-Write 1 paragraph on something you learned about writing’s relationship to social change—perhaps using a favorite text as a guide, with the wisdom of hindsight.

One thing that particularly stands out to me from the many things I’ve taken away from this course is the power that exists in showing rather than telling. I hesitated to select this aspect to discuss because it now seems to be a critical, obviously necessary thing to keep in mind when writing about social change, but that’s hindsight bias for you, and I truly did not have this in mind when I first entered the course. In thinking back to our first assignment on exactitude, I can now see that in the past I used to approach describing the need for social change “exactly” by providing as much detail into outlining the connections between what I was writing about and the overarching theoretical points I was trying to express as I could. During that assignment, I considered the fact that every individual’s perspective on reality is entirely different even when viewing the same situation and, because of this, I worried that my point would not come across clearly to readers if I did not provide a direct guide to understanding a situation I was writing about from my perspective. However, after engaging with Etel Adnan’s To Be in a Time of War and John Ruskin’s letters from Fors Clavigera: Letters to the Workmen and Labourers of Great Britain, I reconsidered my prior writing style in discussing the need for social change. I realized that frequently referencing commonplace occurrences such as with the train whistling in Ruskin’s work and writing in Adnan’s style of repeated sentence structure and listing of step-by-step daily behaviors did not read as thoughtless or meaningless, but, in fact, inspired me to produce what I found to be the piece this quarter that best expressed my message. Just by listing daily interactions and showing how an issue at-hand influences one’s everyday experiences it is possible to identify to a reader just how pressing, ever-present, and impactful a certain societal problem is without having to tell the reader directly. Further, I now believe that there is great power in making sure to leave room for the reader to come to their own conclusions when presented with the evidence of daily impact, such as James Agee seemed to partly be addressing when discussing the desire to present his subject matter in the form of a museum exhibit in Now Let Us Now Praise Famous Men. I understand this power to firstly come from the concept that a person will perhaps personally understand and better remember a conclusion they reached on their own rather than another individual’s that they merely read. Following that, in thinking about our final class discussion on the power of defamiliarization in theater, I now feel that I better understand part of what Berthold Brecht meant when he wrote that an audience member who does not become enveloped into a character on stage’s mindset is allowed an important space to “protest” in On Chinese Acting. In allowing a reader to review presented evidence, even though the selected display is still partly influenced by the author’s value system, rather than be told what to think of it through the mind of another, they can contribute their own realizations, questions, agreements, and disagreements. I believe this importantly starts an conversation between the author and readers in the writing of social change, a place where more added perspectives can allow necessary growth to occur, rather than a one-sided lecture.

-Write 1 question you have about writing and social change that emerges from your work in the course.

One question that I still have comes from our unit on letter writing versus lecture giving, specifically concerning the idea of determining a target audience. I still am questioning when and why one decides it is best to structure their writing on social change to be specifically accessible to those they believe to be similarly impacted by an issue at-hand or more so to as wide of an audience as one can reach? Does aiming to reach a wider audience mean that one should have to write in simpler terms, explain from the basics, write in a more universally acceptable language than their native tongue, or even leave out more complex or potentially controversial points so that the general argument is able to be understood and heard by more individuals or does it strip the author or some of their legitimacy and voice to feel obligated to do so?

