Bacon really opens a door...and then Enlightenment thought seems to explode. Bacon’s psychology theories greatly expanded the view that Aristotle had on divisions of the mind. Bacon organizes the mind into the areas of memory, imagination, reason, appetite, and will. Bacon first argues that the main faculties are reason, imagination, and memory. Yet, all five faculties work together by combining imagination and reason to influence the will, influenced by appetite and memory. The understanding of imagination and reason comes through rhetoric.
Continuing this move toward psychology, René Descartes divides the processes of analysis and synthesis in the mind. Cartesian theory situates presentation as the end of discovery; in other words, at this point, ideas are understood enough to be able to pass them on in persuasion or in teaching. Psychology continues its birth here as a component of persuasion that is coupled with correct thinking. (Despite many wanting to shake the moral and religious codes, we see that, in this time period, we are still influenced by the notion that the moral man will speak and think “correctly”.)
John Locke reduces the mental faculties into two divisions: understanding and will. As he writes about the difficulty and ambiguity of words, Locke explains the uncertainty of language, especially non-character connections to ideas. Locke explains that terms stand for ideas but that people have different understandings of the same terms, especially in complex concepts such as the economy or religion. In many ways, Locke bemoans rhetoric as he tries to follow the empiricism so heavily emerging in that day. Still, Locke cannot help but discuss words as he searches for truth through experiment in a physical world and as he desires to establish an epistemological framework for a psychological experience.
Despite the organization and understanding of psychology seemingly taking off, Bizzell and Herzberg say that these connections are merely the beginning or the foundation for a psychological theory of rhetoric. And so I'm looking forward to upcoming readings, especially Foucault's because I've read Discipline and Punish, which did look at rhetoric in a roundabout way but through the very specific confines of the prison, the hospital, and the mental institution. But as I said in my replies to posts this week and as we discussed in class, we are seeing that as media spreads, the realization of people builds inclusion. Still, from “the people” in Roman times to Enlightenment times to today, I think we have a ways to go.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Keeping it interesting, keeping it current
Dear Classmates,
What exactly is an ugly and offensive fault? What examples can you think of that could be classified as ugly? As offensive? Now, what types of actions or words or thoughts might you describe as both ugly and offensive? For Erasmus, it's the old “repetition of the word or phrase” (Bizzell & Herzberg, p. 505)! While I found this section absolutely comical, I also nodded my way through it. When Erasmus asked, “Who has got years patient enough to put up even for a short time with a speech totally monotonous?”, I answered, “Not me!” (Bizzell & Herzberg, p. 505). In fact, my husband calls the point of monotony as “checking out”. He says that he can see in my eyes and by my body language when I “check out”. And it’s true! Tell me something once. If you want to further explain your point of view with varied examples, make sure that they are both relative and interesting. Otherwise, I get the point.
Most people are willing to listen at least once. But repetition either has to have good merit or be part of a song with a really good beat. Erasmus expresses that “the mind is always looking around for some fresh object of interest” (Bizzell & Herzberg, p. 506). And this is how good debates become good. Erasmus encourages writers and speakers to pull from a toolbox with a variety of styles and subjects. In this way, we avoid “chatter[ing] on without restraint” or saying too little (Bizzell & Herzberg, p. 505). In some instances, silence would have been better than continued discussion of the same subject in the same way. Therefore, we have to vary either the subject or the style.
Here we can return to the same argument we have seen from the Greeks. Being well educated aids speechmaking and writing because it increases the number of tools in the rhetorician’s toolbox. Still, rhetoric is a funny subject, as we have seen in the trouble humans have in both classifying as well as in assigning it relative value. It’s something to be studied, in other words, to improve the style that Erasmus discusses. But it is also something that everyone uses. Uses, I add, but not always well. And so we get exposure to those ugly and offensive experiences of repetition.
