Key

Hi Dr. Mifsud,

So similar to my 103 Digital Portfolio the very beginning of my work is at the very bottom of this page. The posts follow a original post then critique layout with my midterm and final presentation at the end. I really think these digital portfolios are a fantastic way of reviewing the material we’ve done throughout the year for the Final, and I’m feeling confident about the theoretical underpinnings of the course going into it! Please let me know if you have any questions or can’t access any part of it. I’m looking forward to hearing what you think!

Best, Collin

Critique of “Final Presentation: A Crisis of Solidarity: A History of the Individuation of Obesity in the United States”

After reviewing many of the suggestions and critiques from both you and my peers I felt confident putting together this final presentation. I knew for the actual presentation I wanted to have minimal information on the slides and to have key points for each slide memorized. My main concern was that I might run through the presentation too quickly forgetting some of my key points so to prevent that I used flashcards which I don’t normally do. There was so much information I could have included, and I had narrowed it all down for time constraints so I wanted to ensure I didn’t forget anything while I was presenting. 

If there is anything I would have changed it would have been the inclusion of additional research on the development of food deserts in the United States. I think that had I done additional investigation into the urban planning that resulted in these food deserts I would have had an increased credibility in asserting the systemic and institutional nature of this grave issue. I intend to continue to investigate their rise and come to terms with the major players responsible, perhaps in a project next semester.

In our Rhetoric and Law class I remember that we focused on ensuring that our research went beyond the benefit of those in our class. One concern I have for this project is how I will go about contributing to the “maximum consciousness” advocated by White after this course is over. I definitely plan to discuss it in my own personal life, but I really want to explore how I could reach more people with this information. My “Resisting Arrest” wikipedia page has had over 80,000 views since I contributed to it in the Spring of 2015, and I hope to find a similar way of conveying my research this semester. Ultimately, this course really opened my eyes to different ways of seeing the discourses that surround our lives and the nuances of history that often go undetected. I can only hope to use these newfound understandings to enlighten those around me, and in this way help create a more just, peaceable and equitable world.

Works Cited

Foucault, Michel. Archeology of knowledge. Routledge, 2010.

Burke, Kenneth. Attitudes toward history. The New republic, 1937.

“Health Risks of Being Overweight.” National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney  Diseases, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1 Feb. 2015,

www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/weight-management/health-risks-overweight.

“Overweight & Obesity.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 29 Aug. 2017, www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html.

“Socioeconomics and Obesity.” Socioeconomics and Obesity - The State of Obesity, The State of Obesity, stateofobesity.org/socioeconomics-obesity/.

“The ASMBS/NORC Obesity Poll.” NORC at the University of Chicago, NORC at the University of Chicago,

www.norc.org/Research/Projects/Pages/the-asmbsnorc-obesity-poll.aspx.

White, Hayden. Tropics of discourse: essays in cultural criticism. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1997.

“11 Facts About Food Deserts.” DoSomething.org | Volunteer for Social Change, www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-food-deserts.

Critique of Midterm “The History of the Individuation of Obesity in America”

After preparing our research and reviewing the theory for our midterms, several of us fell into the trap of labeling our history “the” history. Your suggestion that we change the “the” to an “A” history is no minor shift, and I wished I had recognized that earlier on. We are not the final word on these histories and discourses, nor should we even attempt to be. Our aim is to critically examin them with the goal of producing a critique that might result in a more just and equitable community. 

I had several concerns about my midterm, but I was glad to find out that my plan was well researched. I definitely see how I was beginning to enter into a single clause fallacy in my focus on education’s importance. I think I was able to rework my final presentation to reflect that shift somewhat. If I could go back again I would have wanted to do a more in depth examination of urban planning in poverty stricken neighborhoods and determine how many of these food deserts were established. I think this would benefit my history in that I would be able to show how the rise of obesity likely followed the rise of food deserts across america. These two issues are inextricably linked in my view, and greater public attention needs to be diverted to fixing them as soon as humanly possible. In our discussion of Monument avenue and the statues that have been placed there, we discussed the idea that the statues distract from some of the larger systemic issues at hand. I think the food deserts are one such example. Conservative pundits are quick to point out that the statues are not doing much harm on their own, and Liberals in turn point out they are indicative of larger institutional failures, but little to no one is providing an alternative like food deserts to focus on and discuss. Ultimately, I was proud to receive an A on this midterm, the theoretical requirements for this course were not easy to grasp and this portfolio really demonstrates how much progress we have made. 

Midterm “The History of the Individuation of Obesity in America”

Part 1: Aims (Abstract of 100-200 words) Despite the growing concern regarding the current obesity epidemic, many american’s have failed to more critically examine the role of larger institutional forces in its problematic rise. Many, if not most americans, operate within a discourse formation in which they view obesity as a matter of choice or lack of willpower. This discourse formation is problematic because it protects a negative view of individuals that struggle with obesity, and simultaneously silences those individuals in “food deserts” that have little to no access to the requisite nutrition, or nutritional education, to prevent obesity. In this paper I will aim to explore the historically produced unities of discourse that have formed to create this ultimately unjust discourse. Through exposing the historical development of the individuation of obesity in America I hope to lay the foundation for a more equitable political system that values proactively protecting the health of its citizenry through an increased governmental role in response to the growing obesity epidemic. 