While reading Bertolt Brecht’s On Chinese Acting, similarly to Ketaki, I was confronted with an entirely new and fairly opposite conception of effective theater production to my own. Brecht expresses admiration of the alienation effect that he finds present in Chinese theater in which a Chinese actor is said to be “merely quoting the character,” not attempting to bring spectators to feel that they have become the character through empathetic intimacy as in Western theater, but instead creating a distance between the character and the audience that prevents a “self-surrender” and “any empathy on the spectator’s part” (132). As I mentioned Lynn Hunt’s work in a prior reading response, I have tended to believe in the power of empathy and fully “surrendering” by putting yourself in the mind of a presented character. I believe that this empathy allows an individual who may not be able to conceptualize the pain or gain of character to do so with an understanding of their shared internal emotional worlds to make sense of foreign occurrence’s in another’s life. I worried that although Brecht notes that this alienation effect in Chinese theater allows for “criticism” and “protest” on the part of the audience, which seems beneficial to discussing issues of social change, the inability to empathize may lead to ignorant, unnecessarily harmful critiques. However, in reading Brecht’s point that a Chinese actor “makes it clear that he knows he is being looked at,” I see a potential benefit for this type of acting in the realm of social change (130). In the conclusion of Brecht’s piece, he notes that a new theater must see everything from “the social standpoint” in order to rebuild society in such a way that allows for criticism of society and historical reporting. In considering that both the actors and spectators must recognize that they are being seen, everyone must recognize that they are a part of the conversation and are forced to consider their own position in such. The actor must recognize that what they say will be heard and the spectator cannot feel as though their comments are hidden behind a curtain, or computer screen analogously. By recognizing that everyone is seen as their true selves in this dynamic it becomes necessary to enter the mindset of considering the potential societal impact of one’s own statements, responses, and behaviors, which I find to be highly beneficial and vital to discussions of social change.

PDF of Poster:

W9 PDF – Chloe Madigan

Process Notes:

I found this week’s assignment to be quite challenging. I wanted to push myself to create a poster regarding the need for mental health education in college campuses given that it at first appeared to me as a difficult task but ultimately a valuable one for public circulation of a political message. I was inspired by the “40 how to’s” in creating my slogan, which took the greatest deal of time for me by far. I was constantly going back and forth between deciding if my word-choice was too “cheesy” and “catchy” and thus losing respect for its content or if it was too bland and serious and thus losing attention towards its content. Would it matter that my poster was viewed if it did not address the direct seriousness of its subject matter? Would it matter if my poster addressed the direct seriousness of its subject matter if it wasn’t viewed? I aimed to go for a bit of both in portraying the main slogan of “don’t just teach us what to accomplish, without teaching us how to accomplish” as the central attention-grabbing aspect of the poster, with the fine details of what is taught in schools appearing in the text of the “what” and what is neglected in education in the text of the “how,” which are visible upon closer examination. Lastly, I wanted to add the illustration at the bottom to provide statistical support for my claim for a potentially uninformed or skeptical viewer with statistics from the National Alliance on Mental Illnesses’ recent survey on USA college students. I also wanted to produce a sense of empathy in the viewers of this illustration; having engaged with past works in this course wherein the positioning of the text was not in uniform lines but in specific shapes greatly informed how it was perceived by me. I wanted to play with that idea by making the statistics into the shape of waves consuming high-achieving students who despite this threat, still hold their accomplishments outside of the water, hopefully illustrating that thinking to value accomplishments above your own life can be extremely detrimental.

In Anne Boyer’s The Undying, she discusses how the “non-common literary form” of breast cancer neglects to mention the significance of factors such as the impact of misogyny in medicine, capitalism’s impersonal pursuit of profit, racist and classist divides, and the general mention of suffering and death at all. Although all of these aspects must be further emphasized when discussing breast cancer, I was particularly struck by her emphasis on the absence of discussing suffering and the potential negative health consequences of breast cancer. I believe this largely sets apart her memoir from “common” discourse about breast cancer especially in considering breast cancer commercials wherein, as Melanie mentioned, there seems to be a great deal of support and positivity expressed, but the individual painful experiences of people with breast cancer are left out. Boyer does not leave behind the graphic and painfully raw aspects of experiencing breast cancer in her memoir and in doing so seems to be acting as a part of the “coming together” of those with breast cancer to invent the “sufficient language” to speak of one’s suffering with that is sought after in exposure to medicine, but often not found. This reminded me of a recent case wherein a commercial by Frida Mom was denied approval for showing during the Oscars by ABC this year due to it being apparently “too graphic.” The commercial was for postpartum recovery products for new mothers and included a scene wherein an exhausted new mom is woken by her child at night and gets up with padded underwear to refill a peri bottle in the bathroom while clearly in pain. This advertisement is not violent, political, or sexual in nature and is not outright religious or portraying weapons, but feminine hygiene and pain relief seem to be banned as well. It is not too graphic, it is not trying to manipulate, it is real. As Boyer notes, people with breast cancer are seeking to understand the reality of what they are facing and medical institutions often don’t provide a true picture, leaving no preparation for the reality that will ultimately be faced, yet it seems that when medical companies such as Frida Mom do try to provide a true picture of suffering for women, it is not allowed. This all seems to lead back to discussing who the public narrative of breast cancer is for. It should not just be for the survivors, friends and family of those with breast cancer, and general public, but should be for those experiencing it and currently suffering. By denying a true representation, suffering included, of breast cancer I believe these individuals are denied the subject matter they are seeking and deserve.

