EIC App Essay #2: Personal Assessment

For the Editor in Chief application, I had to write two essays. This is the second one. I thought it would be ok to post it here, because soon it will be on the Cooper Point Journal website and publicly visible anyway. Enjoy…

____________________

Regardless of my skills and previous experience, I expect and intend to be challenged by every responsibility I hold. Though I believe it’s important to have a healthy amount of confidence, I also think that the ability to recognize any situation or task as daunting enables one to self-reflect, think critically, and problem solve (in that order).

In general, I foresee that one of my biggest challenges will be developing and maintaining a relationship with the new advisor. Helping him or her familiarize himself with the organization will be very difficult, considering how long it takes for general members to understand the purpose of the organization, its goals and objectives, and the difference between the organization and the publication. I intend to make myself available to the new advisor over the summer and beginning of the year as a resource to help in whatever ways I am able. To that end, I would like to research more about the history of the organization and publication, and also come to a greater understanding of the past advisors’ role in both.

I expect that in regard to cooperpointjournal.com, one of the major challenges will be outreach for the purpose of making the general student population aware of the website and generate interest in contributing content, especially multimedia content. Hopefully, making the website available in multiple different mediums (like the iPhone app and more interfacing with social networking sites) will aid in those efforts.

As co-coordinator, I am fairly confident in my ability to organize and lead meetings, because I have been successful in doing so in the past. Leading a seminar-like discussion and consensus-based decision making session in 2010 about the future of the print edition was one of my most stressful times, but also probably my most rewarding experience as a managing editor last year. As print managing editor, someone who was intimately familiar with and involved with the production of the print edition, it was difficult to turn my attention to web, let alone support the decision of moving completely to a web publication. I had to be able to overcome my personal biases and comprehensively advocate for a solution to which most members seemed opposed.

Last year I also attended a Regional Northwest Leadership Conference in Portland, OR. That experience was fundamental to me in developing skills that have helped me manage a group of individuals, and I have been able to use those skills for the specific purpose of better organizing production of the publication. With some more concentrated efforts in focusing those skills on the website, I will be more confident in creating a workflow that works to the advantage of the publication and the individuals working on it.

EIC App Essay #1: Motivation

For the Editor in Chief application, I had to write two essays. This is the first one. I thought it would be ok to post it here, because soon it will be on the Cooper Point Journal website and publicly visible anyway. Enjoy…

______________________

The best way to articulate the many reasons I would like to hold the position of co-coordinator of the Cooper Point Journal organization and Editor in Chief of the CPJ publication is to say that I have many goals for both the organization and the publication, and I would like to see those goals through. I would like to see the organization thrive, in the sense that it has a felt presence in the community and a diverse membership. And I would like to see the publication thrive, in that it has readership and in that the community recognizes the publication’s importance as a forum for student expression and participates in that forum, using it to its full multimedia potential.

I would like to be the co-coordinator of the student group in order to better communicate with other student groups and better integrate myself personally, as well as the organization, into Student Activities. As co-coordinator, I would also like to learn more about leadership styles and techniques in order to better manage and organize membership as a whole, and better communicate with members on a more individual level.

As Editor in Chief, I would like to incorporate journalism more into the publication—not for the purpose or consideration of making the publication “professional,” but so as to recognize and journalistically represent important stories and issues on campus that affect students. To me, that means taking a more formal and organized approach to finding stories, interviewing, gathering information, and presenting the information in the most appropriate way, taking advantage of multimedia capabilities whenever possible.

In both the role of co-coordinator and Editor in Chief, it will be necessary to develop at least a decent working relationship with the new advisor of the CPJ. I would consider it my responsibility, as well as the responsibility of the other co-coordinator/ business manager to make sure that the advisor not only understands the difference between the CPJ organization and the CPJ publication, but also comprehends the necessity and reasoning behind the imminent and complete shift to a solely web-based publication.

