Deborah Tannen Text Analysis

Deborah Tannen Text Analysis Rationale This task links to part two language and mass communication and the topic of stereotypes. It explores how media shapes gender stereotypes. The nature of the task is an online opinion article from the feminist blog Jezebel. The author criticises linguistic professor Deborah Tannens books, stating that the media creates situations of miscommunication between men and women which are vaguely based on reality. Thus, the task critically investigates the handling of gender stereotypes in a range of media; both Tannens scholarly works and the online article. The text type was chosen as online media fosters a critical discussion of gender stereotypes through the ability to comment. The task contains comments that feature contrasting tones and syntax, highlighting the controversial nature of gender stereotypes. The task was inspired by Megan Carpentlers Jezebel article On George Tiller And The Profound Power of Language, mirrored in formal qualities and the title. The target audience of Jezebel is young and likeminded feminists due to it being an online publication, demonstrated through the use of popular culture allusions, such as Sex and the City. The task features Jezebels typical conversational and ironic tone which allows the reader to feel a personal connection with the author, achieved through the use of contractions and rhetorical questions, and exemplified in hyperbolic phrases such as women use hidden directives; or, I mean, I guess they could, maybe. The voice of the task shifts to persuasive in the last paragraphs of the article, as the author argues that the media causes gender stereotypes. This argumentative tone is achieved through logos and hypophora, such as What came first, the language or the patriarchy? after which the author reiterates their opinion in stating the patriarchy came first. Thus, the aim of the task is to persuade the reader of the authors opinion. 300 words. Works Cited Carpentler, Megan. On George Tiller And The Profound Power of Language. Jezebel. Jezebel, 6 Jan. 2009. Web. 01 Mar. 2016. . Works Cited: Images Used Fundraising Ideas for Social Justice | MobileCause. MobileCause. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2016. . Studio Portrait of Young Woman. Getty Images. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2016. . On Deborah Tannen and the Profound Power of Language Jane Carter7/03/16 Women: what do they want? Thats a question thats plagued not only hundreds of clueless husbands and boyfriends on Valentines Day, anniversaries, or other celebrations. Yet, why is that all men seem to be so clueless when it comes to understanding half of the earths population? Let psychologist, linguist, and Georgetown professor Deborah Tannen enlighten you: its all in your words. The writer of bestsellers with catchy, fun titles such as You Just Dont Understand: Women and Men in Conversation and Thats Not what I Meant! How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Relationships both works read across the country in the eighties and nineties by millions of frustrated middle-aged mothers- has long stated that women and men are two tribes headed for war. Men and women will never be able to understand each other, and its all because of our language and conversational style, says Tannen. Men see language as a way of asserting dominance, Tannen writes, whereas women simply see it as a way of confirming ideas: never creating their own, obviously. Women are only capable of merely asserting the thoughts of others. Women see language as a means of empathy and providing emotional support, whereas strong, independent men only ever use their language to solve real problems. Men are only concerned with facts; we all know women are far too emotional to deal with hard-core knowledge. How could we, anyhow, when all we ever do is use our language to communicate our feelings or converse with others about their own feelings? It is also a well-known fact that men use imperatives, Tannen says, whereas women use hidden directives; or, I mean, I guess they could, maybe. But, what does this mean? Does gender inequality stem from grammar and syntax? Can we emotional women, with our hidden directives, blame ourselves and our language for the patriarchy? Tannen might be shouting Yes! Look at the transcripts! I have evidence!, and she might very well be true. Gender differences do affect language, though what came first, the language or the patriarchy? Let us first deconstruct gender: it is merely a construct. We live in a world where we colour-code our children in desperation to keep the gender binary system going, and we divide everything according to gender: cats are feminine, dogs are masculine, toy cars are for boys, and dolls are for girls. The division carries on into stereotypes: women are social, men are commanding, girls are emotional, boys are rational. From Sex and the City to What Women Want, these stereotypes are reflected in the media and broadcasted left, right, and centre. Men and women are shown to be polar opposites, completely unable to understand each other, and its all because of their language. Middle-aged women speak like prepubescent teenage girls, using words such as sort of or the ever-present filler like: minor interjections that show women are active listeners, says Tannen, and caring, domestic, beings. Men- if they talk to each other at all- are commanding and avoid confronting their feelings because they are, after