My writing assignment & process notes are in this PDF (some of my formatting didn’t translate into a direct post):

Week 8 Writing Assignment – Chloe Madigan PDF

In reading Ruskin’s lecture, I noticed that he largely utilizes time-stamped observations of storm clouds (5-6), historical references to prophecy (8), and facts about scientific research methods, such as the use of an anemometer and sun-measurements (7-8), to back his claims and form a cohesive argument. Although, as voiced by several other classmates, I found myself rather bored by his droning on of such topics by the end of the piece, I felt fulfilled by the conclusion in that I had grasped a full understanding of his argument. On the other hand, his letter felt more so like a bit of a larger conversation rather than a wholly outlined argument with directly presented ultimate demands/plans of action. I found his tone to be more conversational rather than academic in his letter through instances such as the one Allison noted “That last sentence is wonderfully awkward English, not to say ungrammatical; but I must write such English as may come today” (323), alongside his admittance to not knowing the scientific background behind some of what he discussed, such as the reason “why large mountains should break into large pebbles” (325). In both quotes, it is clear that he is writing more so in a stream of consciousness rather than from an outlined argument with prior outside research conducted to further support his points, as he did in the lecture. Further, I found his assertion on page 323 that he will not explain what needs to be done nor does he require his audience to act on his words yet given that he does not believe them to understand his principles at the present time. This quotation and his scattered open-ended questions throughout the letter demonstrate to me that discussing social change can be especially impactful when presented in a conversational format that takes into consideration the importance of one’s audience expressing their understanding before moving forward with plan-making and being able to potentially respond to the presented questions before they are answered by their presenter. I also found Ruskin’s reference to daily occurrences and interruptions in his letter writing such as the frequent, distracting whistling of the train to further his argument in providing context as to how the issue of industrialization deeply impacts everyday life, even as he writes.

In Baldwin’s letter, he draws on shared ancestry and personal affection to emphasize the importance of his argument to his nephew while in his lecture he emphasizes the values in education that are important to his audience to do so. Interestingly, I noticed how he differently expressed the same sentiment in his two pieces in a way which I believe outlines how he thinks his two different audiences can best “know whence you came,” which he deems important given “if you know whence you came, there is really no limit to where you can go” (8). In the letter, he says that his “countrymen” will say that he “exaggerates” (8) the instances of oppression he is identifying and that his nephew must trust his personal experience and not such words of others to understand his position in this framework. On the other hand, in the lecture he states “if you think I am exaggerating, examine the myths which proliferate in this country about Negroes” (679), which calls on educators to learn about the experiences of others and is presented in a much less ridiculing tone and without the immediate assumption of neglect so that it will be more readily received by his audience of educators.

Letter:

Dear Twin A,

I hope you’re well! I know college can get pretty intense around this time of year – midterm exams, job applications, bitter cold, bitter people. I hope you’re finding some sunshine to make you happy under these gray skies, as mom would say. Does your school provide any resources to lift people’s spirits in the winter? Here, we have these “pet love” sessions where they bring in therapy dogs to bury our faces in and cry. The wellness center says the event is helpful because “as non-judgmental, fountains of love and loyalty, animals are natural vehicles for providing support and companionship to you.” You probably know where I’m about to go with this, but HAH – it seems like these people are getting caught up in their superiority complexes and forgetting that humans are animals too, because that definition definitely doesn’t fit naturally for our species! I’m sitting in the library right now, the watering hole of campus where we all gather to survive – to my right there’s a group screeching and gossiping about their friends, to my left a threatening professor cutting off some trembling freshman who couldn’t figure out the printer fast enough, and generally scattered around are the usual passed out and/or sobbing bodies invisible to those walking past –not because they’re not in plain sight, but because they’ve blended into a familiar part of our watering hole – what I can’t see are those people who are “non-judgmental, fountains of love and loyalty,” and not because they’re familiar too.

