Author: Daniel Libertz

KLOVE, I don’t love you when…

I listen to KLOVE. It’s a Christian radio station that sometimes has talk show hosts…well…talk. They are theologically inept. I digress. More than once I have heard them talk about people who live with their parents. They throw stats around all the time, so for the sake of the post, let’s say they used a stat. When speaking of those who live with their parents, they seem to imply that these individuals are lazy buffoons. It really feels demeaning to someone who lives with his parents when s/he hears the hosts talk this way. When they give said stat and then demean everyone in that category, it is not right. To avoid resentment when giving stats, one should always qualify the stat with people who may be listed in the stat but may not be the stereotypical person that the stat seems to refer to. I am going to school and have been most of my adult life. I live with my parents to avoid debt and save for school. I don’t fit the lazy buffoonish types the KLOVE hosts seem to reference when they speak of the stat about those living with their parents.

A great way to avoid alienating people when you use stats is to tell stories of the exceptions in the stats. In my example above, when speaking negatively about people living with their parents, make sure to say there are some who do this out of necessity and not simply to be lazy. There are outliers in every statistic. Sometimes these stories will blow us away. Aggregation doesn’t account for these personal narratives that may stomp on the insensitivity of a sum so broad sweeping. Not everyone on welfare is lazy. Not every wealthy person got there by working hard. Narratives are so crucial in order to assault the broad brush of aggregation, a sum that does a poor job at showing the whole reality it represents.

A lot of time in my writings, I’d like to use some numbers including statistical results to help my writings be more persuasive to readers. However, before reading this article, I never realize the problem that a lot of times readers can find a wide gap between the numbers in the article and the reality in the real life, and therefore becomes doubtful to the article.

After reading this article, I start to think about what Davies mentioned in his article that “in talking of society as a whole, in seeking to govern the economy as a whole, both politicians and technocrats are believed to have lost touch with how it feels to be a single citizen in particular”. This is very true. Actually I believe the same problem happens to me and other people either when we try to use some statistical data in our writings to prove something. Using myself as an example, I tend to consider the readers of my paper as a whole group when I work on my paper, which can result in resentment of some readers when choosing a data to present. However, readers of one article can come from different places, encounter different kinds of lives, adhere to their own cultures, and certainly represent different opinions that people may have regarding the same issue. Therefore, I think it’s really a problem when we try to interpret a situation or an issue by just using one data. This kind of statistical result usually is the result of averaging a lot of diverse resources to present in a whole general level.

On the other hand, we have to admit that statistics, to a large extent, help simplify and analyze the society in a quantitative way. But the thing is, when politicians and governments want to use statistics to present something, it’s very important to find a balance between the “simplicity” and what a citizen feels regarding that simple number. One suggestion I can make is to consider carefully and try to divide the readers into different groups based on their locations, income level, or religious beliefs, and based on that to gather a few more specific statistical numbers instead of an “average” number. Also, try to use some other numbers to prove the idea. For example, when trying to present the progress about economic development, just focusing on unemployment rate can lead to resentment of people who earn very little. Instead of centering around the unemployment rate, also using some other numbers such the improvement in minimal wage, increase on salaries by looking into different industries, or even change on consumption behaviors. It doesn’t to be statistics only, but can be the combination of quantitative and qualitative evidences.

In his article “How statistics lost their power – and why we should fear what comes next”, William Davies argues that statistics are tools the government uses to simplify or quantify the intricate inner workings of the country. Two key statistics he points out are gross domestic product (GDP) and the unemployment rate. Politicians use these two numbers to summarize the economic climate of the United States. This is dangerous, however, as neither GDP nor the unemployment rate can accurately describe the economic health of an individual or of a small town. While the country as a whole might be prospering, a small steel or coal town is reeling from the decreasing opportunity in these industries. People start to feel alienated when they aren’t don’t feel like they are being properly represented.

