Well, here is my second attempt at a visual argument. As you can see, this isn't very technologically sophisticated. I realized as I put it together that I have a very hard time constructing an argument without words. I think part of this is because I usually see arguments as needing to be clear-- as not having multiple possible interpretations. I don't think my argument is open to a whole lot of interpretations, but I can still see a couple of different possibilities. I'm beginning to wonder if the university ought to institute another required class for freshmen-- a class about using new media. Even though I only finished my bachelor's degree about 2 years ago, I'm still feeling hopelessly out of date (not that my technological skills were anywhere close to up to date at that point, either). Although I think Wysocki, et al have some good points and interesting assignment ideas, I have two objections to integrating much of this into my course:
1) I don't know anything about how to teach these things.
2) I think that one semester is not enough time to teach both new/visual and old/written forms of argument effectively. So many students in the writing lab have such a hard time with just getting the basics of academic writing, that I'm not sure I could justify using much of our time focusing on learning new forms.
Coming back to an idea I raised in the first paragraph-- academic writing is generally not supposed to have multiple interpretations. The argument is supposed to be clear (well, at least for most of us. Nobody apparently told this to Lacan). Yet, it seems that if we remove written text from compositions, there is no way that we can expect those compositions to have crystal-clear meanings; if there is no language to fix a meaning, to what extent is it argument at all? (Language has slippage as well, but it does have the potential for greater clarity.) Of course, if language were always clear, there wouldn't be a whole lot for us literary types to write our seminar papers about, but language is clear enough that our seminar papers are expected to have clear meanings.
9 comments:
Leta,
(As I carefully adjust my "defense of visual media" hat...) I am struggling with the idea that academic writing is not supposed to have multiple interpretations. And although ideally it is clear, some writers have trouble with that (I would blame the translator, not Lacan).
So...you say that if language were always clear, we wouldn't have to interpret literature. Why is this not the same of academic writing? What about literary theory? Or aesthetic theory? I think of academic writing as a well-informed opinion. I can disagree wtih Lacan. I think that the "multiple interpretations" comes a step before composition, where we decide to take a stand on an issue about which someone might disagree.
An easier way of saying this is "academic writing is not fact, it is opinion." For that matter, I don't think language is closed to multiple interpretations. If I say "orange," do you think of the color or the fruit first? If I say "dog," do you think of a Rottweiller or a Chihuahua? I don't want to get into a huge deal about Platonic ideals or sign/signified, but my point is that language can be just as malleable as words.
Just ask the Korean student I saw today at the WL who didn't understand the colloquialism "what do you look for in a partner."
And by the way, "language can be just as malleable as words" clearly is supposed to mean "language can be just as malleable as images."
See? My point.
I agree that even academic writing is open to interpretation. But I think it is less open to interpretation than visual arguments are. A picture may well be worth a thousand words largely because there are a thousand different ways to look at it. There are fewer ways to read the words that describe it, though (I think).
You are having an interesting discussion. I want to bring up another point of Leta's regarding whether a class in visual media should be offered for freshmen. It seems to me that such classes must already be out there, even if they are not targeted at freshmen. Advertising/Marketing or Commercial Art classes would have to cover visual media, one would think, and I'll bet they have similar discussions to the one you two are having, about the effectiveness of the written word vs. the visual. I personally don't think, at this point, visual media should be a requirement in the way that college comp is (nor should we HAVE to include it in our classes), though our ever-changing world could someday make it more of a demand. I do think that I will incorporate visual media into my class in some respect, but not at the expense of the written word.
I think it's interesting that what's played out here is basically a summary of the structuralist/post-structuralist tension that arose after Derrida read "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences" at the Johns Hopkins conference on Structuralism in 1966. Katie's point about the indeterminacy of language is very much like what Derrida's critrique of Saussurean linguistics and the work that was born out of it (Levi-Strauss' anthropological work, Lacan's structuralist psychoanalysis).
Now that I've alienated any audience I could've had, one of the (only) things I like about Lacan is his *embrace* of indeterminacy, his wordplay: Le Nom du Pere means "the name of the father," but also "God the father," "the father as definer of law;" its homophone in French, le non du pere, means both "the 'no' of the father" and an absent father; and then les nonnes du pere refers to Lacan's female followers. I admire Lacan's sense of play, his emphasis (obviously) on the power of language and how that power can be strategically deployed. In terms of assignments for freshmen, an obvious analogy to visual arguments for me is film, and one of the first topics I'd like to cover with film is the fact that you can appreciate or critique film on different levels. There's the simple visual pleasure or entertainment value that any film worth its weight in celluloid gives us, but you can also critique pretty much any film that comes out of the 818 area code in terms of its portrayal of women or race, what values it assumes, etc. For me, to achieve that multifaceted gaze is liberating, because I can question a film's assumptions, but still enjoy it. Prahlad actually articulated this for me--way back when--and I consider it a valuable lesson.
I find that same sense of liberation in "leveling" critical approaches to literature. Bedford has a series of editions of canonical novels that each include something like four critical essays, each using a different critical lens (psychoanalytical, feminist, post-colonial, deconstructionist, etc.) and I usually find something of value in each one--and I usually don't feel that any one "wins" or gives a more thorough or convincing argument over the others.
I take Leta's point about how in our seminar papers we're expected to present clear intentions or meanings--and we'll expect the same of our freshmen comp students. But I guess my overall point is that I personally find it useful to allow for contingencies, even contradictions (Keats' negative capability is an idea I'll stand on ceremony with)--and I think foregrounding that approach can be useful for students. Much like Katie said, you start with multiple view-points, then pick one (or several if you can) to make an argument. I think there's pedagogical value in taking students through that process and highlighting the "teaching moments" along the way.
I'd like a new media course for graduate students. It could be taught by whiz-kid freshmen. We could then fail them in English 1000 because they can't write complete sentences. Seriously, though, I'd like a new media course for graduate students.
I agree. I think a new media course for grad students would be a marvelous idea.
And, Court, as I was writing, I was actually thinking about the good old days in 8050 last semester.
I take your point, too. I do think that visual argument has value; I just don't think it's something we have a whole lot of time for in English 1000. Film is an excellent way to use it, though.
And I've recently discovered that I really like playing devil's advocate, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.
Did you know that "devil's advocate" comes from a practice within the Catholic Church? If not, I'll give you the 4-1-1: Advocatus Diaboli is the colloquial title given for the Promoter of the Faith (Promotor Fidei), one of the most important officers of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. The popular title comes from the fact that the Promotor of the Faith is charged with the burden of preparing all possible arguments against beautification and canonization. The idea is to prevent any one from receiving the honors whose death is not proved to be "precious in the sight of God."
Post a Comment