Slant in the Media
People make mistakes. It is a part of being human to be wrong every once in a while. But at whose expense or reputation? Henry Louis Gates, preeminent scholar and professor at Harvard University, was publicly humiliated when arrested in front of his home, even after providing photo identification. Although the arrest has been declared accidental and the charges against him have been dropped, reporters are making sure this case is being given the attention it deserves, sometimes letting their own biases show when they cover this controversial story. The situation was “regrettable and unfortunate,” as Gates and the police stated, yet newscasters, reporters and journalists are making sure that this case stays in the papers, some not afraid to show their biases. Katie Zezima, reporter for the New York Times, let small biases surface, even when her article seems balanced on a first read. Many have wondered how this would have been handled if it were someone other than Gates, or someone from another ethnic background or race, and when reading closely, it is clear that Zezima believes this mistake is not just an everyday accident, but a problem on everybody's part. When people make mistakes at the expense of others, it should be taken seriously and have a balanced portrayal in the media.
“Selection, Slanting and Charged Language,” an essay by Birk and Birk, states that our knowledge, both conscious and unconscious, is influenced by the “principle of selection.” What we select is what we notice, and this determines what serves as fact in our own system of knowledge. Each person has their own way of gathering information and selecting what is important, forming an impression of that information. Once we have gone through the principle of selection, Birk and Birk describe the “principle of slanting.” People “choose the words and emphasis that [they] shall use to communicate [their] meaning.” (Eschholz, 353). Slant can clearly be seen – through charged language, the emphasis of a word, and fact selection – when it is giving a negative or positive connotation. Slant allows anyone (especially journalists and advertisers,) to shape our knowledge and opinions on that knowledge, a dangerous concept for the everyday person because they lose their own ability to make decisions about the topic at hand. Although most articles, when quickly read, are thought to be balanced portrayals of the subject, they are actually including slices of information that convey a bias – a slant – on that subject. In some ways, slant can be harmful to readers who are not aware of how much influence the bias of an article can have on your own opinion. Zezima’s article about Gates is, for the most part, a very balanced article; however, some of her own opinion of the subject slips in, through charged words and fact selection:
Police said [he] refused to show identification. When told that Sgt Crowley was investigating a robbery, the police said Professor Gates yelled “Why because I’m a black man in America?” and accused the sergent of racism.
Zezima is picking and choosing words that will help justify Sgt. Crowley’s actions, presenting Gates as the bad guy when, by analyzing the situation and Crowley's actions, could undeniably be seen as an act of racial profiling on Crowley’s behalf. By using “accusing,” a charged word, Zezima is implying a negative connotation. The word “accusing” gives a negative connotation to the reader, as if Gates is instigating the situation and pointing fingers at an innocent police officer. The word “accusing,” – because it is giving off this negative connotation – is influencing how the reader should feel about the situation. Some readers may see the word accusing and say that Professor Gates is all to blame – even without any other facts or knowledge on the circumstance. When charged words such as accusing are being used, the reader is leaving their opinion in the fate of whose reporting: because this may be the first article they read about this incident, their opinion may be influenced by whoever is reporting and in whichever way their article is slanted.
Another example of charged language in Zezima’s article is the use of the word “frustrated.” She says, “Frustrated, Professor Gates asked for Sgt. Crowley’s name and badge number…” Upon reading this word for the first time, readers may not notice the amount of bias it is communicating. Frustrating also has a negative connotation, implying that Professor Gates is the one out of control, or soon to be out of control. The tone would have changed completely if the word frustrated were not included; therefore, the reader may see the word frustrated and gather their impression of the incident based on the word’s negative connotation. Instead of figuring out who is in the wrong in this situation, or if anyone is wrong in the matter, the reader can have that opinion made for them, through the use of charged words and charged language.
The reader can also have their opinion made through the use of fact selection. Although Zezima does use charged language in a way that supports the police and not Professor Gates, her fact selection, “verifiable facts [that are] deliberately selected… to produce an impression” (Escholz, 354) conveys a different image. For the most part, it is balanced and conveys only the tone of a reporter reporting about a case. However, her facts, in my opinion, help reinforce the idea that people should be more careful when they try to analyze someone else based on his/her own impressions and opinions, or else that mistake can be seen as more than just a mistake. At first, Zezima shares a balanced recollection of facts:
…Professor Gates said he showed the responding officer, Sgt. Crowley, photo identification, but he did not believe [Gates] lived at the home. Frustrated, [Gates] asked for Sgt. Crowley’s name and badge number, which he refused to give.
In this situation, anyone would feel harassed if someone were questioning their ownership of property. Required by law, police officers are supposed to give this information to those who request it. For an officer to refuse this right of any citizen is not only suspicious of his character, but also shows his lack of respect towards others; even though Crowley was suspicious of Gates, it is the law to show a badge. Although it is balanced, there are signs of slant within the facts Zezima highlighted in this report. In this example, Zezima allows the reader to infer something for themselves, but simultaneously makes it clear to the reader that Crowley’s actions were not okay. Embedded in the facts she has chosen, and the way she chose to represent them in her article, Zezima is giving us the report with a slant (which is most likely a subconscious choice on her part). By giving us this slice of information, Zezima is showing the reader – through her point of view – that it is insulting to Gates and others who have been profiled to have their character questioned. For some readers, profiling by the police may be something they've experienced. For others, Zezima is giving them insight into how a person would feel when this type of profiling occurs.
Maybe this terrible situation is nothing more than just a simple miscommunication. A statement later released ensures that this “regrettable and unfortunate” episode has been resolved, and Gates has been dropped from all charges. But, maybe – through Crowley and Gates’ own impressions, and through how Zezima uses slant within her article – there’s something more to it that we should all be paying attention to.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Essay 3 Final Draft
How Important Is A Name?
A name can mean many different things to each person. Where some may not see names as having an influence on a person’s life, others believe that names can shape a person’s identity and plans for the future. So how powerful are names? Tom Rosenberg, author of “Changing My Name after Sixty Years,” is an example of how names are important and close to our identity in everyday life. His choice to reclaim his surname, Rosenberg, after it was changed for him when he arrived to America in the 50s, shows that names mean more than we think. Names can help shape our identity; in many ways, they tell us who we are. When our name is stolen, altered or misused, a person can feel a sense of loss. Bonnie Wach, author of “What’s In A Name?” believes in the power of names. Her essay focuses on the impact of names on people, especially unusual names, and observes the evolution and history of name-picking. A name can shape a person’s identity, so name-picking is crucial. Wach has discovered that new parents are picking names that are closer to their heritage and ancestry, “rediscovering” their identities and naming their children in a way that makes them feel close to their culture. These two articles discuss the importance names have when discovering one’s self, and the concepts of Wach’s essay provides the framework for understanding the choice and the need for Rosenberg to take back his surname, the piece of himself stolen away when he moved to America from Nazi Germany.
Wach believes that a name can shape the lifestyle of a person. She believes that an unusual name can affect everyday circumstances in the personal, social, and work life of a person. A few examples she lists are of people whose names seemed to direct them into a particular line of work, such as “Bacon Chow the nutritionist” and “Cardinal Sin the archbishop.” Some names (first and/or last,) are inseparable from a person’s identity, and while some names are in fact harmless, others evoke people to perceive them in their own way, creating prejudices or stereotypes based on the name of a person. After reading Wach’s article, it is easy to see why Tom Rosenberg’s parents would want to change their name when arriving to America. Already trying to escape one country that is filled with hatred toward them, the Rosenberg’s wouldn’t want to take another chance at being hated because of nothing but their heritage and simply where they came from. To escape the harshness of anti-Semitism and discrimination, many families fleeing to America during the uproar in Nazi Germany felt it necessary to change their surname to an Anglo one. In this name changing, people could be safe from anti-Semitism. Rosenberg’s personal experience shows that a name can in fact shape a lifestyle; when one name – his Jewish surname – evokes hatred and prejudice, his new Christian name did not, and gave him opportunities that he wouldn’t have had otherwise:
In the 50’s, I doubt Tom Rosenberg would have been accepted as a pledge by Theta Chi, a predominantly Christian fraternity at my college. He probably would have pledged a Jewish fraternity or had the self-confidence and conviction to ignore the Greek system altogether.(Eschholz, 622)
During this point in history, something as small yet so pertinent as a name could have subjected a person to discrimination because it could tell you something about what culture they’re from, or what ethnicity they are. It did not matter who the person was, or if they were a good person – what mattered was that they were different, and according to most, the difference could first be spotted in a name. As Wach points out, names meant far more than they do today, essentially shaping lifestyles and identities of people. Rosenberg’s curiosity in how his life would have been different if he grew up with his family name shows the effects of a name on an identity and lifestyle. Now, sixty years later, with more acceptance and embracement of one’s culture, Rosenberg felt it was necessary to stay true to his Jewish heritage, and one step toward that was reclaiming the surname he lost when moving to America.
