Reading :: Genre Studies around the Globe

Genre Studies around the Globe: Beyond the Three Traditions
Edited by Natasha Artemeva and Aviva Freedman

This edited collection, as promised, draws from scholars across the globe to examine multiple traditions of genre theory and research. North American genre scholars will recognize authors such as Swales, Bhatia, Martin, Bazerman, Miller, Bawarshi, Giltrow, Rose, Tardy, Johns, Devitt, and Freadman, but we also see plenty of others across the 18 chapters. 

Since the collection largely features senior scholars, we see a lot of summing up in these chapters. For instance, Bazerman's chapter features a retrospective in which he discusses his journey to understanding and developing genre theory, while Miller's critically examines a metaphor (evolution) that has guided some genre theory. We also see a lot of overviews and histories of genre approaches. I think these contributions are important and could position the book well for, say, a class on genre theory. On the other hand, the strength is also a weakness: like most collections, this one had a hard time pulling together a unified theme and the overview-ishness of most chapters means that they sum up rather than offering new developments. Still, a worthwhile volume. If you're interested in genre theory, certainly pick it up.

Reading :: The Origin of Language

The Origin of Language: Tracing the Evolution of the Mother Tongue
By Merritt Ruhlen

I found this 1994 book fascinating, but not entirely for its subject matter. Merritt Ruhlen studied with the late Joseph Greenberg, who advanced the controversial idea that all extant languages can be traced to a single language. Ruhlen took up that standard, but by his account, "these proposals do not enjoy wide acceptance within the linguistic establishment, where, in fact, they are almost universally condemned as 'futile,' 'subversive,' or worse" (p.125). Aggrieved, Ruhlen concludes that the linguistic establishment is wrong and their reasoning faulty, and he brings his case to us, the public. 

To make the case, he provides us with carefully curated tables that allow us to compare words in different languages. Through this approach, he walks us first through comparing European languages (Ch.1) while providing the basics on how languages change; then through language families, specifically in Asia and (native) Americas (Ch.2); then the idea of families of families of languages (Ch.3), noting that linguists do not believe that families of languages are related to each other—and congratulating us on seeing through "one of the great hoaxes of twentieth-century science" (p.66). In Ch.4, he examines Native American language families, concluding that these belong to different families-of-families common with the rest of the world, and in Ch.5, he argues that the evidence suggests "a single origin for all extant human languages" (p.104). Ch.6 reviews the conflict he and Greenberg have with the linguistic establishment, which contends that languages change too much for comparison to be useful past about 6000 years (cf. p.76). He points to relatively new evidence that the three North American language families correspond to genetics and to teeth (p.166), arguing that all three lines of evidence point to three distinct waves of immigration that made up what we call Native Americans. 

So what do we, the public, think of this line of argument? Despite Ruhlen's attempt to teach me the basics of linguistic comparisons, I am not confident in my newfound ability to compare languages and language families. This controversy is relatively easy to explain, but I — and, I think, most of the rest of the public — are not equipped to judge it on its merits or on the evidence that Ruhlen provides. I'm also not convinced by Ruhlen's explanation for why the linguistic establishment is unpersuaded—my suspicion is that if I were to talk to members of this establishment in 1994, they would have plenty of other reasons that Ruhlen did not discuss. A quick scan of his Wikipedia page suggests that this intuition is correct.

All this doesn't mean that I am taking sides! I am just intrigued by the idea of bringing a bitter disagreement from your specialty to the court of public opinion, a court that has neither the training nor the investment to make a ruling. It's a proposition that is doomed to fail, but maybe that's why I enjoyed reading it.

Reading :: Awful Archives

Awful Archives: Conspiracy Theory, Rhetoric, and Acts of Evidence
By Jenny Edbauer

What could be more timely than a book on how conspiracy theorists argue? In this highly readable book, Jenny Edbauer recounts her time in the archives of conspiracy theorists as well as her interviews with them, examining how they make claims, cite evidence, and respond to others' arguments. In examining conspiracy theories about ESP experiments, the hollow Earth, the Stargate project, the Holocaust, 9/11, the Apollo moon landing, President Obama's birthplace, and Pizzagate, Edbauer examines evidence not as a foundational material on which to build arguments, but in terms of acts, processes, and registers. 

Based on these investigations, she urges us to think of evidence as "composed of actions that build and move in many different registers, both material and affective. They are structures in motion" (Kindle loc 3635). Evidentiary structures and processes, she argues, are "embedded within larger public scenes" (ibid.). In her final chapter, she suggests that the method of debunking conspiracy theories offered by "debate culture" -- that of providing evidence and demonstrating its solidity -- is not effective, since debate culture always loses to theater in the eyes of conspiracy theorists (loc. 3635). For an example, she points to Lenny Pozner, whose son was murdered at Sandy Hook. When conspiracy theorists portrayed him as a crisis actor and claimed that his son was either still alive or nonexistent, Pozner initially responded by posting his son's birth certificate and providing other evidence. After years of such attempts, he switched tactics: whenever he saw his son's photo on a conspiracy posting, he reported it as a copyright violation. This tactic -- responding to the structures and processes of social media platforms rather than to a neutral, dispassionate audience that didn't exist -- worked. 

For those of us who are still hopeful about the role of evidence, this book is dispiriting. More to the point, although it helps us to understand this current moment -- in which conspiracy theories are going mainstream, amplified by the President, destroying faith in free and fair elections. Unfortunately, these conspiracy theories have gone so mainstream that the Pozner approach might not be viable: can the structures and processes of social media platforms be gamed when this many people have turned their backs on evidence? 

Should you pick up this book? Definitely.

Reading :: Don't Knock the Hustle

Don't Knock the Hustle: Young Creatives, Tech Ingenuity, and the Making of a New Innovation Economy
By S. Craig Watkins

A fast review today for a fast read. I picked up this book after attending an IC2 meeting with Watkins -- he's currently conducting research on coworking spaces in rural areas. In this book, he lays out his recent research (including research on coworking, but other side hustles) for a general audience. The book is highly readable and takes us on a tour of side gigs and hustles: not just coworking spaces, but also bootstrapping game development, pop music production, schooling, web series, indie movie development, and activism. 

Whereas many research studies focus specifically on the gig economy and its precarity, Watkins' studies connect that economy deeply and appropriately to generation (millennials) and diversity. The book is a fast read, overviewing stories from many different sectors and drawing them together to provide broad insights about the hustle. If you're interested in how the innovation economy is being lived out, definitely pick up this book. Personally, I'm planning to pick up the research articles on which the book was based. 

(I'm still reading)

 I haven't reviewed a book here since October. That doesn't mean I stopped reading -- I've just been cannibalizing my blogging time in order to write on my many projects. But with winter break here, I'll try to catch up on the books I've read recently -- at least 13!