Excursus: The Pipe as Rhetorical Artifact

Perhaps you may have noticed that smoking pipes are cropping up more lately in film and public consciousness. To be fair, pipes enjoyed a similar resurgence when Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings first came out ten years ago and many current, younger pipe smokers trace their initial interest to this film series. Still, I recently watched Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows during which I noticed more pipes than in the previous film. In the first film, Sherlock is the only pipe smoker but in the second film, Sherlock not only is a prominent pipe smoker but he smokes three different pipes. Also, other characters and random people passing by are smoking pipes throughout the film. Why is this? Why now?

The Three Pipe Problem

Of course pipe smoking is a significant part of both the Sherlock Holmes and Lord of the Rings (LTOR) canons. Still, with the anti-smoking gestalt today, why are movies including pipe smoking in the modern depictions? Certainly traditional pipe smokers identify with the Sherlock Holmes stories and many pipe smokers become "Holmesians" or those who study the Holmes cannon. Many pipe clubs, like the Sherlock Holmes Pipe Club of Boston, tie their identity to Holmes and Watson as the define themselves as pipe smokers. Some even emulate Holmes when they describe the severity of problems as taking one, two or three pipes to solve:

“As a rule,” said Holmes, “the more bizarre a thing is the less mysterious it proves to be. It is your commonplace, featureless crimes which are really puzzling, just as a commonplace face is the most difficult to identify. But I must be prompt over this matter.”

“What are you going to do, then?” I asked.

“To smoke,” he answered. “It is quite a three pipe problem, and I beg that you won’t speak to me for fifty minutes.” He curled himself up in his chair, with his thin knees drawn up to his hawk-like nose, and there he sat with his eyes closed and his black clay pipe thrusting out like the bill of some strange bird. I had come to the conclusion that he had dropped asleep, and indeed was nodding myself, when he suddenly sprang out of his chair with the gesture of a man who has made up his mind and put his pipe down upon the mantelpiece.[1]

Perhaps fans of both Sherlock Holmes and LOTR represent niche groups or subcultures of geekdom (a collection of people who avidly follow and/or consume a certain genre or hobby) that have simply edged closer to mainstream consciousness. In order to attract the longterm fan of these stories, these movies use pipes as rhetorical touchstones to identify the film adaptations with these enthusiasts. Certainly pipes are identified with other subcultures of geekdom.

The Steampunk Pipe

Recently, the steampunk aesthetic is gaining in popularity. This genre has been showcased on episodes of Castle and many consider the recent Sherlock Holmes movies to be part of the steampunk movement. Definitions of steampunk are contested but overall it seems to be a retro-futuristic sub-culture of science fiction that focuses on an alternate Victorian Era history and steam power. A good explanation of this definition problem is found on Steampunk.com:

To me, Steampunk has always been first and foremost a literary genre, or least a subgenre of science fiction and fantasy that includes social or technological aspects of the 19th century (the steam) usually with some deconstruction of, reimagining of, or rebellion against parts of it (the punk). Unfortunately, it is a poorly defined subgenre, with plenty of disagreement about what is and is not included. [2]

Because steampunk identifies with Victorian England, many people who participate in this aesthetic use pipes to represent steampunk. Certainly many people smoked pipes during this era; in fact the Sherlock Holmes stories took place in Victorian London. Yeah, it was a good time to be a pipesmoker and many of the pipe styles we see today were originally shaped and defined during this time.

Often steampunk participants will use traditional briar, meerschaum or calabash pipes to define their characters but some pipe makers are experimenting with the genre in their pipecraft. For instance, this pipe was made by Nate King who enjoys the steampunk genre. Although he designed this pipe earlier, a steampunk author purchased this pipe and is going to incorporate it into his illustrations [3]. Nate is now looking at expanding his steampunk pipes into other styles and shapes; personally, I am looking forward to see how he incorporates gears into his designs.

