You quickly glance over your notes for the last time before the test. You know you have done all you can; you made flashcards, copied down notes, and read over your book. Now all that is left to do is regurgitate that information on to the Scantron sheet. But did you ever question the information that was presented to you by your professor and your book? Like mostly students, you probably just accepted it and encoded it into your brain. Does this blind acceptance of presented material help or hurt us in our efforts to solve problems? Dr. Lakshman Yapa, a professor at our very own university, discusses his views, specifically in regard to the issue of poverty, in his essay entitled Visualization of Discourse Theory. Dr. Yapas main argument is that in some instances, the way that we understand a problem is the very reason we cannot fix it. He says that the problem of poverty as we currently know it cannot be solved (Yapa 2). The discourse surrounding poverty has been constructed through discursive selection, discursive aggregation, and discursive differentiation. When someone attempts to converse with another human, they must identify the object which they desire to talk about. The way they identify that object (that red thing, that pen, that writing utensil, that long thing, etc.) is completely up to the speaker. They discursively select the characteristic that they aim to highlight in the object. What we select to bring to ones attention in an object can affect the conclusions drawn about that object tremendously. Dr. Yapa uses the example of two identical maps of Philadelphia, each presenting different demographic information. One map shows the varying levels of poverty in each region. The other map shows the varying levels of unemployment in each region. Dr. Yapa does not claim that one map is not wrong while DiPietro 2 the other is right, but that discursive selection is crucial to how knowledge is constructed. The conclusions drawn from each map regarding the same city are different because of the information chosen to be presented. There are no elemental units in our world, and we discursively aggregate in order to make sense of our world. Without this, we would have no way of discussing things and definitely no way of conversing. Dr. Yapa uses the example of the word North America. The landmass of North America of course existed before we named it, but now we can say the word North America and most will know what we are referring to. Discursive aggregation must be used with caution because one person could potentially group an object that another does not under the same umbrella. Discursive differentiation is the final way in which we come to understand an object. We must name the object in order to differentiate it from everything surrounding it. By differentiating the object from its surroundings, we are differentiating it from everything it is not. Dr. Yapas essay is a persuasive paper in which he makes the argument that the way in which we understand a problem may hinder our ability to solve it. He makes is argument in a variety of ways, one being reminding his readers of his creditability. The first sentence of the paper starts off, As a teacher, a researcher, and an activist (Yapa 1). Right off the bat, Yapa is establishing his creditability with his readers. Throughout the piece, he interjects things like the amount of time he has been teaching and personally studying this material. When making a controversial point, Yapa often brings in an experts opinion on the matter. For example, Yapa walks his audience through his thought process, then says, This is the larger point that Foucault (1973) makes in his DiPietro 3 classic book, The Order of Things (Yapa 8). If the audience has any doubts about Yapas ideas, their mouths are immediately shut by the experts opinion. Yapa waits until the conclusion to use any statistics. He draws figures about world poverty from the Census Bureau and The World Bank. The point he intends to make is successful: the issue of poverty is not getting better. His argument that our understanding of poverty is working against its solution is validated through the high percentages of poverty stricken human beings. We can assume that he hopes that the readers will make this connection and realize that how we understand problems can hinder our abilities to solve them. In Dr. Yapas introduction, he says that Visualization of Discourse Theory is primarily meant for undergraduates and teachers who incorporate discourse theory in their undergraduate teaching (Yapa 3). Clearly, he wishes to in some way influence undergraduate students with his ideas. In one part of his essay, Yapa appeals to presumably teachers when he explains a video that goes along with the lesson. He says that he uses the video to illustrate the concept, a piece of advice that could be employed by any undergraduate teacher reading the paper. Yapa clearly keeps this part of his audience in mind throughout his piece. Yapa also appeals to the audience of undergraduate students in the paper. He is aware that the information being presented is like nothing they have ever heard before. For this reason, Yapa often outlines the plan of the essay before actually diving into the topics. He gives the students a glimpse of what to expect, and he helps them prepare for a point to be made. Dr. Yapa also sympathizes with his audiences naivet. Throughout the essay, he can be seen saying things such as At first this may seem a bit convoluted, DiPietro 4 but (Yapa 11). He does not expect his audience to grasp the concepts the second after they are presented. Yapa is aware of their background knowledge about the subject: none in most cases. My undergraduates would respect Dr. Yapas tone throughout the essay. He comes off as respectable, yet playful, just the way he actually is as a professor. His essay is easy to follow because he sets up plans for his paper in introductory paragraphs. At one point, he starts to talk about a subject, then says, more on that later (Yapa 2). Just as reading the chapter in a book before it is taught in a class is helpful, subtly introducing topics before they are presented is greatly appreciated by his audience. Without his structured paper, undergraduates may find themselves lost in the whirlwind of novel ideas. Along with the handholding tactic, Dr. Yapa also walks the undergraduates through examples that illustrate his points. Without these simple examples, I for one would have lost him at many times. Yapa closes the paper with how discourse theory changes his understanding of issues such as poverty. This personal touch brings readers back in from a twenty-six pages of ideas and examples. It allows them to focus on the main topic at hand. Dr. Yapa chooses to target undergraduates with his paper because he can influences them the most out of any other age group. Undergraduates are impressionable. They have not been exposed to enough of the world to formulate their own opinions about issues such as poverty. Yapas paper and course are amazing things to be exposed to as an undergraduate. He teaches his students not to accept information when it is presented. He teaches them to question the sources of the information and to actually think about what they are learning. If anything is gained from Visualization of Discourse DiPietro 5 Theory, it should be the ability to look at a problem in a different way and think of solutions from there. We can assume that Dr. Yapa aims to educate his undergraduates at how to think from multiple perspectives. This skill will certainly serve them well in whatever profession they decide to pursue. Dr. Yapa may also have a more selfish goal in mind by writing this essay for undergraduate students. As young people searching for a cause to dedicate their lives to, he may be trying to convince them to join forces in the fight against poverty. In his paper, poverty is presented as a complicated, layered problem in need of fresh minds to think of a solution. His essay and course at Penn State may serve as a type of recruitment process. His passion is able to be spread to many others who may not have even known it was a job option. As summed up perfectly by Dr. Yapa, the world is in need. Poverty is a rising issue on our world, and it is in need of the younger generations dedication. According to Global Issues, almost half of the world lives on less than $2.50 a day. You cannot even buy a bag of grapes at McLanahans for that much money. Research more about current actions being taken Dr. Yapas paper would have looked and sounded completely differently if it had been written for say, his colleagues. Just as in the classroom, he remembers his audience members are about nineteen years old and presents the information accordingly. Yapa walks the undergraduates through his carefully developed ideas, and it gives them a sense of what it was like for him to develop these ideas on his own. This tactics keeps the audience interested in what conclusions Yapa will help them draw next. He opts to support his arguments with expert opinions and the creditability established by his DiPietro 6 experience. Overall, Visualization of Discourse Theory is a well-organized paper that caters to its intended audience. Its points are very well received because of its organization and the creditability of Dr. Yapas argument.
DiPietro 7 Bibliography Shah, Anup. "Poverty Facts and Stats." Global Issues. N.p., 07 Jan. 2013. Web. Oct. 2013. Yapa, Lakshman. Visualization of Discourse Theory. N.p., Summer 2013. Web. Oct. 2013.