I see great potential in cooperpointjournal.com. I would like to be able to explore not only the website’s inherent capabilities, but also our use of that potential; that is, I would like to answer the question, What can we do to best make use of our website, that also best serves and informs the Evergreen community? Furthermore, I would like to explore how better to garner an obvious, collective community interest in cooperpointjournal.com and its content.

 

Artist (n.)

My class wrote brief papers last week about what we thought it meant to be an artist. This is what I wrote:

+++++++++++

When I studied abroad in France last spring quarter, I spent two weeks focused on defining art. With as much as I did and thought during those two weeks and since then, I came up with a “definition” that seems to satisfy me: art is the product of a conscious or unconscious creative effort that inspires or touches at least one viewer (or listener, etc.). If it “touches” someone, I mean that that person reacts to the art in some way, perhaps with an emotion, memory, or art of his or her own.

So though I’m sure it would/will take me at least as long to “define an artist, at this point I believe an artist is the person who produces art, the product of a conscious or unconscious creative effort. There doesn’t have to be an intention to “produce art,” but there does have to be a creative urge and the intention to make the effort and follow through with it—as in, beginning to make the physical representation of a creative urge.

For instance… during the break, there were two guys behind me playing guitar, and in ten minutes they managed to play the intros to three of my favorite songs. I can be fairly sure they didn’t intend to inspire me, and they certainly didn’t know their efforts were going to be recognized in my paper, but it’s a perfect example of the cycle of creativity and artistry that I imagine when I think of the inspiration feeding art. The guy playing guitar is suddenly and artist (as recognized by me) because he created something that inspired me. Perhaps his subtle compensation is my recognition, even if he doesn’t know it.

Joy

I wrote this as an essay for my current program at The Evergreen State College, called Music and Movement in Nature and Culture. It incorporates songwriting, dance, ethnomusicology, and anthropology. So far, I’m loving it. I get to dance once a week and read a lot about things that interest me. There isn’t much literature, but I guess I’m ok with that.

For our first creative writing assignment, we wrote papers about a scar we had. This is my paper:

——————————————–

Would you like to phone a friend?

I don’t pray; I never have. I think Nietzsche had a better idea when he said that instead of praying, we would do better “to think how one can give joy to at least one person that day” every morning when we wake up.  Even when it comes to pain and wounds, I was never in the practice of asking God to heal mine or help me.

All that could have changed on one November morning in 2007.

It was my senior year of high school. I was 17, and like most people my age, I’d been told it was time for the routine wisdom tooth extraction procedure. I only deeded to have three taken out, but I also chose to get my phrenullae cut. The phrenullae are web-like pieces of skin that connect the tongue to the bottom jaw and the lips to the gums. Looking back, I can’t remember why on earth I thought I needed to get that done, except that a dentist or two once said it might help get rid of my slight lisp and maybe help me articulate and sing better.

At that point, I trusted dentists. I’d never had cavities, so they were just people who cleaned my teeth and occasionally took x-rays. I loved my orthodontist, so even having braces didn’t make me hate having people mess around in my mouth.

That did change on one November morning in 2007.

I can’t see the scars in my mouth, but I don’t need to be reminded that there were stitches to know they’re there. I’d had plenty of drugs that morning, but it wasn’t supposed to require complete sedation… until they started sticking needles under my tongue. The fact that I have a fear of needles shouldn’t matter. No one should have Novacaine shot in that highly sensitive area under the tongue. Soon tears were streaming down my face and I couldn’t breathe. Doctors and nurses were swarming around me with needles and scalding hot washcloths that were supposed to raise veins on my hands so they could stick even more needles in my for the IV. I associated IVs with my grandma, who had spent quite a bit of time in pain and in and out of hospitals, and had died a few years earlier. Tears rolled even faster down my cheeks.

The last thing I remember before I lost consciousness was the oral surgeon sitting next to me, holding my fingers and looking serious. Then he said, “would you like to pray with me?”