Let me diverge. Remember how the character Socrates said that “the method of the art of healing is much the same as that of rhetoric” (Bizzell & Herzberg, p. 137) in Plato’s Phaedrus? Here, we have the physician who has studied a subject and promotes/practices healing. And back then, the connection between studying rhetoric and performing public speeches was much more direct because individuals made a living by being rhetoricians and practicing speechmaking. Today, that is less outwardly so. We don’t usually defend ourselves in the courtroom today. Nor do we go to the public square and shout out a speech. But doctors are still studying medicine and practicing healing. So we can see how one profession has stayed more consistent while the other has changed more with the context.
Still, we may defend our decision at work or we may make a speech at town hall. Maybe we train others for a living. Maybe we motivate teams at work. And our physician may also perform the same rhetorical practices. So where is the value in rhetoric today?
Enter communicators. We have this field of communication today that also goes through the ups and downs of organization and value. I can’t tell you how many people questioned my decision of choosing Business Communication as a major in my undergrad years. And in my answer to them, I confessed that I really didn’t know. I just liked to write. And I didn’t like to write fiction. Eventually, I entered the world of technical writing and absolutely loved writing hardware and software manuals, which, sigh, many people don’t find value in either. Most manuals go unread unless there is a problem or unless it pertains very specifically to that person’s career. In becoming a technical writer, I learned an art. Here is a skill that not everyone performs. As Phaedrus said, to create the value, one must work for and possess “knowledge of the art” (Bizzell & Herzberg, p. 136).
Books like the one we read from Erasmus offer us such knowledge. From the outside, they seem nearly ridiculous. But you have to really place yourself in what was important at that time. In the future, my tech writing skills will become obsolete. Something will replace the manual as we know it today. I’ve seen little videos that show complex steps much better than trying to write it out. All those skills and memorized conditions from the style guide will likely seem silly. Hence, in a changing field, we have to create value, and as Erasmus demonstrated, that comes down to fine details to communicate very precisely.
Just like in technical writing, you keep it straight and never commit the ugly and offensive sin of repetition, I better close here before I say the same over again. ;)
Emily
What exactly is an ugly and offensive fault? What examples can you think of that could be classified as ugly? As offensive? Now, what types of actions or words or thoughts might you describe as both ugly and offensive? For Erasmus, it's the old “repetition of the word or phrase” (Bizzell & Herzberg, p. 505)! While I found this section absolutely comical, I also nodded my way through it. When Erasmus asked, “Who has got years patient enough to put up even for a short time with a speech totally monotonous?”, I answered, “Not me!” (Bizzell & Herzberg, p. 505). In fact, my husband calls the point of monotony as “checking out”. He says that he can see in my eyes and by my body language when I “check out”. And it’s true! Tell me something once. If you want to further explain your point of view with varied examples, make sure that they are both relative and interesting. Otherwise, I get the point.
Most people are willing to listen at least once. But repetition either has to have good merit or be part of a song with a really good beat. Erasmus expresses that “the mind is always looking around for some fresh object of interest” (Bizzell & Herzberg, p. 506). And this is how good debates become good. Erasmus encourages writers and speakers to pull from a toolbox with a variety of styles and subjects. In this way, we avoid “chatter[ing] on without restraint” or saying too little (Bizzell & Herzberg, p. 505). In some instances, silence would have been better than continued discussion of the same subject in the same way. Therefore, we have to vary either the subject or the style.
Here we can return to the same argument we have seen from the Greeks. Being well educated aids speechmaking and writing because it increases the number of tools in the rhetorician’s toolbox. Still, rhetoric is a funny subject, as we have seen in the trouble humans have in both classifying as well as in assigning it relative value. It’s something to be studied, in other words, to improve the style that Erasmus discusses. But it is also something that everyone uses. Uses, I add, but not always well. And so we get exposure to those ugly and offensive experiences of repetition.
Let me diverge. Remember how the character Socrates said that “the method of the art of healing is much the same as that of rhetoric” (Bizzell & Herzberg, p. 137) in Plato’s Phaedrus? Here, we have the physician who has studied a subject and promotes/practices healing. And back then, the connection between studying rhetoric and performing public speeches was much more direct because individuals made a living by being rhetoricians and practicing speechmaking. Today, that is less outwardly so. We don’t usually defend ourselves in the courtroom today. Nor do we go to the public square and shout out a speech. But doctors are still studying medicine and practicing healing. So we can see how one profession has stayed more consistent while the other has changed more with the context.
Still, we may defend our decision at work or we may make a speech at town hall. Maybe we train others for a living. Maybe we motivate teams at work. And our physician may also perform the same rhetorical practices. So where is the value in rhetoric today?
Enter communicators. We have this field of communication today that also goes through the ups and downs of organization and value. I can’t tell you how many people questioned my decision of choosing Business Communication as a major in my undergrad years. And in my answer to them, I confessed that I really didn’t know. I just liked to write. And I didn’t like to write fiction. Eventually, I entered the world of technical writing and absolutely loved writing hardware and software manuals, which, sigh, many people don’t find value in either. Most manuals go unread unless there is a problem or unless it pertains very specifically to that person’s career. In becoming a technical writer, I learned an art. Here is a skill that not everyone performs. As Phaedrus said, to create the value, one must work for and possess “knowledge of the art” (Bizzell & Herzberg, p. 136).
Books like the one we read from Erasmus offer us such knowledge. From the outside, they seem nearly ridiculous. But you have to really place yourself in what was important at that time. In the future, my tech writing skills will become obsolete. Something will replace the manual as we know it today. I’ve seen little videos that show complex steps much better than trying to write it out. All those skills and memorized conditions from the style guide will likely seem silly. Hence, in a changing field, we have to create value, and as Erasmus demonstrated, that comes down to fine details to communicate very precisely.
Just like in technical writing, you keep it straight and never commit the ugly and offensive sin of repetition, I better close here before I say the same over again. ;)
Emily
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Discrediting
Again, we see a rhetorician who doesn’t really want to be a rhetorician vilifying someone before to advance the “true” purposes or virtues of rhetoric. This time it’s Ramus. But honestly, Plato pulled a similar move. Ramus sets forth his purpose by saying, “We shall distinguish the art of rhetoric from other arts, and make it a single one of the liberal arts, not a confused mixture of all arts; we shall separate its true properties, remove weak and useless subtleties, and point out the things that are missing” (Bissell & Herzberg, p. 563). I'm just wondering when those who claim to know what rhetoric is are going to be presenting it in a way that acknowledges that the subject of rhetoric, or any subject for that matter, is what we define it to be. And this is not simply an individualistic pursuit; it has to be agreed upon in a social manner for it to be recognized, at least by a certain group, as the definition of the field that defines what is included and excluded. In the statement above from Ramus, he seems to imply universal laws surrounding what rhetoric “really” is. The claim of truth pervades many subjects. In fact it almost seems that to advance some concept, developers and authors have to claim such clarity (as opposed to simply pointing out a falsehood or discrepancy). Yet reading back on such claims of truth is almost laughable. In Bissell and Herzberg’s Renaissance Rhetoric Introduction, Descartes is quoted saying, “One can talk of persuasion whenever there is ground for further doubt. One can talk of science however only when there is an unshakable ground” (Bissell & Herzberg, p. 477). I'm not saying that this is intentional deceit. But, oh, how much we have learned about the importance of context and social constructivism.
Here's a little story to get our minds thinking about the importance of social acceptance of terms, language, and communication. Many times when we think of science, we think of the quantitative aspect (i.e. number of milligrams of X in the blood). But it is the communication of both quantitative and qualitative aspects of science that build a social understanding in smaller circles and in larger communities. I hope this story spurs some brainstorming about what virtues are most important to various people, how terms gain their solidity and social meaning, and why absolutes are easy to conjecture but difficult to defend.
Story of miscommunication and bad blood
There was a patient who'd been seeing her primary care physician for a few years now. I'll give her the name Rosie. She was going into the office to get some work done. All seem to be okay except for her long-standing heart disease and hypertension.