Part 2: Background and Significance (300-600 words) A new study from the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery and NORC at the University of Chicago found that the majority of americans now believe obesity is a more problematic healthcare issue than cancer in America. In recognizing that scientists estimate that 84 percent of men and 72 percent of women will be obese by 2020, this indeed might be the case (The ASMBS/NORC Obesity Poll.). Obesity presents a wide range of health complications, including type 2 diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease etc. several of which can be fatal (Health Risks of Being Overweight). In 2016 alone obesity cost the United States over $190 Billion dollars in healthcare costs (Overweight & Obesity). In recognizing the health and economic crisis that obesity presents, the role of the United States government in responding to it must be further examined. The U.S. government, however, will have no reason to respond to this crisis in any meaningful way if the blame for obesity falls only on the individuals suffering from it. There are several reasons for this current discourse formation surrounding the  individuation of the obesity epidemic, particularly as they relate to the American educational system. First among them is the current lack of understanding in regards to the inequities of information across the United States. As public schools provide minimal nutritional education, and rely on outdated nutritional data when they do, there is little reason for americans at a young age to begin to question the role of their diet in their developing health. This only compounds as eating habits from early ages are carried on into adulthood, often until it is too late or too difficult to make drastic changes without drastic measures to one’s weight (Overweight & Obesity). Furthermore, many americans are simply unaware of the inequities of access to appropriate nutrition for americans across the United States in what are known as “food deserts”. According to dosomething.com, over 23.5 million americans live in food deserts with nearly half of those individuals living in poverty (11 Facts About Food Deserts). Not only are these individuals less likely to have a complete understanding of nutrition as it relates to obesity, but even if they did they would have little to no access to fresh fruits and vegetables that are crucial for healthy living. Thus, for the poorest americans living in food deserts there is little chance that obesity will not affect them or their loved ones. The data reflects this as more than 33 percent of adults who earn less than $15,000 per year are obese, compared to 24.6 percent of those who earned at least $50,000 per year (Socioeconomics and Obesity). The ignorance surrounding the development of obesity in america is only one of the prevailing forces that allows for the discourse of the individuation of obesity in U.S. history to occur, to discern what historical continuities led to this discourse formation a more critical examination is needed.

Part 3: Plan for Research (200-500 words) In seeking to more critically examine the history of the discourse surrounding the individuation of obesity in america, I will attempt to employ Michel Foucault’s analysis in “Archeology of Knowledge” and hopefully come to terms with the subjects, statements, and authorities that have led to this discourse formation. In seeking to follow Foucault’s method of rupturing discourses I will first attempt to examine the unities within it, then examine the statements and subjects that characterize it, and ultimately question the emergence of these subjects and statements to shed light on the authorities of delimitation and sites of emergence that allowed for their creation. Through doing so, I aim to explain how the responsibility for obesity has been wrongfully placed on the individual, and argue for a new discourse formation that emphasizes a communal responsibility in its stead. In seeking to examine the unities that allowed for the discourse formation that blames the individual suffering from obesity rather than their surrounding environment, Foucault provides several key terms that one can employ. The most relevant to this analysis are tradition, spirit, evolution, and development (Foucault 21-26). Foucault argues examining tradition allows us to “isolate the new against a background of permanence” (Foucault 21). The american “tradition” in this context is one in which the blame for an individual's stance in life is there own. This concept ties well with Foucault’s definition of spirit which he argues “allows the sovereignty of collective consciousness to emerge as the principal of unity/explanation” (Foucault 22). In this instance the american “spirit” is formed through the narrative of equal opportunity. This belief in an equal starting point is critical in the formation of the tradition of blaming those that have not succeeded in certain facets of american life. The ideas of development and evolution are also critical to our historical foucaultian discourse critique. The development in this context consists of the food industry's lobbying efforts to subvert scientific understandings of nutrition in order to benefit their corporate greed. Evolution plays a role in that the notion of american abundance is something that has grown since the mid twentieth century, particularly in response to the threat of the soviet union. In seeking to promote the successes of America during that time, the government created a narrative of abundance that has hidden those individuals that have not been able to access that abundance, namely those in poverty or in food deserts. Thus, the discourse surrounding obesity is no exception to these unities and without their rupture it is difficult to fully understand how this discourse was formed and why it is so problematic. The statements that currently characterize the subjects of our current discussion are plentiful and provided in nearly every aspect of our modern world. The subjects of this analysis are the individuals suffering from obesity, the authorities that delineate them as obese are part of the U.S. government. Foucault defines the statements that act on these subjects as the “atom(s) of discourse”, and in seeking out these atoms one need only listen to everyday discussion for that is where the sites of their emergence exist (Foucault 80). Misconceptions surrounding obesity are driven by these statements, take for example the statement “people just need to eat less”. Foucault argues that statements always exist in a correlated domain (Foucault 91), this statements correlated domain would have to be the notion that quantity is more important than quality which modern scientists know is not the case. Other statements like “Obese people should just exercise more”, which strongly relies on its surrounding discourse formation of individual responsibility in obesity, fails to recognize the difficulty of exercising without the proper metabolic building blocks for human energy. These statements, which are derived from the aforementioned unities of discourse, collectively create the unjust discourse formation that individualizes the obesity epidemic. This would not be a critical foucaultian critique, however, if I did not additionally rupture the discourse that I have just now created. In arguing for a discourse of communal responsibility in place of individual blame, the role of the individual must be called back into question. We recognize that there must ultimately be some blame placed on those individuals with obesity that did have the requisite education and nutritional access. Therefore, if the government eventually takes a proactive role and creates a country where nutritional education and access are the norm for all communities, the blame then would be on the individual, outside of certain genetic variables, which for the purposes of brevity I cannot yet delve into. 