A few days later, while I was watching Disney movies in pain despite the Vicodin, I remembered the doctor’s offer and told my parents. My mother, “spiritual agnostic” that she is, was appalled. As soon as I was well enough (probably after a week, though my tongue was sore and swollen for about two), she made an appointment to talk with the oral surgeon. I think the pretense was “discussing my recovery,” which was longer and more painful than it should have been anyway. She drove while practicing her speech, which she had rehearsed in front of my father, aunt, uncle, and grandparents while they nodded and said “uh-huh” in the appropriate places.

Don’t get me wrong, I completely supported her decision and her speech. I wholeheartedly agreed with it— for a doctor to ask a patient to pray with him or her is completely unprofessional and uncalled for. Plus, suggesting that I ask a higher power for assistance, as traumatized as I was, did not settle my nerves at all.

But I was mortified. I was inclined to laugh off the incident and add it to my “oh, those silly Christians” repertoire. After all, the surgeon had my best interests in mind, right? He was only being considerate, just in case I hadn’t thought of my lifeline to phone a friend?

The term for the doctor’s response would have been that he was “politely surprised.” I think he said that it had never been an issue before and that he had never considered that it might offend someone. And then I think my mom said something like, “damn straight,” and he probably said that he would keep it in mind for the future. No matter—the harm inflicted upon me wasn’t from his offer to pray with me; it was from the panic and trauma I felt physically.

Maybe God could have helped me. Maybe if I had prayed, my recovery time would have been shorter. Maybe if I had prayed, I wouldn’t hate dentists so much now. Maybe that’s what the doctor was thinking all along. But then maybe I wouldn’t like Nietzsche so much.

Essay 4: Heuristic Analysis

Essay Prompt: Johnstone’s Discourse Analysis presents a heuristic for exploring discourse. These are listed on page 10 and each is developed in a separate chapter. Choose one of these and present your own understanding of it by drawing on our reading, the projects you have done, and our discussions. You should carefully consider the points Johnstone raises, but this question requires your own synthesis of the materials and not a reiteration of the points she makes.

——

4:             Heuristic: Discourse is shaped by participants, and discourse shapes participants. (Johnstone, 2008, p.10)

This heuristic is so all-encompassing that it’s almost like using a term in its own definition. However, I am especially interested in it because it seems to incorporate H. Paul Grice’s maxims of conversation. The most fascinating part to me about what we’ve learned this quarter about discourse and linguistics is the way we are so blind to the way we operate. Invariably, I have at least one of Grice’s maxims running through my head at any given time that I am talking to someone, and that has been true since long before I even knew what Grice’s maxims were. I know that I change and grow because of my discussions with people, and that was true even before I learned that Barbara Johnstone believed that I can, in turn, change and shape discourse.

“Conversational conventions… allow the various sentence meanings to be sensibly combines into discourse meaning and integrated with context” (Fromkin, Rodman, and Hyams, 2007, p. 205).  If these conversational maxims are the most fundamental level from which we build discourse, they are also the level at which it is broken down. They are not rules, but they do carry a substantial weight, greater than indexicalities, style, behavior, and other tools we use create discourse. The maxims are an explanation of how we understand each other. Without body language, implicature, and harmony, if we upheld the maxims we would still be able to understand each other.

To change or flout Grice’s maxims is to shape our discourse. For instance, the word “dude” violates the maxim of quantity, which means to “say neither more nor less than the discourse requires.” No discourse requires the word “dude,” but by adding it we shaped discourse. Now, the word “dude” has social implications; with different tones it can create solidarity or detachment. It influences what we think about equality and our own identities. We shaped our discourse by breaking down a conversational maxim, but now our discourse is shapes us when we have to pay attention to how we use the word, its context, to whom we are speaking, and our “cool solidarity,” as Kiesling puts it (Johnstone, 2008, p. 286).

Look what’s shaping up now.

