Quindlen's principal aim seems to be an expression of her own feelings projected upon the fabric of American society. Her article asks several times, "Who are we?", and then attempts to answer. In that sense the article is "referential" and "exploratory." The boundaries are blurred with the "expressive" as she rocks back and forth between personal anecdotes and her perception of how Americans have dealt with the tragedy. In large part these anecdotes are a way of reaching out to grasp her audience. She invites her audience to identify with her and then uses that identity to speak for the American people. She constructs her audience through that empathy, an audience of anyone touched by the events of 9-11. In that respect, the text's aim relies heavily on audience construction. Only those people that care about 9-11 will care about the article.
This text complicates the principal divisions James Kinneavy sets out in "The Basic Aims of Discourse" as noted above. The significance of this lies in the nuances of purpose contained in the article. There seems to be a catharsis for Quindlen in the writing of the article. It's something personal to her that only peripherally touches her larger audience. In that sense she is her own audience. There is also the aspect of the exploratory. This includes the larger audience in the realization that there can be no real resolution of the issue. Quindlen uses terms such as bifurcated, split, of two minds and others to describe the American psyche post 9-11. She explores the ramifications of such a split and offers up suggestions for living with the unresolved conflict of being. In that sense the article is persuasive. Quindlen urges her readers to make September 11 something different from 9-11. As she says, "life goes on."
I'm really interested in Quindlen's point that we should make September 11 different from 9-11. Is that the part of her article that you would identify as "exploratory?" Perhaps, after a cathartic and expressive piece, she is offering making that distinction as a solution to aid healing?
ReplyDeleteI did my short assignment #2 on this article as well, and definitely agree that Quindlen is a catharsis. She is certainly showing tons of emotion, and sharing her feelings--at times, it seems as though she is doing this for therapeutic reasons. Although, I do agree that some of the article (like her own personal experiences with her kids) do not pertain to her audience directly, but the September 11th attack as a whole clearly touches many Americans head on. Do you feel that when she is talking about the attacks alone that she is still her own audience, or do you feel that she is then speaking to the American public?
ReplyDeleteI think your point about Quindlen's article as a cathartic tool is quite valid. And we, her audience, are drawn into her world because she is quite so candid in her writin, which I think says much about the empathy that she creates. Do you think that empathy is a vital tool for the writer? If so, is it possible that this development of empathy might be hindered by her excessive use of phrases that are divisive- such as bifurcated- for these phrases unconsciously split her readers as well and harm the potential for a unified audience? Or is this overcome by the shared experience of the September 11th attacks? I do agree that this article does split the neatly designed divisions brought out by Kineavy, though.
ReplyDelete