One day Rosie was experiencing shortness of breath so acutely that it alarmed her enough to go straight to the emergency room. Upon admittance to the hospital, the team of doctors determined that Rosie was in cardiac distress. As the doctors worked up a plan for Rosie, someone from medical team to blood cultures in an attempt to rule out endocardititis and other heart value issues. Upon analysis of the cultures, a doctor noted a common culture growth that grows on skin. A resident, practicing full disclosure, said to Rosie, “Oh, one of your blood cultures grew out this bacteria; but don't worry, it was contaminated.”
After Rosie's experience in the emergency room and subsequently a room in the hospital, she went to see her primary care physician. Arriving agitated, Rosie burst into a demand as soon as the physician entered the room. Rosie exclaimed that she wanted to know precisely what her medical records had regarding her blood. Because of Rosie's irritation, the physician was confused. This started a long series of questions and answers in an attempt to understand the demand. But Rosie wasn't interested in answering any questions for the position. She simply wanted the blood related information to be read to her. The primary care doctor still attempted to initiate further understanding of Rosie's big concern. After many conversations, and they traced the concern back to the resident’s comment.
Rosie didn't know the precise wording that came from the resident, but from the talking and tracing, the physician was able to determine that what Rosie thought had been conveyed to her was that she had syphilis. Rosie didn't actually know the term syphilis; instead, she used the common jargon of the South: “bad blood”. In Mississippi, where Rosie was originally from, bad blood was synonymous with tainted blood or with contaminated blood. When the resident use the term contaminated, it triggered an immediate connotation for Rosie that meant she was infected with syphilis. While not thought about logically in this manner, her thinking ultimately went like this: contaminated blood means that my blood is bad because it has been tainted, and tainted blood is bad blood which is that disease with rashes and open sores [syphilis] that you get from being loose [promiscuous].
The euphemism “bad blood” was how Rosie continued to refer to what she thought was on her medical record. Rosie told the doctor, “I love my husband. I was a faithful wife. Now I'm widow, but I am still a churchgoin’ woman and I fear God. How do you think this record shows on me?” She insisted that the information had to be removed from her record. The physician tried to explain to Rosie the meaning of the word contaminated in this context, and that it had actually been determined that the person taking the blood had contaminated it. And so, the doctor continued, the contamination really had nothing to do with Rosie at all. But this made matters worse. Rosie became convinced that the person taking the blood had actually inserted a contaminated needle into her, ruining Rosie's blood.
Upon reflecting about this incident, the doctor noted it as “the biggest communication divide she had yet experienced”. The doctor felt that despite her [the doctor’s] research and subsequent connection between the euphemism and Rosie's understanding, the doctor and the patient were not speaking the same language. They did not have the same social understanding and acceptance with the term contaminated. The more the doctor tried to convince Rosie by means of the credibility of the hospital and the team of doctors, the credibility of the machines determining what is in the blood, the logical explanation and research that went into tracing the blood contamination, and Rosie's own fears and emotions involved with this trigger word, the more unmovable Rosie seemed to become.
This story is also a springboard for discussing doctor-patient rhetoric and communication in the scientific medical field.
Here's a little story to get our minds thinking about the importance of social acceptance of terms, language, and communication. Many times when we think of science, we think of the quantitative aspect (i.e. number of milligrams of X in the blood). But it is the communication of both quantitative and qualitative aspects of science that build a social understanding in smaller circles and in larger communities. I hope this story spurs some brainstorming about what virtues are most important to various people, how terms gain their solidity and social meaning, and why absolutes are easy to conjecture but difficult to defend.
Story of miscommunication and bad blood
There was a patient who'd been seeing her primary care physician for a few years now. I'll give her the name Rosie. She was going into the office to get some work done. All seem to be okay except for her long-standing heart disease and hypertension.