Steampunk pipes seem to function in a similar manner to that of those portrayed in Sherlock Holmes and LOTR movies: they function as rhetorical touchstones that point the attention of the observer to those worlds created by the participants of the respective worlds. However, pipes are appearing more often in movies outside of these genres. Why is this?

The Hipster Pipe

Hipsters are becoming more popular in the USA. This group, once seen as a small sub-culture, is growing. More movies are being made depicting hipsters as mainstream or at least equal to being a young adult today. Hipsters are considered easy to recognize and are defined as:

America does have a long love affair with being hip — not only up to date and au courant, but ahead of the curve. The Urban Dictionary defines hipsters as "a subculture of men and women typically in their 20s and 30s who value independent thinking, counter-culture, progressive politics, an appreciation of art and indie-rock, creativity, intelligence, and witty banter." [4]

Apparently, many feel that hipsters are rejecting cigarettes and turning more and more to pipes. Pipes are turning up more and more in pictures of hipsters found at various websites like LATFH. Certainly "drug-treatment" organizations are taking notice:

While parents were busy warning against the dangers of cigarettes, two new dangerous habits have snuck in, drawing the attention of teens and young adults. Hookahs and pipes are finding popularity among a new generation of hipsters who think the habits are less dangerous. [5]

Traditionally, many pipe smokers can identify with some elements of the hipster. Pipe smokers are often seen as being more intelligent, independent, and even counter-cultural. However, many hipsters may be adopting pipe smoking because it is "so not cool it is cool." In this way, the pipe serves as a rhetorical touchstone that invokes images of Ward Cleaver or even Hugh Hefner circa 1960 but in ironic ways. In other words, the hipster pipe may serve as an ironic iconoclast to modern pop culture by reframing past cultural memory of 1955 in ways that are seen as individualistic or independent rather than collective norm.

The Rhetorical Pipe

Certainly pipes and pipe smoking is increasing in the public awareness through film. Whether or not these appearances are tailored for specific sub-cultures within American pop culture, pipes do serve as rhetorical artifacts within film, literature, and other media today. Pipes can set the mood of a scene, sell the authenticity of a character, identify with a specific genre or world, or even serve as a way to reject modern culture. It can invoke a sense of nostalgia or fantasy for the observer. For many, it is a defining characteristic of a chosen lifestyle. When you, O' Gentle Reader, see a pipe or pipe smoker, what do you think? What do you feel? How does it affect your life?

-Safari Bob

References
[1] The Red Headed League by Conan Doyle
[2] http://www.steampunk.com/what-is-steampunk/
[3] http://www.natekingpipes.com/2011/12/13-11-gear-punk/
[4] http://www.npr.org/2011/11/16/142387490/the-hipsterfication-of-america
[5] http://www.thecyn.com/drug-treatment/hipsters-turn-to-hookahs-pipes.html

Book Review: Writing with Authority by David Foster

In Writing with Authority: Student’s Roles as Writers in Cross-National Perspective, David Foster centers the question of how students develop as writers within a cross-national context by comparing American and German student writing processes. American undergraduate student writers tend to operate under a semester-long deadline while German students often develop longer research agendas due to fewer writing timetables. American students operate in a highly regulated environment controlled by institutional administration while German students are given more freedom and forced to take a more active role in education—even to the point of being responsible for recording the amount of credits they earn each semester.

Foster’s goals in this book are (1) to identify crucial differences between German and American students’ development as academic writers, (2) to determine what this comparison suggests about American students’ roles and practices as academic writers, and (3) to propose how American undergraduate writing can be altered by integrating self-directed, goal-driven, knowledge-based writing into curriculum from the onset of college study. Ultimately, he argues that values of setting long-term goals, self-directed planning and writing, and interactive participation in knowledge communities be incorporated into student writing through changes in undergraduate American curriculum.