Part 4. Working Bibliography:

Foucault, Michel. Archeology of knowledge. Routledge, 2010. “Health Risks of Being Overweight.” National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1 Feb. 2015, www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/weight-management/health-risks-overweight. “Overweight & Obesity.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 29 Aug. 2017, www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html. “Socioeconomics and Obesity.” Socioeconomics and Obesity - The State of Obesity, The State of Obesity, stateofobesity.org/socioeconomics-obesity/. “The ASMBS/NORC Obesity Poll.” NORC at the University of Chicago, NORC at the University of Chicago, www.norc.org/Research/Projects/Pages/the-asmbsnorc-obesity-poll.aspx. “11 Facts About Food Deserts.” DoSomething.org | Volunteer for Social Change, www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-food-deserts.

Critique of “Post Proposal Draft and Reply to Peers”

I think the “Finish Line Just Ahead” sign is very much so indicative of where we were at this point in the semester. After having read, reviewed, and discussed each of the major theorists, and having established what our histories would be we were ready to start putting those efforts to work for us. 

In drafting this proposal I relied heavily upon the midterm, which had a similar assignment, and this was beneficial in some ways and difficult in others. It was beneficial in that I had already put together much of the background and introductory work and had identified the key parts of my discourse that I wanted to critique. What was problematic was how much room I had left to expand. The midterm had focused entirely on Foucault, and I now had to incorporate the ideas and teachings of Kenneth Burke and Hayden White. In my post I more or less provided some avenues that I might look into for my final presentation, but ultimately I said I would need to review their works before I could find more concrete examples to draw from. 

Your response to this post was more than beneficial in opening my eyes to how I had already incorporated many of their theoretical approaches into my historical discourse critique. In recognizing that the discourse of individuation used the metaphor of the individual to shift responsibility from the larger authorities in the history of obesity I was using White’s tropical discourse analysis. I was practicing a diataxical lens to discuss who was responsible for the obesity epidemic and through doing so I was contributing to a metareflexive awareness of the issue (White, 4-6).  I had also failed to realize how I was providing Burke’s perspective by incongruity in highlighting the irony that “individual choice” cannot be blamed for obesity when certain individuals have no choice in what they eat and in their socioeconomic situation. Burke writes that the “ comic frame should enable people to be observers of themselves, while acting. Its ultimate would not be passiveness, but maximum consciousness,” (Burke, 171). Through this understanding I attempted to provide the class with a more general consciousness of the history that surrounds obesity in america. Moving forward I hope to continually contribute to this end goal of maximum consciousness in this discourse and all others I encounter throughout life. 

Works Cited

Burke, Kenneth. Attitudes Toward History. 3rd ed., Editorial Publications, Inc., 1937.

White, Hayden. Tropics of discourse: essays in cultural criticism. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press,

Post Proposal Draft and Reply to Peers

A History of the Individuation of Obesity in America.

Part 1: Aims (Abstract of 100-200 words)

Despite the growing concern regarding the current obesity epidemic, many american’s have failed to more critically examine the role of larger institutional forces in its problematic rise. Many, if not most americans, operate within a discourse formation in which they view obesity as a matter of choice or lack of willpower. This discourse formation is problematic because it protects a negative view of individuals that struggle with obesity, and simultaneously silences those individuals in “food deserts” that have little to no access to the requisite nutrition, or nutritional education, to prevent obesity. In this paper I will aim to explore the historically produced unities of discourse that have formed to create this ultimately unjust discourse. In doing so I will attempt to answer questions such as, “What forces led to the development of this history?” and “What rhetorical devices can be utilized to reduce the problems associated with it?” Through exposing the historical development of the individuation of obesity in America I hope to lay the foundation for a more equitable political system that values proactively protecting the health of its citizenry through an increased governmental role in response to the growing obesity epidemic.

Part 2: Background and Significance (300-600 words)

A new study from the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery and NORC at the University of Chicago found that the majority of americans now believe obesity is a more problematic healthcare issue than cancer in America. In recognizing that scientists estimate that 84 percent of men and 72 percent of women will be obese by 2020, this indeed might be the case (The ASMBS/NORC Obesity Poll.). Obesity presents a wide range of health complications, including type 2 diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease etc. several of which can be fatal (Health Risks of Being Overweight). In 2016 alone obesity cost the United States over $190 Billion dollars in healthcare costs (Overweight & Obesity). In recognizing the health and economic crisis that obesity presents, the role of the United States government in responding to it must be further examined. The U.S. government, however, will have no reason to respond to this crisis in any meaningful way if the blame for obesity falls only on the individuals suffering from it.

