After reading Penrose and Geisler’s Reading and Writing without Authority https://www.jstor.org/stable/358762?seq=14 I wanted to talk about writing with it. In the article, we get to see the comparison of two writers, Janet (writing without authority) and Roger (writing with authority). When I began reading my first thoughts when both writers were introduced were quickly addressed. The first is that while I agreed with the authors that Janet’s circumstance left her with less authority on the subject matter, I felt her approach to the topic was one without authority in part because of her gender.
As a female, she is part of what communication theorists would call a muted group. Muted group theory brings up how certain groups will adapt to their ‘muted’ situation or even oppressed circumstances. Janet in this case, adapted by choosing to use her resources as pure fact and not consider her own critical analysis when finding a definition for the topic of paternalism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKkM1adp5Uo
I believe that this theory is important to mention and to review when we look at how Penrose and Geisler break down Janet and Roger’s writing. Roger is not (from the information we are offered) part of a muted group and he is older and has a stronger academic background. In virtually every way Roger is empowered to create his own analysis of paternalism without a thought about his thinking being wrong or not important. In the text provided from Janet’s thinking you can see her critically analyze other authors except she would second guess herself and not include it in her writing. I think Janet would benefit not only from trusting herself but by learning to keep her style of thinking and writing involved in the final product. Janet could benefit from reading our personal voice week of the blog. https://eng2020.chrisfriend.us/blog/uncategorized/defreitj/my-voice-in-writing/
Janet would, multiple times, exclude her own ideas after making some critical analysis. I would relate this article to how I view some of my own writing. I find when I write research papers that it starts out as writing without authority. So there have been times I believe my writing was much more like Janet’s. However, I know that I have written research, essays, and papers that are written more like Roger. I realize that some of that is due to circumstance and in some cases how professors or teachers have empowered me within a topic. There tends to be a lack of personal analysis in a lot of research papers and the literature I may use as a source is seen as expert or above my own knowledge. It took time, practice, and a different view on research papers and papers in general to use sources to be expounded on and as part of a larger conversation.
Conversation was a word used at the end of Penrose and Geisler’s article. It is what made me relate it to research. It is always part of a whole and the written work is there to do more than just exist or inform. It is there to compare and come to what can be fluid conclusions. In a way, it is like a large science experiment. You go in looking to prove, disprove, or sometimes with no goal but to add a more specific point to the conversation. Ultimately, by adding to a conversation you find shortcomings, places to improve on, and places that an idea may excel in. That to me, is what writing with authority should be all about.
Leave a Reply