1) Marx and Engels wrote: "Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat" (10). If only that were true, things might be more simple. But in late twentieth-century America, it seems that society is slitting more and more into a plethora of class factions - the working class, the working poor, lower-middle class, upper-middle class, lower uppers, and upper uppers. I find myself not knowing what class I'm from.
In my days as a newspaper reporter, I once asked a sociology professor what he thought about the reported shrinking of the middle class. Oh, it's not the middle class that's disappearing, he said, but the working class. His definition: if you earn thirty thousand dollars a year working in an assembly plant, come home from work open a beer and watch the game, you are working class; if you earn twenty thousand dollars a year as a school teacher, come home from work to a glass of white wine and PBS, you are middle class.
How do we define class? Is it an issue of values, lifestyle, taste? Is it the kind of work you do, your relationship to the means of production? Is it a matter of how much money you earn? Are we allowed to choose? In this land of supposed classlessness, where we don't have the tradition of English society to keep us in our places, how do we know where we really belong? The average American will tell you he or she is "middle class." I'm sure that's what my father would tell you. But i always felt that we were in some no man's land, suspended between classes, sharing similarities with some and recognizing sharp, exclusionary differences from others. What class do I come from? What class am I in now? As an historian, I seek the answers to these questions in the specificity of my past.
Julie Charlip, "A Real Class Act: Searching for Identity in the Classless Society"
Italicized phrases are showing ideas which are possessed by the author
Bold phrases are showing ideas possessed by others
2)
a) In my letter to a Michigan Representative in Congress I used two perspectives, that which is believed by the general public and mine own.
b) In order to make my piece more persuasive it would have been wise to include a perspective from an individual that has a expertise in the subject of the letter, such as a sociology professor from a well renounced university.
c) I was able to clearly distinguish my views by using clear transitions. It was also helpful that for this particular piece the views were opposing with no overlap.
d) I was able to use clear voice-signaling phrases.
e) Some options I have for clarifying whose view is being presented would be to clearly define by name whose spoken view is is being presented instead of relying on the phrase "the public".
f) I believe that to best improve this piece at least one expert view of the subject needs to be added as well as a new way of phrasing "the public".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I liked how you typed out the whole passage and then used two different techniques to decipher if the author's views and the views of others. However, I feel you missed one of the signal phrases. In the sentence, "In my days as a newspaper reporter, I once asked a sociology professor what he thought about the reported shrinking of the middle class." The sentence before, you recognized the author using "I find myself not knowing what class I'm from." as a signal phrase.So, I believe that "In my days as a newspaper reporter, I..." should be italicized because by the author using the word "I" she is signaling that she is explaining her views, not the views of others.
ReplyDeleteNice technique that you used for exercise number one. There are advantage and disadvantage on using the technique above. It's nice that we can see the signal phrases driectly from the passage. However, some signal phrases didn't get highlighted specifically. And is the lighter color sentences the one referring to author's own view? If so, the questions author asked in the third paragraph isn't signal phrases to show author's view. I like your second response. It's very clear and straight forward.
ReplyDeleteI liked that you bolded and Italicized the phrases to show which ones were the authors views and the views of others. I would suggest however that in the second part of the assignment for part F that using signal phrases and quotes would be effective.
ReplyDeleteAs others have pointed out, I like how the format of #1 how you typed the whole thing out. It put everything in context and made it so much easier to understand. I think you hit all the right phrases for that exercise too, although I might have included some of the rhetoical questions as well because they seem to be the authors opinion too.
ReplyDeleteIn your part 2 the thought about being more specific than "the public" was excellent. I know from experience that's always something teachers are harping on, "be more specific". Nice Job. Although next time you might want to include a clip of the paper you wrote so people can put the answers in context and get a better idea of what your talking about.
I agree with everyone your first respnse is well described and it was easy to understand because of the bolded words. Your second respose is very simple and short and I liked it.
ReplyDelete