There are several reasons for this current discourse formation surrounding the  individuation of the obesity epidemic, particularly as they relate to the American educational system. A large contributor is the lack of understanding in regards to the inequities of information across the United States. As public schools provide minimal nutritional education, and rely on outdated nutritional data when they do, there is little reason for americans at a young age to begin to question the role of their diet in their developing health. This only compounds as eating habits from early ages are carried on into adulthood, often until it is too late or too difficult to make drastic changes without drastic measures to one’s weight (Overweight & Obesity). Furthermore, many americans are simply unaware of the inequities of access to appropriate nutrition for americans across the United States in what are known as “food deserts”. According to dosomething.com, over 23.5 million americans live in food deserts with nearly half of those individuals living in poverty (11 Facts About Food Deserts). Not only are these individuals less likely to have a complete understanding of nutrition as it relates to obesity, but even if they did they would have little to no access to fresh fruits and vegetables that are crucial for healthy living. Thus, for the poorest americans living in food deserts there is little chance that obesity will not affect them or their loved ones. The data reflects this as more than 33 percent of adults who earn less than $15,000 per year are obese, compared to 24.6 percent of those who earned at least $50,000 per year (Socioeconomics and Obesity). The ignorance surrounding the development of obesity in america is only one of the prevailing forces that allows for the discourse of the individuation of obesity in U.S. history to occur, to discern what historical continuities led to this discourse formation a more critical examination is needed.

A lack of education is not enough, however, to account for this individuation crisis. An understanding of the role of urban development, particularly as it relates to the creation of food deserts is crucial. As it currently stands more than 23 million Americans currently live in food deserts. These “deserts” are areas where there are no grocery stores, with access to fresh fruits and vegetables, available to the citizens of the area(11 Facts About Food Deserts). Even if the individuals living in these communities knew about to, or how, to prepare affordable and healthy food options,  they would not be able to access the ingredients to do so. Critics of food desert statistics suggest that the reason super markets cannot, or rather should not, be introduced is because they increase the cost of rent by their proximity. However, this is not true for all supermarkets, as some like Aldi are known for their affordability and do not necessarily increase the surrounding rents (Need a source for this). Ultimately, there are a multitude of contributors to the systemic nature of obesity in America, some of which even contribute to the discourses that support its individuation.  

Part 3: Plan for Research (200-500 words)

In seeking to create a rhetorical history critiquing discourses of obesity in U.S. for the way they reveal individuation of the crisis and conceal systemic and generational poverty I will attempt to employ critiques like that of Michel Foucault, Hayden White, and Kenneth Burke to hopefully come to terms with the subjects, statements, signs, and comic correctives that have led to this discourse formation and will allow us to see beyond it. In seeking to follow Foucault’s method of rupturing discourses I will first attempt to examine the unities within it, then examine the statements and subjects that characterize it, and ultimately question the emergence of these subjects and statements to shed light on the authorities of delimitation and sites of emergence that allowed for their creation. Through doing so, I aim to explain how the responsibility for obesity has been wrongfully placed on the individual, and argue for a new discourse formation that emphasizes a communal responsibility in its stead.

In seeking to examine the unities that allowed for the discourse formation that blames the individual suffering from obesity rather than their surrounding environment, Foucault provides several key terms that one can employ. The most relevant to this analysis are tradition, spirit, evolution, and development (Foucault 21-26). Foucault argues examining tradition allows us to “isolate the new against a background of permanence” (Foucault 21). The american “tradition” in this context is one in which the blame for an individual's stance in life is there own. This concept ties well with Foucault’s definition of spirit which he argues “allows the sovereignty of collective consciousness to emerge as the principal of unity/explanation” (Foucault 22). In this instance the american “spirit” is formed through the narrative of equal opportunity. This belief in an equal starting point is critical in the formation of the tradition of blaming those that have not succeeded in certain facets of american life. The ideas of development and evolution are also critical to our historical foucaultian discourse critique. The development in this context consists of the food industry's lobbying efforts to subvert scientific understandings of nutrition in order to benefit their corporate greed. Evolution plays a role in that the notion of american abundance is something that has grown since the mid twentieth century, particularly in response to the threat of the soviet union. In seeking to promote the successes of America during that time, the government created a narrative of abundance that has hidden those individuals that have not been able to access that abundance, namely those in poverty or in food deserts. Thus, the discourse surrounding obesity is no exception to these unities and without their rupture it is difficult to fully understand how this discourse was formed and why it is so problematic.

The statements that currently characterize the subjects of our current discussion are plentiful and provided in nearly every aspect of our modern world. The subjects of this analysis are the individuals suffering from obesity, the authorities that delineate them as obese are part of the U.S. government. Foucault defines the statements that act on these subjects as the “atom(s) of discourse”, and in seeking out these atoms one need only listen to everyday discussion for that is where the sites of their emergence exist (Foucault 80). Misconceptions surrounding obesity are driven by these statements, take for example the statement “people just need to eat less”. Foucault argues that statements always exist in a correlated domain (Foucault 91), this statements correlated domain would have to be the notion that quantity is more important than quality which modern scientists know is not the case. Other statements like “Obese people should just exercise more”, which strongly relies on its surrounding discourse formation of individual responsibility in obesity, fails to recognize the difficulty of exercising without the proper metabolic building blocks for human energy. These statements, which are derived from the aforementioned unities of discourse, collectively create the unjust discourse formation that individualizes the obesity epidemic.

This would not be a critical foucaultian critique, however, if I did not additionally rupture the discourse that I have just now created. In arguing for a discourse of communal responsibility in place of individual blame, the role of the individual must be called back into question. We recognize that there must ultimately be some blame placed on those individuals with obesity that did have the requisite education and nutritional access. Therefore, if the government eventually takes a proactive role and creates a country where nutritional education and access are the norm for all communities, the blame then would be on the individual, outside of certain genetic variables, which for the purposes of brevity I cannot yet delve into.

