Alex Gilkerson
ENG 1510
Peer Review
In this paper I found lots of facts that support his idea of Swales way of a discourse community is wrong. He explains in detail how he believes so and gives specific examples. I also liked the interview questions and answers. He asked questions that would dig deep and bring out how they really feel for music and how they got into it. This was good because everyone had a different answer and was interesting to see other peoples views.
The only thing that I found that should be worked on is that he contradicts himself a little towards the end. In one paragraph he explains how some people are in it for different reasons which is good, but then goes on to say that they cannot be a part of the group if they do not participate in the readings. Depending on the group I feel this is a little wrong.
Overall, I really enjoyed reading this. Other than a few minor disagreements, It was really good. It had an interesting topic to keep the reading from being bored.
*it wouldn't transfer my comments, so they are in parenthesis.
Joe Miller
English 308J
Professor Nunes
July 14 2012
Expertise in Discourse Communities
A discourse community, according to John Swales, is defined in six points: a broad agreed set of goals, ways of intercommunication, ways of provide feedback and information, is comprised one or more genres, has specific language, and is comprised of new members and “experts” (471-473). In the interest of simplicity, the conditions above were re-worded for ease of someone not familiar with Swales’ work. Swales wrote this in “The Concept of a Discourse Community,” where he discusses a specific discourse community, a stamp collecting organization known as the Hong Kong Study Circle (HKSC). He applies his principals to HKSC and asserts they apply to all discourse communities. However, upon researching a certain discourse community, the Athens, Ohio music scene; it was apparent that Swales definition of a discourse community, which may have applied to the HKSC, needed to be improved(That statement really gets you on the edge of your seat. It makes you want to read on and figure out what needs improved. )Specifically, Swales’ definition of experts and non-experts; which is not applicable in the real world.
First, a brief explanation of what the Athens music community is. The community is based around seeing live, local music. The people that make this music, or bands, are mostly college students who do this as a hobby. Then at these events are frequent attendees who do not play an instrument. The community meets in a variety of places: Bars, houses, coffee shops, but always in Athens I find this to be an interesting topic and agree with all the points so far.)
Now it is appropriate to show the Athens music community, which will be referenced as AMC from now on, is a discourse community by Swales’ own definition. The goals of the AMC are to enjoy live local music; which have frequent and not so frequent attenders. Then the points of intercommunication and feedback, which actually overlap to a large degree, are through technological means like Facebook and online reviews from local organizations(What local organizations?) The genre is the local music(Is “local music” the only music played in Athens?)from Southeast Ohio, which is the only specific outlet for these artists. Then the members of the AMC speak in their own lexis, which is comprised of various slang terminology, references obscure music genres, and unique language for describing music. This lexis is very apparent in the experts within the community, which are the members who very frequently attend the events and obtain a level of “prestige” not associated with newer members. Then as mentioned earlier, a second way to obtain expertise is to be a musician playing shows for the community, which is the AMC’s basis. Swales’ definition of discourse communities doesn’t account for this “dual expertise”.
This idea of expertise has been discussed before. James Gee, who stayed away from the term discourse community, instead defined the term Discourse as: “(the) ways of being in the world; they are forms of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities as well as gestures, glances, body positions, and clothes” (484). Gee’s Discourse is slightly different from Swales’ discourse community, but the same principles apply. One of Gee’s points is that we go around “faking” expertise in Discourse. This is what he’d call “mushfaking”. When you are mushfaking, you are pretending to be an expert at something you’re not (I.E. bullshitting). This was Gee’s way of solving Swales’ problem about you are either an expert in the community or you are not --no in-between(I disagree with this statement. I feel you can know a little bit about everything. You don’t have to know it all, but you can know some.) So by mushfaking, you can have some knowledge of the community, but still not be an expert.
Mushfaking is only part of the answer though. The problem with some communities, such as the AMC, is there are multiple ways to be considered an expert(examples). This is what was kept in mind while researching the AMC.
Methods
Research was conducted in three separate ways: in person interviews consisting of four questions, analysis of online album reviews, and personal experience from my four years in the community. Due to time constraints, the non-personal research is very limited, only consisting of two interviews and a review from two separate authors. Obviously this isn’t ideal, but it gives a general impression of the community and gives merit for further research.
The interview questions were as follows:
- How long have you been involved in the community and how long before you felt comfortable attending these events?
- Why do you attend these shows?
- How would you describe the performers at these events?
- What sparked your interest in the community?(These are all good questions. It would seem to get them to talk about there experiences.)The first expert interviewed was involved with a very popular music group in the AMC. In this paper, he will be called Steve. The second person interviewed has been attending events in the AMC for the past few years, his name is Billy. The names of the above interviewees were changed at their request.
