Bawarshi; Allen; Magee: Genre Continued

The first article about genre was by Bawarshi regarding the ecology of genre. The authors opening paragraphs are quite interesting where he describes the relation of the writer and his environment as being symbiotic, much like the inhabitants of an ecosystem. The problem he states is that we perceive our selves and our social environments as being separate from one another, two different entities engaging with one another and overlapping. I really like where he states that the writer and their environment constantly reproduce one another, and that the environment becomes a critical part of the writers actions. As writers there is a give and take relationship between what we write and where we are writing or what we are writing for. As writers we construct new environments with our practices, but at the same time we are shaped by the pre-existing environments in which we belong. Our individual discourses and reality are not necessarily separate, but we take on new identities as we assimilate to new ecologies or discourses that often overlap or interact with our other existing identities.

The next article was by Allen and was about rhetorical situations and the 'appearance' of objectivity. The author looks at the writing of scientific papers as engaging in a rhetorical situation, though many people would argue that there is little place for rhetoric in science. His argument is that the writer persuades the audience by the appearance of objectivity. The point of scientific writing is supposed to be about providing unbiased truths or info, he argues that in actuality the 'writer creates an exigence and addresses it through rhetorical strategies that lead to the appearance of objectivity. I found this interesting because scientific writings are meant to provide the public with unbiased scientific data, but it would logically follow that whoever wrote the article is a subjective being. As humans we are unable to entirely separate from our subjectivity when trying to appear objective. I like the quote he uses that says "There is no such thing as unprejudiced observation. Every act of observation we make is biased. What we see or otherwise sense is a function of what we have seen or sensed in the past." I found this to be a very accurate statement. As humans we base everything we encounter on what we know or have previously experienced. When discovering or articulating new findings or data we use our preexisting knowledge of things, our biases, to make sense of it. I think the main point that the author makes in the article is that scientific writings are based on individual interpretation and not necessarily unbiased objective findings.

The last article was by Magee and was about young scholars and college essays. Her focus is on gender and masculinity in college admission essays. Her goal was to examine differences in gender as they correlate to differences in writing. What she found upon examining her and other females admission essays was that the genre of the admission essay seems to be more masculine, even for female writers. It seems that the genre in which we are writing will affect or determine our intended writing style. While gender is an important part of writing, social environment is equally if not more important. She examines the presumption that female writers tend to write about emotions and connections with people while men tend to write about self accomplishments and strengths. She found thought that the essays written by women werent like that at all, they were more 'masculine' in appearance. She claims that this is because the point of the essay is to show why an individual is a good candidate for college and that we individuals know what the college expects of us. So it seems that gender can play an important role in individuality, but when it comes to writing in particular genres we are able to put aside gender differences and create what is neutrally expected of us.