One day Rosie was experiencing shortness of breath so acutely that it alarmed her enough to go straight to the emergency room. Upon admittance to the hospital, the team of doctors determined that Rosie was in cardiac distress. As the doctors worked up a plan for Rosie, someone from medical team to blood cultures in an attempt to rule out endocardititis and other heart value issues. Upon analysis of the cultures, a doctor noted a common culture growth that grows on skin. A resident, practicing full disclosure, said to Rosie, “Oh, one of your blood cultures grew out this bacteria; but don't worry, it was contaminated.”
After Rosie's experience in the emergency room and subsequently a room in the hospital, she went to see her primary care physician. Arriving agitated, Rosie burst into a demand as soon as the physician entered the room. Rosie exclaimed that she wanted to know precisely what her medical records had regarding her blood. Because of Rosie's irritation, the physician was confused. This started a long series of questions and answers in an attempt to understand the demand. But Rosie wasn't interested in answering any questions for the position. She simply wanted the blood related information to be read to her. The primary care doctor still attempted to initiate further understanding of Rosie's big concern. After many conversations, and they traced the concern back to the resident’s comment.
Rosie didn't know the precise wording that came from the resident, but from the talking and tracing, the physician was able to determine that what Rosie thought had been conveyed to her was that she had syphilis. Rosie didn't actually know the term syphilis; instead, she used the common jargon of the South: “bad blood”. In Mississippi, where Rosie was originally from, bad blood was synonymous with tainted blood or with contaminated blood. When the resident use the term contaminated, it triggered an immediate connotation for Rosie that meant she was infected with syphilis. While not thought about logically in this manner, her thinking ultimately went like this: contaminated blood means that my blood is bad because it has been tainted, and tainted blood is bad blood which is that disease with rashes and open sores [syphilis] that you get from being loose [promiscuous].
The euphemism “bad blood” was how Rosie continued to refer to what she thought was on her medical record. Rosie told the doctor, “I love my husband. I was a faithful wife. Now I'm widow, but I am still a churchgoin’ woman and I fear God. How do you think this record shows on me?” She insisted that the information had to be removed from her record. The physician tried to explain to Rosie the meaning of the word contaminated in this context, and that it had actually been determined that the person taking the blood had contaminated it. And so, the doctor continued, the contamination really had nothing to do with Rosie at all. But this made matters worse. Rosie became convinced that the person taking the blood had actually inserted a contaminated needle into her, ruining Rosie's blood.
Upon reflecting about this incident, the doctor noted it as “the biggest communication divide she had yet experienced”. The doctor felt that despite her [the doctor’s] research and subsequent connection between the euphemism and Rosie's understanding, the doctor and the patient were not speaking the same language. They did not have the same social understanding and acceptance with the term contaminated. The more the doctor tried to convince Rosie by means of the credibility of the hospital and the team of doctors, the credibility of the machines determining what is in the blood, the logical explanation and research that went into tracing the blood contamination, and Rosie's own fears and emotions involved with this trigger word, the more unmovable Rosie seemed to become.
This story is also a springboard for discussing doctor-patient rhetoric and communication in the scientific medical field.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
In Jest: Medieval Letters v. Current Text Messages
On the Art of Text Messaging (or Principles of the Text Message) Through the Eyes of Generation Y
It seems appropriate that a rhetorician (ahem, moi) ought to examine current communicative writings by contrasting them to the medieval rhetoric of the letter or epistle. The definition letter, as put forth in The Principles of Letter Writing, seems fairly appropriate for the definition of text message: “a suitable arrangement of words set forth to express the intended meaning of its sender” (Bizzell and Herzberg, p. 432). However, we can contrast and examine how the five parts of the letter have changed when looking at them through the lens of the text messaging genre. These five parts include the salutation, the securing of goodwill, the narration, the petition, and the conclusion. While we read about these components this week, let's examine each one in light of the use of text messaging, a common, nearly immediate form of sending digital messages primarily through the use of cell phones.
