Bakhtin has his own poetic, and I'm struck by the ways in which he brings in a host of other analogies in his own writing to explain what it is he's talking about; in the case of the area I'm going to explore, the issue of light refracting off a lens to explain the way meaning changes as the heteroglossia surrounding a particular text changes the way we see it. Just as light in rarefaction through a lens changes the shape, focus, and perception of an object, so does a change in the dialogue in which a particular text is situated.
I'm talking here about Bakhtin's concept of re-accentuation, which to me, both actively pursuing and studying my hobby of fan fiction is a very interesting one. Fan fiction is by its nature a heteroglossic undertaking; it is adding an interpretation to a text which already exists, or extracting bits of that text and creating a new dialogue around them. In doing so, the meaning of that text is gradually changed bit by bit as people grow to understand the situation differently. For example, in the original book, Edward the vampire likes to watch Bella sleep; when he admits this to her, she finds this hopelessly romantic. Yet if a fan fiction writer writes a so-called "alternate universe" (AU) fanfiction where Edward, instead of being a chaste, moral vampire who drinks from animals is instead a traditional bloodthirsty killer, when that writer repeats the trope of Edward watching Bella sleep, the interpretation of the new version is much more sinister. And what is more fascinating is that this new interpretation affects not only the AU, but that of the original text as well, and moves readers to understand the original book's Edward's motives as being quite creepy rather than the hopelessly romantic gesture they may have originally felt them to be.
Bakhtin argues that as texts move through different historical periods and different groups, each one adds a different meaning to it and shapes it, because the heteroglossic fabric which surrounds the text changes each time it is moved. Yet perhaps this is the test of something which is lasting; a great text continues to grow and move, morphing into other meanings and interpretations as it makes its way through the dialogic imagination of new sets of readers.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
The Present Absent: Irvine 2005
What I find most interesting about Irvine's commentary is that it begins to tackle a part of intertextuality that I find many other treatments of the topic seem to gloss; that is, the meaning created by what is not there, which is often every bit as profound as the meaning created by the things that are. She identifies several types of gaps/features of gaps, which I will list for my own future reference:
-that unlike chunks of text shed light on like ones; they throw into relief the similarity of other parts of the text that otherwise might be more difficult to recognize as a like
-avoidance: the question of who sees what is being avoided (the 900-pound gorilla, as it were) and why they see it creates interesting questions about what is contained in the rest of the text
-absence: what has been excluded from the text and why
-roads not taken: why one approach was chosen.
In my own work, I find Irvine's thoughts on absence quite interesting, especially this question of unlike chunks shedding light on like ones. WK is an instance of incongruity, and perhaps part of what makes it so offensive to the people who are "being white-knighted is the simple fact that the incongruous opinion of the white-knight makes them all seem more similar, and subtly implies that they are the sheep in the herd.
-that unlike chunks of text shed light on like ones; they throw into relief the similarity of other parts of the text that otherwise might be more difficult to recognize as a like
-avoidance: the question of who sees what is being avoided (the 900-pound gorilla, as it were) and why they see it creates interesting questions about what is contained in the rest of the text
-absence: what has been excluded from the text and why
-roads not taken: why one approach was chosen.
In my own work, I find Irvine's thoughts on absence quite interesting, especially this question of unlike chunks shedding light on like ones. WK is an instance of incongruity, and perhaps part of what makes it so offensive to the people who are "being white-knighted is the simple fact that the incongruous opinion of the white-knight makes them all seem more similar, and subtly implies that they are the sheep in the herd.
A Charter, Not an Answer: Bauman 2005
In Bauman's response to the papers in LA 15, he outlines the reasons for understanding and exploring interdiscursivity (his extension of the term coined by Kristeva to explain Bahktin, which in and of itself represents a through-line of prior texts informing the current.) Bauman argues that interdiscursivity helps us to understand that all utterances are ideologically informed; they all carry with them the weight of all that has been said before and in this way, all speak back to the texts around them.
Bauman puts forth three primary reasons for us to be interested in interdiscursivity. One, it helps us transcend the limits of the bounded speech event to understand the ways in which a speech event is situated within the ideology of the groups that created it and the ways in which it responds to other speech events and speaks to new speech events which may occur in the future. Two, interdiscursivity keeps us aware that all utterances are ideologically informed, that is, that they all rely on the ideologies which their speakers and hearers bring to the table; these ideologies are based on prior interpretations of other texts, which are ideologically informed and so on and so on. And last, interdiscursivity provides a discourse-centered way of "elucidating and calibrating" the terms, modes and degrees of alignment; as Agha shows, it helps us piece together exactly how something becomes enregistered, or how someone becomes known as a particular persona.