Digging down to the roots of ancestry, as Wach discusses in her essay, is a contemporary way of choosing a name for a child. In this way, children are being given names that have a deeper connection with where they originally came from, ignoring the past feelings of shunning their own heritages to assimilate to American culture. This and Rosenberg’s personal experience, in my opinion, show the evolution of what it means to be American; instead of trying to find names that symbolize only “American” values, more families are embracing their cultures, finding their identity through this deeper meaning of names. Wach reflects on this contemporary “rediscovering – or simply inventing – of roots” with examples of different families from various ethnic backgrounds, and social and economical statuses:
Upper middle class Jewish couples have started looking to their ancestral heritage for 19th century names like Max or Hannah. Working-class African American parents fashion ethnic-sound names with suffixes like la or sha… and educated, upper-middle-class couples of various backgrounds have taken to bestowing gender neutral family names… (Eschholz, 606)
Instead of trying to assimilate to American culture, families are making decisions that are embracing their culture and staying away from the common names. Others, to avoid choosing common names, are creating their own or changing the meaning.In this way, Wach is describing how acceptance and understanding of other cultures is increasingly present when parents pick their children’s names, and as times change, so do the names and how people perceive them. This concept provides the background a reader needs to see when asking why Rosenberg chose to change his name. He, too, is making the choice to embrace his culture. Even though Wach pinpoints the evolution of parents rediscovering their roots through names, Rosenberg is doing the same thing; it does not matter that he changed his name sixty years later, but it is more important that he did it to feel close to his Jewish culture and showing that he is proud of his heritage. His parents voluntarily gave up their surname to escape prejudice, and Rosenberg is taking that piece of his identity back, showing us – as Wach points out – that names really do have importance in showing us who we are, and power over our identities in society.
According to Bonnie Wach, names can shape the way we are recognized and perceived in society. Tom Rosenberg’s need to change his name after sixty years proves that names are very close to us because of the significant meaning they can have on our lives. A name can shape a lifestyle of a person, and it sticks with you, telling a story of “where we’ve been and where we’d like to go” (Eschholz, 603). Besides just new parents finding or inventing their roots, Rosenberg,a man who has lived most of life with an Anglo surname, decided that finding his roots was important to him too. Therefore, names are a significant part of our lives. After all, it is inseparable from who we are as living, breathing people.
A name can mean many different things to each person. Where some may not see names as having an influence on a person’s life, others believe that names can shape a person’s identity and plans for the future. So how powerful are names? Tom Rosenberg, author of “Changing My Name after Sixty Years,” is an example of how names are important and close to our identity in everyday life. His choice to reclaim his surname, Rosenberg, after it was changed for him when he arrived to America in the 50s, shows that names mean more than we think. Names can help shape our identity; in many ways, they tell us who we are. When our name is stolen, altered or misused, a person can feel a sense of loss. Bonnie Wach, author of “What’s In A Name?” believes in the power of names. Her essay focuses on the impact of names on people, especially unusual names, and observes the evolution and history of name-picking. A name can shape a person’s identity, so name-picking is crucial. Wach has discovered that new parents are picking names that are closer to their heritage and ancestry, “rediscovering” their identities and naming their children in a way that makes them feel close to their culture. These two articles discuss the importance names have when discovering one’s self, and the concepts of Wach’s essay provides the framework for understanding the choice and the need for Rosenberg to take back his surname, the piece of himself stolen away when he moved to America from Nazi Germany.
Wach believes that a name can shape the lifestyle of a person. She believes that an unusual name can affect everyday circumstances in the personal, social, and work life of a person. A few examples she lists are of people whose names seemed to direct them into a particular line of work, such as “Bacon Chow the nutritionist” and “Cardinal Sin the archbishop.” Some names (first and/or last,) are inseparable from a person’s identity, and while some names are in fact harmless, others evoke people to perceive them in their own way, creating prejudices or stereotypes based on the name of a person. After reading Wach’s article, it is easy to see why Tom Rosenberg’s parents would want to change their name when arriving to America. Already trying to escape one country that is filled with hatred toward them, the Rosenberg’s wouldn’t want to take another chance at being hated because of nothing but their heritage and simply where they came from. To escape the harshness of anti-Semitism and discrimination, many families fleeing to America during the uproar in Nazi Germany felt it necessary to change their surname to an Anglo one. In this name changing, people could be safe from anti-Semitism. Rosenberg’s personal experience shows that a name can in fact shape a lifestyle; when one name – his Jewish surname – evokes hatred and prejudice, his new Christian name did not, and gave him opportunities that he wouldn’t have had otherwise:
In the 50’s, I doubt Tom Rosenberg would have been accepted as a pledge by Theta Chi, a predominantly Christian fraternity at my college. He probably would have pledged a Jewish fraternity or had the self-confidence and conviction to ignore the Greek system altogether.(Eschholz, 622)
During this point in history, something as small yet so pertinent as a name could have subjected a person to discrimination because it could tell you something about what culture they’re from, or what ethnicity they are. It did not matter who the person was, or if they were a good person – what mattered was that they were different, and according to most, the difference could first be spotted in a name. As Wach points out, names meant far more than they do today, essentially shaping lifestyles and identities of people. Rosenberg’s curiosity in how his life would have been different if he grew up with his family name shows the effects of a name on an identity and lifestyle. Now, sixty years later, with more acceptance and embracement of one’s culture, Rosenberg felt it was necessary to stay true to his Jewish heritage, and one step toward that was reclaiming the surname he lost when moving to America.
Digging down to the roots of ancestry, as Wach discusses in her essay, is a contemporary way of choosing a name for a child. In this way, children are being given names that have a deeper connection with where they originally came from, ignoring the past feelings of shunning their own heritages to assimilate to American culture. This and Rosenberg’s personal experience, in my opinion, show the evolution of what it means to be American; instead of trying to find names that symbolize only “American” values, more families are embracing their cultures, finding their identity through this deeper meaning of names. Wach reflects on this contemporary “rediscovering – or simply inventing – of roots” with examples of different families from various ethnic backgrounds, and social and economical statuses:
Upper middle class Jewish couples have started looking to their ancestral heritage for 19th century names like Max or Hannah. Working-class African American parents fashion ethnic-sound names with suffixes like la or sha… and educated, upper-middle-class couples of various backgrounds have taken to bestowing gender neutral family names… (Eschholz, 606)
Instead of trying to assimilate to American culture, families are making decisions that are embracing their culture and staying away from the common names. Others, to avoid choosing common names, are creating their own or changing the meaning.In this way, Wach is describing how acceptance and understanding of other cultures is increasingly present when parents pick their children’s names, and as times change, so do the names and how people perceive them. This concept provides the background a reader needs to see when asking why Rosenberg chose to change his name. He, too, is making the choice to embrace his culture. Even though Wach pinpoints the evolution of parents rediscovering their roots through names, Rosenberg is doing the same thing; it does not matter that he changed his name sixty years later, but it is more important that he did it to feel close to his Jewish culture and showing that he is proud of his heritage. His parents voluntarily gave up their surname to escape prejudice, and Rosenberg is taking that piece of his identity back, showing us – as Wach points out – that names really do have importance in showing us who we are, and power over our identities in society.
According to Bonnie Wach, names can shape the way we are recognized and perceived in society. Tom Rosenberg’s need to change his name after sixty years proves that names are very close to us because of the significant meaning they can have on our lives. A name can shape a lifestyle of a person, and it sticks with you, telling a story of “where we’ve been and where we’d like to go” (Eschholz, 603). Besides just new parents finding or inventing their roots, Rosenberg,a man who has lived most of life with an Anglo surname, decided that finding his roots was important to him too. Therefore, names are a significant part of our lives. After all, it is inseparable from who we are as living, breathing people.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Essay 3 Rough Draft
How Important Is A Name?