I also plan to forth a tropical analysis like that discussed by Hayden White. In which I will examine how signs and tropes play a role in the formation and effectuation of our discourse.

To further benefit my historical critique I will seek to find what Kenneth Burke terms a comic corrective, one that will hopefully allow me to strategically humanize the authorities previously identified by Foucault. In seeking to find this comic corrective I aim to reduce the distance between these authorities while still maintaining the shrewdness that allows one to capitalize upon the debate (Burke 166). Through this process I aim to understand their motivations, and hopefully use those motivations in way that will benefit a less individuated history. Either through a process of calling out and exposing these motivations, or strategically using them to benefit our own ends.

Part 4. Working Bibliography:

Foucault, Michel. Archeology of knowledge. Routledge, 2010.

Burke, Kenneth. Attitudes toward history. The New republic, 1937.

“Health Risks of Being Overweight.” National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney  

Diseases, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1 Feb. 2015,

www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/weight-management/health-risks-overweight.

“Overweight & Obesity.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention, 29 Aug. 2017, www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html.

“Socioeconomics and Obesity.” Socioeconomics and Obesity - The State of Obesity, The State

of Obesity, stateofobesity.org/socioeconomics-obesity/.

“The ASMBS/NORC Obesity Poll.” NORC at the University of Chicago, NORC at the

University of Chicago,

www.norc.org/Research/Projects/Pages/the-asmbsnorc-obesity-poll.aspx.

White, Hayden. Tropics of discourse: essays in cultural criticism. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press,

1997.

“11 Facts About Food Deserts.” DoSomething.org | Volunteer for Social Change,

www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-food-deserts.

Critique of “Kenneth Burke’s Comic Attitude”

I like the approach I take to this post in that I provide both ample citations and textual support for my claims throughout. This made fact checking my claims significantly easier. My first paragraph is exemplary of this more academic style post: “Burke writes that the comic corrective or comic attitude serves a "charitable" purpose of allowing one to associate with the other side of opinion for "persuasion and co-operation" (Burke 166). Burke describes this corrective as neither wholly "euphemistic, nor wholly debunking" and asserts that it allows its user to reduce the distance between his opponent while still maintaining the shrewdness that allows one to capitalize upon the debate (Burke 166).” If this had been my style for much of my posts I think I would have had a significantly easier time prepping for the midterm. 

I think one area could have expanded upon was how this relates to my discourse history. I think a key comic corrective for the history of the individuation of obesity is found in recognizing that those that operate within this discourse are not evil, but rather misinformed. This is important because the end goal of the comic corrective is “maximum consciousness” and a key part of this maximization is recognizing the intent and motivations of those within our history (Burke, 171).

Works Cited

Burke, Kenneth. Attitudes toward history. The New republic, 1937.  

Kenneth Burke’s Comic Attitude

Burke writes that the comic corrective or comic attitude serves a "charitable" purpose of allowing one to associate with the other side of opinion for "persuasion and co-operation" (Burke 166). Burke describes this corrective as neither wholly "euphemistic, nor wholly debunking" and asserts that it allows its user to reduce the distance between his opponent while still maintaining the shrewdness that allows one to capitalize upon the debate (Burke 166).

In writing a history with a comic attitude and corrective Burke believes that we will avoid the "overly materialistic coordinates" which have tacitly blinded us to the "alienating" processes for much of American history (Burke 167). Burke writes that historians have become indignant in this blindness, particularly to much of the economic abuses that characterized American industrialization in the 19th century (Burke 167). Burke writes that the comic analysis of these past exploitation "prompts us to be on the lookout..for those subtler ways in which the private appropriation of the public domain continues." (Burke 168) He asserts that his corrective reprimands us for not recognizing the importance of tapping "goodwill" as we have oil. Burke additionally characterizes the comic corrective as a "comic" frame and suggests that it as a method of study is significantly more useful than an "empty" amalgamation of facts (Burke 170). Ultimately Burke believes the comic frame should enable individuals to become "observers of themselves" with its end goal being "maximum consciousness" (Burke 171).

Works Cited

Burke, Kenneth. Attitudes toward history. The New republic, 1937.

Critique of “Post on Posts!”

I think the biggest consideration I failed to make when I made suggestions on Destiny’s tropical analysis was the implication of focusing on the male leaders of the black panther movement. Her research focuses on how women were written out of the black panther movement’s history, and I was advocating for the inclusion of additional male focus. This is somewhat problematic in the way I suggested it, but I think it is still beneficial if used appropriately. I think the key caveat is found in recognizing that the focus on male leadership of the black panther movement needs to be questioned in relation to the authorities that authorized that association. If it could be argued that the black panther movement was associated with black masculinity as a way to discredit it and make it appear more violent than it was the authorities at play would need to be acknowledged. This metaphoric association of black masculinity with violence is the troping work advocated for by White, and I think the inclusion of this would be beneficial in creating a complete historical discourse critique.  I liked that I highlight the areas I thought she could expand as well as the areas I thought she had done well with. One improvement to my critique could have been textual support for the areas that I liked in her work. This would have given Destiny a better idea of what she should continue doing. Overall, I thought this was a great opportunity to read other student’s work and receive some beneficial comments from one another. 

