Week 3: Kinneavy is Classification

Good afternoon,

I guess I will begin with a quick narrative, description, and classification of myself for those who do not know me and since I was not present on the first day of class. I am a transportation/city planner by trade and might have taken my undergraduate philosophical training to far by literally attempting to be the philosopher-king of the city. I am interested in how people construct the reality of the automobile, transit, and pedestrian modes (modes defined within the transportation discourse). In any case, I will bring a different “window” into this reality so please feel free argue with me.

I find it interesting that Kinneavy et al. classifies discourse. Kinneavy is classification. However, this approach is flawed. Based on my own opinions, discourse is dynamic and considering that Kinneavy’s “classification” is a static essence approach to discourse then Kinneavy is either incomplete in defining the true totality of discourse or that it will fail as discourse changes. The authors then take the classifications, described each mode, and then evaluate it against the totality of the reality since the modes are essentially imperfect. However, if classification is Kinneavy’s approach to discourse, then all of the texts we read should fit into one, if not multiple modes. In some cases, Kinneavy’s modes did not fit well into some texts or were not applicable. I will describe these misfits below.

Garrett was incomplete with Kinneavy’s modes and stuck somewhere between a narrative and classification. (I was confused about Garrett but that could be because I come from an outsider discipline.) I felt that Garrett set up his articles beginning with narrative approach, but then switches into a classification mode. In essence, Garrett did a poor job in connecting the different modes, but he proves to be a good example of how the different modes overlap in an imperfect reality.

Analyzing Miller’s articles, I would conclude that Kinneavy missed a discourse mode. I would consider Miller to use a binary comparison mode. While evaluations compares between good and evil as one undesirable and one desirable outcome or values, there is a difference when comparing two different, both potentially desirable entities. Although the “high” or phronesis (If I remember my Aristotle correctly, this is “moral thought”) is more desirable than the lower practical approach. Still, while Miller may appear to be evaluative, I believe that her work is actually beyond Kinneavy’s modes.

Hackos and Redish appear to use multiple modes and the chapters are different, but overall both chapters are rather dynamic. Both chapters have some descriptive elements, such as task analysis, but on a whole, they are dynamic elements of reality, which is closer to a narrative. Chapter 3 begins as if it was an evaluation as to achieve a certain goal or goals. Chapter 4 is different. I would consider it to borderline on a new mode much like Miller’s argument. Chapter 4 asserts that there must be a context specific approach, which is dynamic. It would not be descriptive due to the dynamic nature, but it is a form analysis. However, it is neither the history-like narrative nor the criticism-like evaluation. As a result, the Hackos and Redish can be bent into Linneavy’s themes but they are also beyond Linneavy classification as well.

Phaedus is dynamic. It would fall under Kinneavy’s evaluative mode, but it has some of the other modes as well. The evaluative mode is strong in the discussion of love, eroticism, and rhetoric and the differences between desired and correct concepts are clearly noted. The dialogue format is an interesting quirk within the discourse mode. I would consider Socrates evaluative about the use or rhetoric, but also classifies and describes some elements. Phaedrus’s dialogue appears to be a narrative and introduces in a dialectic method that offers a dynamic view of reality while also affirming Socrates argument. This reading may have been the best representative of Kinneavy windows into reality.

Some extra personal comments:

I am still debating where this post is apart of Kinneavy’s modes. I would assume classification but I don’t want to limit it so hopefully I could be an unidentified mode as well.