rhetoric For Radicals”, and I felt like posting about it anyway.

I think the final chapter about the twenty-first century radical rhetoric was probably the finest chapter in the book, in terms of actual writing and the message. I felt like the other sections in the book were hastily written and not really that credible in terms of applying it to modern day situations. That may be a stupid thing to say, but what I mean by that is in this chapter, he specifically writes about our generation and our time, and for that, I found it to be more applicable and realistic. Writing about things like networks and revolutionary realities was something that really added to the book’s message – which reads more like a pamphlet than an educational text. Again, I don’t want to slam too much on Del Gandio, for he knows more about this subject than I ever could, but maybe it’s because it reads too much like a riot act and I can’t take it seriously. As mentioned in a previous post, I wrote about Alinsky’s text was more powerful because of its history, and maybe that’s just where my radical interests lie. Perhaps I am more interested in the building blocks of radicalism than the finished room, but I don’t want to stray too far away from my eventual point.

I’m a fan of prose by all means, but his prose was not fitting for this type of book. He tried way too hard to sound like a leader, instead of an informant, merely teaching this instead of poking us repeatedly until we followed him out into the street ourselves. It felt way too rushed and the language, at times, was so melodramatic that I put it down for a few seconds. Again, I give this man a lot of credit – he wrote a decent-sized book and he has a lot of knowledge. But I just can’t apply it. It’s probably just me, but whatever the case may be, radicalism is something that I guess can’t be overplayed – it has come to you at the right moment, and you have to feel it, not read it.

del Gandio 97-178

After reading the section of the chapter “The Power of Language” regarding the use of language for positive social change, I was struck by the line, “The main purpose of this section is to demonstrate how the language of propoganda shapes consciousness, thus producing conformity of thought and action” (119).  Okay, so I may be putting things together sort of slowly, but this is what it took for me to realize that the exact same process, the construction of reality and beliefs through words, is being used by those with the common good in mind and those with the common exploitation in mind.

Del Gandio clarifies this for me on the following page, bringing home this terrifying point even more clearly, “All propoganda is rhetorical, but not all rhetoric is propoganda.  Both consciously shape language to maximize effectiveness, but propoganda is manipulative, distorting and power-driven.  Propoganda seeks to exploit people’s desires while rhetoric seeks to liberate people’s desires” (120).  Um, wow.  That contrast right there is honestly terrifying.  That the same process and skill can be enlisted to justify an unnecessary war (as del Gandio goes on to explore) as well as fight to free an entire race of people from oppression demonstrates the absolute power of words and language.

In addition, it’s hard to even judge the people using this rhetoric for bad purposes as bad people, as del Gandio points out that a lot of times it is done out of ignorance.  Yes, ideally all people could think critically and identify propoganda and avoid furthering it, but that is not the truth of the matter.  This section clearly pointed this out to me in a very comprehensive way.