I mean, don’t get me wrong, anything is better than nothing and I love getting a chance to squeeze the life out of those joyous fluff-balls, but I wonder if it might instead be better to make events where we can create permanent “natural vehicles for providing support and companionship” in each other rather than relying on other animals to come in every so often and get the job done. It’s almost like they had to pick animals that we don’t share a language with as to avoid the risk of negative conversation in a space intended for support. Maybe instead of creating environments where conversation is impossible to remove the potential for harmful discourse they could educate us on how to best support each other in such important conversations? (The library bell just rung; I’ll have to walk home now in the swarm of stress that’s about to file out of here.)

You’ll never guess the post by the wellness center I opened upon getting home – they’re cancelling this quarter’s pet love event because, wait for it, the dogs are DEAD. Yep, dead. Classic. So much for my dose of love, loyalty, companionship, and support this term. But, again, I hope you are finding your sunshine, please write me back and let me know if you are!

Much love,

Twin B/Your non-judgmental fountain of love and loyalty

Lecture to the University of Chicago Health & Wellness Center Faculty:

At the University of Chicago, the Health and Wellness center hosts quarterly Pet Love events, wherein trained therapy dogs are brought onto campus to provide love and support to students during highly stress-inducing times. Psychological research has shown that spending significant time with these animals can lower cortisol levels, muscle tension, blood pressure, and the risk of depression while simultaneously elevating serotonin and dopamine levels, inducing a state of overall calmness and relaxation. These health benefits are undoubtedly positive, thus, in light of the recent Pet Love event cancellation due to the passing of many of the therapy dogs, fellow students and myself were left devastated. I understand that this may come across as an exaggerated response to you, but I believe it to be perfectly adequate given the circumstances. The University of Chicago Health and Wellness Center describes the event to be beneficial because “as non-judgmental, fountains of love and loyalty, animals are natural vehicles for providing support and companionship to you.” To be stripped of one’s “natural vehicles for support and companionship” would undoubtedly lead to devastation. This temporary instantiation of love and loyalty on campus, led me to wonder – what if we could instantiate this permanently?

Our campus is full of animals – the students and professors. If we could provide training in how to show care and support towards people to the humans constantly on campus rather than just the dogs temporarily visiting we would likely not have to face such devastation in the future. Therapy dogs are said to provide companionship, and they do, but a person can only utilize non-verbal communication with such creatures. These dogs cannot say “I hear you” after divulging your pain or provide experience-dependent advice or check in on you the next morning. This can only occur through human-to-human interaction. Thus, I believe additionally training our students in therapeutic methods would valuably construct a more accessible and in-depth system of support on campus that, given the present devastation, is highly necessary.

Now one might argue with me that we already have trained therapists available on campus for support. However, in considering the high attendance levels at the Pet Love sessions in comparison to the much lower number of students willing to walk through the doors of the counseling building, I believe my demand still stands. Having trained counselors on campus is unquestionably essential, however, they are often intimidating to students, especially those currently experiencing low moods or anxiety. I argue that if students in daily interactions on campus were to better understand how to support one another they would do so more frequently, thus, creating an environment where seeking emotional guidance becomes less daunting and appears more accessible. Therefore, considering the role of counselors does not undermine my demand that students be trained in the aforementioned ways, but rather further strengthens it.

We’ve taught dogs how to support us, isn’t it time we taught one another?

