I'm continuing to struggle with the depth and breadth of theory required to process the readings in this class. I'm kind of wishing for some sort of theory primer to help provide a little more background for literary criticism and rhetoric. I know I didn't begin my graduate studies with a deep theoretical background, but it seems to be a little more difficult to grasp some of the more obscure references in the virtual classroom setting than the traditional setting in which I took a theories course. I miss the in-person give-and-take that's possible in class, but I do like that I can think about things a little more before I "respond" in the online communication channels. So that's nice.
I started thinking about some of the concepts recurring in my other courses in light of the work for Media Studies. If one considers audience identification as an important factor for a writer, I'm curious about whom the authors pictured when they began to write. Particularly, the authors of the textbook we're using for class. Are each of these references to theorists supposed to be shorthand for an intricately nuanced position articulated by each of the various references? If so, does the author limit his or her audience to the handful of academic peers that share his particular background in the field? I'm comparing the introductions to a few other graduate-level texts in my head when writing this. Would an introductory essay welcoming readers benefit from a different rhetorical stance than speaking to the in-crowd? I'm curious as to how the author regards the use of the introductory essay, both his own use for it as the compilation's editor and essay's author and the reader's use of the essay, as the consumer.
Your questioning of Mitchell and Hansen's (rhetorical) sense of their audience seems to me absolutely a right place to start, Kim. They (and the authors of the other chapters in their book, chapters they requested and whose directions they guided) do assume quite a bit of knowledge on the part of readers, knowledge both of theories and theorists but also of ways to read.
ReplyDeleteIn this way, rhetoric seems to me very much to have a place within Media Culture approaches, for it asks us to consider how particular audiences are called into being and shaped -- which is very much a concern of Media Culture (as I understand it). In academic writing, I think that there are folks who do get very caught up in what they know, and -- because they converse a lot with people who know what is similar but also because they see themselves as teachers setting a theoretic bar for others -- they do not think about a range of audiences. They also just might argue that their arguments *require* the language and terms they need, that anything other would maim or destroy what they hope to achieve.
Embedded in the preceding paragraph, then, is a range of possible ideological positions shaped by people's sense of place within institutions of school and publishing.
You are right, then, to read the essay from two positions, that of one who is trying to understand the authors' arguments as well as that of one who questions how the authors are situated within a Media Culture of academic publishing and prestige.
Thanks for keeping us alert to all of that.