Works Cited

Riley, Destiny. “Tropics of Discourse”. blackboard post. 2017. 

Post on Posts!

Below is Destiny’s Post and My post on her post!

When thinking about history and discourse, we have to constantly remember that the discourse needs to be genuine. In Tropics of Discourse, Hayden White suggests that there needs to be a shift towards more genuine discourse. To be genuine, we have to recognize that we live in a discourse. We also have to recognize the tropes that exist in discourse. Tropes “generate figures of speech or thought by their variation from what is ‘normally’ expected” and act as a “defense against literal meaning in discourse” (White 2). In other words, tropes help us move away from what is known in discourse and move towards new, figurative meanings. History has not always recognized the tropes that exist in it, though they have always existed. History/discourse cannot be genuine unless it realizes the tropes in itself and how they function. As we become more critically aware, we need to become more aware of discourse and recognize irony in discourse rather than just metaphors.

Another facet of tropical methodology is being genuine by always having doubt in our own discourse. Many times we think the discourse we live in is perfect and free of flaws. However, we always have to doubt the supposed perfection of our discourse. Our discourse will never be perfect because our symbol systems will not always be able to capture/include everything. In every discourse, a person or group is always left out and it is imperative to realize this. No discourse is ever completely perfect or correct and it is unfair to our understanding to judge ourselves by this notion of correctness. The discourse will always be incomplete and realizing this will help us realize that we should try to create a greater expansion of what we should know. In this regard, we are dealing with diatactical discourse. This form puts all "tactical" discursive rules “into doubt, including those originally governing its own formation” (White 4). It suggests that discourse cannot be governed simply by logic alone. It is always “slipping the grasp of logic, constantly asking if logic is adequate to capture the essence of its subject matter” (White 4). When we realize our discourse is tropical and not all-knowing, we can de-escalate sensationalism of being wholly correct.

When we recognize something is a discourse, we realize it emerged from a set of choices we make/have made. This realization can lead to us make making much better choices and continuing in our quest to better society and civic life.

In my discourse, is is imperative for the discourse to be genuine. My discourse is black men being represented and discussed as the primary leaders of the Black Panther Party. One of the main issues is that we do not realize that this is the representation because we do not think about it due to the fact that we live in this discourse. Now that I have recognized, I can work to make sure recreate this discourse as genuine. This discourse is not genuine because it has not recognized the tropes within itself. The picture that comes to mind when people think of the Black Panther Party today “is male-centered and violent” (“Women Key in Shaping Black Panther Party”). This image has been “seared into the collective conscious” (“Women Key in Shaping Black Panther Party”) as it is seen on television, online, etc. However, there were numerous women that greatly impacted the Party as well as the whole black power movement. This discourse is flawed, like every discourse, because it does not include everyone that it should include, mainly black women. Because of this lack of inclusion, this discourse is incomplete and therefore not genuine.

I am attempting to create more knowledge about what we should recognize and discuss in regard to the Party. One discourse formations I will study is black men being represented and discussed as the primary leaders of the Black Panther Party. In the first formation, I will start with the statement of all of the pictures you see of black men when you google “Black Panther Party.” An example of correlated domains for this statement is how the men view the Party versus how the women view themselves may have viewed the structure of the Party. The opinions of the men versus the women of the Party would exist in two different domains. Because the power structure benefitted the men in the party, they would most likely say that there were no problems with the hierarchy and silence of black women. However, because the women had much different experiences than the men, they would most likely say that the power structure was very prevalent and diminishing of their contributions. Though both the men and women would be discussing the Party’s structure and impact, their statements would exist in different domains because of their different experiences.

Another statement is the assumption that black women were always treated well and with the respect by the male leaders within the Party. A statement in this domain is that the Black Panther Party’s page on Wikipedia discusses how the Party spoke out against sexism, but does not discuss the abuse that women in the party endured from the men. There was “pervasive and sometimes brutal ill-treatment that female Panthers faced - physical abuse, exploitation as sexual prizes and workhorses….” (“Invisible Women: Sexism in the Black Panther Party”). The two correlated domains are similar to the previously-mentioned ones. While the men in the Party most likely did not view this mistreatment as abuse, the women certainly did. Because of their different experiences and positions, their beliefs stem from different domains.

My Comment:

Destiny I appreciate how you began by explicating the test, and then how you followed up with the application of that text into your analysis. The examination of the role of women within the black power/black panther movement is definitely a worthwhile history. I wonder what part of the male association to the black panther party was done as a way of associating the party with violence? The discourse of black men as violent figures would of course have to be recognized before that assumption would have much merit, but I think many have known it to be a prevalent statement in American historical discourse. I think it would be beneficial to further question what authorities of delimitation made this male association possible. Where they members within the organization, where they outsiders? I hope this helps your future research!

Critique of “Tropical Methodology for Doing History”

I see my tropical methodology as showing promise towards a more complete understanding of White’s historiography, while still lacking in some areas. I think my focus on the diataxis is spot on in that the analyzation of slippage is a key function of a tropical discourse. However,  I failed on a general level to acknowledge and make use of his discussion of tropes and how they relate to my history. In my final presentation I make better use of this and I discuss how the metaphor of the individual is a key part of the individuation of obesity in America. Irony is also present in my analysis when I point out that food deserts and systemic poverty are the lead contributors to obesity. It is ironic in that people assert it is individual choice that results in obesity and that many of america’s poorest who struggle with obesity have little to no choice in the food they consume. These key tropical developments in the history of obesity are what White calls on us to recognize as problematic. Ultimately, I needed to blend these understandings from White with that of Kenneth Burke and Michelle Foucault to create a more complete discourse critique. 