The salutation is rarely used when communicating through text messages. Namely because the salutation is already implied by the sending of a message. Though, when time permits, a quick “hi” is cordial. Still, any sort of long or drawn-out salutation is completely inappropriate for the text message because it may be viewed as a waste of the reader’s time. While the salutation of the letter in the medieval period characterizes a person based on social rank and personal manner, such superlative depictions, even in today's verbiage, such as “most phenomenal and competent of supervisors”, “my beautiful and dutiful child”, or “dearest of friends who incite feelings of comfort, sublime happiness, and utmost trust”, would be called brown nosing, not to mention a waste of the space allotted for the text message. (This case is also applicable to the tweet.) While the salutation of the medieval period was used to express feeling and opening greetings, communicators of today recognize that the quick, content-focused information sent through the text message cannot be read into too deeply regarding tone. If it was, many a text message would be viewed as negative and curt by virtue of its abruptness. After all, text messages are sent at nearly any time of the day and often out of the blue with a succinct, to the point note or inquiry.
In fact, considering the popularity of negativity (while not in my own nature but certainly heightened compared to the way rhetoricians of days gone by looking to expand upon the receiver's virtues loquaciously) and the encouragement speak one's mind, it seems to me to be a good thing that we do not characterize the recipients of our text messages. Why, with divorce rates as high as they are, a text message to a spouse might characterize him or her as “you lousy sack of suds” or “most nagging of all”. Children, who seem to perceive endless rights and possess a self-centered perspective, may feel justified, right or not, to start texts to parents with “ruler so unfair” or “[parent’s first name], why are you – so insistent and intruding as you are – texting my phone? This is my domain.” Consider the use of text messaging in the workplace. Physicians, all of whom are very busy, use text messaging to locate and/or question other physicians within the hospital. Imagine the havoc it would wreak if one professional who didn’t have a very high opinion of another or who was being caused to wait began a text message with “Name, you schmuckiest of schmucks”. It is, quite a blessing, I do believe, that the characterization in the salutation has been removed.
Humor me for a moment and reflect upon what would happen if we applied the same notions of superiority and inferiority discussed in The Principles of Letter Writing (see Bizzell and Herzberg, p. 433). Society is much changed, and any implications that someone is “below you” are very much out of place in a world that values equality. This is not to say that respect should not be employed; rather, it highlights our current tendencies to view each other as equals.
While sometimes a very quick salutation is used by those of the “older generation” (which is completely forgivable as they are not “with it”, and they still believe that some sort of greeting is necessary) or used by a bored youngin’ who has the time to insert such a greeting, is most appropriate to simply recognize that the salutation is implied in the art of text messaging.
We will only briefly cover the next part of the letter – the securing of goodwill – as it applies to text message. Why? Because here again this component of the letter is completely unnecessary in the text message. In fact the salutation and the securing of goodwill go hand-in-hand in the letter (Bizzell and Herzberg, p. 437). But in the world of text messaging, such characterization and flowery explanation used to bolster the sender's ethos seems completely out of place as such developments of ethos ought to be done in other contexts.
In the expectation of our times, in fact, this blog post is getting much too long, and I fear that I might lose my reader’s attention. And so, I will reiterate the recommendation of the medieval monk Alberic when he said that brevity was a chief virtue (Bizzell and Herzberg, p. 430). Indeed, brevity is a chief virtue in text messaging. So, what the heck, nix the narration and the conclusion when writing your texts. Get right to the question, or as explained in The Principles of Letter Writing, the petition.
Ask your question and be on with it.
Disclaimer: This blog post may not be applicable to those who are twitterpated with love, doting and flowery Southern women in the habit of using pet names like “darling”, or for message senders who just wrecked the car and need to include a bit of goodwill-securement and narration.
It seems appropriate that a rhetorician (ahem, moi) ought to examine current communicative writings by contrasting them to the medieval rhetoric of the letter or epistle. The definition letter, as put forth in The Principles of Letter Writing, seems fairly appropriate for the definition of text message: “a suitable arrangement of words set forth to express the intended meaning of its sender” (Bizzell and Herzberg, p. 432). However, we can contrast and examine how the five parts of the letter have changed when looking at them through the lens of the text messaging genre. These five parts include the salutation, the securing of goodwill, the narration, the petition, and the conclusion. While we read about these components this week, let's examine each one in light of the use of text messaging, a common, nearly immediate form of sending digital messages primarily through the use of cell phones.