“When macroeconomics is used to make a political argument, this implies that the losses in one part of the country are offset by gains somewhere else.” This idea summarizes the mistrust and contempt that people feel towards statistics. Politicians are very eager to craft a narrative about their superior performance based off one numerical figure. Whether this narrative is true or not does not matter though as it might not reflect an individual’s life experience. The article presents the case of immigration. While immigration has mostly been determined to improve a country’s economy, it will also have an adverse effect on certain people as they face more competition for employment. These affected parties’ come to not only resent statistics, but also the author behind them. This can be seen in a study conducted before the 2016 presidential election as 68% of Trump supporters said that they distrusted economic data published by the federal government.

To combat this distrust, it is pertinent for the author to understand their audience. In my research for my campaign piece, I found that white middle-class suburban families have become the majority of the recipients of school vouchers over urban black families that are more in need of vouchers. This was a statistic I chose to omit from my piece did not want to alienate the majority of my audience. Statistics are a powerful tool, but must be carefully tailored to suit the audience.

In the quote used at the beginning of Prompt A, I think the author is trying to tell people that although statistics can show trends and basic figures, when they get specific, they may not always be completely accurate.  It is even harder to get completely accurate statistics than ever before.  This is because of the larger audience you can reach when trying to gather data.  For example, if you are trying to poll people about who they are going to vote for and 54% of the country is registered in one party and 46% is registered in another, it will be hard to poll those exact same proportions of people on the internet.  This depends on a lot of factors because more young people and people with money have access to the internet.  There are many other things that influence these results, and because of that, it is extremely difficult to very precise data.  Davies talks about the idea of “hiding” data due to fears that people will resent you.  I do not think that hiding these statistics is an entirely effective strategy.  I think that if it were my campaign, I would probably use statistics, but I would try to pair statistics with an emotional appeal.  I think that saying something that is emotional but can be backed up with facts is a good way to appeal to more people.  I think that the reason some people are starting to mistrust facts is not because they do not believe what people are saying, but because they have never been positively effected by a change in statistics such as unemployment rates.  If an old coal town in the midwest has had a rising unemployment rate since the 1970’s and politicians talks about how low the unemployment rate is throughout the country, the people living in the old towns will be much more likely to agree with someone that doesn’t talk about how low the unemployment rate is, but talks about how there are still people that are struggling.  I do not think the problem is that people don’t agree with statistics and facts.  I think the problem is that people are tired of feeling like since they are part of the 5% that are unemployed their opinions and experiences are not important.

The following is in response to prompt A.

Using statistics founded in data can be an extremely useful tool for a government. Statistics try to summarize the over well-being of a society using quantitative analyses. This is apparent in statistics like gross domestic product (GDP), consumer price index (CPI), and unemployment rate. Each statistics attempts to model and gauge the status of a different facet of society.

One must be extremely careful when deciding to use a statistic. As Davies puts it, statistics are “neither unquestionable truths nor elite conspiracies, but rather…tools designed to simplify the job of government.” The writer must acknowledge how statistics are just tools. They are not undisputable facts that end all debates because the audience will have different ways of interpreting them. Many people will immediately view statistics as a writer’s or politician’s way of intentionally misleading their public. In a study conducted before the presidential election, it was found that about 2 out of 3 Trump supporters distrusted the economic data circulated by the federal government. Clearly there is a lot of suspicion present regarding these statistics.

Another reaction people can have towards statistics is contempt. Many people may not appreciate trying to summarize their lives in a quick number. Based on life experiences, one may not agree with a statistic and immediately question its accuracy and legitimacy. Also, it is impossible to capture all aspects of a population through statistics. Inevitably, some aspects will be excluded, either intentionally or unintentionally. Therefore, by excluding certain factors/people, using statistics may raise resentment towards the writer.

It is crucial to keep all these things in mind when presenting statistics in your arguments. You want to try to avoid alienating part of your audience through use of statistics. To accomplish this, I think it is necessary to thoroughly explain the method of data collection, how the statistic was formed, and who it applies to. If the statistic is carefully explained, I think it will be accepted by a greater audience.