Then the online reviews were retrieved from the local radio station’s (ACRN) website. The radio station is actively involved in the community and ran by experts from the community as well. Part of the organization is the Editorial department, which writes concert and album reviews. Two reviews were located from experts in the AMC.
Results
Interview Responses:
Following are the responses to the interviews. First are Steve’s responses then Billy’s. The responses are arranged in chronological order and a comparison of the results is given immediately after.
To the question of how long have you been going to shows and how long until you felt comfortable, Steve answered in an interesting way. Since he had grown up in Athens, he had been attending them since high school, but the second part is why it is interesting. Steve’s reply was, “Since I started playing shows”. This meant he gained “prestige” among the community in a way that a non-musician cannot. This automatically implies some difference from a person not engaging in the community in such a manner.
To the second question, why do you go to shows, Steve’s answer was the obvious one, “To have fun”. As to be expected from any discourse community, members get some sort of satisfaction or compensation for their participation(good information). This answer concurs with Swales’ agreed set of goals among discourse communities.
Then the third question, how do you describe bands, provided another distinction between a non-musical member. This will be kept brief since the results of the album reviews provide a much better example of this point. Steve’s response was that he focused more on what the individual musicians were doing rather than band as a whole. So while describing a song, he might focus in on the guitar player’s technique and genre, rather than the overall dynamic of the band.
Then for what sparked his interest in the community, Steve replied, “I’ve always enjoyed music and open mikes”. This answer is also to be expected – it implies he had the same interest and goals for joining the community that a non-musician would have. The question was asked purely to show the common ground that everyone has in the community – that they are all part of the same community, not two separate groups that meet at the same place.
Billy’s response to the first question was: “I instantly felt comfortable; I’ve always enjoy music and being around it felt natural. I’ve been going to shows since I started college (Fall 2009)”. Billy’s instant feeling of comfort shows that he had nothing to prove to the community, that being present was enough to gain prestige in the community. It should be noted that after clarification, Billy admitted that he didn’t feel the respect of the community (expertise) till a year or so later.
To the second question, Billy’s response was the same as Steve’s, “To have fun”. Once again, this was to be expected.
For the third question, Billy’s response was, “Generally, I describe them like a person … a band is like a personality, every aspect of it defines who they are”. This was Billy saying he accounts for every aspect of the band; the big picture is more important than the individual pieces that compose it.
For the last question, Billy gave an interesting response. The reason Billy got started with the AMC was not for a love of music, but rather a desire to make friends. Billy’s first college friends were interested in these events, so Billy tagged along out of a desire to cement their friendship. Then as time progressed, he found that he thoroughly enjoyed the AMC and decided to make it a centerpiece of his college years.(Good story to tell. Everything isn’t the same which is good.)
Analysis of Interviews:
For the first question Steve and Billy showed key distinctions. Billy instantly felt a level of comfort within the community, but Steve felt he needed to prove himself. Steve being a musician, desired to “prove” himself to the community before he could feel comfortable. The idea of comfort is important because it gauges when they became an expert. Since a community like this doesn’t have defined roles, this is a good way to tell if someone has gained prestige within it.
The second question both interviewee’s answered the same. They both had the goal of having fun while enjoying local music. For full disclosure, this question was slightly loaded since the answer was already known. The reason for asking it was to show that they are both part of the same community, since the have the same set of agreed goals. (This is a really good strategy to use.)
The third question also showed a very distinct difference between interviewees. When describing a band, they focused on different characteristics. As mentioned earlier, a more in-depth analysis of this distinction between musically active and non-musically active members is shown in the Album Reviews section below.
The responses to the fourth question came as a surprise. One would expect that everyone involved in the AMC would get involved because of a desire to see local music. However, Billy did so to make friends. A possible explanation for this could be that Steve is a musician, so he wants to hear music, while Billy not being one, just wants to have fun. It is appropriate to go over the AMC’s goals briefly: to have fun and see local musicians. At first it seemed like those goals were evenly weighted among the members of the community, but in retrospect, it appears not. The answers to this question show that a different goal is valued more by different members, with Billy caring more about having fun and Steve seeing fellow local musicians. (This really gives an outlook to the whole discourse community showing everyone’s views on it. )
Album Reviews:
The albums reviewed below are from popular college music groups. As mentioned earlier, these reviews were written by two experts from the local college radio station. One of these experts is a singer active in the AMC and the other is simply an active participant. Their names are Hannah and Amanda respectively.
