Response to Question 3 from Chapter 1:
First, I'd like to say that the idea of the author is very new and interesting to me. This question of expertise really gets me thinking. What makes someone an expert on a topic? My initial reaction is to say education (a.k.a getting a degree in a certain field). But perhaps there is more to this concept of expertise, after all there are many areas in which one could be considered an "expert" without any training or education at all (eg. relationships). Further more, anyone can share what they have to say about anything; there are no prerequisites to writing a book or creating a website.
The last part of this question also sparks my interest. Especially the words "emotional" and "unpatriotic" being used to lessen the authority of discourse really gets me ticked off. I find many books that could be described by these two terms more interesting than works that would be described by opposing terms. Putting the label "emotional" on a work to discourage the public from taking it seriously is (seriously) bullshit. When hearing this, one would be lead to believe that emotions are frowned upon (let alone questioning and going against the norm of our country; "unpatriotic"). I'm not sure that statements made without emotions to back them are worth listening to. After all, we are human and emotions fuel most of what we do and how we interact on a day-to-day basis.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You will be pleased to know that Cultural Studies draws very heavily on emotional response.
Back to your opening point though, when we combine academic credential with authority, what are we perhaps forgetting to examine?
Post a Comment