A name can mean many different things to each person. Where some may not see names as having an influence on a person’s life, others believe that names can shape a person’s identity and plans for the future. So how powerful are names? Bonnie Wach, author of “What’s In A Name?” believes in the power of names and that their influence on a person can take place in both positive and negative ways. Her essay focuses on the impact of names on people, especially unusual names; she believes that even though parents are struggling to find unique names, they should be thinking about the effects of that name on a child. In other words, names shape a person’s identity, so name-picking is crucial. Although the majority of her essay pertains to the negative effects of a unique name, Wach finds a positive side to picking different names, which includes “rediscovering – or simply inventing – their roots” and picking names that date back to their ancestry or heritage. It is a way to give a child a unique name with a deeper meaning. In this way, Tom Rosenberg, author of “Changing My Name after Sixty Years,” is an example of how names are important, especially when it is a reflection of your heritage. His choice to embrace his culture by changing his last name back to Rosenberg sixty years later is an example of Wach’s belief in the power names have over a person’s identity.
Wach believes that, in both minute and significant ways, a name can shape the lifestyle of a person. To paraphrase Wach, a person with an unusual name can affect everyday circumstances in their personal lives, social lives, and work. Think of the name “Jessica.” ”What comes to mind when this name is brought up? How would someone named Jessica be perceived and identified in society, and why do you think that is? Now think about “Apple,” a popular celebrity name. How would your inferences about the name Jessica be separate from the name Apple? Could their names possibly affect how they grow up in society? Wach believes that, in some cases, there is “a danger [that names] could become self-fulfilling prophecies.” A common name such as Jessica may not have the same affects on a child who is named Apple. A few examples she lists are of people whose names seemed to direct them into a particular line of work, such as “Bacon Chow the nutritionist, Lionel Tiger the animal behavior researcher, and Cardinal Sin the archbishop.” Some names are inseparable from a person’s identity, and while some names are in fact harmless, others evoke people to perceive them in their own way. For example, Wach cites a study by Albert Mehrabian in which “researchers asked teachers to grade identical essays. The ones signed by a ‘David’ or ‘Lisa’ consistently got better grades than those by an ‘Elmer’ or ‘Bertha.’” In this way a first name, in the least expected ways, can have an influence on how a person is seen in society. A last name can also have an impact on how people perceive you, in cases throughout history often leading to prejudice or painful experiences, such as the case with Tom Rosenberg. Wach’s research of names shaping identity connects to Tom Rosenberg’s choice to change his name. Looking over his sixty years of life, he wondered what it would be like had his parents kept their family name, rather than changing it to Ross when they moved to America. He says:
In the 50’s, I doubt Tom Rosenberg would have been accepted as a pledge by Theta Chi, a predominantly Christian fraternity at my college. He probably would have pledged a Jewish fraternity or had the self-confidence and conviction to ignore the Greek system altogether. (Eschholz, 622)
Rosenberg’s curiosity in how his life would have been different if he grew up with his family name shows the effects of a name on an identity. In his personal experience, Rosenberg did not have a choice to keep his real family name; when his parents fled to America from Nazi Germany, it was clear they wanted to change their name as a way to escape more discrimination and anti-Semitism, therefore deciding that a name like “Ross” would give Tom a better opportunity to live without discrimination. During this point in history, something as small yet so pertinent as a name could have subjected a person to discrimination, despite who s/he was as a person. Now, sixty years later, Rosenberg is drastically different from how he could have been, but he still wanted to acknowledge his Jewish heritage, and one step toward that was reclaiminghis surname. In cases like Rosenberg’s, names meant far more than what they mean today, essentially shaping his lifestyle and identity in society.
However, Wach sees going back to the roots of ancestry and culture as a way of choosing a name for a child that gives a deeper meaning and sense of who they are. In other cases, families “invent” their roots. She compares the differences between different families from various ethnic backgrounds, social and economic status:
Upper middle class Jewish couples have started looking to their ancestral heritage for
19th century names like Max or Hannah. Working-class African American parents fashion ethnic-sound names… and educated, upper-middle-class couples of various backgrounds have taken to bestowing gender neutral family names… (Eschholz, 606)
Instead of trying to assimilate to American culture, families are making decisions that are embracing their culture and staying away from the common names. Others, to avoid choosing common names, are creating their own or changing the meaning, particularly by picking gender-neutral names. In this way, Wach is describing how acceptance and understanding of other cultures is increasingly present when parents pick their children’s names, and as times change,so do the names and how people perceive them. In a similar way to how Wach describes, Rosenberg is also “choosing” to embrace his culture by changing his surname from Ross – the
Anglo name his parents chose when they first moved to America – back to Rosenberg, his Jewish family name. His parents voluntarily gave up their surname to escape prejudice, and Rosenberg is taking that piece of his identity back, connecting to Wach’s observation of couples finding, inventing or re-claiming their roots.
From Wach’s perspective, names can shape the way we are recognized and perceived in society. Rosenberg’s need to change his name after sixty years proves that names are very close to us because of the significant meaning they can have on our lives. A name can shape a lifestyle of a person, and if that is lost or forced to be changed, it can leave a feeling of loss in them. It is also important for new parents to wisely choose the name of their child, even when trying to be unique or unusual. A name sticks with you, and tells of “where we’ve been and where we’d like to go” (Eschholz, 603). Besides just new parents finding or inventing their roots, Rosenberg, a man who has lived most of life with an Anglo surname, decided that finding his roots was important to him too. Therefore, names are a significant part of our lives. After all, it is inseparable from who we are as living, breathing people.
A name can mean many different things to each person. Where some may not see names as having an influence on a person’s life, others believe that names can shape a person’s identity and plans for the future. So how powerful are names? Bonnie Wach, author of “What’s In A Name?” believes in the power of names and that their influence on a person can take place in both positive and negative ways. Her essay focuses on the impact of names on people, especially unusual names; she believes that even though parents are struggling to find unique names, they should be thinking about the effects of that name on a child. In other words, names shape a person’s identity, so name-picking is crucial. Although the majority of her essay pertains to the negative effects of a unique name, Wach finds a positive side to picking different names, which includes “rediscovering – or simply inventing – their roots” and picking names that date back to their ancestry or heritage. It is a way to give a child a unique name with a deeper meaning. In this way, Tom Rosenberg, author of “Changing My Name after Sixty Years,” is an example of how names are important, especially when it is a reflection of your heritage. His choice to embrace his culture by changing his last name back to Rosenberg sixty years later is an example of Wach’s belief in the power names have over a person’s identity.
Wach believes that, in both minute and significant ways, a name can shape the lifestyle of a person. To paraphrase Wach, a person with an unusual name can affect everyday circumstances in their personal lives, social lives, and work. Think of the name “Jessica.” ”What comes to mind when this name is brought up? How would someone named Jessica be perceived and identified in society, and why do you think that is? Now think about “Apple,” a popular celebrity name. How would your inferences about the name Jessica be separate from the name Apple? Could their names possibly affect how they grow up in society? Wach believes that, in some cases, there is “a danger [that names] could become self-fulfilling prophecies.” A common name such as Jessica may not have the same affects on a child who is named Apple. A few examples she lists are of people whose names seemed to direct them into a particular line of work, such as “Bacon Chow the nutritionist, Lionel Tiger the animal behavior researcher, and Cardinal Sin the archbishop.” Some names are inseparable from a person’s identity, and while some names are in fact harmless, others evoke people to perceive them in their own way. For example, Wach cites a study by Albert Mehrabian in which “researchers asked teachers to grade identical essays. The ones signed by a ‘David’ or ‘Lisa’ consistently got better grades than those by an ‘Elmer’ or ‘Bertha.’” In this way a first name, in the least expected ways, can have an influence on how a person is seen in society. A last name can also have an impact on how people perceive you, in cases throughout history often leading to prejudice or painful experiences, such as the case with Tom Rosenberg. Wach’s research of names shaping identity connects to Tom Rosenberg’s choice to change his name. Looking over his sixty years of life, he wondered what it would be like had his parents kept their family name, rather than changing it to Ross when they moved to America. He says:
In the 50’s, I doubt Tom Rosenberg would have been accepted as a pledge by Theta Chi, a predominantly Christian fraternity at my college. He probably would have pledged a Jewish fraternity or had the self-confidence and conviction to ignore the Greek system altogether. (Eschholz, 622)
Rosenberg’s curiosity in how his life would have been different if he grew up with his family name shows the effects of a name on an identity. In his personal experience, Rosenberg did not have a choice to keep his real family name; when his parents fled to America from Nazi Germany, it was clear they wanted to change their name as a way to escape more discrimination and anti-Semitism, therefore deciding that a name like “Ross” would give Tom a better opportunity to live without discrimination. During this point in history, something as small yet so pertinent as a name could have subjected a person to discrimination, despite who s/he was as a person. Now, sixty years later, Rosenberg is drastically different from how he could have been, but he still wanted to acknowledge his Jewish heritage, and one step toward that was reclaiminghis surname. In cases like Rosenberg’s, names meant far more than what they mean today, essentially shaping his lifestyle and identity in society.