Works Cited

White, Hayden. Tropics of discourse: essays in cultural criticism. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press,1997.

Tropical Methodology for Doing History

Hayden White’s “Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism” provides an ideological methodology to examine both modern and historic discourse. In this methodology or practical “diataxis” as he refers to it, discourse is analyzed on two levels: mimesis and diegesis (White, 4). The mimesis refers to a discourses “description” of the data at hand, while the diegesis examines the relation of the narrative or argumentative nature of the discourse as it relates to that data. Through this tropical discourse analysis White aims to accomplish two goals. The first of these goals is to develop an understanding of the classifications that comprise the relationship between the mimesis and diegesis, and the second is to use a “typology of modes of discourse” to enter into “ a typology of modes of understanding” (White, 22). In applying this tropical discourse analysis to the history of the discourse surrounding the individuation of obesity in the U.S.  I will examine both the mimesis and diegesis of the discourse to further understanding its historical emergence.

In seeking to examine the data surrounding obesity, an analysis of its growth and the growth of the discourse surrounding it is beneficial. According to a study from the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) and NORC at the University of Chicago found that the majority of americans now believe obesity is more problematic healthcare issue than cancer in America. As it is estimated that 84 percent of men and 72 percent of women will be obese by 2020 this is indeed cause for concern. The representation of the polling data is a prime example of the problematic inaccuracy White illustrates through his mimesis analysis. White writes, “every mimesis can be shown to be distorted and can serve, therefore, as an occasion for yet another description of the same phenomenon, one claiming to be more realistic, more ‘faithful to the fact’s’” (White 3). Thus, the choice to represent the notion that obesity is the most problematic health issue for many americans is simultaneously a selection of the relevant data proving this issue and a de-selection of the data contrary to it. This could have occured intentionally, through the selection of certain polling questions that primed the audience, or unintentionally through the misreading of the data. There is in truth no way of knowing what all american’s view as the most problematic disease, and every poll estimates their beliefs through the narrative of their data. This process is what is know as the diegesis, in which the researchers in this case assert that the data does indeed suggest this is the most important issue to american’s. The combining of these two levels of analysis is part of what creates White’s diataxis and is key to his tropical discourse critique.

In furthering White’s discourse analysis as it relates to the individuation of obesity, an analysis of the tropes of this discourse is also crucial. White defines these tropes as “deviations from literal, conventional or  ‘proper’ language use, swerves in locution sanctioned neither by custom nor logic” (White, 2). One of the common tropes in our current discourse is the metaphoric association of obesity and laziness. This association enters into our discourse frequently and is a key conceptualization that strengthens the belief that obesity can be cured through will power.

Some additional statements for discourse analysis are as follows. “People just need to exercise more”, which exists within correlated domain of exercise is more important than nutrition. “People need to stop eating fast food” which correlates to the idea of fast food being problematic as opposed to the reasons particular fast food like fried food etc is bad. “People need to just eat less”, which correlates to a domain of quantity over quality as the issue.  I will aim to further explore the memesis, diegesis, statements, and tropes within my discourse in the upcoming days, but time constraints have limited me to this thus far!

Works Cited

McCrae, Robert R., and Oliver P. John. 1992. An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality 60.2: 175–215. “The ASMBS/NORC Obesity Poll.” NORC at the University of Chicago, NORC at the University of Chicago, www.norc.org/Research/Projects/Pages/the-asmbsnorc-obesity-poll.aspx. White, Hayden. Tropics of discourse: essays in cultural criticism. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1997.

Critique of “Hayden White, Tropics of Discourse”

This post was my only late post for the semester and I supplied a brief overview of what I currently see as White’s main thesis in Tropics of Discourse. To further expand upon that brief overview I see several key insights that need to be included. The first is an added discussion of White’s tropical analysis. In fact as Claire Noppenberger aptly suggests in her post “Tropics of Discourse” his main thesis is “to outline ‘how tropes function in the discourses of the human sciences’” (Noppenberger, Tropics of Discourse) White asserts that all history is tropical, and that there is always historical data that cannot be perfectly represented (White, 2). He asserts that we need to announce that slippage between the narrative and the data to produce ethical discourse, and when the narrative slips away from the data the tropes will too turn away from that data (White, 4-5). He sees the master trope that reveals this slippage as Irony (White, 19). White states, “the beginning of all understanding is classification, and a classification of discourses based on tropology, rather than on presumed contents or manifest (but inevitably flawed) logics, would provide a way of apprehending the possible structure of relationships between these two aspects of a text, rather than denying the adequacy of the one because the other was inadequately achieved” (White, 22). One we make these steps we can enter into a stage of meta-reflexive awareness, which is critical to rendering the unfamiliar familiar (White, 5). Ultimately, White wants us to recognize that any discourse that claims to be representative and without this slippage cannot be seen as genuine, and we must push back against its absolutism. 

Works Cited

Noppenberger, Claire. “Tropics of Discourse”.blackboard post. 2017.

White, Hayden V. Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978. Print.