Bauman calls Bakhtin's work "a charter, not an answer," and perhaps this is the most useful of all. Intertextuality, it seems to me, is a jumping-off point for understanding a host of phenomena, whether it be internet etiquette and behavior (my study), the creation of register (Agha 2005), alignment in a family (Tovares 2006), legal history and precedent (Raisch 2008), and many others, each as seemingly different as the next. Interdiscursivity lays the groundwork by which the workings of our communication are better understood; it gives no answers, only a map.
Bauman puts forth three primary reasons for us to be interested in interdiscursivity. One, it helps us transcend the limits of the bounded speech event to understand the ways in which a speech event is situated within the ideology of the groups that created it and the ways in which it responds to other speech events and speaks to new speech events which may occur in the future. Two, interdiscursivity keeps us aware that all utterances are ideologically informed, that is, that they all rely on the ideologies which their speakers and hearers bring to the table; these ideologies are based on prior interpretations of other texts, which are ideologically informed and so on and so on. And last, interdiscursivity provides a discourse-centered way of "elucidating and calibrating" the terms, modes and degrees of alignment; as Agha shows, it helps us piece together exactly how something becomes enregistered, or how someone becomes known as a particular persona.
Bauman calls Bakhtin's work "a charter, not an answer," and perhaps this is the most useful of all. Intertextuality, it seems to me, is a jumping-off point for understanding a host of phenomena, whether it be internet etiquette and behavior (my study), the creation of register (Agha 2005), alignment in a family (Tovares 2006), legal history and precedent (Raisch 2008), and many others, each as seemingly different as the next. Interdiscursivity lays the groundwork by which the workings of our communication are better understood; it gives no answers, only a map.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Sure Footing: Agha 2005
Perhaps the most useful part of Agha's article is his careful picking apart of the way that enregisterment happens, and so it is there that I'd like to focus my own thoughts, as it is also the most useful for me in my own work. He describes the following three-step process:
contrastive individuation, where by one voice is recognized as contrasting against another
biographic identification, or the "naming of voices," where the voice becomes typified
and
social characterization - assigning an individual voice to a social character.
This process in many ways is similar to Bauman's concept of entxextualization. In this, Agha essentially breaks down the process of entextualization even further, showing exactly how one instance comes to be known as a typification of a larger pheonmenon. Once a text (a voice in this case) goes through Agha's three stages, it has been entextualized as characteristic of a particular social persona, and then is free to be decontextualized and recontextualized at will.
For my own work, this makes good sense. White knighting is nothing if not a process by which one voice is isolated as not being a part of the broader conversation, and then typified as not only outside of but also an antagonist to that conversation. This process helps narrow down and identify the precise moves that are made to make that happen.
contrastive individuation, where by one voice is recognized as contrasting against another
biographic identification, or the "naming of voices," where the voice becomes typified
and
social characterization - assigning an individual voice to a social character.
This process in many ways is similar to Bauman's concept of entxextualization. In this, Agha essentially breaks down the process of entextualization even further, showing exactly how one instance comes to be known as a typification of a larger pheonmenon. Once a text (a voice in this case) goes through Agha's three stages, it has been entextualized as characteristic of a particular social persona, and then is free to be decontextualized and recontextualized at will.
For my own work, this makes good sense. White knighting is nothing if not a process by which one voice is isolated as not being a part of the broader conversation, and then typified as not only outside of but also an antagonist to that conversation. This process helps narrow down and identify the precise moves that are made to make that happen.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Laura's Presentation
Laura’s topic is, in terms of medium, closest to mine, and yet we’re exploring two very different phenomena. I greatly appreciated the insight from Baym with regard to repetition in the creation of internet humor and solidarity. The idea of the way that humor is an interstice in a text that is ostensibly about something else (for example, the daily show summaries) I think has a lot of value for my own research—much of what I’m looking at has a great deal to do with the ways in which individuals add their own voice to the text at hand.
I thought, too, that Laura’s request for us to reexamine Becker was a good one. Much of what happens in internet discourse is about repetition—what gets repeated and what does not, as well as what is picked up as relevant to the conversation and what stances are taken towards that information. Repetition has a lot to do with the creation of meaning on the internet.
Most interesting about Laura’s data were the ways meaning was being created out of very, very little. For example, the wall posts about Michael Moore might have been taken in a completely different way had the person not have been a conservative. I also was fascinated by the transformation of the word “Sicko” from a movie title to a possible reference to Moore himself. The ways in which single turns like that can be manipulated is a really fruitful area to look at on Facebook, and it seems like that is an area Laura is beginning to cue into in her analysis.