The salutation is rarely used when communicating through text messages. Namely because the salutation is already implied by the sending of a message. Though, when time permits, a quick “hi” is cordial. Still, any sort of long or drawn-out salutation is completely inappropriate for the text message because it may be viewed as a waste of the reader’s time. While the salutation of the letter in the medieval period characterizes a person based on social rank and personal manner, such superlative depictions, even in today's verbiage, such as “most phenomenal and competent of supervisors”, “my beautiful and dutiful child”, or “dearest of friends who incite feelings of comfort, sublime happiness, and utmost trust”, would be called brown nosing, not to mention a waste of the space allotted for the text message. (This case is also applicable to the tweet.) While the salutation of the medieval period was used to express feeling and opening greetings, communicators of today recognize that the quick, content-focused information sent through the text message cannot be read into too deeply regarding tone. If it was, many a text message would be viewed as negative and curt by virtue of its abruptness. After all, text messages are sent at nearly any time of the day and often out of the blue with a succinct, to the point note or inquiry.
In fact, considering the popularity of negativity (while not in my own nature but certainly heightened compared to the way rhetoricians of days gone by looking to expand upon the receiver's virtues loquaciously) and the encouragement speak one's mind, it seems to me to be a good thing that we do not characterize the recipients of our text messages. Why, with divorce rates as high as they are, a text message to a spouse might characterize him or her as “you lousy sack of suds” or “most nagging of all”. Children, who seem to perceive endless rights and possess a self-centered perspective, may feel justified, right or not, to start texts to parents with “ruler so unfair” or “[parent’s first name], why are you – so insistent and intruding as you are – texting my phone? This is my domain.” Consider the use of text messaging in the workplace. Physicians, all of whom are very busy, use text messaging to locate and/or question other physicians within the hospital. Imagine the havoc it would wreak if one professional who didn’t have a very high opinion of another or who was being caused to wait began a text message with “Name, you schmuckiest of schmucks”. It is, quite a blessing, I do believe, that the characterization in the salutation has been removed.
Humor me for a moment and reflect upon what would happen if we applied the same notions of superiority and inferiority discussed in The Principles of Letter Writing (see Bizzell and Herzberg, p. 433). Society is much changed, and any implications that someone is “below you” are very much out of place in a world that values equality. This is not to say that respect should not be employed; rather, it highlights our current tendencies to view each other as equals.
While sometimes a very quick salutation is used by those of the “older generation” (which is completely forgivable as they are not “with it”, and they still believe that some sort of greeting is necessary) or used by a bored youngin’ who has the time to insert such a greeting, is most appropriate to simply recognize that the salutation is implied in the art of text messaging.
We will only briefly cover the next part of the letter – the securing of goodwill – as it applies to text message. Why? Because here again this component of the letter is completely unnecessary in the text message. In fact the salutation and the securing of goodwill go hand-in-hand in the letter (Bizzell and Herzberg, p. 437). But in the world of text messaging, such characterization and flowery explanation used to bolster the sender's ethos seems completely out of place as such developments of ethos ought to be done in other contexts.
In the expectation of our times, in fact, this blog post is getting much too long, and I fear that I might lose my reader’s attention. And so, I will reiterate the recommendation of the medieval monk Alberic when he said that brevity was a chief virtue (Bizzell and Herzberg, p. 430). Indeed, brevity is a chief virtue in text messaging. So, what the heck, nix the narration and the conclusion when writing your texts. Get right to the question, or as explained in The Principles of Letter Writing, the petition.
Ask your question and be on with it.
Disclaimer: This blog post may not be applicable to those who are twitterpated with love, doting and flowery Southern women in the habit of using pet names like “darling”, or for message senders who just wrecked the car and need to include a bit of goodwill-securement and narration.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)