However, Wach sees going back to the roots of ancestry and culture as a way of choosing a name for a child that gives a deeper meaning and sense of who they are. In other cases, families “invent” their roots. She compares the differences between different families from various ethnic backgrounds, social and economic status:
Upper middle class Jewish couples have started looking to their ancestral heritage for
19th century names like Max or Hannah. Working-class African American parents fashion ethnic-sound names… and educated, upper-middle-class couples of various backgrounds have taken to bestowing gender neutral family names… (Eschholz, 606)
Instead of trying to assimilate to American culture, families are making decisions that are embracing their culture and staying away from the common names. Others, to avoid choosing common names, are creating their own or changing the meaning, particularly by picking gender-neutral names. In this way, Wach is describing how acceptance and understanding of other cultures is increasingly present when parents pick their children’s names, and as times change,so do the names and how people perceive them. In a similar way to how Wach describes, Rosenberg is also “choosing” to embrace his culture by changing his surname from Ross – the
Anglo name his parents chose when they first moved to America – back to Rosenberg, his Jewish family name. His parents voluntarily gave up their surname to escape prejudice, and Rosenberg is taking that piece of his identity back, connecting to Wach’s observation of couples finding, inventing or re-claiming their roots.
From Wach’s perspective, names can shape the way we are recognized and perceived in society. Rosenberg’s need to change his name after sixty years proves that names are very close to us because of the significant meaning they can have on our lives. A name can shape a lifestyle of a person, and if that is lost or forced to be changed, it can leave a feeling of loss in them. It is also important for new parents to wisely choose the name of their child, even when trying to be unique or unusual. A name sticks with you, and tells of “where we’ve been and where we’d like to go” (Eschholz, 603). Besides just new parents finding or inventing their roots, Rosenberg, a man who has lived most of life with an Anglo surname, decided that finding his roots was important to him too. Therefore, names are a significant part of our lives. After all, it is inseparable from who we are as living, breathing people.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Essay 2 - Final Draft
Like Me vs. Respect Me: Conversational Differences Between Men and Women
Men and women respond differently when conversing with others. Throughout our lives, men and women are known to handle situations in a distinct way from one another – commonly seen as innate and natural. However, these gender specific traits are all a combination of learned social behaviors, habits, and roles that are made for us the day we are wrapped in either a pink or blue blanket. Since men and women then have distinct ways in communicating with others, it is obvious to see miscommunication happen between them. Deborah Tannen, author of the articles “But What Do You Mean?” and “I’ll Explain It To You” points out these differences, and explains these conversational differences by analyzing examples from her own studies. In her studies, one of Tannen’s significant observations is the way women “seek to build rapport,” while men strive for “establishing or testing their status.” By piecing together a study of my own and applying it to Tannen’s research, I have noticed this difference – men seeking respect, women seeking likeability – in the way men and women talk, listen, and perceive one another based on conversation. Both genders are unique in the way they communicate with others during certain situations, funneling down to the differences between their communication styles in listening, joking, and communicating in groups.
In the same way men and women have different interests or hobbies, men and women also have a different way of listening. In a section of “But What Do You Mean?” called “Complaints,” Tannen points out the way men and women respond to a complaint or a conversation. When women have a conversation, Tannen notes:
You complain about a problem (which shows that you are just folks) and the other person responds with a similar problem (which puts you on equal footing). But while such commiserating is common among women, men are likely to hear it as a request to solve the problem. (Tannen, 334)
This can be seen when observing a group of all men or all women conversing; while men tend to get straight to the point and “problem solve,” women show signs of support and respond throughout the conversation, holding eye contact and giving the occasional “yeah” or a sign of interest. In this way, it may seem as if women are supportive and engaged in what the other has to say, but it may also be a way of her building rapport with the person. Instead of thinking about status, women communicate this way because they are focusing on building relationships. Men, on the other hand, listen and provide solutions or challenge what they are being told as a way of showing interest in the conversation; they see it as a way of establishing respect with the person they are communicating with. During this abrupt conversation with my best friend - who is male – it was clear that what I was looking for, I wasn’t going to get:
Leah (me): So class was torture today. I could barely talk. My voice was practically gone and it was embarrassing. I sounded like a 13-year old boy going through puberty.
Jake gives no response.
Leah: And on top of that, I went to the doctor and…(continue to complain for 2 minutes)
Jake: Just take some Dayquil and you’ll be fine.
Leah stares.
Jake: Oh, I’m sorry, was I supposed to react to that? Feel bad, say “Aww, how sad”?
While I wanted to hear a sympathetic response from Jake, the way I had with my roommates (who are all women,) I did not get it. Instead, Jake gave me a simple solution and continued to go on with his day, to take Dayquil and quit complaining. This corresponds to Tannen’s observations about men and women’s conversational patterns. A woman may feel the need to support the person talking and offer an “aww,” or sign of empathy and interest, while a man may find the need to give a solution and challenge you.
Unlike women – who like to build rapport and play the “Do You Like Me?” game – men feel the need to challenge other men as well. Through joking, men can challenge other men and elevate their status. In order to maintain respect, Tannen describes the style of joking between men, which is called the “one-up.” In a section of Tannen’s second article, “I’ll Explain It To You,” she describes how men and women have different styles of joking:
Practical joking… is clearly a matter of being one-up: in the know and control… Since [women] are not driven to seek and hold center stage in a group, they do not need a store of jokes to whip out for this purpose. (Tannen, 287)
Tannen’s observation of joking correlates with my observations, involving the use of practical joking to elevate status. During a conversation I had with a group of male friends at my apartment, it was obvious that each were retrieving old memories (as they were best buddies,) of times when each had “one-uped” each other. Diego and Hector in particular began to have a roast, remembering times they had pulled pranks and practical jokes on one another. Diego eventually won, sharing a humiliating story involving Hector (completely naked,) shaving cream and a sharpie. All of my male friends were reaching for the same goal of being top dog, promoting their own status and simultaneously lowering the other persons’ status. Instead of playing the “Do You Like Me?” game, men use jokes as a way to play the game “Do You Respect Me?”
Men also indulge on making others laugh, which Tannen says, “gives you a fleeting power over them.” So when a man and a woman are sharing jokes – and each having a different set idea of humor – men may find that it is more important to make someone laugh, whereas women may find both making someone laugh and laughing at someone else’s joke as an important component to engaging in conversation.
Men and women have different approaches to engaging in conversation, whether it is at a business meeting, a soccer game or a party. Because of these differences in humor and listening techniques, both genders may find that they are being misunderstood. It is not so much that men do not listen and that women are not funny; while some men definitely do not listen, and some women really do lack a sense of humor, it is not all men or all women. In fact, it is the differences between the way in which we are taught to communicate, or the way in which we are used to communicating.
Men and women respond differently when conversing with others. Throughout our lives, men and women are known to handle situations in a distinct way from one another – commonly seen as innate and natural. However, these gender specific traits are all a combination of learned social behaviors, habits, and roles that are made for us the day we are wrapped in either a pink or blue blanket. Since men and women then have distinct ways in communicating with others, it is obvious to see miscommunication happen between them. Deborah Tannen, author of the articles “But What Do You Mean?” and “I’ll Explain It To You” points out these differences, and explains these conversational differences by analyzing examples from her own studies. In her studies, one of Tannen’s significant observations is the way women “seek to build rapport,” while men strive for “establishing or testing their status.” By piecing together a study of my own and applying it to Tannen’s research, I have noticed this difference – men seeking respect, women seeking likeability – in the way men and women talk, listen, and perceive one another based on conversation. Both genders are unique in the way they communicate with others during certain situations, funneling down to the differences between their communication styles in listening, joking, and communicating in groups.