One of the things I wanted to know more about in Laura’s presentation was the way intertextuality functions in the socialization of these older FB users. I wasn’t completely clear on that, and I didn’t entirely get that reverse socialization out of the data we looked at (although we eschewed an entire set of data, so that may be why). I have a feeling much of this socialization happens in the responding to texts, for example, the example Laura gave of people going, “There’s a button for that” to someone who simply replies “I like this” to a post. I would be very interested to see some of that in action.
I thought, too, that Laura’s request for us to reexamine Becker was a good one. Much of what happens in internet discourse is about repetition—what gets repeated and what does not, as well as what is picked up as relevant to the conversation and what stances are taken towards that information. Repetition has a lot to do with the creation of meaning on the internet.
Most interesting about Laura’s data were the ways meaning was being created out of very, very little. For example, the wall posts about Michael Moore might have been taken in a completely different way had the person not have been a conservative. I also was fascinated by the transformation of the word “Sicko” from a movie title to a possible reference to Moore himself. The ways in which single turns like that can be manipulated is a really fruitful area to look at on Facebook, and it seems like that is an area Laura is beginning to cue into in her analysis.
One of the things I wanted to know more about in Laura’s presentation was the way intertextuality functions in the socialization of these older FB users. I wasn’t completely clear on that, and I didn’t entirely get that reverse socialization out of the data we looked at (although we eschewed an entire set of data, so that may be why). I have a feeling much of this socialization happens in the responding to texts, for example, the example Laura gave of people going, “There’s a button for that” to someone who simply replies “I like this” to a post. I would be very interested to see some of that in action.
Sam's Workshop
One of the things I thought was a most interesting point brought up by Sam’s readings was the concept of “ownership” as it applies to health information. This was brought up in the Hardey reading, and yet I feel has a lot to do with what Sam is looking at in the birth control commercials. The question of who “owns” the medical information that was presented has a lot to do with how the information in the commercials is presented—do we view the speaker presenting the risks and benefits of the drug as something that an average person should have in her purview? I found that to be a very interesting question as we examined Sam’s data.
I was also particularly struck by the ways in which the data that Sam presented really did represent the “postmodern” commercial, or perhaps a mix of the modern and postmodern. Although much explicit information was given in the commercials (as was necessary per FDA standards), much information relied on other connections we could make, often intertextual ties to our understanding of women’s history, what a birth control pill pack looks like, what women’s bathing attire indexes, etc. The goal of the commercial was not entirely to sell us on the benefits of the product but rather to sell us on a particular feeling that we ought to have about the product—that it makes us freer, sexier, more modern, etc. (Incidentally, it was also very interesting given Pat’s presentation, to go back to the kinds of ideologies about manhood that his focus texts evoke.) I think the way these themes play out, in accordance with the kinds of ideas that Proctor put forth, might be a really interesting spot of exploration for Sam. I was very intrigued by the ways the two sets of commercials “talk back” to each other, and exploring the ways the talking back incorporates some of these concepts of how we’re meant to “feel’ could be very useful (for example, the correction Yaz commercial still uses the same actress in the same swanky bar instead of say, a doctor in a lab coat).
Connecting the concepts back to my own work; I think probably the most interesting piece I came across in Sam’s workshop were some of the ideas about ownership that Hardey explored. This concept of the internet making knowledge more communal, and knowledge being weighed not against its validity but against the availability of other knowledge, is one I think is particularly useful to my own work. WK to some degree deals with the question of whether one person’s reading of a particular text is valid vis a vis anothers’, and much of this has to do with the presence or absence of both opinions and the prevalence of one versus another. So I think some of the same things apply, e.g. people growing skeptical of skewed information because there simply is a lack of volume.
I was also particularly struck by the ways in which the data that Sam presented really did represent the “postmodern” commercial, or perhaps a mix of the modern and postmodern. Although much explicit information was given in the commercials (as was necessary per FDA standards), much information relied on other connections we could make, often intertextual ties to our understanding of women’s history, what a birth control pill pack looks like, what women’s bathing attire indexes, etc. The goal of the commercial was not entirely to sell us on the benefits of the product but rather to sell us on a particular feeling that we ought to have about the product—that it makes us freer, sexier, more modern, etc. (Incidentally, it was also very interesting given Pat’s presentation, to go back to the kinds of ideologies about manhood that his focus texts evoke.) I think the way these themes play out, in accordance with the kinds of ideas that Proctor put forth, might be a really interesting spot of exploration for Sam. I was very intrigued by the ways the two sets of commercials “talk back” to each other, and exploring the ways the talking back incorporates some of these concepts of how we’re meant to “feel’ could be very useful (for example, the correction Yaz commercial still uses the same actress in the same swanky bar instead of say, a doctor in a lab coat).
