The idea of authority in writing is something peculiar to me due to the fact that many of us clash with each other’s perceptions of what authority can be. Especially when I read Ann M. Penrose and Cheryl Geisler’s “Reading and Writing without Authority”, there were two individuals who were observed on their writings regarding to the justification and definition of ‘paternalism’- Janet (who was a freshman student at the time; felt like an outsider) and Roger (who already had knowledge of ethics). But the main purpose of this experiment wasn’t about paternalism, but rather finding the literary differences between a writer who doesn’t have authority on the topic (Janet) and someone who does (Roger). I was amazed to find out there were some similarities that I share with both of them.
I want to start with Janet first since we have the most in common as opposed to Roger. In her writing process, Janet often relies on authority within the material she was given rather than having her own authority. I can understand Janet doing this because she was just starting to look into the idea of authority and ethics, therefore Janet feels like she doesn’t have much knowledge to claim her authority on the topic. Plus, Janet wasn’t too confident when it came to conversing about paternalism during the think-aloud transcripts (I would be stuttering sometimes as well). Now when it comes to Roger, we both have a connection in terms of how we form certain situations in our heads to create resolutions or at least find some common ground with our audiences.
However, there is one more character from a different article (also a short story) that needs to be highlighted- by the way, this would also be a reoccurring author whom I spoke about in my last few posts. I’m talking about Elizabeth Wardle’s “Identity, authority, and learning to write in new workplaces”, more specifically where she tells a story about Alan. In this story, Alan is portrayed as a person who thinks highly of himself and never adapts or changes as a person for his members in the humanities department. This mindset is what led him and his members to shambles, it was so bad that Alan had to quit and find employment elsewhere (which he did). Overall, Alan’s idea of authority was so messed up to the point it where he showed ignorance, the worst result in authority.
Oddly enough, when I think of Alan- I think of Peter Parker in Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man 3” (by the way horrible movie out of the Sam Raimi trilogy). This is because during the movie, Peter has this belief where he can do no wrong since he’s not just some random civilian but New York City’s friendly neighborhood hero which gives him the misperception of high authority. That belief is what gets him into all sorts of challenges not only when he dons the mask but also his normal life with the people he interacts with (i.e., his relationship with Mary Jane and Harry Osborn). The only difference between Peter Parker and Alan is that Peter was able to change for the better at the end while Alan was stuck in his own world.
Leave a Reply