all, far too driven by problem-solving and real problems, not their miniscule emotions. The amount of times I have seen or heard married couples bicker and argue on televised sitcoms is ridiculous, and its the same pattern every time: men dont understand what women are saying, and women cant seem to comprehend what men mean. Be it for comedic purpose or otherwise, these stereotypes and seemingly innate differences in language, or conversational styles as Tannen puts it, were drilled inside of all of our heads from a very young age, and the effect is momentous. The classic example is the exchange of Whats wrong? Nothing. Picture the scene: a married couple utters those phrases. Who asks the question, and who answers it? I can guarantee you three things. Firstly, you pictured a man and woman. Secondly, you imagined the woman answering. Thirdly, she probably didnt have a very nice tone of voice. Am I a magician, really good at guessing, or is there more to the issue than it seems? The phrase nothing haunts millions of married men, as those two words are built to never truly mean nothing because, as Tannen has showed us, womens speech is loaded with complex meaning, ready to be enciphered by mens rational brains, yet it seems men are never quite able to do so, perhaps because nothing simply means nothing; nothing more and nothing less, despite the media often portraying quite the opposite. The media creates these situations of miscommunication between men and women. Although vaguely based on reality, one can hardly argue that they accurately depict this wonderfully complex world we live in. Generalisation is a dangerous thing, and yet, Tannen devises equally generalised assumptions and psychological theories to explain this division of language broadcasted in the media and transferred to real life. To answer the previous question I asked, the patriarchy came first, and Tannens work did nothing but compose a deeper division between men and women that the media was already keen on creating. We arent two tribes heading for war. Men arent from Mars, and women arent from Venus. Perhaps someone should explain to Mrs. Tannen that there are extra-terrestrial forms of life. We all are, in fact, from planet Earth; our lovely home with its wonderful entrenched sexism. Comments Marline | 7.03.2016 Tannens work did nothing but compose a deeper division between men and women. What?! Im pretty sure Tannen isnt some weirdo on Reddit Tannen isnt a man-hater, and she isnt some woman-hater either, shes just a psychologist!!! Disappointing article, youve totally over-analysed her lol JSev | 7.03.2016 i take AP Psych and her work is SO sexist!! try READING it its horrible lmao Jessica L. | 8.03.2016 agree with you!!! wish we didnt use psychology as evidence for sexism. makes me sad to think people believe her   media brainwashed usà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦..

Illegal Immigration In The United States :: Immigration and Politics

Why does the issue of immigration divide American opinions when the United States is a country built by immigrants? The online encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org defines immigration to the United States as "the permanent movement of foreigners to the United States." This online encyclopedia also states that immigration to the United States has been a major source of population growth and cultural change throughout American history." In order to establish an objective and well thought out viewpoint on this very sensitive subject, I thought it would be best to discuss as many different viewpoints as possible. However, my research indicates that is seems like everyone in the United States and abroad has his or her own stance. So I will limit this discussion to two viewpoints; they are as follows: • Those who oppose illegal immigration and want the immigrants to be forced back to their originating countries. • Those who oppose illegal immigration but would prefer that illegal immigrants that reside within the United States are granted citizenship options. There are obviously quite a number of people that are opposed to illegal immigration. In order to witness this reality today, all you really have to do is turn on your TV and search for a news channel that is covering current politics. You will definitely hear something in reference to the current issue of illegal immigrants within the United States as well as numerous videos or images of activists protesting or supporting the residential status of immigrants within the United States today. No decision has been made on what will happen to the millions of illegal immigrants that currently reside in the United States, but I am sure that the heated debate will become more heated when presidential elections occur. I think this will be the ultimate driving factor for a decision on what will happen with the illegal immigration issue we are witnessing today. There are numerous reasons why people oppose immigration. Some have antiracially motivated objectives. They simply reject imm igrants because of racist notions. Another reason why people opposed both legal and illegal immigration is because they believe that the population levels will increase severely, which will ultimately cause joblessness and an increase in famine and crime within the United States.(1) These reasons are more socioeconomically related. One could say the ultimate reason is due to fear of a negative impact at an individual level as well as a deteriorating environment.