Connecting the concepts back to my own work; I think probably the most interesting piece I came across in Sam’s workshop were some of the ideas about ownership that Hardey explored. This concept of the internet making knowledge more communal, and knowledge being weighed not against its validity but against the availability of other knowledge, is one I think is particularly useful to my own work. WK to some degree deals with the question of whether one person’s reading of a particular text is valid vis a vis anothers’, and much of this has to do with the presence or absence of both opinions and the prevalence of one versus another. So I think some of the same things apply, e.g. people growing skeptical of skewed information because there simply is a lack of volume.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Pat's Workshop
Pat’s topic is quite interesting to me from the standpoint of using a really very subtle intertext. I didn’t expect to be using such a subtle intertext myself; my original thought was simply to examine message board speech precisely because the intertext is usually so overt. Yet I’ve found that what I’ve ended up looking at is very subtle.
Were I to watch Pat’s Ford commercials, I would likely not recognize the “Dirty Jobs” intertext at all, as I’ve never seen the show and certainly don’t recognize its host. Yet at the same time, I would undoubtedly recognize the ideologies of masculinity and strength and the personification of those ideologies onto a machine. I thought this was perhaps one of the more useful connections of Pat’s workshop for me; thinking about how to pick apart an intertext and to see different intertexts based on what one has experience with. In my own work, much comes from people understanding a situation in the same way, or understanding that a certain set of behaviors constitutes a white-knighting frame in the same way that Anna Trester’s improv artists could recognize a set of behaviors as a game frame. Pat’s focus texts helped me think about how an intertext could be recognized with very little, and also how people with different experiences might cue in to different intertexts.
The readings Pat chose I thought were complementary. Irvine and Gal emphasized a great deal about group formation, and very importantly, intragroup diversity. Thinking about how we might hegemonically assign characteristics to single groups is an interesting thought, especially when it comes to understanding their linguistic practice. I find these concepts to speak back to Ana’s work on linguistic metadiscourse, and wonder if that might not be a good area of exploration for her as well. I was intrigued by Actor Network Theory, and it seems that Latour and Irvine and Gal are saying a great deal of the same things about the ways networks and groups are created intrinsically and must be understood as such to understand how different pieces of their worlds can carry meaning. One spot I thought about particularly was the concept of certain features being mapped on to social qualities, a la the nylon vs. silk example that Latour gives. This could be brought to bear on some of Pat’s work—we already have many of the ideologies of what it is to be masculine, and the way they do or don’t get
The one thing I was surprised was missing from Pat’s workshop was more information about Dirty Jobs itself. There was a LOT to work with simply exploring the intertextual ties between the commercials themselves, but I found I wanted to know more about the Dirty Jobs intertext and the way in which it played into or didn’t play into the focus texts. However, I found the process of identifying the actors and intermediaries in each was a very good method of analysis for Pat’s work.
Were I to watch Pat’s Ford commercials, I would likely not recognize the “Dirty Jobs” intertext at all, as I’ve never seen the show and certainly don’t recognize its host. Yet at the same time, I would undoubtedly recognize the ideologies of masculinity and strength and the personification of those ideologies onto a machine. I thought this was perhaps one of the more useful connections of Pat’s workshop for me; thinking about how to pick apart an intertext and to see different intertexts based on what one has experience with. In my own work, much comes from people understanding a situation in the same way, or understanding that a certain set of behaviors constitutes a white-knighting frame in the same way that Anna Trester’s improv artists could recognize a set of behaviors as a game frame. Pat’s focus texts helped me think about how an intertext could be recognized with very little, and also how people with different experiences might cue in to different intertexts.
The readings Pat chose I thought were complementary. Irvine and Gal emphasized a great deal about group formation, and very importantly, intragroup diversity. Thinking about how we might hegemonically assign characteristics to single groups is an interesting thought, especially when it comes to understanding their linguistic practice. I find these concepts to speak back to Ana’s work on linguistic metadiscourse, and wonder if that might not be a good area of exploration for her as well. I was intrigued by Actor Network Theory, and it seems that Latour and Irvine and Gal are saying a great deal of the same things about the ways networks and groups are created intrinsically and must be understood as such to understand how different pieces of their worlds can carry meaning. One spot I thought about particularly was the concept of certain features being mapped on to social qualities, a la the nylon vs. silk example that Latour gives. This could be brought to bear on some of Pat’s work—we already have many of the ideologies of what it is to be masculine, and the way they do or don’t get
The one thing I was surprised was missing from Pat’s workshop was more information about Dirty Jobs itself. There was a LOT to work with simply exploring the intertextual ties between the commercials themselves, but I found I wanted to know more about the Dirty Jobs intertext and the way in which it played into or didn’t play into the focus texts. However, I found the process of identifying the actors and intermediaries in each was a very good method of analysis for Pat’s work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)