In the same way men and women have different interests or hobbies, men and women also have a different way of listening. In a section of “But What Do You Mean?” called “Complaints,” Tannen points out the way men and women respond to a complaint or a conversation. When women have a conversation, Tannen notes:
You complain about a problem (which shows that you are just folks) and the other person responds with a similar problem (which puts you on equal footing). But while such commiserating is common among women, men are likely to hear it as a request to solve the problem. (Tannen, 334)
This can be seen when observing a group of all men or all women conversing; while men tend to get straight to the point and “problem solve,” women show signs of support and respond throughout the conversation, holding eye contact and giving the occasional “yeah” or a sign of interest. In this way, it may seem as if women are supportive and engaged in what the other has to say, but it may also be a way of her building rapport with the person. Instead of thinking about status, women communicate this way because they are focusing on building relationships. Men, on the other hand, listen and provide solutions or challenge what they are being told as a way of showing interest in the conversation; they see it as a way of establishing respect with the person they are communicating with. During this abrupt conversation with my best friend - who is male – it was clear that what I was looking for, I wasn’t going to get:
Leah (me): So class was torture today. I could barely talk. My voice was practically gone and it was embarrassing. I sounded like a 13-year old boy going through puberty.
Jake gives no response.
Leah: And on top of that, I went to the doctor and…(continue to complain for 2 minutes)
Jake: Just take some Dayquil and you’ll be fine.
Leah stares.
Jake: Oh, I’m sorry, was I supposed to react to that? Feel bad, say “Aww, how sad”?
While I wanted to hear a sympathetic response from Jake, the way I had with my roommates (who are all women,) I did not get it. Instead, Jake gave me a simple solution and continued to go on with his day, to take Dayquil and quit complaining. This corresponds to Tannen’s observations about men and women’s conversational patterns. A woman may feel the need to support the person talking and offer an “aww,” or sign of empathy and interest, while a man may find the need to give a solution and challenge you.
Unlike women – who like to build rapport and play the “Do You Like Me?” game – men feel the need to challenge other men as well. Through joking, men can challenge other men and elevate their status. In order to maintain respect, Tannen describes the style of joking between men, which is called the “one-up.” In a section of Tannen’s second article, “I’ll Explain It To You,” she describes how men and women have different styles of joking:
Practical joking… is clearly a matter of being one-up: in the know and control… Since [women] are not driven to seek and hold center stage in a group, they do not need a store of jokes to whip out for this purpose. (Tannen, 287)
Tannen’s observation of joking correlates with my observations, involving the use of practical joking to elevate status. During a conversation I had with a group of male friends at my apartment, it was obvious that each were retrieving old memories (as they were best buddies,) of times when each had “one-uped” each other. Diego and Hector in particular began to have a roast, remembering times they had pulled pranks and practical jokes on one another. Diego eventually won, sharing a humiliating story involving Hector (completely naked,) shaving cream and a sharpie. All of my male friends were reaching for the same goal of being top dog, promoting their own status and simultaneously lowering the other persons’ status. Instead of playing the “Do You Like Me?” game, men use jokes as a way to play the game “Do You Respect Me?”
Men also indulge on making others laugh, which Tannen says, “gives you a fleeting power over them.” So when a man and a woman are sharing jokes – and each having a different set idea of humor – men may find that it is more important to make someone laugh, whereas women may find both making someone laugh and laughing at someone else’s joke as an important component to engaging in conversation.
Men and women have different approaches to engaging in conversation, whether it is at a business meeting, a soccer game or a party. Because of these differences in humor and listening techniques, both genders may find that they are being misunderstood. It is not so much that men do not listen and that women are not funny; while some men definitely do not listen, and some women really do lack a sense of humor, it is not all men or all women. In fact, it is the differences between the way in which we are taught to communicate, or the way in which we are used to communicating.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Essay 2
Like Me vs. Respect Me: Conversational Differences Between Men and Women
Men and women respond differently when conversing with others. Throughout our lives, boys and girls, men and women, males and females, are taught to handle situations in a distinct way from one another – commonly seen as innate and “the norm.” However, these gender specific traits are all a combination of learned social behaviors, habits, and roles that are made for us the day we are born and wrapped in either a pink or blue blanket. Since men and women then have distinct ways in communicating with others, it is obvious to see miscommunication happen between them. Deborah Tannen, author of the articles “But What Do You Mean?” and “I’ll Explain It To You” points out these differences, and explains these conversational differences by analyzing examples from her own studies. In her studies, one of Tannen’s significant observations is the way women “seek to build rapport,” while men strive for “establishing or testing their status.” By piecing together a study of my own and applying it to Tannen’s research, I have noticed this difference – men seeking respect, women seeking likeability – in in the way men and woman talk, listen, and perceive one another based on conversation. Both genders are unique in the way they present themselves during business meetings, social situations and confrontations, funneling down to the differences in listening, joking, and communicating in groups.
In the same way men and women have different interests or hobbies, men and women also have a different way of listening. In a section of “But What Do You Mean?” called “Complaints,” Tannen points out the way men and women respond to a complaint or a conversation. When women have a conversation, Tannen notes:
You complain about a problem (which shows that you are just folks) and the other person responds with a similar problem (which puts you on equal footing). But while such commiserating is common among women, men are likely to hear it as a request to solve the problem. (Tannen, 334)
This can be seen when observing a group of all men or all women conversing; while men tend to get straight to the point and “problem solve,” women show signs of support and respond throughout the conversation, with an occasional “yeah” or sign of interest. In this way, it may seem as if women are supportive and engaged in what the other has to say, but it may also be a way of her building rapport with the person, not thinking of building or sustaining status. Men, on the other hand, listen and provide solutions or challenge what they are being told as a way of showing interest in the conversation; they see it as a way of establishing respect. During this abrupt conversation with my best friend - who is a male – it was clear that what I was looking for, I wasn’t going to get:
Leah (me): So class was torture today. I could barely talk. My voice was practically gone and it was embarrassing. I sounded like a 13-year old boy going through puberty.
Jake: No response.
Leah: And on top of that, I went to the doctor and…(continue to complain for 2 minutes)
Jake: Just take some Dayquil and you’ll be fine.
Leah stares.
Jake: Oh, I’m sorry, was I supposed to react to that? Feel bad, say “Aww, how sad”?
While I wanted to hear a sympathetic response from Jake, the way I had with my roommates (who are women,) I did not get it. Instead, Jake gave me a simple solution and continued to go on with his day, to take Dayquil and quit complaining. This came as a shock, but it corresponds to Tannen’s observations about men and women’s conversational patterns. A woman may feel the need to support the person talking and offer support and empathy, while a man may find the need to give a solution and challenge you.
Unlike women – who like to build rapport and play the “Do You Like Me?” game – men feel the need to challenge other men in order to maintain respect, initiating what Tannen refers to as the “one-up.” In a section of Tannen’s second article, “I’ll Explain It To You,” she describes how men and women have different styles of joking:
Practical joking – playing a joke on someone – is clearly a matter of being one-up: in the know and control… Since [women] are not driven to seek and hold center stage in a group, they do not need a store of jokes to whip out for this purpose. (Tannen, 287)
Tannen’s observation of joking correlates with the observation from my own study, involving the use of practical joking to elevate status. During a conversation I had with a group of male friends at my apartment, it was obvious that each were retrieving old memories (as they were best buddies,) of times when each had “one-uped” each other. Diego and Hector in particular began to have a roast, remembering times they had pulled pranks and practical jokes on one another. Diego eventually won, sharing a humiliating story involving Hector (completely naked,) shaving cream and a sharpie. All of my male friends were reaching for the same goal of being top dog, promoting their own status and simultaneously lowering the other persons’ status. Instead of playing the “Do You Like Me?” game, men use jokes as a way to play the game “Do You Respect Me?”