The presentation of individuals and society in the novel, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

Choose two extracts from the novel and use them as a basis for your discussion of one of the following topics: 1. The ways in which places and settings are used in the novel; 2. The presentation of individuals and society in the novel; 3. Stevenson's methods of developing tension and a sense of horror in the novel. For the purposes of my analysis, I have chosen option two: The presentation of individuals and society in the novel. The two extracts that I have chosen for the analysis are: Utterson's first meeting with Mr. Hyde and his subsequent description of him (in the chapter The Search for Mr. Hyde) and an excerpt from the last chapter Henry Jekyll's full statement of the case. In this essay, I am going to discuss how Stevenson presents the individuals and the society in the novel. In order to make a clear interpretation, I am going to be using the novel as well as my background knowledge of the time and context in which the novel was set. I will also review Stevenson's experiences, which might have led to the creation of the story. Firstly, I will examine the society presented by Stevenson in this novel. The entire story revolves around the upper/middle class. There are only hints of other social classes in the form of workers and servants, employed by the rich people. The four main characters of the play have much in common; they are all rich, well-educated and professional men: Utterson is a lawyer; Enfield is a well known man around the town, showing his popularity. Lanyon and Jekyll are both doctors, which shows their high professional status. Another trait that all these men have in common is, they are all cold and distant yet likable. Also, they are all un-married. Below is an extract from the book, outlining Mr. Utterson's personality: Mr. Utterson the lawyer was a man of rugged countenance, that was never lighted by a smile; cold†¦backward in sentiment†¦ and yet somehow lovable. Another interesting fact regarding the novel is, not one of the main characters is a woman, this shows the nature of the society. The society at the time was a male-dominated one. Some have argued that this gives the novel an empty feel. Readers agree that, the severe lack of women from the settings creates unease in the novel, which can be felt slightly. This particular writing trait that Stevenson employs can be linked back to his own childhood, Stevenson had a strong father figure and thus, the imbalance in sexes is noticeable in the writing. In the novel itself, each of the characters face a varying dilemma. Utterson seems at peace with the world and doesn't want a wife whereas, Jekyll seems to change into Hyde because he is sexually frustrated. Jekyll is one character who would be content with a wife. Here, another flaw in the society seems visible; Stevenson's subtle language sets up the male-only society in order to push Jekyll into becoming Hyde. Stevenson exasperates Jekyll and through his tactical writing, he also thoroughly entertains the readers. The main character of the novel seems to be Mr. Utterson. Stevenson writes the novel from Utterson's perspective, events of the novel and the story-line itself is viewed through Utterson's eyes. For example, when the reader first learns about Hyde, it is from Utterson's detailed description. Automatically, the reader then perceives Hyde as Utterson does. The readers are also inclined to feel the same emotions Utterson feels regarding Hyde: †¦the hitherto unknown disgust, loathing and fear in which Mr. Utterson regarded him (Hyde). The interesting factor is that Utterson is never the narrator of the proceedings in the novel. However, he is always involved in some way, even in the scenes where he has no direct role. Another interesting factor is that even though Stevenson doesn't employ Utterson as the narrator, he tailors him with narrator like features: he is calm, considerate and usually emotionless. Stevenson uses him to great effect towards the end, he surprises the readers by turning the passive character of Utterson, suddenly into an active member of the novel. The author reveals the other side of Utterson's character as being decisive and strong, and this allows the reader to be further interested in the novel: I must and shall see you†¦ if not by fair means than by foul – if not of your consent, then by brute force! Another key character in the novel is Dr. Lanyon. He is only thrust into action when Hyde goes to visit him. Stevenson heightens the drama of the story by not allowing Lanyon to confide his experiences to Utterson and the readers. The reader is made desperate to know what Lanyon refers to as: it could kill a man by its mere presence. The reader later gathers that he is referring to Hyde. After Lanyon watches Hyde transform to Jekyll, Lanyon's whole demeanour changes to a dying man, but he never reveals the cause for his sudden ill-health: I have had a shock and I shall never recover. It is a question of weeks†¦ There could be two possible reasons why Lanyon doesn't reveal the truth; he may believe that by divulging the details he may tarnish the old friendship between himself and Dr. Jekyll. However, this reason doesn't seem very likely because the friendship between the two was long lost. Below is a perfect example, showing that the friendship is long gone (Jekyll's thoughts about Lanyon): †¦that hide-bound pedant, Lanyon, at what he called my scientific heresies. The second simpler reason could be that, Lanyon believes even if he did divulge any details, people would not believe his claims. He is worried that he may be labelled a lunatic, and obviously wants to avoid that predicament. Stevenson has used masterly language in order to construct the characters of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. His language clearly conveys them as two separate people yet it also outlines the gigantic difference between them. Early on in the story, Jekyll informs the readers about his theory regarding Hyde: Man is not truly one but truly two. Throughout the novel, Stevenson conveys Hyde as the lower instinct and id form of Jekyll. The author wants the readers to believe that Hyde is a selfish, animal side of Jekyll. This strange phenomenon could be linked back to Stevenson's childhood. In that circumstance Stevenson being the mischievous child representing Hyde and Stevenson's father being upstanding and respected, representing Jekyll. Hyde also seems to rebel with Jekyll like Stevenson did with his father. Stevenson wanted to be an author, but his father was against such a career but Stevenson became one anyway: Jekyll had more than a father's interest; Hyde had more than a son's indifference. To make the novel a success, the foundations must be strong; this relies on the fact that the reader perceives Jekyll and Hyde, as Stevenson wants him to. The author wants the characters to be completely different, yet be the same person, and to convey this Stevenson uses descriptive language: (Jekyll) Every mark of capacity and kindness†¦ AND A large, well-made, smooth-faced man of fifty†¦ On the other hand, there is a stark appearance between Jekyll's description and Hyde's: (Hyde) He had borne himself with a murderous mixture of timidity and boldness AND There was something wrong with his appearance; something displeasing, something downright detestable. Now as we can understand from the above quotations, Stevenson uses alliteration to convey the descriptions of both the characters. Some examples are- downright detestable; murderous mixture. This vivid language leads the reader to believe in Jekyll and Hyde. The author conveys Hyde as being completely opposite of Jekyll, even through the name. Hyde is a monster hidden within Jekyll. The more dramatic interpretation would be conveyed as a struggle between good and evil. It seems clear that Hyde is always present in Jekyll: at the start of the novel he just hasn't been released and thus, Jekyll had complete control of the situation. The problem arises when Jekyll starts taking the metamorphic potion; at this point Hyde emerges and begins to take control. It's clear that Hyde gains strength from the actions of Jekyll; this point is further enhanced if the reader concentrates on Hyde's appearance. Hyde doesn't seem to be a tall person, and thus his character is not strong enough to challenge Jekyll. However, Hyde's continued nourishment through Jekyll's weaknesses means that eventually Hyde becomes increasingly potent: The balance of my nature might be permanently overthrown†¦ and the character of Edward Hyde become irrevocably mine. This revelation proves that, the metamorphic potion is truly a changing potion, it reverts Jekyll to a weaker character of Hyde. Once Jekyll starts taking the potion, the characters of Jekyll and Hyde become vague and unclear: it even seems that both the characters want to be separate. An example of that is when Jekyll refers to Hyde as him not I. From Jekyll's language it seems that Hyde is no longer a part of Jekyll but someone else. Finally, Jekyll explains that the character of Hyde is completely different; in a sense Jekyll lets Hyde do whatever he pleases, without the fear of consequences or society: †¦ the liberty, the comparative youth, the light step, leaping pulses and secret pleasures that I had enjoyed in the disguises of Edward Hyde. Thus, the position of Hyde in the novel is grotesque and mysterious. He stands apart from the rest of the society; he is ugly, disturbing and unlovable. So, Jekyll is able to enjoy two positions in the society, one being in the centre and the other being on the extreme edge. In conclusion, Stevenson conveys both his own rebelling and then escaping aspects in the novel. Stevenson rebelled by roaming the streets of Edinburgh at night and then escaped to Samoa. Stevenson also constructs the society to an odd proportion, by placing no women in it; this seems to reflect a classical hypocritical Victorian society. However, throughout the novel the atmosphere seems to be perfect for the Jekyll/Hyde situation and thus, makes the novel a fantastic read.