Essay #3: Project Idea/Proposal

Essay Prompt: Present a project design of your own to explore a question you have about naturally occurring conversation. The response to this question will have two sections, Introduction and Methodology. You may build on research you have done for your final project, any previous projects, or you may choose a new project. Write a one-paragraph introduction which draws upon our work in this program to explain why your project is important. End this section with a research question or hypothesis. Then explain your methodology. How will you gather data? How will you choose your participants in the study? If you will ask your participants questions, list them. If you ask participants to discuss something, provide the prompt. Will you record data at the moment or later? Will you audio tape or videotape? Be very specific. Include in your explanation of methodology the crucial explanation of why, in your view, the methodology you have chosen will provide the answer to your research question.

——–

3:            Introduction:

Project Description: You will be recording a meeting, transcribing a section of that recording, and analyzing the transcription. Videotape a student group meeting for at least 20 minutes. This student group should have at least five members present at the meeting (there should be men and women) and they should have a prepared agenda for their meeting with at least two topics to discuss or on which to make decisions. After the meeting, analyze your video recording carefully, and select for your transcription a discussion about one of the topics on the agenda, in which at least two members spoke. For your analysis, use both your transcription and the video recording, and answer the following question: What discourse methods, styles, and behaviors does each speaker exhibit in order to address the agenda topic and finalize the issue?

Importance to the program: I think this would be a very interesting topic, particularly because of my involvement with a student group myself. I was very careful to make this assignment different from the one we did analyzing the seminar discussion. The idea of addressing a certain topic and the pressure to come to a definitive conclusion about it is fascinating and very distinct—I don’t believe it is something that happens in a seminar. It’s one thing to sit in a seminar and be able to talk at length about a certain topic, but students don’t need to make decisions or even come to final conclusions… or at least not on behalf of anyone but themselves. So I think that to analyze students getting business done in the student group setting would be very compelling. I would also be interested in what (if any) type of government this group would use, because this will affect how each person is involved in the discussion and decision-making process. Do they have a leader who will make the ultimate decision, but not without some input of other members first? Do they need to reach a consensus? Do they take a vote?

Methodology: Though I’d love to analyze a Cooper Point Journal meeting from a linguistic standpoint, I would record the Geoduck Union for this project. I would be especially interested in stance and face-saving acts, but I would also focus on backchannelling, politeness, and hedging. These would show up in how people expressed their opinions, how they made motions about the topics at hand, and how they changed subjects. Then I would examine how effective all this was by seeing what decisions they reached, how they reached them, and the timeliness of their decision (based on their agenda).

I wouldn’t do any extra research on the Geoduck Union before going in or doing the transcription and analysis, because I would like to do the project with few preconceptions. However, maybe in the last step of my analysis, I would look up whether any members had any special roles in the Union or in that meeting to determine how they used those roles.

Essay #2: Men & Women

Essay Prompt: Do men and women talk differently? Choose a response to this yes/no question and support it with at least three studies cited in your text, Language and Gender. In your response, take into account the argument -that Eckert and McConnell-Ginet present, which is summarized in chapter 9.

——–

2:            To Penelope Eckert and Sally McConnell-Ginet, the issue doesn’t seem to be whether men and women talk differently—that is a resounding “yes,” with which I agree—but rather what creates these differences. The differences don’t seem to be  distinguished by our sex, but by our gender. We indicate this with the words we use and even in our appearances. This is the concept which Eckert and McConnell-Ginet refer to as “gender performativity” (2003, p. 315). Judith Butler (1990) argues similarly that the idea of gender that influences the differences in our talk as men and women doesn’t come from being male or female (or having a “’core’ gender identity”), but rather from carrying the roles of a gender. “… It is those [gendered] activities that create the illusion of a core. … Those expressions of gender are deployments of linguistic resources” (Eckert, McConnell-Ginet, 2003, p.316).

These “gendered activities” also give us the notions of style and behavior that are specific to one gender or another. When we say that men and women talk differently, we are examining styles and behaviors and assigning them to one gender or another. To say that a woman talks like a woman, we are saying that her speech uses feminine styles and behaviors.