Men also indulge on making others laugh, which Tannen says, “gives you a fleeting power over them.” So when a man and a woman are sharing jokes – and each having a different set idea of humor – men may find that it is more important to make someone laugh, whereas women may find both making someone laugh and laughing at someone else’s joke as an important component to engaging in conversation.
Men and women have different approaches to engaging in conversation, whether it is at a business meeting, a soccer game or a party. Because of these differences in humor and listening techniques, both may find that they are being misunderstood. It is not so much that men do not listen and that women are not funny; while some men definitely do not listen, and some women really do lack a sense of humor, it is not all men or all women. In fact, it is the differences between the way in which we are taught to communicate, or the way in which we are used to communicating.
Men and women respond differently when conversing with others. Throughout our lives, boys and girls, men and women, males and females, are taught to handle situations in a distinct way from one another – commonly seen as innate and “the norm.” However, these gender specific traits are all a combination of learned social behaviors, habits, and roles that are made for us the day we are born and wrapped in either a pink or blue blanket. Since men and women then have distinct ways in communicating with others, it is obvious to see miscommunication happen between them. Deborah Tannen, author of the articles “But What Do You Mean?” and “I’ll Explain It To You” points out these differences, and explains these conversational differences by analyzing examples from her own studies. In her studies, one of Tannen’s significant observations is the way women “seek to build rapport,” while men strive for “establishing or testing their status.” By piecing together a study of my own and applying it to Tannen’s research, I have noticed this difference – men seeking respect, women seeking likeability – in in the way men and woman talk, listen, and perceive one another based on conversation. Both genders are unique in the way they present themselves during business meetings, social situations and confrontations, funneling down to the differences in listening, joking, and communicating in groups.
In the same way men and women have different interests or hobbies, men and women also have a different way of listening. In a section of “But What Do You Mean?” called “Complaints,” Tannen points out the way men and women respond to a complaint or a conversation. When women have a conversation, Tannen notes:
You complain about a problem (which shows that you are just folks) and the other person responds with a similar problem (which puts you on equal footing). But while such commiserating is common among women, men are likely to hear it as a request to solve the problem. (Tannen, 334)
This can be seen when observing a group of all men or all women conversing; while men tend to get straight to the point and “problem solve,” women show signs of support and respond throughout the conversation, with an occasional “yeah” or sign of interest. In this way, it may seem as if women are supportive and engaged in what the other has to say, but it may also be a way of her building rapport with the person, not thinking of building or sustaining status. Men, on the other hand, listen and provide solutions or challenge what they are being told as a way of showing interest in the conversation; they see it as a way of establishing respect. During this abrupt conversation with my best friend - who is a male – it was clear that what I was looking for, I wasn’t going to get:
Leah (me): So class was torture today. I could barely talk. My voice was practically gone and it was embarrassing. I sounded like a 13-year old boy going through puberty.
Jake: No response.
Leah: And on top of that, I went to the doctor and…(continue to complain for 2 minutes)
Jake: Just take some Dayquil and you’ll be fine.
Leah stares.
Jake: Oh, I’m sorry, was I supposed to react to that? Feel bad, say “Aww, how sad”?
While I wanted to hear a sympathetic response from Jake, the way I had with my roommates (who are women,) I did not get it. Instead, Jake gave me a simple solution and continued to go on with his day, to take Dayquil and quit complaining. This came as a shock, but it corresponds to Tannen’s observations about men and women’s conversational patterns. A woman may feel the need to support the person talking and offer support and empathy, while a man may find the need to give a solution and challenge you.
Unlike women – who like to build rapport and play the “Do You Like Me?” game – men feel the need to challenge other men in order to maintain respect, initiating what Tannen refers to as the “one-up.” In a section of Tannen’s second article, “I’ll Explain It To You,” she describes how men and women have different styles of joking:
Practical joking – playing a joke on someone – is clearly a matter of being one-up: in the know and control… Since [women] are not driven to seek and hold center stage in a group, they do not need a store of jokes to whip out for this purpose. (Tannen, 287)
Tannen’s observation of joking correlates with the observation from my own study, involving the use of practical joking to elevate status. During a conversation I had with a group of male friends at my apartment, it was obvious that each were retrieving old memories (as they were best buddies,) of times when each had “one-uped” each other. Diego and Hector in particular began to have a roast, remembering times they had pulled pranks and practical jokes on one another. Diego eventually won, sharing a humiliating story involving Hector (completely naked,) shaving cream and a sharpie. All of my male friends were reaching for the same goal of being top dog, promoting their own status and simultaneously lowering the other persons’ status. Instead of playing the “Do You Like Me?” game, men use jokes as a way to play the game “Do You Respect Me?”
Men also indulge on making others laugh, which Tannen says, “gives you a fleeting power over them.” So when a man and a woman are sharing jokes – and each having a different set idea of humor – men may find that it is more important to make someone laugh, whereas women may find both making someone laugh and laughing at someone else’s joke as an important component to engaging in conversation.
Men and women have different approaches to engaging in conversation, whether it is at a business meeting, a soccer game or a party. Because of these differences in humor and listening techniques, both may find that they are being misunderstood. It is not so much that men do not listen and that women are not funny; while some men definitely do not listen, and some women really do lack a sense of humor, it is not all men or all women. In fact, it is the differences between the way in which we are taught to communicate, or the way in which we are used to communicating.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Final Draft of Essay #1
"Race" in the Media
People make mistakes. It is a part of being human to be wrong every once in a while. But at whose expense or reputation? Henry Louis Gates, preeminent scholar and professor at Harvard University, was publicly humiliated last Thursday when arrested in front of his home, even after providing photo identification. Although the arrest was accidental and the charges against him have been dropped, Gates thinks this more than an accident. “Why, because I am a black man in America?” yelled Professor Gates as he was taken away in front of his own home. The situation was “regrettable and unfortunate,” as Gates and the police stated. However, how would this have been handled if it were someone other than Gates, or someone from another ethnic background or race? People always make mistakes, but mistakes at the expense of others should be taken seriously.
To paraphrase Newman P. Birk, Genevieve B. Birk and their essay “Selection, Slanting and Charged Language,” our knowledge, both unconscious and conscious, is influenced by the “principle of selection.” What we select is what we notice, and this determines what serves as fact in our own system of knowledge. However, since all people are unique and have their own set of beliefs, values and stored knowledge, three different people can have three different impressions on the same subject. Wouldn’t this be the case with Professor Gates and the man who arrested him, Sergeant James Crowley?
The next step after selection is called the “principle of slanting.” After selecting knowledge, this principle “[chooses] the words and emphasis that we shall use to communicate our meaning.” (Eschholz, 353). Slant can clearly be seen – through charged language, the emphasis of a word, and fact selection – when it is giving a negative or positive connotation. In Katie Zezima’s article in The New York Times, one reader may see Zezima’s choice of words, emphasis and fact selection as being balanced, while another may see it as being too critical of the situation. Another person can see it as taking the whole situation so nonchalantly, questioning the situation and the people involved. Each impression depends on a person’s unique way of selecting knowledge through the “principle of selection,” and sometimes – if we are not sure on how we feel – an article can have enough slant between the lines to tell the reader what impression they should have.
If looking at this episode from the perspective of Sgt. Crowley, the officer who arrested him, this case would be seen as an honest mistake. In Zezima’s article, Crowley attempts to justify his actions. However, when looking at the article, Zezima is picking and choosing words that will help justify his actions as well: “The police said Professor Gates yelled, ‘Why, because I’m a black man in America?’ and accused the sergeant of racism.” This quote makes Gates out to be the bad guy, accusing Crowley of racism when, by analyzing the situation, could undeniably be seen as an act of racial profiling on Crowley’s behalf. By using charged language, Zezima is implying a negative connotation. The word “accusing” gives a negative connotation to the reader, as if Gates is instigating the situation and pointing fingers at an innocent police officer. The word “accusing,” – because it is giving off this negative connotation – is influencing how the reader should feel about the situation. Some readers may see the word accusing and say that Professor Gates is all to blame – even without any other facts or knowledge on the circumstance. Maybe Crowley was just doing his job, but analyzing the situation based on his own selection of knowledge and opinions – which then takes this situation beyond a simple mistake.
