Bauerlain’s article “Society is Dumbing Down” focuses on examining the literacy and reading habits of the Google Generation. Using a study from the British Library, Bauerlain compares people who grew up after the invention of the Internet (the Google Generation) to those who grew up prior to this time. Halfway through the article, Bauerlain brings in a second source which is optimistic of new reading forms that have been developed by the Google Generation but then jumps right back into negative trends that are lowering literacy in younger generations. The last paragraph of the article also includes today’s general population, reaching the conclusion that “power browsing” is dumbing down society.
The aim of Bauerlain’s article seems to be proving how the Google Generation’s invention of “power browsing” due to new digital technologies is causing the dumbing down of society. While the evidence that Bauerlain provides is enough to question whether “power browsing” is a negative reading development, he doesn’t provide enough evidence to ultimately conclude that it is dumbing down society as a whole and his one inclusion of optimism for new and creative forms of online reading halfway through the article complicates his argument.
In the article “Finding the Good Argument,” Jones says, “What is often missing from these discussions is research, consideration of multiple vantage points, and, quite often, basic logic” (Jones 158). This is largely what is missing from Bauerlain’s argument; Bauerlain introduces much criticism for the Google Generation’s reading habits, but also introduces a small bit of optimism for it. Providing more research and evidence for one of these stances, or even further discussing both of them to view the issue from multiple vantage points could further his argument and make it more effective.
This article had very few grammar and aesthetic errors. Half of the article is composed of direct quotes which do not require line editing, but their organization and how effective including them is can be questioned.
In Paragraphs 1 and 6, Bauerlain provides links to other articles as evidence for his argument. Both of these links are broken and the sentences including the links do not further his argument, especially when the reader cannot access the additional information. The second link especially, from The Chronicle’s Footnoted blog, is not relevant to the article as Bauerlain does not explain why it is included and right after mentioning it jumps back into evidence and quotes from a different article.
The most important issues in this article that need to edited for are a lack of clarification and the length of the article. Bauerlain could provide much more information and proof for how “power browsing” is detrimental to the Google Generation as well as back up his argument that there is also optimism for new and creative forms of online reading. This lack of clarification and further proof for the argument violates Jones’ Burden-of-Proof Rule. Jones says, “If you make an argument, you have to provide evidence to back it up” (Jones 173). Bauerlain fails to do so, hindering his overall argument and complicating for the reader how optimism for this apparently negative trend comes into play here.
This article functions as a public deliberation argument. In his article “I Agree, But…,” McDonald says, “They suggest that, for a rhetorical democracy to flourish, controversies should be welcomed, encouraged, stimulated, and even organized in order to implicate ordinary citizens in government decision making” (McDonald 200). Bauerlain does welcome controversy from his outsides sources by introducing negativity and optimism for “power browsing” but doesn’t provide enough sufficient evidence for either argument, hindering his article as a whole by confusing the article’s aim for the reader. McDonald also states, “The aim of public deliberation therefore need not be to consolidate different points of view but rather to learn, understand, and test a party’s beliefs about an issue by juxtaposing them with those of an opposing party. Thus deliberation has the potential to generate new ways of interpreting a controversy, even when the parties do not arrive at an agreement” (McDonald 200). If Bauerlain included further evidence for both sides of his argument, particularly the optimistic side, he could create a public deliberation piece, opening up the issue for the public to argue each side and introduce new ideas for whether “power browsing” is really as damaging as recent research is showing.
In addition to this article’s stance as a public deliberation argument, it also functions as a human interest issue. Bauerlain is using outside research to call into question whether the Google Generation’s usage of “power browsing” is becoming detrimental to literacy. Literacy is necessary in today’s society and fast changing digital world and if this is hindering younger generations from being literate then it is certainly an issue of human interest for current and future generations. In their article “Ecospeak: Rhetoric and Environmental Politics in America,” Killingsworth and Palmer state, “The emphasis on human interest carries the journalist out of the field of natural science and into the action-oriented fields of social movements and politics” (Killingsworth, Palmer 135). Bauerlain has carried his concerns for the Google Generation’s reading patterns into an issue of human interest, but his lack of proof for both sides of this argument does not raise the social or political movement that it is capable of. By providing more context and evidence for the detriments and benefits of “power browsing,” Bauerlain could take a stronger stance on one of these sides, most likely for the detriments as this is what most of the article focuses on, and take his argument to a further level by providing his own opinion or bringing in more outside sources to suggest a solution to how “power browsing” is negatively affecting literacy. In their article, Killingsworth and Palmer address two issues to the human interest approach, the second of which says that, “…science must solve human problems” (Killingsworth, Palmer 135). Bauerlain’s article is capable of taking a further stance, and while maybe not possible in a single article, this article could still raise possible solutions and discussions of solving the issues of lowered literacy in the Google Generation.
I found many strengths and weaknesses in my abilities as an editor for this assignment and specific article. My strengths lie in being able to recognize weaknesses in Bauerlain’s article where he complicates his argument (when he raises the question of optimism for “power browsing” in his mostly negative article) or fails to provide enough evidence to prove his argument. This strength directly led to my biggest weakness: the assignment guidelines simply said to edit the article’s current content and to reword but not to add additional information. I think Bauerlain’s article is currently too short to sufficiently prove his argument. After viewing the one working link in the article from Steven Johnson in Paragraph 6, there is sufficient evidence both to further prove the argument for how “power browsing” is detrimental to literacy as well as to bring in an entirely new argument (or even a separate article) for how “power browsing” is increasing the amount of literature that a reader can take in and methodically sort through in a quick manner to find the most useful information. If Bauerlain were to raise these further questions and possibly even suggest a solution for one or both sides, his article would be much more thorough in achieving what I understood his aim to be: the Google Generation’s invention of “power browsing” due to new digital technologies is causing the dumbing down of society.
Jones, Rebecca. “Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic?” Writing Spaces:
Readings on Writing. 156-179. Web.
Killingsworth, M. Jimmie, and Jacqueline S. Palmer. “Transformations of Scientific Discourse in the News Media.” In Ecospeak: Rhetoric and Environmental Politics in America. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois U P, 1992. 133-60. Print.
McDonald, James. "I Agree, But...Finding Alternatives to Controversial Projects Through PublicDeliberation."Rhetoric and Public Deliberation. 199-217. Web.
No comments:
Post a Comment