For instance, one style that Eckert and McConnell-Ginet say is feminine is a very forward pronunciation of the “s” phoneme, which is said right behind the upper front teeth. “The phonological system, which carrying no content in itself, is a potent resource for encoding social meanings” (Eckert, McConnell-Ginet, 2003, p. 62). Because we tend to interpret this “s” sound as prissy or feminine, we might think that men who use it are more feminine, or gay. We develop subconscious expectations about how masculine men should pronounce the /s/, even extending to  suppositions about a man’s sexual orientation. Knowing this, a man might change the way he pronounces the /s/ in order to give the right social meaning.

An even more subtle way of indexing and presenting gender through talk is facework.

“…It is in conversation that we work out who we are in relation to others, and who others will allow us to be. The individual connects to the social world at the nexus where we balance who we want to be with who others will allow us to be. … Gender ideology and assumed gender identity enter into shaping both the face individuals want to project and the face others are willing to ascribe to them” (Eckert, McConnell-Ginet, 2003, p. 59).

A major audience for our interactions is the opposite sex (and usually the opposite gender), and the idea of saving face for the other gender is very important. It is this concept that encourages women to pronounce a feminine /s/, raise the pitch of their voice, and even carry their gender through their outward appearance. Eckert and McConnell-Ginet demonstrate that gender is a fundamental shaper of discourse, whether it is subtle or overtly obvious.

Essay #1: Identity

Essay Prompt: In this program we have been exploring the argument that we construct our identity, in part, through conversation. Our identity is not something that we develop internally, but a construct that we create and maintain moment by moment through everyday talk by drawing on linguistic resources, including silence. Look back at our readings and choose at least three chapters or journal articles that you find particularly useful because of the evidence provided. Then, present an argument for the social construction of identity drawing on the evidence you have chosen.

——–

1:             Being one of the dudes: something humans are striving for on a daily basis, whether we know it or not.  Showing solidarity with people is something that is so inherently important to us that we don’t realize we’re doing it simply by saying the word “dude.”  Studies have shown that students, both male and female, use it for commiseration and confrontation (Kiesling, 2004). Indexing masculinity is very important to a man’s identity, both in what his peers think of him and what he thinks of himself. In fact, Scott Kiesling even coined the term “cool solidarity” to refer to the ways the men use the word “dude” to talk to each other (p.286). Kiesling states, “Dude thus carries indexicalities of both solidarity (camaraderie) and distance (nonintimacy) and can be deployed to create both of these kinds of stance, separately or together” (2004, p. 286).

Barbara Johnstone makes a more general observation that, “People constantly create and renegotiate their relationships with each other in the process of interacting, via discourse moves that make claims to equality, inequality, solidarity, or detachment” (2008, p. 139). In transforming our identity, we are always analyzing how we are similar to and different from others, and using our analyses to shape our discourse. For instance, the more differences we notice about another person from the beginning, the more likely it is that we will form a detached relationship with them through our conversations.

It is these interactions that base further conversation, which is where we build even more ideas about “equality, inequality, solidarity, or detachment.” We find more that we have in common, push boundaries, and make more choices about what to say or not say. Johnstone says, “…however people’s linguistic resources and choices are limited by the ways in which their behavior forms part of the whole ecology of human social life – the fact that participants in discourse are individual human beings means that discourse is fundamentally creative” (2008, p. 157).  Our creativity embodies our identity, and vice versa; even if we limit our creativity by conforming to social norms (like saying “dude”), we are able to make that choice and are therefore using creativity to develop an identity.

Using the word “dude” and repeating other catch phrases, which Ferrara (2004) is quoted by Johnstone as calling “mirroring” and “echoing,” and which is also called backchannelling, “can create rapport, the feeling of harmony among interlocutors which, it can be argued, is one of the primary functions of conversation” (Johnstone, 2008, p. 173). This feeling of harmony is, if not the real goal for any conversation, a genuinely rewarding byproduct of discourse that indicates solidarity. We learn to generate this harmony, thus creating identity.