Relaying a message to a target audience can be difficult. It’s even more difficult to evoke action from the individuals/groups who view your message. It’s key to struggle with the concept of genre. What does it mean to use genre or to write a specific genre of writing? I hope to build upon your prior understanding of the word ‘genre,’ while referencing Genre as Social Action by Carolyn Miller.

When I see the word ‘genre,’ I automatically think of classification. To me, this word can be further broken down into grouping compositions based on similarities in form, style, or subject matter. Carolyn Miller attempts to define ‘genre’ from the perspectives of rhetorical criticism rhetorical theory. After reading Genre as Social Action, it became apparent that the term ‘genre’ is just as convoluted as the other terms discussed in this course.

My previous understanding of the word ‘genre’ limits its definition to substance or subject matter. Miller emphasizes the importance of understanding how genre coincides with social contexts and how individuals/groups respond to the substance. Thus, it’s necessary to understand how the conveyed message will affect other people, regardless of the rhetor’s intent. Predispositions and societal values influence human behavior; therefore, reactions to the method of discourse will vary. I struggle with the idea of recurring forms (i.e. emails, speeches, eulogies, etc.) because of this idea of social action. I agree that “. . . comparable situations occur, prompting comparable responses,” but as stated previously, human action or reaction may still vary. If I choose to create a blog for my campaign piece just because I’ve only seen similar topics written in that manner, I may connect with my audience or mislead them completely. This is a tricky concept that I had not originally considered before reading the work of Carolyn Miller.

By addressing the implications of defining ‘genre’ through the criticism and theories of other rhetors and scholars, Miller helped me understand that genre is way more complex than my initial definition. When we learn what a genre is, it is much more important to “understand better the situations in which we find ourselves and the potentials for failure and success in acting together.” Simply put—making sense of the audience, their society and culture, potential successes/failures when addressing them, and having a clear call-to-action is more important than the form or substance. Genres can serve as a exploration tool for how to relay messages as well as “keys to understanding how to participate in the actions of a community.”

In “Genre as a Social Action”, Carolyn Miller explains the importance of genre in a rhetorical piece as a form of persuasion. She states that “a rhetorical sound definition of genre must be centered not on the substance or the form of discourse but on the action it is used to accomplish”. Rhetoric, as she describes, leans towards provoking the audience into action or discourse. This is because the strong emotion that rhetoric creates is more impactful for a reader than the formal qualities that it carries. Rather than categorizing rhetoric as through its structure, the principle it tries to promote is more apt.

According to Miller, the reactions that emerge after a piece is delivered can be predicted. Her argument for this is that “’the existence of the recurrent provides insight into the human condition’ … Recurrence is implied by our understanding of situations as somehow ‘comparable’, ‘similar’, or ‘analogous’ to other situations”. By this she is stating that people in general are inclined towards a side based off previous experiences. When a specific topic is presented in the news or if a topic is presented in a colored manner, people have been seen to react predictably because of their predisposition. This is “because human action is based on and guided by meaning, not by material causes, at the center of action is a process of interpretation”. Miller’s point is that people are most invoked by the message that an author imbues on the audience. The “material causes” or composition qualities are insufficient in defining a piece as they aren’t the focal point.

A writer can pen a strong and manipulative piece aimed at the right audience by studying the disposition of the public. This can be seen by looking at past reactions as well as gauging the current public mood after receiving news. It is important for a writer to effectively tailor the formal quantities of their piece to strongly display the message they want to impart.

To be honest, I struggled some with Miller, but I am going to try and suggest what I think she was driving at in regards to the concept that genre is based in social action. She states something quite appropriate: “…for genres change, evolve, and decay; the number of genres current in any society is indeterminate and depends on the complexity and diversity of society” (p. 163). This makes sense, if, in fact, I am getting her point. The more advanced or privileged a society is the more genres they will have. If North Koreans are banned from the internet, then they lack the ability to use a blog as a genre of writing. Writing blogs happen on the internet, and if you do not use the internet, you cannot write in that genre. The inability to use the World Wide Web prevents some from taking social action in a certain genre. Blogs may be very foreign to the North Koreans, assuming they have no or quite limited internet access. If I do not know how to use Instagram, I cannot use that genre to express myself. The ability to act with certain media may promote the use of certain genres and inhibit use of other genres.

Furthermore, I could post my thesis of George Whitefield on Facebook, but it is likely no one will read it. Instead, I could post a quick note saying, “Just finished my thesis on Whitefield. So happy!!!” That may get 30 “likes”. The medium of Facebook dictates what genre I will use. The medium I choose affects my actions which in turn affects my genre of choice. Some genres are better left far from certain media, just as I highlighted with my thesis and Facebook. Miller writes further, “Genre refers to a conventional category of discourse based in large-scale typification of rhetorical action, [genre] acquires meaning from the social context in which that situation arose” (p.163).  I think this is quite accurate. We are limited by some media as to what we can do. One would not post rather emotional love poem to his wife on Facebook. It would take away so much of what should only be said in private. I suppose I would argue that the medium used (which is intrinsically tied to social action) dictates genre. If I can send email, I may be more casual, than if I am writing something to be delivered via a sail boat to England.

To close, when we are writing we must always be aware of the medium we use. Some media require and demand more academic precision. Some demand less. I would argue that when we write public, the medium controls our social action which controls our genre. There are obvious way different styles between different media choices. A speech in congress is going to be inherently different than a goofy YouTube one shares with friends. The medium affects the action which affects the genre.

Carolyn Miller believes that the classification of genres is not as cut and dry as we might think. In her essay, she makes the claim that it is much more complex than just labeling a piece as a novel, an article or an essay, etc.  She says, “In sum, what I am proposing so fat is that in rhetoric the term “genre” be limited to a particular type of discourse classification, a classification based in rhetorical practice and consequently open rather than closed and organized around situated actions…”  In other words, genres are subjective and heavily context driven.  In that same sense, an audience is context driven and they can interpret what is said in a countless number of ways. This ties back to the concept of knowing the audience you are writing to. To most effectively write to the public, you have to be sure to convey your message in a way to your target audience is paramount.  When you are writing publicly, you must take this into consideration. First you must consider all the possible audiences that your writing could reach and realize that each of these audiences may react in a different way. Once you consider the possible audiences, you must frame your argument so that it pleases all of them as best as possible.  For example, the United Nations Children’s’ Rights document we read in class.  One of the possible audiences that the UN was trying to reach in this document were children. They had to make sure that a child was able to read and understand the rights outlined in that document. If they did not do that effectively, they would be missing their largest demographic.

Carolyn Miller, a well-known student of rhetoric, attacks one of the most pressing subjects of rhetoric, genre. Genre is founded on the study on convention of how rhetors and audience comprehend each other. She sums it up to is that genre is not limited to a certain type of discourse classification. However, I do not know what a discourse classification is and cannot seem to decipher it within this reading. Apparently, in order for the audience to understand the discourse, it must reflect the rhetorical experience. These experiences can come from the audience’s personal experiences or situations that they are placed in. These situations are “social constructs that are the result, not of ‘perception,’ but of ‘definition.’” This poses the probability of a common definition amount the audience which allows for a genre to be set by the author.

Miller poses the approaches to genre of several other rhetors in the hope to support their positions that genre study is valuable because it emphasizes social and historical aspects of rhetoric. It is interesting how she said that she will argue that a rhetorically sound definition of genre must be centered not on the substance or the form of discourse but on the action it is used to accomplish. This is important when looking into my topic of the water crisis. The action that I am trying to accomplish is important to the environment and for the future of the globe. Therefore, it is crucial to focus on the action I am trying to portray upon my audience.

When an idea is thought-provoking, the audience’s reaction is also important. When my audience comprehends the idea I am trying to get to them, the nature of my topic is one that needs a positive reaction to be successful. As humans, we are susceptible to repetition. Therefore studying the reactions to situations of other rhetors, we are able to predict how audiences may react. This is important when choosing the exact audience and how to approach them to receive the best possible response. Again, this is super important when addressing the water crisis and I must be able to choose the proper approach.