Hayden White, Tropics of Discourse

Hayden White ultimate argues that we need to view history through a tropical lens and that through doing so we can further understand the slippage that occurs between the memetic data and our diegetic discourse that represents that data.

Critique of “Doing Critique Foucault Style: A Quick Reference Sheet” 

This post and its following class discussion are were I really began to see my final project taking shape. As a class we combined our reference sheets to create an roadmap of how to properly critique a discourse using Foucault’s methodology. There were several differences between my post and the one established by our class. Both reference sheets start with the need to identify a discourse to critique, which makes sense in that one must know where to look in order to start a critique. After that my critique begins to focus too much on specific terms within Foucault’s analysis as opposed to some of the larger more theoretically necessary concepts in Foucault’s work. For example, I focus on identifying grids of specification which should have been included within a larger “rules of formation” step in which I analyze not only the grids of specification, but also authorities of delimitation and surfaces of emergence. Seeing the larger theoretical steps is key to incorporating several of Foucault’s key beliefs. 

One area that I think my post was more in line with Foucualt’s methadology than our class reference sheet was my final step asserting the need to “look through the cracks for the continuities of the discourse for new hidden discourses. And again, critically examine those discourses that emerge in the rupturing to ensure new continuities are not present.” (Kavanaugh, Foucaultian Discourse Critique in a Nutshell) The class reference sheet had a final step of identifying the speaker and his or her position, but I saw this as more related to the third and fourth steps particularly the grids of specification and authorities of delimitation as opposed to a final ending step. A key alteration to this final step would be to recognize that our goal is not to prevent new continuities from emerging, but rather to ensure they are critically engaged when they do emerge. 

The final part of this post requested that we run our discourse through the steps of our discourse critique which I will attempt to do now:

1. “Locate A Discourse” - The discourse surrounding the individuation of obesity in America is ripe for rupture as it contains several visible continuities like that of spirit and tradition. 

2. “Find Sources of Emergence” - In looking for how the objects, or statements, of this discourse emerged, I look towards modern meme production and how they operate within a discourse of individual blame for the problem of obesity in america. This appreciation for these memes is indicative of societies larger appreciation for this individuation of blame. 

3. “Seek out Authorities of delimitation”-  I believe the key authorities of this discourse are the government who through outdated and inaccurate methods decides who and who is not obese. I also see the food industry and its efforts to manipulate the American peoples understanding of nutrition as a significant authority in determining what is and is not considered healthy. 

4. “Find Grids of Specification”- This is likely the post I would change to our classes fourth step which seeks “rules of formation”- I see the prime surfaces of this discourse being everyday conversation, memetic discourse online, and television show’s like “Biggest Loser” which only discuss individual motivation and commitment in addressing the problem of obesity. 

5. “Look through the cracks and find new hidden discourses” - I think this is a critical step for my history in that once we recognize the societal responsibility for the obesity epidemic, we must also question and rupture this discourse and look to where the individual can be held responsible. There are certainly individuals throughout the United States that have the proper access to nutrition and education but still choose to live unhealthy lifestyles. 

Works Cited

Kavanaugh, Collin “Foucaultian Discourse Critique in A Nutshell”. Blackboard post. 2017.

Foucault, Michel, Alan Sheridan, and Michel Foucault. The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books, 1972. Print.

Doing Critique Foucault Style: A Quick Reference Sheet

1. Locate a discourse that you believe could be ruptured to produce a more just and equitable society. Search for continuities in a particular discourse that might indicate a particularly ripe discourse for rupture.

Continuities exist within in ideas like that of tradition, spirit, evolution, the familiar, etc. Once one is able to separate these terms from the discourse it is more open to foucaultian critique (21, 22).

Search for statements that operate within that discourse. These can be” function(s) of existence that properly belongs to signs” (86).

2. Finding sources of emergence for that discourse. Look to how the objects of that discourse originate. Look to see how the statements, or atoms, of that discourse are formed (80).

Look for the position of the speaker, from where is he speaking? (41)

3. Seek out authorities of delimitation. Ask who is authorizing this discourse? Which statements within the discourse are operating with more power than others to produce the discourse. How does that speaker have this power, through the state, through material wealth, through education? What is the position of the speaker in relation to the subject being discussed?  (41)

4. Find the grids of specification that the discourse is acting within. Look for systems of organization. Locate this discourse in relation to those that surround it. Contextualize this discourse (41).

5. Once the discourse has been fully examined, look through the cracks the continuities of the discourse for new hidden discourses. And again, critically examine those discourses that emerge in the rupturing to ensure new continuities are not present.

Critique of “Your Archive!”

The map above shows in respective darkness the percentages of obesity per state. The issue of obesity has only in the last couple of decades really become a legitimate concern for policy makers and government officials in the United States. My interest in investigating the history that lead up to our current situation was spurred in class by our discussion of dialysis centers outside urban enclaves. We discussed how these dialysis centers not only represented the high degree of sickness and malnutrition in low income communities but also how they were indicative of a reactive rather than proactive communal response to obesity. I saw several statements that could possibly exist within my discourse and sought to weed them out from my understanding of the issue and Foucault. I like that I identified early on one of the most problematic statements “Obesity is a choice” as being responsible for the individuation of obesity. I could have likely gone deeper into how I thought these statements emerged or how they affected certain populations more than others, but at this state I don’t believe I was committed to my history just yet.