From Gates’ perspective, however, the situation and its unprofessional conduct could be seen as something far worse. Zezima shares a balanced recollection of facts: “…Professor Gates said he showed the responding officer, Sgt. Crowley, photo identification, but he did not believe [Gates] lived at the home.” In this situation, anyone would feel harassed if someone were questioning their ownership of property. Zezima continues: “Frustrated, [Gates] asked for Sgt. Crowley’s name and badge number, which he refused to give.” Required by law, police officers are supposed to give this information to those who request it. For an officer to refuse this right of any citizen is not only suspicious of his character, but also shows his lack of respect towards others; even though Crowley was suspicious of Gates, it is the law to show a badge. Gates – due to previous memories and stored knowledge throughout his lifetime – could have had the impression that this “accident” is more than just an accident, but an attack based on skin color and Crowley’s own judgment. A Caucasian police officer (Crowley) may have a different background that influences his selection of knowledge – and his impression of the whole situation – than an African-American preeminent scholar and civil rights activist (Gates).
Zezima’s use of fact selection in this article, a slant in which “verifiable facts [are] deliberately selected and emphasized to produce an impression” (Eschholz, 354,) is both balanced and biased. She allows the reader to infer something for themselves, but simultaneously makes it clear that Crowley’s actions were not okay. Although it is balanced, there are signs of slant within the facts she highlighted in this report. Embedded in the language she has chosen, Zezima is giving us the report with a slant (which is most likely a subconscious choice on her part). Referring to the same quote in the previous paragraph, one would think Crowley’s suspicion of Gates would stop there. However, it did not, as Crowley still did not believe that Gates lived in the home. By giving us this slice of information, Zezima is showing the reader – through her point of view – that it is insulting to Gates and others who have been racially profiled to have their character questioned. For some readers, this type of racial profiling may be known; for others, Zezima is giving them insight into how a person would feel when this type of profiling occurs because of something as insignificant as the color of their skin.
Maybe this terrible situation is nothing more than just a simple miscommunication. A statement, released this week, ensures that this “regrettable and unfortunate” episode has been resolved, and Gates has been dropped from all charges. But, maybe – through Crowley and Gates’ own selection of knowledge, and through Zezima’s selection of facts within her article – there’s something more to it that we should all be paying attention to.
People make mistakes. It is a part of being human to be wrong every once in a while. But at whose expense or reputation? Henry Louis Gates, preeminent scholar and professor at Harvard University, was publicly humiliated last Thursday when arrested in front of his home, even after providing photo identification. Although the arrest was accidental and the charges against him have been dropped, Gates thinks this more than an accident. “Why, because I am a black man in America?” yelled Professor Gates as he was taken away in front of his own home. The situation was “regrettable and unfortunate,” as Gates and the police stated. However, how would this have been handled if it were someone other than Gates, or someone from another ethnic background or race? People always make mistakes, but mistakes at the expense of others should be taken seriously.
To paraphrase Newman P. Birk, Genevieve B. Birk and their essay “Selection, Slanting and Charged Language,” our knowledge, both unconscious and conscious, is influenced by the “principle of selection.” What we select is what we notice, and this determines what serves as fact in our own system of knowledge. However, since all people are unique and have their own set of beliefs, values and stored knowledge, three different people can have three different impressions on the same subject. Wouldn’t this be the case with Professor Gates and the man who arrested him, Sergeant James Crowley?
The next step after selection is called the “principle of slanting.” After selecting knowledge, this principle “[chooses] the words and emphasis that we shall use to communicate our meaning.” (Eschholz, 353). Slant can clearly be seen – through charged language, the emphasis of a word, and fact selection – when it is giving a negative or positive connotation. In Katie Zezima’s article in The New York Times, one reader may see Zezima’s choice of words, emphasis and fact selection as being balanced, while another may see it as being too critical of the situation. Another person can see it as taking the whole situation so nonchalantly, questioning the situation and the people involved. Each impression depends on a person’s unique way of selecting knowledge through the “principle of selection,” and sometimes – if we are not sure on how we feel – an article can have enough slant between the lines to tell the reader what impression they should have.
If looking at this episode from the perspective of Sgt. Crowley, the officer who arrested him, this case would be seen as an honest mistake. In Zezima’s article, Crowley attempts to justify his actions. However, when looking at the article, Zezima is picking and choosing words that will help justify his actions as well: “The police said Professor Gates yelled, ‘Why, because I’m a black man in America?’ and accused the sergeant of racism.” This quote makes Gates out to be the bad guy, accusing Crowley of racism when, by analyzing the situation, could undeniably be seen as an act of racial profiling on Crowley’s behalf. By using charged language, Zezima is implying a negative connotation. The word “accusing” gives a negative connotation to the reader, as if Gates is instigating the situation and pointing fingers at an innocent police officer. The word “accusing,” – because it is giving off this negative connotation – is influencing how the reader should feel about the situation. Some readers may see the word accusing and say that Professor Gates is all to blame – even without any other facts or knowledge on the circumstance. Maybe Crowley was just doing his job, but analyzing the situation based on his own selection of knowledge and opinions – which then takes this situation beyond a simple mistake.
From Gates’ perspective, however, the situation and its unprofessional conduct could be seen as something far worse. Zezima shares a balanced recollection of facts: “…Professor Gates said he showed the responding officer, Sgt. Crowley, photo identification, but he did not believe [Gates] lived at the home.” In this situation, anyone would feel harassed if someone were questioning their ownership of property. Zezima continues: “Frustrated, [Gates] asked for Sgt. Crowley’s name and badge number, which he refused to give.” Required by law, police officers are supposed to give this information to those who request it. For an officer to refuse this right of any citizen is not only suspicious of his character, but also shows his lack of respect towards others; even though Crowley was suspicious of Gates, it is the law to show a badge. Gates – due to previous memories and stored knowledge throughout his lifetime – could have had the impression that this “accident” is more than just an accident, but an attack based on skin color and Crowley’s own judgment. A Caucasian police officer (Crowley) may have a different background that influences his selection of knowledge – and his impression of the whole situation – than an African-American preeminent scholar and civil rights activist (Gates).
Zezima’s use of fact selection in this article, a slant in which “verifiable facts [are] deliberately selected and emphasized to produce an impression” (Eschholz, 354,) is both balanced and biased. She allows the reader to infer something for themselves, but simultaneously makes it clear that Crowley’s actions were not okay. Although it is balanced, there are signs of slant within the facts she highlighted in this report. Embedded in the language she has chosen, Zezima is giving us the report with a slant (which is most likely a subconscious choice on her part). Referring to the same quote in the previous paragraph, one would think Crowley’s suspicion of Gates would stop there. However, it did not, as Crowley still did not believe that Gates lived in the home. By giving us this slice of information, Zezima is showing the reader – through her point of view – that it is insulting to Gates and others who have been racially profiled to have their character questioned. For some readers, this type of racial profiling may be known; for others, Zezima is giving them insight into how a person would feel when this type of profiling occurs because of something as insignificant as the color of their skin.
Maybe this terrible situation is nothing more than just a simple miscommunication. A statement, released this week, ensures that this “regrettable and unfortunate” episode has been resolved, and Gates has been dropped from all charges. But, maybe – through Crowley and Gates’ own selection of knowledge, and through Zezima’s selection of facts within her article – there’s something more to it that we should all be paying attention to.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
A Big Deal - Graded Essay #1
People make mistakes. It is a part of being human to be wrong every once in a while. But at whose expense or reputation? Henry Louis Gates, preeminent scholar and professor at Harvard University, was publicly humiliated last Thursday when arrested in front of his home, even after providing photo identification. Although the arrest was accidental and the charges against him have been dropped, Gates thinks this more than an accident. “Why, because I am a black man in America?” yelled Professor Gates as he was taken away in front of his own home. The situation was “regrettable and unfortunate,” as Gates and the police stated. However, how would this have been handled if it were someone other than Gates, or someone from another ethnic background or race? People make mistakes, but when it is at another person’s expense, it should be taken seriously; it is a big deal, and needs to be addressed.
To paraphrase Newman P. Birk and Genevieve B. Birk and their essay “Selection, Slanting and Charged Language,” our knowledge, both inside and out, unconscious and conscious, is influenced by the “principle of selection.” What we select is what we notice, and this determines what serves as fact in our own system of knowledge. However, since all people are unique and have their own set of beliefs, values and stored knowledge, three different people can have three different impressions on the same subject. Wouldn’t this be the case with Professor Gates and the man who arrested him, Sergeant James Crowley?
