Acorns, Embryos and The Official Style
When composing a document of any
sort you must first ask yourself a few questions. Who is my audience? Is it
broad or narrow? Am I writing to a certain demographic, or to readers in
general? Also, what is the purpose of my writing? Am I trying to persuade or
inform? More often than not audience and style may come into contact, and may
even contradict one another. In the case of the paper that
I am going to be analyzing and critiquing, two different components compete,
and butt heads. The overwhelming question is; will official style and
persuasive voice be able to successfully work together, or will one overcome
the other?
Whether
in support of, opposed to, or even completely withdrawn from the topic, most
Americans would agree that the topic of stem cell research, and the use of
embryos to do so is a controversial, and often an emotionally charged subject.
When writing an article or paper that deals with a subject of a controversial
nature, the official style is a key component in sounding educated and
scholarly. The main goal with any
controversial topic is usually to persuade an audience one way or another. The
paper that I will be analyzing comes from a scientific journal called The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology
and Society, and the paper is dutifully named Acorns and Embryos. According
to the journal’s website, “The New Atlantis is an effort to
clarify the nation’s moral and political understanding of all areas of
technology — from stem cells to hydrogen cells to weapons of mass destruction.”
The authors Robert George and Patrick Lee take a scientific and
technological viewpoint on a long-standing emotionally driven topic, and their
goal is to persuade their audience to agree with their viewpoints. The purpose
of their paper was to dispute another argument made by two members of the
President’s Council on Bioethics published in the New England Journal of Medicine. This article features a few
distinct characteristics of the official style, and has many pertinent examples
that I will be discussing as well as critiquing. The question at hand is just how well do the official style
and persuasive voice work together to convince the target audience, and to sway
them one way or another?
When
considering characteristics of the official style one that is frequently used
is the incorporation of jargon into text. Jargon can be defined as “special words or expressions that are used by a particular
profession or group and are difficult for others to understand.” In this
specific article jargon is widely used, and may be widely understood by a
certain demographic of people. However, if the authors are attempting to persuade
an average reader, the use of jargon simply creates a divide. One clear example
of jargon within the article reads, “But what about the claims of Paul McHugh? Is there a morally relevant difference between blastocysts
that come into being by the union of gametes and those that are produced by
somatic cell nuclear transfer?” When considering jargon usage you must first
examine who the target audience is. If the audience is broad, the “average
reader,” will more than likely be dumbfounded as to the definition of
blastocysts, gametes, and possibly
even somatic cell nuclear transfer unless they are well read in the areas of
biology and the human reproductive system. The authors go on to write, “Even if
human embryos are nothing other than embryonic human beings, as we argue and
McHugh agrees, are “clonotes” something other than human embryos?” If the
authors were to put these words in laymen’s terms everyday readers, or people
who are not well learned in the academic areas of biology and genetics would be
much more engaged and interested in the argument being presented. When
determining whom the target audience is, the answer is simply not as cut and
dry as it may seem. There are two very different demographics that may be reading
this piece, one academic and specifically designated group of scholars that particularly
focus on the topics and hand, and another very different demographic that simply
wants to learn more on the subject of stem cell research. These two examples of
jargon exemplify the idea that when using the official language, jargon is
pertinent and frequently used. Although within the bioethics community this
language may be standard, for those that are outside of this circle this
language may only result in confusion, frustration and a clear demographic
divide.
One
final use of the official style within this article focuses on word choice, and tone. The authors of the article are dealing
with an emotionally charged topic, and are attempting to persuade their
audience to agree with their viewpoints. However, consider this example and try
to decipher what the authors are attempting to accomplish. The authors write; “The dispute
would properly be characterized as a debate about the ethics of killing
retarded children to harvest their vital organs. The issue could not be
resolved by considering how many gravely ill non-retarded people could be saved
by extracting a heart, two kidneys, and a liver from each retarded child. The
threshold question would be whether it is unjust to relegate a certain class of
human beings — the retarded — to the status of objects that can be killed and
dissected to benefit others.” This passage is extremely confusing, and
hard to read. Not only are the authors speaking in verbose language, and making
their argument lengthier than necessary by incorporating words like threshold,
and phrases such as, “properly be characterized”, but also their chosen word
choice is inappropriate, and awkward. Although the authors are arguing against
embryonic stem cell research, and are incorporating scientific approaches and
technical language into their argument, when doing so shouldn’t they use a more
scientific term than “retarded?” Their overall tone is cold, removed and
unattached from the subject, which completely contradicts their purpose in
writing the piece. What are the authors’ objectives when phrasing their
argument this way? What do they hope to achieve? The lack of a warm, concerned
and compassionate tone may be a successful example of the impersonal tone often
used when writing in the official style, but it fails at presenting a
persuasive voice.
Although
the main purpose of this article is to dispute other scholars views and
beliefs, the arguments presented would have been portrayed more successfully if
many of the elements of the official style were absent, and replaced with more
personal, and relatable word choices and examples. On one hand it is always
appealing for authors to write in a way that is acceptable and welcomed in the
world of academia, and to appear scholarly and well read on a subject. On the
other hand, if the target audience is a much wider demographic, all jargon, and
inappropriate word choice succeeds at doing is creating discourse. The authors
of this article were attempting to persuade an audience to agree with their
opinions. However, isn’t it easier to persuade a person, or audience if you are
able to make connections with the reader? By using jargon, unnecessary language,
and an impersonal tone the authors may succeed more so at confusing their day
to day readers, rather than convincing them. Although the official style is an
important part of the English language, one must consider the main goal of
their writing when determining whether the official or plain style is more appropriate.
Madeline Marquardt
No comments:
Post a Comment