The First African-American Church in the U.S.

The African Methodist Episcopal Church, also called AME Church, was established by the Reverend Richard Allen in 1816. Allen founded the denomination in Philadelphia to unite African-American Methodist churches in the North. These congregations wanted to be free from white Methodists who historically had not allowed African-Americans to worship in desegregated pews.   As founder of the AME Church, Allen was consecrated  as its first bishop. The AME Church is a unique denomination in the Wesleyan tradition--it is the only religion in the western hemisphere to develop from the sociological needs of its members. It is also the first African-American denomination in the United States. God our Father, Christ our Redeemer, Man our Brother —David Alexander Payne Organizational Mission Since its establishment in 1816, the AME Church has worked to minister to the needs--spiritual, physical, emotional, intellectual and environmental--of people. Using liberation theology, the AME seeks to help those in need by preaching the gospel of Christ, providing food for the hungry, providing homes, encouraging those who have fallen on hard times as well as economic advancement, and providing employment opportunities to those in need. The History of the AME Church In 1787, the AME Church was established out of the Free African Society, an organization developed by Allen and Absalom Jones, who led African-American parishioners of St. Georges Methodist Episcopal Church to leave the congregation because of the racism and discrimination they faced. Together, this group of African-Americans would transform a mutual aid society into a congregation for people of African descent. In 1792, Jones founded the African Church in Philadelphia, an African-American church free from white control. Desiring to become an Episcopal parish, the church opened in 1794 as the African Episcopal Church and became the first black church in Philadelphia. However, Allen wanted to remain Methodist and led a small group to form the Mother Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church in 1793. For the next several years, Allen fought for his congregation to worship free from white Methodist congregations. After winning these cases, other African-American Methodist churches  that were also encountering racism wanted independence. These congregations to Allen for leadership. As a result, these communities came together in 1816 to form a new Wesleyan denomination known as the AME Church. Before the abolition of slavery, most AME congregations could be found in Philadelphia, New York City, Boston, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Washington D.C. By the 1850s, the AME Church had reached San Francisco, Stockton, and Sacramento. Once slavery ended, the AME Churchs membership in the South increased tremendously, reaching 400,000 members by 1880 in states such as South Carolina, Kentucky, Georgia, Florida, Alabama and Texas. And by 1896, the AME Church could boast membership on two continents--North America and Africa--as there were churches established in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and South Africa. AME Church Philosophy The AME Church follows the doctrines of the Methodist Church. However, the denomination follows the Episcopal form of church government, having bishops as religious leaders. Also, since the denomination was founded and organized by African-Americans, its theology is based on the needs of people of African descent. Early Notable Bishops Since its inception, the AME Church has cultivated African-American men and women who could synthesize their religious teachings with a fight for social injustice. For example,  Benjamin Arnett addressed the 1893 Worlds Parliament of Religions, arguing that people of African descent have helped develop Christianity.  Additionally,  Benjamin Tucker Tanner wrote, An Apology for African Methodism in 1867 and The Color of Solomon in 1895. AME Colleges and Universities Education has always played an important role in the AME Church. Even before slavery was abolished in 1865, the AME Church began establishing schools to train young African-American men and women. Many of these schools are still active today and include senior colleges Allen University, Wilberforce University, Paul Quinn College, and Edward Waters College; junior college, Shorter College; theological seminaries, Jackson Theological Seminary, Payne Theological Seminary and Turner Theological Seminary. The AME Church Today The AME Church now has membership in thirty-nine countries on five continents. There are currently twenty-one bishops in active leadership and nine general officers who oversee various departments of the AME Church.