oops... i just kinda got scolded for not posting on my blog enough and it's true: i quite often miss the "post once a week" mark. part of the reason why is that i find myself wanting to write posts "of substance." for whatever reason, i don't find weekly updates to be "of substance" enough in this particular forum. i think i might be wrong in this thinking and i've decided this post might be a good medium for really interrogating this perspective.
what, in writing, really counts as "of substance?" in fact, what counts as writing? i've found that in my interviews and conversations with coworkers, many of whom write quite a bit for work, they, too, often don't identify as writers, or don't identify certain types of writing as "real writing." when asked why, they often say things like:
- this kind of writing doesn't count the way that academic writing might.
- does emailing count as writing?
- much of what i do is regular writing, like everyday writing that everybody does, so i don't think i'm a writer.
- i never really thought of myself as a writer, but you're right... i do write a lot for work, so maybe i am...
academia seems to set up a hierarchy of writing where professional and publishable ("scholarly") writing has more worth than other kinds of writing. but in terms of our epistemic interactions with the world, wouldn't you say that things like writing a grocery list or sending emails to our friends and significant others, or texting people are quite a bit more "of substance" than, say, publishing in a journal? it makes me wonder how, as people, our abilities to measure value and substance are skewed by the contexts we inhabit. then again, maybe my measure of "of substance" in the context of this blog is measured by what i think the audience (primarily people visiting the GSE admissions page) might be interested in reading. and maybe that group is interested as much in the daily life of someone like me as in these more specific "issues"-y posts? i really don't know...
No comments:
Post a Comment