Process Notes:

I wanted to write the letter to my twin because I’ve always found it striking to compare the differences in our experiences later in life given that we came from the same environment of nature and nurture as children. In writing the letter, I felt myself leaning into more bitterness and ridicule of the university than I did when writing the lecture. In the lecture, I imagined presenting it to university faculty and focused on forming an argument that I felt would align with the university’s values rather than emphasizing how they had seemingly failed to live up to them. Interestingly, this observation led me to realize that in the lecture I backed the validity of my claims with scientific facts while in the letter I did so through the importance of ingrained family values and emotional responses to daily activities. In considering the power of referencing these daily activities, I was struck by Ruskin’s insertions of observations of his immediate surroundings in his letters because they provided insight into how his topic was impacting day-to-day occurrences, even while writing his letters. Thus, I attempted to insert such observations into my letter as well to hopefully provide the same sort of impact. Lastly, I found it interesting in this week’s assignment that I was much more aware of my target audiences, which allowed me to determine the type of tone I desired with much more ease than in prior weeks; I think this has reminded me of the importance of considering one’s target audience in all writings, not just those where you directly name those whom you are addressing.

In this week’s readings the impact that the physical presentation of a text can have on its readers’/viewers’ interpretation stood out to me both in Layli Long Soldier’s Whereas and Solmaz Sharif’s LOOK. As Wren noted, the engagement of more senses than “just that of mental sight” is something I don’t often take into consideration when reading poetry; however, in these writings the influence of visual perception felt prominent. In considering this, I was reminded of numerous psychological studies that demonstrate the powerful emotional responses that can occur in relation to the orientation, color, sizing, and font selection of text, with results such as red text leading to a stronger negativity bias and connected cursive lettering often conveying unity or collectivism. In applying this to Layli Long Soldier’s work, I was interested by the construction of Three in He Sápa, the empty void constructed within the boundaries of her text led me to perceive a mixture of feelings: a sense of entrapment in viewing the connected, 4-sided walls of words as well as a sense of loneliness in being forced to view the blank center, making the core of the piece emptiness rather than a contextual moment in the writing. In considering Sharif’s work, I felt as though the particularly straight, angular, and uppercase font that he utilized when stating words related to warfare such as torture, thermal shadow, look, pinpoint target, etc. impacted my perception of those words as seemingly connected in a shared place of formality, durability, and power.

“so-called ‘trigger warning:’” this piece discusses sexual violence

Dear Class of 2020 Student: Welcome and congratulations on your acceptance to the College at the University of Chicago. Earning a place in our community of scholars is no small achievement and we are delighted that you selected Chicago to continue your intellectual journey. Once here you will discover that one of the University of Chicago’s defining characteristics is our commitment to freedom of inquiry and expression.

It is a fine spring day, and with an utter lack of self-consciousness, I take a seat in class. The professor prods the projector as he mumbles about looking at a piece outside the assigned reading by feminist philosopher Sandra Bartky. Instantly I catch my friend’s eager eyes dart my way, these were the conversations we came to the University of Chicago to be a part of.

Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called “trigger warnings”

The words on the screen flicker into view: “It is a fine spring day, and with an utter lack of self-consciousness, I am bouncing down the street. Suddenly, I hear men’s voices. Catcalls and whistles fill the air. These noises are clearly sexual in intent and the-” I hear a man’s voice yell from the hall. Wait, did I? Focus.

You will find that we expect members of our community to be engaged in rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement. At times this may challenge you and even cause discomfort.

You have so much you want to share about this I remind myself. F.O.C.U.S. Sandra Bartky’s work On Psychological Oppression. I continue reading the text on the screen “The body which only a moment before I inhabited with such ease now floods my consciousness. I have been made into an object—” I feel stiff. My vision begins to darken around the edges, closing in.  Then the professor’s voice: “Do you remember any personal experiences with harassment that could inform Bartky’s view?” closing in. Do you remember any personal experiences – closing in. Do you remember – closed.

Fostering the free exchange of ideas reinforces a related University priority—building a campus that welcomes people of all backgrounds. Diversity of opinion and background is a fundamental strength of our community. The members of our community must have the freedom to espouse and explore a wide range of ideas.

