March 23, 2012
Confused and Heterglossia
To be honest, weaving through the multiple voices of the prisoners was confusing. The brief snippets of their stories that are given are so momentary. After one is heard, another is heard again and the multitudes of stories that are given can make give anyone a variety of emotions. For me, I was confused. I was confused as to the lines that are set up in this node and how the lines set up for the "life on the inside" and the "life on the outside" can become blurred. When listening to stories from both sides of the supposed "line", they both sound the same. They're all humans dealing with problems and sharing their stories with Daniels in order to obtain some kind of response. One woman brought up the idea of control that is within the prisons and how everything around her is constricting everything she does. This is also peculiar because the line between control is very sketchy. Both sides are at a battle of control and trying to gain this "power" of control and the lines becomes even more blurry as to which side is which. The term "heteroglossia" comes to mind because as these voices are constantly heard and the line is being blurred, the various discourses that are given come into one existence and become a whole rather than these two separate entities of "life on the inside" and "life on the outside." Am I still confused? Yes, but I have a better hold as to why I am and maybe should be confused.
2 comments:
I found that looking at the hypertext as a sort of layered genre was beneficial for me. With each component - the audio, the text, and the visual - playing an important role in the definition of the hypertext's meaning. However, I also viewed it subjectively. Each individual will have there own separate interpretation of the meaning held in the hypertext, and the various levels to the hypertext can confuse this. The text level, when viewed alone can be perceived as its own genre, as can the other levels. The combination and integration of the multiple levels also calls for a new interpretation and assignation of genre. i see the problem, and what much confusion might arise from, to be, what I call, the problem of scope and probability. Genre is solely defined along these parameters. The problem with probability is the chance of our individual perceptions being aligned with the societal perception of a genre. No two interpretations are ever entirely identical, there are too many factors involved. Scope adds another issue. The level on which a topic is viewed and from what angle involves fluctuating and varying emotions, convictions, and motives. The world can be viewed cosmically, atomically, and everywhere in between. Each point along the way can encompass a separate genre. The problem with genre and categorization are these probabilities and sliding scope. There are an infinite number of interpretations caused by differentiation. So you can either look at the universe as one, or you can look everything in between and never have 100% certainty. Peace.
I was confused going through the essay as well, and I find it interesting that you bring up heteroglossia in relation to the confusing nature of the piece. Personally, I'm not familiar with how prison systems are presented in society. Regrettably, I just haven't been paying attention. When Bakhitkin exemplifies heteroglossia through Dickins, he uses an "epic tone" to dramatize the present, creating a new genres through the use of styles originating from two different episteme. For this to work, however, the reader has to be familiar with what the epic style implies. I only found one commentary in Daniel's essay from someone on the outside. She was some kind of advisor who worked at the prison, I believe. I am not familiar with the outside perspective on prisons, and I felt that outside perspective was necessary in understanding the full implications of Daniel's erasure of the inside and outside. In several interviews, ad campaigns were referenced; one woman describes an ad campaign in which a prison employer is shown to have been beaten up at the prison. The woman uses language specific to that prison (e.g. the depicted woman's job title), which I didn't understand, to visualize the ad. The comment about the ad is interesting in Daniel's essay in that it gives voice to the prisoner not depicted in the ad but upon which the ad relies. Daniel, however, doesn't present the ad in its voice. There were many instance across the essay where I had trouble entering into the content because I didn't understand what implied "outside" voices they were arguing against. Interestingly, using what I could gather about the outside's perspective implicit in the essay, the outside's presentation of the prison system relies on silencing the prisoners' realities. The outside perspective in Daniel's essay is not presented in full voice (we aren't given commentary from its side), but it is constantly working throughout. It reminds me of Killingsworth's synechode; Daniel emphasizes pieces of the argument to bring greater attention to the whole argument, whereas the outside's presentation of the prison system works more like metonymy. It uses the image of a prison employee as a representation for a whole complex system, limiting its possible voices (the prisoners' voices). The worst part of the ad is that its symbol represents an outside perspective looking into the prison. Daniel keeps the implied voice of the outside present in her essay, but the ad erases the implied voice of the prisoners by forcing the audience to understand the prison system through a symbol of outside society.
For some reason, my account wasn't letting my post this, so I apologize for its lateness (it was already late when I was going to post it originally, but now, it's...super late).
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.