Don Bialostoskys essay, Liberal Education, Writing, and the Dialogic Self

at
Categories
Tags

 

write a 1-1.5 page essay in response to the prompt below (10 points).

From Don Bialostoskys essay, Liberal Education, Writing, and the Dialogic Self:

Voice, as I am defining it, is not so much a matter of how my language relates to me as it is a matter of how my language relates to your language and to the language of others you and I have heard address our topic. Voice is never something speakers have before they speak but something they create by defining a relation to the other voices that have already opened the discussion and to those that wait to enter into it. I amand my selfis created in the course of my assimilating, responding to, and anticipating the voices of others. Language, from the time I first begin to hear it from my parents and siblings and friends and teachers, is always somebody elses first and becomes mine without entirely losing its otherness. (13)

What Bialostosky appears to be saying about voice in the passage above is perhaps a bit different than what most people might say about it. Write an essay in which you explain the following:

What Bialostosky is saying about voice:
Using phrases like Bialostosky believes/argues/advocates/etc., give a detailed explanation of his argument that would make sense to a person outside of this class. Explain what you believe Bialostoskys position to be, incorporating the occasional quote, and offering some examples of how his thoughts about voice might translate to a real-world situation.

Sample Solution

 

Finding Your Voice in a Symphony: Understanding Bialostosky’s Definition

Our concept of voice often centers on individual expression – a unique way of speaking or writing that reflects our inner selves. However, Don Bialostosky, in his essay “Liberal Education, Writing, and the Dialogic Self,” challenges this notion. He argues that voice isn’t a pre-existing essence but rather a dynamic creation shaped by our interactions with the voices of others. Bialostosky proposes a more relational understanding of voice, emphasizing its emergence from a continuous conversation with the world around us.

Bialostosky argues that “voice is never something speakers have before they speak” (13). This challenges the idea of voice as an innate quality. Instead, he suggests that “voice is something they create by defining a relation to the other voices” (13) that have come before and those yet to be heard. Imagine a conversation as a symphony. Each individual voice contributes a unique melody, but the overall harmony arises from the interplay between these voices. Similarly, Bialostosky suggests our own voice isn’t formed in isolation but through a continual dialogue with the voices we encounter.

Bialostosky emphasizes the act of “assimilating, responding to, and anticipating the voices of others” (13) in shaping our own voice. We learn to speak by listening to others, absorbing their language, and using it as a foundation for our own expression. Imagine a child learning to talk. They mimic their parents, siblings, and caregivers, gradually internalizing language patterns and vocabulary. This process of assimilation becomes the building block for the child to develop their own way of communicating.

Furthermore, Bialostosky highlights the importance of “responding” to existing voices. This response can be one of agreement, disagreement, or elaboration. When we engage with the ideas of others, we refine our own understanding and develop our own perspective. For instance, a student writing a research paper doesn’t simply regurgitate facts. They critically analyze the arguments of different scholars, responding to their ideas and forming their own conclusions. This act of responding strengthens the student’s voice and allows them to contribute meaningfully to the ongoing conversation.

Finally, Bialostosky highlights the role of “anticipating” the voices that will enter the discussion. When we write or speak, we consider how our words might be received and interpreted by others. This anticipation shapes the way we choose our language and construct our arguments. Imagine a politician giving a speech. They consider the viewpoints of their audience, anticipating potential objections, and tailoring their message accordingly. This act of anticipation ensures their voice resonates with the audience and contributes meaningfully to the ongoing debate.

Bialostosky’s perspective on voice can be applied to various real-world situations. In a classroom discussion, students don’t simply present pre-formed opinions. They actively listen to their peers, respond to their ideas, and anticipate potential counter-arguments. This process refines their own understanding and allows them to develop a more nuanced voice within the conversation. Similarly, in a social media debate, participants don’t exist in echo chambers. They engage with opposing viewpoints, shaping their own arguments in response to the anticipated counterpoints.

In conclusion, Bialostosky offers a fresh perspective on voice. He argues that it’s not a static possession but a dynamic product of our interactions with the world. Our voices are constantly evolving as we assimilate, respond to, and anticipate the voices of others. This understanding encourages us to view ourselves as participants in a larger conversation, where our unique voice contributes to the richness and complexity of the whole.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer