Thousands of kinds of
genres are a part of our daily life. Each
genre consists of a set of socially construed characteristics. These characteristics make up the format,
design, intended audience, and location of the genre. Over time, society decided what
characteristics apply to each genre, and these characteristics have been
accepted “like gospel” in the majority of American Society. Most of us do not consciously
consider the specific characteristics of each genre. We merely treat them like an involuntary body
function –not really noticing they are there but just taking them for granted. Unit Two, English 101, is teaching us to
notice those specific characteristics, and it is teaching us to realize how
deeply engrained as undisputed facts the decided characteristics of genres are
in the average person’s mind.
These characteristics are widely accepted almost as if
they were absolute truth, but are only based the relativity factor of what society
deemed as proper over time. We accept
these characteristics without question, and apply them to genres we create and
expect them of genres we encounter. How
many things do we accept at face value without question because the general
public, or more specifically our peers, deemed them as correct, normal, and/or proper. The issue of accepting genre socially
construed characteristics is small compared to a society that accepted without
question, the idea of extinguishing another race. But, if we are willing to start with the
small things, how many other things will we continue to accept without question
before the line of “how far is too far” becomes blurry? This may seem like a
long stretch for an analogy, but maybe it will get people to think about things
in a different light. Maybe, it will
help people to think before jumping on a bandwagon for any issues from the
seeming small topic of genre characteristics to larger issues such as how and
why we judge or treat people a certain way. How
much will we subconsciously allow society to dictate our actions and views? Stephen
Fry discusses, in the Grassroots article “Breaking Down Grammatical Snobbery…”
about what really is “good” English. He
addresses the fact that what society deems as “good” English is not always
fitting or the best use for different situations. He also talks about how just because someone
does not follow society’s characteristics, does not make them necessarily a bad
writer.
I also had never realized the amount of characteristics
that apply to each genre. I never
considered that these characteristics were relative, and I have realized with
this study, how deeply engrained these ideas of society are engrained in my own
thought process. I enjoyed reading the
pre-mentioned Grassroots article because I never thought about things from
Stephen Fry’s perspective. Growing up, I
was always in the honors English classes, and I tried to follow the laws that
society has placed on what I have been taught is “proper writing.” When I proof read/ peer review others’
papers, I usually expect and hold the authors to also follow the typical
guidelines for writing. Even now as I
see this different perspective, it is still hard for me to look at another’s
paper with what I see as “poor writing skills” and not expect or demand that
they improve their writing to meet the standards that I have been taught as
unquestionable truth. (I must note that… I know that I often make mistakes in
my own writing, but I at least expect others to have the same goal as me--to
try to get as close to the “standard” as possible.) I now realize how much society’s idea of “good
writing” has been deeply engrained into my world view.
By all of this, I am not saying that everything that society
decides as a whole is bad/wrong. I am
just saying that we should question why we follow it, or see it as truth before
we subconsciously follow or accept. I do
personally feel that what society has deemed as “good writing” is a good thing
in many ways. I believe that we do need
a standard in our society to follow, in order to be graded and to have a
standard for what professionalism is in writing. We also need these standards to have a basis
for how our language works and functions.
How else would you teach someone the language of English if we did not
have some set rules? These rules keep
our language somewhat universal. If
change the characteristics of how we write or communicate (this mostly applies
to international business)the issue of local dialects may become an issue in
our writing too. With certain rules it
is easier for international relations and even from one part of our country to
another to translate and or conceptualize what we are trying to
communicate. However, I do agree that
this idea of “good writing” has become generalized to more areas than what it
should. There should be some freedom of
writing in many genres outside of professional work related genres. This is because it allows people to be more
creative, and many times can give a more personal level to the individual’s
work. It is possible to express yourself
in standard writing characteristics, but one has to be proficient at writing in
that style before he or she can really make his or her writing have a personality
and stand out from others.
I do not have any questions at this time, and I
understand what we are discussing.
However, like I stated before, I enjoy the perspective that has been
presented on this topic, but I do not agree as far as Stephen Fry takes
it. He does begrudgingly admit that
there are times that society’s characteristics still need to apply (like a
classroom), but he seems as if he would rather that not even to have to be the
case. In my opinion, I think that there
is a good and proper place for society’s rules on writing (certain classroom,
work, resume’s, other professional outputs). In my opinion, it is an obvious
indicator to employers of who (based on the average person) has had a “good”
education and who worked hard in school. The employer usually looks at the
writing before they get to meet the applicant, so the writing has to be in a
format that says something about the applicant’s level of professionalism.
I think that I understand the material well, and have
thought up a good life application/ life lesson from this material. That is the goal of General Education courses
for me. I have to take them, so I might
as well get as much as I can out of them by figuring out ways to apply what I
learn to more than just the specific subject matter.
Sources: Grassroots
Journal, Class discussions, and ENG101 class blog
Once again, really good work. I like the metaphor of language as body function which we simply take for granted--very interesting. I also find it interesting to think about all of the "absolute truths" that we come against in the world (with writing being only one) that we do take for granted as to just why those particular things are the rules, etc.
ReplyDeleteI will admit that I, too, judge "proper writing." However, that's okay for a number of reasons. First: proper writing changes in different contexts, and, for some teachers, not helping a fellow classmate with grammar will cost them points. That's just the context of that writing. Second: Regardless of grammar rules, there still exists a place that does represent good and bad writing--how people get ideas across. If the ideas, etc. are missing (and language use often helps this construction), then that could probably be considered "bad writing" in any light. Just some food for thought.