I remember all of it. The feeling of calloused hands along my thigh in that subway car, the smell of warm breath drenched in alcohol and threats licking the back of my neck, the sight of cracks spreading from a fist on the window of the corner store I ran to, the sound of – students gathering their things and filing out. 80 minutes – gone?

Wait. If I had known what was coming my way, I could have been prepared.

Wait! I had so much to say, but I was rendered silent!

Wait, I have been made into an object, Sandra Bartky.

Wait…so-called “academic freedom,” University of Chicago.

Again, welcome to the University of Chicago.

Process Notes:

In this writing assignment I utilized the welcome letter sent out to the class of 2020 at our university. I remember this being a particularly impactful message at the time and as I am about to post my work I see that it still is given that Helena in fact chose the same document to hack into. I selected certain passages from the letter in my assignment that inform a narrative of a student experiencing an inability to participate in the university’s proposed “freedom to espouse and explore a wide range of ideas” due to the absence of a trigger warning, which this letter deems to be limiting to academic freedom. I aimed to show how an experience such as this, which is largely based on a personal experience of my own, can display how this letter claiming to support the freedom for all to share their voices may in fact be doing the opposite and silencing some with its demands. In my opinion, a trigger warning is not a limit on freedom it is merely representative of taking a moment to make sure freedom of expression is possible for all. I also utilized a work from my gender philosophy class throughout this piece to show how when important academic conversations are finally presented about oppression for instance, if they are not addressed in the appropriate way then they can further the same oppression being discussed by silencing those directly affected. Lastly, having been inspired by Layli Long Soldier’s Whereas, I wanted to conclude the piece by reutilizing the word “so-called,” which was used in the letter to question trigger warnings, by turning it on its head and questioning the “academic freedom” this letter claims to support.

In observing the collaboration between Evans’ photography and Agee’s writing on poor white sharecroppers, I appreciate the space photography leaves for viewers to think on their own rather than be told what to recognize from a writer’s perspective and the elimination of a greater risk for harm in misrepresenting the details written about an individual’s story. However, Agee addresses the short comings in his writing, and I believe that starting a neglected conversation while acknowledging the limitations present is more valuable than simply not having that conversation. In my opinion, this discussion is strengthened in providing its subjects with the agency to have their voices and experiences heard. Agee’s writing allows for this to occur, especially in the powerful form of hearing the subjects’ opinions on these researchers themselves. On the other hand, Evans’ photography seems to remove the ability for its subjects to move out of a place of being othered. As Kat noted, in this way Evans’ photographs appear to present the initial surface-level perception of their subjects, while Agee’s writing works like Keene’s footnotes do to provide more intimate, humanizing understandings of its subjects.  I found Agee’s suggestion that his piece be “read aloud…for variations of tone, pace, shape, and dynamics are here particularly unavailable to the eye alone…with their loss, a good deal of meaning escapes” (xv) particularly intriguing. In considering this alongside the description of the men summoned to sing for Evans and Agee upon their arrival, I wondered – how could a camera lens have captured the variation and complexity in their seldom heard song? (29-30) Agee also utilizes the concept of sound to consider what impactful engagement looks like to him while discussing how one must play a song at the loudest volume and with one’s ear pressed to the speaker because this is “as near as you will ever get, you are inside the music; not only inside it, you are it; your body is no longer your shape and substance, it is the shape and substance of the music” (16). This reminded me of Lynn Hunt’s work Torrents of Emotion, which argues that in hearing the experiences of others through writing, readers gain “a new psychology and in the process (lay) the foundations for a new social and political order” (Hunt, 38-39).  By this she seems to say that in reading others’ personal experiences, you can begin to see them as alike to yourself, as having a shared interior, and thus, you can identify with those who you may have once othered. Hunt further emphasizes that this process of identification is necessary for the extended purview of empathy and without empathy, we could not have “opened the path to human rights” (Hunt, 68). Thus, in support of Hunt and Agee, I see his writing, which allows him to denote his limitations, lessen othering, and have the voice of its subjects be heard, to be more productive than Evans’ photography in the realm of furthering their subjects’ human rights.