If looking at this episode from the perspective of Sgt. Crowley, the officer who arrested him, this case would be seen as a simple mistake. Crowley justifies his actions by putting emphasis on Gates in Katie Zezima’s report in The New York Times: “The police said Professor Gates yelled, ‘Why, because I’m a black man in America?’ and accused the sergeant of racism.” This quote makes Gates out to be the bad guy, accusing Crowley of racism when, by analyzing the situation, could undeniably be seen as an act of racial profiling on Crowley’s behalf. Maybe Crowley was just doing his job, analyzing the situation based on his own selection of knowledge, maybe allowing his own opinions to take charge – which then takes this situation beyond a simple mistake.
From Gates’ perspective, however, the situation and the unprofessional way in which it was handled could be seen as something far worse. Zezima reports, “…Professor Gates said he showed the responding officer, Sgt. Crowley, photo identification, but he did not believe [Gates] lived at the home.” In this situation, anyone would feel harassed if someone were questioning their ownership of property. What if Crowley and his fellow police officers had handled the situation differently? Zezima continues to say, “Frustrated, [Gates] asked for Sgt. Crowley’s name and badge number, which he refused to give.” Required by law, police officers are supposed to give this information to those who request it. For an officer to refuse this right of any citizen is not only suspicious of his character, but also shows his lack of respect towards others; even though Crowley was suspicious of Gates, it is the law to show a badge. Gates – due to previous memories and stored knowledge throughout his lifetime – could have had the impression that this “accident” is more than just an accident but an attack based on skin color and Crowley’s own judgment. A Caucasian police officer (Crowley) may have a different background that influences his selection of knowledge – and his impression of the whole situation – than an African-American preeminent scholar and civil rights activist (Gates).
The next step, as Birk and Birk state, is called the “principle of slanting.” After selecting knowledge, this principle “[chooses] the words and emphasis that we shall use to communicate our meaning.” (Eschholz, 353). Slant can clearly be seen – through charged language, the emphasis of a word, and fact selection – when it is giving a negative or positive connotation. In Zezima’s article, one reader may see the article as being balanced, another may see it as being too critical of the situation and giving it too much thought and importance, and another may see it as taking the whole situation so nonchalantly and wonder how it would have been different if it were not Gates and a male belonging to a different race or ethnicity; each impression depends on a person’s unique way of selecting knowledge through the “principle of selection,” and sometimes – if we are not sure on how we feel – an article can have enough slant between the lines to tell the reader what impression they should have.
Zezima’s use of fact selection in this article – which is a slant in which “verifiable facts [are] deliberately selected and emphasized to produce an impression” (Eschholz, 354) – is allowing the reader to infer something for themselves, but simultaneously making it clear to the reader that Crowley’s actions were not okay. Although majority of the article is balanced, there are signs of slant within the facts she chose in this report. Embedded in the language she has chosen, Zezima is giving us the report with a slant (which is most likely a subconscious choice on her part). Referring to the same quote in the previous paragraphs (of Crowley still not believing Gates even after he showed him proper identification,) one would think Crowley’s suspicion of Gates would stop there. However, it did not, as Crowley still did not believe that Gates lived in the home. By giving us this slice of information, Zezima is showing the reader – through her point of view – that it is insulting to Gates and others who have been racially profiled to have their character questioned, also acknowledging the police and their lack of a justifiable reason for such treatment. For some readers, this type of racial profiling may be known; for others, Zezima is giving them insight into how a person would feel when this type of profiling occurs because of something as insignificant as the color of their skin.
Maybe this terrible situation is nothing more than just a simple miscommunication. A statement, released this week, ensures that this “regrettable and unfortunate” episode has been resolved, and Gates has been dropped from all charges. But, maybe – through Crowley and Gates’ own selection of knowledge, and through Zezima’s selection of facts within her article – there’s something more to it that we should all be paying attention to.
To paraphrase Newman P. Birk and Genevieve B. Birk and their essay “Selection, Slanting and Charged Language,” our knowledge, both inside and out, unconscious and conscious, is influenced by the “principle of selection.” What we select is what we notice, and this determines what serves as fact in our own system of knowledge. However, since all people are unique and have their own set of beliefs, values and stored knowledge, three different people can have three different impressions on the same subject. Wouldn’t this be the case with Professor Gates and the man who arrested him, Sergeant James Crowley?
If looking at this episode from the perspective of Sgt. Crowley, the officer who arrested him, this case would be seen as a simple mistake. Crowley justifies his actions by putting emphasis on Gates in Katie Zezima’s report in The New York Times: “The police said Professor Gates yelled, ‘Why, because I’m a black man in America?’ and accused the sergeant of racism.” This quote makes Gates out to be the bad guy, accusing Crowley of racism when, by analyzing the situation, could undeniably be seen as an act of racial profiling on Crowley’s behalf. Maybe Crowley was just doing his job, analyzing the situation based on his own selection of knowledge, maybe allowing his own opinions to take charge – which then takes this situation beyond a simple mistake.
From Gates’ perspective, however, the situation and the unprofessional way in which it was handled could be seen as something far worse. Zezima reports, “…Professor Gates said he showed the responding officer, Sgt. Crowley, photo identification, but he did not believe [Gates] lived at the home.” In this situation, anyone would feel harassed if someone were questioning their ownership of property. What if Crowley and his fellow police officers had handled the situation differently? Zezima continues to say, “Frustrated, [Gates] asked for Sgt. Crowley’s name and badge number, which he refused to give.” Required by law, police officers are supposed to give this information to those who request it. For an officer to refuse this right of any citizen is not only suspicious of his character, but also shows his lack of respect towards others; even though Crowley was suspicious of Gates, it is the law to show a badge. Gates – due to previous memories and stored knowledge throughout his lifetime – could have had the impression that this “accident” is more than just an accident but an attack based on skin color and Crowley’s own judgment. A Caucasian police officer (Crowley) may have a different background that influences his selection of knowledge – and his impression of the whole situation – than an African-American preeminent scholar and civil rights activist (Gates).
The next step, as Birk and Birk state, is called the “principle of slanting.” After selecting knowledge, this principle “[chooses] the words and emphasis that we shall use to communicate our meaning.” (Eschholz, 353). Slant can clearly be seen – through charged language, the emphasis of a word, and fact selection – when it is giving a negative or positive connotation. In Zezima’s article, one reader may see the article as being balanced, another may see it as being too critical of the situation and giving it too much thought and importance, and another may see it as taking the whole situation so nonchalantly and wonder how it would have been different if it were not Gates and a male belonging to a different race or ethnicity; each impression depends on a person’s unique way of selecting knowledge through the “principle of selection,” and sometimes – if we are not sure on how we feel – an article can have enough slant between the lines to tell the reader what impression they should have.
Zezima’s use of fact selection in this article – which is a slant in which “verifiable facts [are] deliberately selected and emphasized to produce an impression” (Eschholz, 354) – is allowing the reader to infer something for themselves, but simultaneously making it clear to the reader that Crowley’s actions were not okay. Although majority of the article is balanced, there are signs of slant within the facts she chose in this report. Embedded in the language she has chosen, Zezima is giving us the report with a slant (which is most likely a subconscious choice on her part). Referring to the same quote in the previous paragraphs (of Crowley still not believing Gates even after he showed him proper identification,) one would think Crowley’s suspicion of Gates would stop there. However, it did not, as Crowley still did not believe that Gates lived in the home. By giving us this slice of information, Zezima is showing the reader – through her point of view – that it is insulting to Gates and others who have been racially profiled to have their character questioned, also acknowledging the police and their lack of a justifiable reason for such treatment. For some readers, this type of racial profiling may be known; for others, Zezima is giving them insight into how a person would feel when this type of profiling occurs because of something as insignificant as the color of their skin.
Maybe this terrible situation is nothing more than just a simple miscommunication. A statement, released this week, ensures that this “regrettable and unfortunate” episode has been resolved, and Gates has been dropped from all charges. But, maybe – through Crowley and Gates’ own selection of knowledge, and through Zezima’s selection of facts within her article – there’s something more to it that we should all be paying attention to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