In order to better gauge the writing of American students, Foster compares the writing process of American students with that of German students. He conducted five case studies where he compares pairs of students, one from Germany and one from the United States, enrolled in similar programs and in a similar year of study. The participants represent four different disciplines: History, Religious Studies, Political Science, and English/Journalism. Foster clearly articulates his methods of research that include (1) interviews and student descriptions of educational backgrounds, literacy histories, and ongoing writing activities; (2) interviews with teachers to determine descriptions of pedagogical goals and practices towards writing; and (3) Foster’s personal observation of classroom and individual activities.

Foster describes himself as a participant/observer and strives for transparency by providing complete copies of interview questions administered to students and teachers in his research. Also he attempts to establish context for his research by divulging how he identified and analyzed specific sources of data including (1) his personal narrative as to how he became involved with both American and German students, (2) his analytic strategy for coding transcripts, and (3) descriptions of both universities and participant biographies.

The heart of Foster’s argument is that student writers should be challenged by academic institutions to write as transformative knowledge-makers through extended, goal-driven writing projects. This endeavor is woven throughout the book as he demonstrates how German students tend to write in this manner. In chapter 5, Foster offers a portfolio-based model course outline for a semester-long writing course as well as two models for project-based yearlong writing assignment. These models rely on establishing writing goals, peer critiques, recursive revision, and reflection—all valuable but hardly new.

The true innovation and difficulty of Foster’s pedagogical model is to establish writing projects across semesters and across disciplines. He argues for three goals of change: (1) to develop seminar-like courses at all levels of study that focuses on the student’s extended research goals, (2) to build extended writing expectations that support cumulative writing projects that incorporate courses across programs and disciplines, and (3) to encourage faculty to shape student roles as self-directed, long-term planners, researchers, and writers. These are all worthy goals but difficult to implement.

Writing with Authority constitutes a solid approach to analyzing student writing through case study. The book contributes to the field of Composition and Rhetoric by comparing the writing strategies of students from two different cultures and by providing some insight into how to research writing through case study as a participant/observer. Foster’s conclusions are hardly revolutionary or expeditious; this book may best serve as a text for an introductory Qualitative Field Research Methods class.

-Safari Bob

Foster, D. (2006). Writing with Authority: Student’s Roles as Writers in Cross-National Perspective. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 193 pp.

Book Review: Starring the Text by Alan G. Gross

In Starring the Text: The Place of Rhetoric in Science Studies, Alan G. Gross examines the role of science texts as persuasive communication by applying the traditions of rhetorical analysis to the writings of science greats such as Copernicus, Darwin, and Newton. Scientific advancement is expressed through written communication including texts, tables, and visual representations of explanation and argument. Gross asserts that “the texts of science are not just texts; they are what the Bible once was: revealed truth about the causal structure of the universe” (p. ix).

To accomplish his analysis of scientific communication, Gross conducts a series of case studies centered on specific scientific texts to demonstrate the use of rhetorical conventions, by the authors, to argue for their findings and persuade their peers to accept their positions. In doing so, Gross implements rigorous rhetorical analysis to illuminate how the writers of scientific texts discovered, presented, and contested the results of their search for understanding. In this book, Gross presents his findings in four major sections.

In Part One, Gross defends the necessity for a rhetorical analysis of science writing. He explores the history of rhetoric of science and exposes how rhetoric is used to promote scientific writing and the techniques of persuasion used to sway audiences to accept findings and theories. Specifically, Gross provides an excellent brief history of rhetoric of science in Chapter 1 that demonstrates a personal knowledge of how this valuable academic discipline developed a critical voice within scientific writing.

Gross then turns his attention to explore the limits of rhetorical analysis of science. In Part Two, he explores the rhetorical construct of taxonomy as persuasion to accept evolutionary theory and how both Newton and Descartes used rhetoric to each promote their own theories of optics. Although Gross does not assert that a full rhetorical description of scientific texts is possible, he does use these case studies to suggest that “rhetoric is a discipline; moreover, its disciplinary status entitles us to speak of all written and visual records of the scientific from a rhetorical perspective” (p. 78).

