Being someone who just recently took
the leap towards vegetarianism myself, extensively researching and taking
advantage of my available resources, I see multiple issues arise throughout the
article My Journey To Being A Vegetarian.
In the article, Jessica Dupee—a Theatre and Business Management student at
Ashland University takes her readers through a personal account of her
conversion to a vegetarian lifestyle. With its’ appearance on the Odyssey—an
online media publication with over fifteen million writers and users, My Journey To Being A Vegetarian offers
an amateur perspective on vegetarianism (e.g. influence/sway, loose
expectations, relativity) with plenty articles alike falling close behind. The
abundance of them featured on the website, allows audiences to read about varying
experiences and stances on the same topic. The Odyssey runs as a volunteer
based site, receiving thousands of submissions a day with the convenience of “no
barriers and approvals” or subscription fee(s). With the ease of this online
publication, as well as the words “Hear People” provided on their homepage,
it’s evident that quantity over quality is valued.
Without grounded credentials or proof of expertise on
the subject at hand, Dupee’s motives appear as a desire to share her experience
and an effective outlet to do so. By writing the text in plain style, the
author is allowing inclusivity through high readability and low grade level. While
providing [assumed] sufficient understanding seems well intentioned within this
context, it oversimplifies the complexity that exists within the realm of
vegetarianism. Like a majority of plain styled text, simplicity pulls away from
a full comprehension and presents topics in a more “scratch of the surface”
type of way. If you’re looking for one individual’s overview of a pick and
choose diet, this article may be for you.
Before diving into the problematic issues
that arise in this article, it’s important I acknowledge my own lack of
credentials in dietary nutrition. I present this critique as a means to
challenging the function of plain style within this article and similar
contexts. While the author is unsuccessful in providing grounded evidence, she
does present her own personal truth in the form of experience.
From the very
beginning of the article, Dupee states “I’ve always been a picky eater. And
like many people, I grew up eating all sorts of animal products.” However,
almost immediately after, she contradicts herself by mentioning “I wasn’t much
of a meat eater and I don’t like eggs…” Right away, this brings up questions—if
she did indeed grow up eating animal products than what does that leave after
meat and eggs? The plain text she uses generalizes her statements to the point
of confusion or lack of specificity and understanding. Audiences who aren’t
familiar with the concept of “animal products” would be left uninformed and
likely unsure. Additionally, the author often uses veganism and vegetarianism
interchangeably—without stopping to differentiate the two. Without the
appropriate knowledge—knowledge that general readers may not have, the
difference between a vegan and vegetarian diet may not be apparent. For
example, within the second paragraph of the article, Dupee states “My first
interest sparked after two of my friends had stopped eating meat and could only
say good things about their experience”, however the next reference mentions
her research on veganism—something very much separate from vegetarianism. While
it’s most common for individuals to adapt to vegetarianism (no meat) first as a
transition to veganism (no animal products), Dupee presents the opposite. Although
this is very well acceptable, her explanation demonstrates a lack of knowledge
in her dietary decisions and in turn a reduced understanding for readers. Not
only this, but it leaves room for potential misunderstanding as well.
The author illustrates vegetarianism more so as a
choice that falters weekly, monthly, and yearly instead of one that comes from
a variety of ethical, environmental, and purposeful lifestyle choices. There is
little to no reference to other pathways to arriving at this dietary decision.
The rather direct quote “So now you might ask- why? For the animals. For the environment. For
my health. Because I care, that's why”, we’re left with more questions of why
than what she claims to have answered throughout her article. In addition,
Dupee encourages readers who are considering a vegetarian or veganism diet to
keep on trying despite the difficulty, however the author completely dismisses
the health challenges and risks that come with involving your body into such a
drastic change. This is an example of how plain style has downplayed the
intricacy of the subject. Even though this can be argued as harmless within the
context of the Odyssey, the simplification of text in specific contexts can be
used to withdraw information, manipulate (through a lack of explanation),
and/or neglect a reader’s existing knowledge. Without informing her audience on
the body’s potential reaction to the diet, not only is there risk for
individuals to enter vegetarianism or veganism with wrongful motives, but they
may be putting their own health in danger.
Regardless of my own
views on My Journey To Being A Vegetarian, it would be wrong to say there isn’t benefit to this offhand resource.
It allows individuals with accessibly to the internet to read one person’s
experience in a way that’s considerably clear and concise. I would believe this
article would function better when paired with scientific or academic research
on vegetarianism. With that being said, my argument brings up the question of
whether firsthand accounts or expert advice is more effective in providing
individuals on the fence information (and can veganism be considered
vegetarianism?). Also, it’s good acknowledge the controversy that comes with
one’s own personal definition and guidelines of a meatless and/or animal
product free diet. Keeping this in mind, it’s difficult to critique Dupee when
there’s a very personalized element to this topic and no set standards.
As other styles also demonstrate, plain text brings
up questions of moral, ethical, and political implication. Morally and
ethically, the clarification and accessibility of plain style creates
opportunity for those without the privilege of a higher education. However,
this clarification may not be enough, and there may be a need for further
comprehension to make sense of the text beyond it’s singular existence. This
may also mean pulling out bits and pieces of information that constructs a
deceptive, simplified, and washed version of text. Broadly speaking, plain
style exchanges credibility for clearness—essentially presenting a “dumbing
down” of words. This may be used to purposely maneuver individuals away from
the significance of words or water them down altogether. Politically, this
style can be seen positively as it can widen its audience for participation and
inclusion or negatively by generalizing complex issues.
-Abby Walkush
No comments:
Post a Comment