how far i've come....

Today was a productive day for me because I was able to better organize my arguments. In terms of how I want to approach this topic: political rhetoric. For a while I was trying to revolve around the structure and meaning of political rhetoric, defining what it is. Today, I began exploring more than just theory- but the practical application of it. By this I mean more than just what we see on TV in large scale speeches, debates and other political happenings- but in every day social interactions. I am discovering the political rhetoric in every day life. I only wrote a paragraph or so, but I was able to write down more notes and structural ideas for this paper.

Revising Plan

My revision plan:
1) I need to make by annotations more concise in terms of how I am using each source for my research. All I need to do is specifically recognize what I will be using from each source, and why, and then add that to my annotations.
2) Alphabetical order! I forgot to put my sources in alphabetical order under each of my caratogies. Easily fixable.
3) I think I might also make some edits to the format of my bibliograph. I am rested in my introduction, but I am not sure if I want my sources to stay catagorized as they already are. However, I am also not sure how else I want to catagorize them?

we'll see. cheers.

Annotations Discussions

Chilton, Paul A. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Hobsbawm, E J. Politics for a Rational Left; Political Writing, 1977-1988. New York: Verso, 1989.

I think this is correct, aside from second line indentation of 1989.

These sources are from two books that I have checked out via A.C. Buehler library. Actually, they're from Loyola, and I was able to get them through A.C. Buehler in a matter of a few days. I have til December 13. Not bad!

The Tutoring Practicum:Discussion Nov. 02

So I made it to class today despite being late, and im glad I did....

We had a little discussion in the library about the tutoring practicum thus far. I just wanted to say that the time we spent there was more productive than all of the time I've spent tutoring thus far. I tihnk if there is something to be gained here, its that we can best apply theory with the people who are being taught it. Now we didn't actually talk about compositional theory, but I think that our discussion about its application(or lack of) was stirring enough.
Many of us are having issues with this whole thing. I see the engine behind the steam, but I think the whole thing lacks the fuel. People aren't going to be motivated to do anything unless there is some kind of interdependency happening. I would be totally willing to help someone out with their writing if they really sincerely wanted it, if they came to me under their own steam. But its just not that way and its not going to be unless these people really want to be good writers. I really believe its that mundane.

We ran out of time, so I just wanted to get that out there.

Factness: fact of facts.

Whom could I talk to who could provide me with information that has factness about this question?What could I read that would provide me with information that has factness about this question? What else could I do besides talk to people and read to acquire information or factness about this question? (Jolliffe 75)


What question needs factness? For in fact, a question is no fact, it is a merely the quest of answering the question, and therefor, discovering the fruitful nature of truth.

1) Anyways, I could find information regarding factness from many sources. Being that my topic is political discourse, and more specifically, rhetoric, I could ask many sources including but not limitted to: political theorists(if I could locate one), professors of politics, law makers, rhetoric instructors(English-Comp) and even philosophers. These people and more could definitely help provide the factness I need for my research.

2) Reading is a great way to learn. As I'm sure most of my peers would agree, our entire research is dependent upon what texts we can find. For my topic, I think the best types of sources would be other research papers. Ideally, I would like to draw upon research that has already been done so that I could further it with my own. I could also turn to historical documents, documents containing subliminal clues to how political discourse has evolved. I may also be inclined to dust off the archaic books of the first political philosophers and founders of rhetoric. Everyone from Plato to Aristotle to more modern names like Trimbur, Royser, and O'Rourke(shout out).

3) What else could I do to discover factness? Well, the first thing that comes to mind is to explore what is known to not be fact, or that which is known to be false. I'm not entirely sure how best to go about this without said methords, but I could try drawing information from other media sources such as radio and TV. I could also cross reference two or more sources, looking for logic, and rational congruency. If two sources are talking about the same thing, but stating different facts about both, that would be a clear signal that something is false. My objective would then be to discover which parts from which sources are wrong.

I don't know. That's all I have right now.

Collaboration is bad?

Trimbur's article critsizes collaborative learning. He notes that group think/talk supresses individualistic creations and conditions learners to conform. I think this is a very good point. Especially in the compositional field, individual thoughts and opinions are essential; stylystically- how would things be if everyone was writing about the same kinds of things, in the same kind of way? He seems to be suggesting that collaborative learning and group think debases subjectivity. Maybe not to the extent of internalized thought, but moreover, in a way that facilitates almost a 'hive' like thinking.
I have to say, this is one of the more interesting articles I've read. I think its important for academia and theorists alike to sometimes go against the grain, raising new issues and questions for others to consider. I wouldn't go as far to say that Trimbur is exactly right as his notions are more extreme predicitions than what would probably be realistic happenings. First of all, so much of the way we learn is through experience and the happenings of everyday life. This type of vivid experience is sheer fact and certainly individualistic. I think that if all learning was in fact collaborative, everything about our world around us would change. Culture would have to be collectivist in nature, and law would most likely be a product of a socialist society.

Revisiting the Inquiry Project.

When people consider my topic, the first thing that comes to their minds is probably a feeling of disgust. I don't think most people like the muddiness of political discourse. One of the biggest issues regarding it is probably corruption, or corruptability. How much of political discourse is just 'fluff', or deceitful. What techniques might one master to acheive these kinds of dark rhetoric? How and why has it come to be what we know it as?
I think these questions would differ from the scholarly discourse community. Most scholars would probably agree the political language, at its core, is in fact an art form. It's not all lies and cover-ups, and even still, it takes knowledge to master. I think it is universally accepted that political discourse is a form of rhetoric. It is a dirty discourse because once mastered, it used to woo and sway the masses for good and bad reasons, even if contradicting the principles which supported it. I think most people would say political discourse, or rhetoric, is not taught thoroughly enough even through the college level. Unless you're majoring in English, Composition, or communication, most people will never really know what it actually is.

Most of the people that produce text about my topic are politicians; be they theorists, professors, or acting party members. Objectively, I think the goal of political discourse is to persaude rather than inform. But on a much more subjective level I think writer's of political discourse are flexing their own muscles, so they themselves may be affected. Supporting such a notion may seem groundless, but when examining any political text, one is often left with the sense that it is deeply personal.