In Part Three, Gross explores the range of rhetorical analysis of science by examining how evolution evolved in Darwin’s notebooks, articulating the importance of peer-review in certifying consensus within a scientific community, and tracing heliocentricity as the origin of rational conversation which Gross asserts was an essential ingredient to the spread of Copernicanism in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. In all, Gross conducts five case studies in this section not to demonstrate that science is rhetoric but that no one discipline “can be relied on to provide a fully adequate explanation of what science is and how it works” (p. 141).

Finally, Gross attempts to place rhetoric within scientific inquiry by exploring the compatibility of rhetoric and sociology as well as psychology and the history of science. Of particular value in Part Four is Chapter 11 where Gross analyzes the Newton-Leibniz debate to demonstrate the role of priority in the social invention of scientific history. Because scientific advancements may happen nearly simultaneously, “the actual effect of an emphasis on priority may undermine its intended effect, the encouragement of scientific advance. Every scientific paper instantiates the tension created by these opposing tendencies” (p. 178).

Starring The Text represents a major re-tooling of Gross’ earlier book, The Rhetoric of Science and constitutes a shift from arguments anchored in the rhetorical to the philosophical. This book offers a major contribution to the field of rhetoric of science and is a must read for both students and scholars of this field as well as technical communicators who specialize within this context. In addition, this book offers and excellent history of rhetorical scientific criticism and should be considered as a text for the classroom.

-Safari Bob

Gross, A. G. (2006). Starring the Text: The Place of Rhetoric in Science Studies. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 216 pp.

2011 Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association Conference

On 8 October 2011, I was fortunate enough to present a paper at the 2011 Rocky Mountain Modern Languages Association in Scottsdale Arizona. I had never been to Scottsdale but I found it beautiful. The weather was perfect and I had a great time wondering around the Old Town district. Unfortunately, I did not get to visit The Poisoned Pen; an independent bookstore that specializes in crime fiction, carrying British and Canadian as well as American titles. I love mysteries and I would have spent way too much time and money there. Still, I would that I could have visited; next time!

At least the conference was great! Here is my proposal:

Mining YouTube to Research “Real-World” Intercultural Communication Contexts for the Service-Level Technical Writing Classroom

Abstract

Analyzing and articulating different audiences is a significant challenge for students of technical communication. Teaching intercultural writing to beginning technical communication students can often seem manufactured and artificial. By exploring cultural expectations in “real-world” contexts, instructors of technical communication can provide these future practitioners of technical writing the tools necessary to identify and articulate specific targeted audiences within a global environment.

This paper/presentation examines how to best use YouTube, a popular video sharing website on which both companies and consumers can upload and view videos, to study and identify differing intercultural “real-world” communication contexts. To do so, I will first explore Edward Hall’s heuristic of High- and Low-context cultures and how culture is manifested in his “situation frame”, the smallest identifiable unit of culture. Next, I will demonstrate where to find and how to use videos posted on YouTube to provide insight to technical writing students into the cultural norms and expectations of a given, targeted, cross-cultural audience. Finally, I will explore how to synthesize the cultural research conducted by students on YouTube with Hall’s heuristic of High- and Low-context into explicit writing strategies to a targeted, “real-world” audience.

Essentially, I introduce Edward T. Hall's heuristic of High/Low Context and demonstrate how students can collect data from cultures by analyzing primary sources: TV commercials. Using Hall's model, students can conduct analysis on these commercials and construct rhetorical strategies--based on Hall's model--to reach their targeted audience. For instance, this commercial is targeted to Americans:

Here you can see how the authors demonstrate the features, explain the rationale behind everything, and privilege the technology--all signs of a Low Context culture. Now look at this commercial for French consumers:

This commercial is different in that it focuses on human relations, unspoken rules of behavior, and the technology is not privileged--all signs of a High Context culture. Although this is a simplistic example, students can learn more by searching more commercials or focusing on one product and researching how this product is marketed to different cultures.

Here are my slides:

If you are so inclined, or if you suffer from insomnia, you can read more about my conference presentations at Academia.edu.

-Safari Bob