Hannah’s review focused, like Steve, on the small pieces that make the entire album. Hannah writes, “They implement many of the same instrument techniques-- the heavy riffs, the electric guitar reverb and distortion and the organ-esque keyboards,” which focuses on the bands sonic styling, or, “Hull’s lyrical strong suits are more moving than they’ve ever been,” focusing only the singers vocals. It appears that Steve and Hannah concentrate on the details of music instead of the larger picture. This is mostly like due to them both being musicians, meaning they have a different perspective and take on a piece of music. (This supports that people are in it for different reasons. Some people are in it for fun while people like Amanda have a passion for music and notice little things.) Amanda however, took the opposite approach to describing the album she reviewed. There was more of a focus on the whole, or its personality, as Billy would say. Referring to a particular song, Amanda says, “(it) takes a turn in the direction of greatness with soaring melodies and acoustics so epic it could conceivably have been recorded in a valley between blue ridged mountains”. This grandiose language is something you’d expect from a person not deconstructing music to its basic elements. The way Amanda and Hannah see music is like two people looking at a painting; Amanda sees how the scenery gives the feeling of happiness, while Hannah deconstructs the style of the painting and the technique that went into it. At the same time though, they are both appreciating the painting for what it is—a work of art.
Conclusions and Implications
After analysis of the data, it was obvious that Swales’ definition of a discourse community is incomplete. It is apparent that musically active members treat the AMC differently than those who are not; all the while still being a part of the same discourse community. The reason for this peculiar dynamic is because what will be referred to as active and passive members.(Could there be 2 types of discourse communities? Something to think about.) An active member of a discourse community is someone who actively contributes to the community’s survival, in this case, the musicians who comprise the bands. Then a passive member would be someone who doesn’t actively contribute to the survival of the community. So anyone attending an event in the AMC would be considered a passive member of the community. Active and passive are not mutually exclusive; Steve would be considered an active member as well as a passive, with Billy just being passive. (Or there are just different roles in the community.) Defining the members of the community is important for discourse communities where members create the content. Another example would be a local sports community, let’s use baseball as an example. A high school baseball league is comprised of two groups: the players and the fans. The fans are the passive and the players are both the active and passive – the players are passive since they are still fans. By delegating roles like this, we can distinguish the groups in which the community is made of. This is especially important because the community’s survival is completely dependent on the active participants. If there was no baseball, there would be no community. Then the reason to consider them the same level as experts is as follows: baseball player’s prestige in the community is dependent on the fans. If there are no fans to watch the players, the players would have no motivation to improve their skills; they would receive no social compensation for their time and energy (remember, players are passive as well!).
It’s also worth noting that defining active and passive isn’t always necessary. There are cases, such as Swales’ stamp collecting club, where members are always active. This mostly applies to discourse communities that aren’t centered on a group of people performing an actively; meaning there aren’t performers and an audience. A case would be the members of a local book club. The club consists solely of the members and they are actively participating Kind of contradicts what you said above about how some people are in the community for different reasons.). If a member doesn’t read the book, they aren’t apart of the club, so in this case every member would be considered active and passive.
However, in the cases where active and passive can be defined, it is very beneficial to do so. By defining Hannah as active, we know to expect her reviews to be focused more on the instrumentalization, rather than the overall picture. Then if we want to look at the overall picture, we just need to go find out what Amanda thinks of the subject. It also lets us know that Steve has different goals than Billy( Again, contradicting the statement above.) for the AMC. So really by making these terms, we are giving ourselves a legend when looking at the “map” of a discourse community.
With the combination of active and passive membership with Gee’s ideas of mushfaking, Swales’ definition of expertise is complete. We now have a way to a broad way to classify members with in a discourse community. This is only one piece of the puzzle though; more research needs to be done to classify a discourse community. With a little bit of thought, it is easy to see that Swales’ definition still has holes that were not addressed here. However, active discussion of these ideas among academics will eventually lead to a proper definition of discourse communities.
Works Cited
Cook, Hannah. " Manchester Orchestra:Simple Math." Rev. of Album. n.d.: n. pag. All Campus Radio Network. Ohio University, 6 May 2011. Web. 6 July 2012. <ACRN.com>.
Gee, James P. "Literacy, Discourse and Linguistics." Writing About Writing, A College Reader. Comp. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011. 481-497. Print.
Norris, Amanda. "Fleet Foxes:Helplessness Blues." Rev. of Album. n.d.: n. pag. All Campus Radio Network. Ohio University, 2 May 2011. Web. 6 July 2012. <ACRN.com>.
Smith, Billy. Personal interview. 11 July 2012
Smith, Steve. Personal interview. 9 July 2012
Swales, John. "The Cncept of a Discourse Community." Writing About Writing, A College Reader. Comp. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011. 466-480. Print.
