After reading through Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures I was interested by a few points in the book. The first thing that comes to my mind is from chapter 6 "English Studies, Surveying the Classroom." Berlin talks of Freire and how he "sees in the mediating power of language (106)." He went on to say that "While language indeed serves as a means for control and domination, it can also serve as an instrument of liberation and growth (106)." Language, in my opinion, is one of the most powerful weapons a person can yield. It doesn't matter what country you may be from or what language you speak...words are powerful. In the heat of passion a person may yell and scream and say terrible things that could effect you in ways you never thought possible. You may get angry right back or cry. A person's words could also make you physically sick to your stomach. Language can cause great stress in your life. Words can even change your life. My best friend found out she was pregnant last June. When she said to her family and friends "I'm pregnant" our lives changed forever. Even three words like "I have cancer" can shake you to your core because it is life changing. Words can inspire, such as Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech or they can cause massive amounts of people to lose respect for you, like when Mel Gibson drunkenly announced that jews were the cause of all the world's wars. Freire would call those examples "codes." Berlin said, "These codes can define subjects as helpless objects of force--economic, social, political, cultural--that render them forever isolated and victimized by the conditions of their experience. These discourses can also, however, form individuals as active agents of change, social creatures who acting together can alter the economic, social, and political conditions of their historical conditions (106)." I like to relate this to that phrase "choose you words carefully."
Going back a little bit in the book, I was struck by something I read on page 39. The paragraph talked about how important a college degree was to have. As we all know (mostly because we are college students) it still is. We have been taught most of our lives that a college degree is the ticket to a better job, more money, and a happier life. At Kutztown all majors have certain core classes that we must take in order to graduate. But we also have those gen ed classes like Biology and some kind of history that EVERYONE has to take. What I didn't know was that "the elective system was created so that students could freely select the curriculum appropriate to their career ambitions. The common core curriculum was simultaneously abandoned--so that by 1897, the only required course for all students at bellwether Harvard was first-year composition (39)." It seems like a fairly logical thing, now that I think about it. Pretty much any job that is going to employ a college graduate will want said graduate to have some kind of basic writing skills, whether it be memos, thank you letters, resumes, or even check lists. A graduate should know how to formulate an idea and be able to put it down on paper logically.
Something I found a little disturbing in the book was found under the subheading "Social Constructionist Rhetoric" on page 85. That theory argues that "each person is first and foremost a member of the community. Thus, any claim to individuality can be articulated only within a social context. Here, the existant, the good, and the possible are determined by consulting the welfare of the populace as a whole (85)." I can understand how important community is, but I still like to think of myself as an individual without having to ackknowledge those around me as making me such. That kind of feels like an oxymoron to me. Of course it also makes sense when I think of that stupid saying coaches use to rev up their teams, "We're only as good as our weakest player." I understand that the populace must be kept happy or at least content, lest chaos is bound to happen. What I refuse to accept is that "the good" can only be found out through the concensus of the people. It's as if the individuals voice makes no difference at all. Hey, let's jump on the bangwagon or else we don't matter! I'll keep my individuality, thank you, because at least I know it's honest and good. I would rather be alone with a true opinion than part of a group with one conformist idea. But hey, that's just me.