For the technical/professional writer, audience analysis and an understanding of the workplace concerned are both necessary for effective communication. As Clifford Geertz discusses in his article “Thick Description,” all humans, including the writer himself, view the world through an individual cultural lens. He claims that “anthropological writings are themselves interpretations [….] its source is not social reality but scholarly artifice” (8). It therefore becomes the technical writer’s job to identify the lens through which his audience will read his writing, as well as to identify the lens through which he himself writes. In his writings on ethnography, Geertz asserts that in order to achieve a true understanding of a subject (be it audience, workplace, or sheep), the writer must form a “thick description.” He explains: “The claim to attention of an ethnographic account […rests] on the degree to which he is able to clarify what goes on in such places, to reduce the puzzlement—what manner of men are these—to which unfamiliar acts emerging out of unknown backgrounds naturally give rise” (8). As we have discussed in class, the extent to which we are able to unpuzzle the environment into which we are writing directly determines how far our message will carry. Therefore, thick description helps the technical writer not merely to observe the audience, but to identify the cultural lens through which they view society, and in turn to appeal to that view, making him a successful communicator.
One paper that I would love to revisit and improve is a Sociology paper I wrote about the institutional church. In the paper I identify and analyze discrepancies between church practices (both current and historical) and Biblical truths. Being passionate about this subject, I would love to do some sort of audience/workplace analysis so that I might better communicate. Perhaps one way of doing so would be to conduct a workplace ethnography in a church in order to confirm the way in which they actually perform (most likely also revealing some of my own false assumptions in the process) and in order to hopefully identify the motives behind these actions. This knowledge would help me to handle the subject more efficiently and to explain the subject more “thickly.” As far as my actual reading audience is concerned, though, I am less certain as how to analyze them. Perhaps it would be worth while to identify people’s (both Christians’ and non-Christians’) opinions of the institutional church. I would then be able to more clearly argue the effect of certain church practices.
Anna,
ReplyDeleteI really wish I could have had more time to read your paper because it’s something I can definitely identify with in several ways. Because I share the same beliefs and concerns that are reflected in your paper, I’m impressed that your approach to the topic is direct and research-oriented. Most of the religious material on the market that I’ve read just in general seems to be more of a personal opinion/feelings-based method to persuade people of an idea, and I guess since I’ve been used to that I tend to look for it when I read those kinds of things, so disregard whatever I had mentioned about personal input. I really believe your approach is highly effective for your audience simply because it’s different (at least, in my reading experiences with religious topics). It’s more about getting to the source to find the answers, which gives it more credibility because it provides direction for both receptive and skeptical audiences to look into the topic further and structures how (or if) the audience will receive your argument—your honest effort/trustworthiness could equal time-worthiness for some.
In regards to the topic itself, it would be interesting to study Christian and non-Christian/religious and nonreligious people’s opinions of church institutionalism. In my own experience, I’ve found that, even among Christians who had been involved in institutional churches for their whole lives, there were some who knew nothing about institutionalism. It has so much history, so it’s definitely smart that you pulled that into your paper because I imagine it has greatly influenced the views today. Probably the smartest thing you mentioned in this post, however, is the idea of actually going and doing workplace ethnography or something similar because you could gain some valuable insights and, like you said, reveal any false assumptions you might have. In that case, as far as analyzing your audience, it seems that anything you choose to do to further your own understanding of the topic will in some way benefit you in understanding and communicating effectively with your audience, though everything may not be presented (or presentable) on black and white terms.