Reflections: Part 3

During the semester, I’ve felt as though a lot of the theorists were writing primarily to raise a concern, but did not offer a solution or suggestion for a way forward. I understand that this is a perfectly valid position from which to write. My background in the professional writing disciplines might have conditioned me to expect the standard feature of most persuasive writing, a “call to action” at the end of the essays. Maybe it’s there, under the guise of “think differently about this.” 

I know that some classmates have said during the semester how the readings feel a little gloomy and tend to ward a more negative critique of media. I think a way forward or “implications for practice” (a feature of the qualitative research study) might empower us as consumers and critics to feel we can do more than just watch as our fellow consumers naively engage.

I think looking at the power structures behind the messages media deliver is really important. Coming from an advertising background, I’ve had some exposure to the mechanics of persuasion. Knowing who is speaking to you as a consumer and what they are saying (and not saying) helps inform your choice about what to believe, think, do and purchase. It seems like persuasive marketing messages are received as pure commercially-minded persuasion, and sometimes, they're taken seriously, even though people really do understand that someone is trying to influence them.

I would like to gain a deeper understanding of the nuances of critical and rhetorical theory. My undergrad degree is from a Jesuit university, so I’ve studied philosophy and theology there, and the professional writing program here requires a theories course, which I enjoyed.  But there was a language of critical and rhetorical theory that some of the classmates were pretty skilled at using.  I think a little more background in that would have made me feel more comfortable in some of the discussion areas. 

Having this knowledge would help me examine the writing a little more closely and a little differently. I sometimes felt as though there was another layer of discussion to these essays that I wasn’t fully able to engage in, because I didn’t have that theory to compare these writings to other similar or different scholarship. Some of the contextualization information helped with this issue, but I know a deeper understanding of theory would have given me different things to say about the work and the contexts.

It’s interesting to compare those media charts.  I think I put the messy, experimental, first one out there in a pretty confident tone.  I think my revision backed off in a big way.  I articulated things differently. Half the text on the document was questions, in an effort to incorporate some of the complicating factors. I don’t think I asserted myself all that much, compared to the initial effort.

Maybe that’s what this class was supposed to do – expose the messiness and the layers, and complicate our thinking.