Last week’s in-class discussion about John Swales’ “Concept of Discourse Community” left me with a lot of unanswered and thought-provoking questions. In regard to the case of ‘The Café Owner Problem’, I completely agreed with Swales belief that even if the members never have any form of direct communication or interaction, they may still form a discourse community. Through this example, I believe that the second characteristic that Swales states - “a discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members” (Swales, John M. "The Concept of Discourse Community." Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Boston: Cambridge UP, 1990. 466-73. Print.) - can be removed altogether.
AOPA is a non-profit political organization that advocates for general aviation. The association maintains all of Swales’ characteristics of a discourse community, although I personally do not uphold the second characteristic, ‘communication with other members’. Regardless of this lack of interaction, I feel that I am still a rightful part of the discourse community.
The first characteristic states that a “discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals” (Swales, John M. "The Concept of Discourse Community." Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Boston: Cambridge UP, 1990. 471. Print.). AOPA’s most common goal is that it “protects the freedom to fly” (About AOPA." AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION. AOPA, n.d. Web. 08 July 2013.). They protect the freedom of over 400,000 pilots by focusing their resources on finding solutions in government and in the community to ensure the long-term health of general aviation. This information is found on their website’s ‘About AOPA’ page and is accessible to everyone.
The organization has several settings in which its members can participate in intercommunication, the second characteristic of a discourse community. Some of these are: ‘fly-in’ meetings, seminars, air shows, social networking events, online blogs and political discussions. I do not participate in any of these, however, I regularly take part the polls and voting features on the AOPA website. These are usually to get the members’ opinions and vote on current issues affecting general aviation, such as the federal budget cut resulting in the removal of control towers at a large number of airports across the country, leaving them uncontrolled. Taking part in these polls and votes online allows me to maintain an influential level of interaction within the association even though I do not communicate with the other members.
AOPA successfully satisfies the third characteristic through its extensively detailed website and and magazine. Both of these are the organization’s key means of providing information regarding current issues, tips for pilots, or new advancements in technology to its members. The website is also an important tool to provide feedback to any member through their accounts.
The fourth pillar of a discourse community is that it utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims. This is met by AOPA through the different types of meetings and events they hold. From political discussion seminars to social networking events, the ‘genre’ of the events alters the mood in which the members communicate aviation-related discussions with each other.
The association uses specific terminology that is not fully understood by individuals outside the community. Although the fourth characteristic states that a discourse community should have some specific lexis within its community, these terms may be understood by other discourse communities that lie in the same industry or intellectual domain. For example, AOPA and its members regularly use diction such as NTSB, FAA, ATC, etc. however, there are other discourse communities that use these lexical terms too. The General Aviation Manufacturer’s Association (GAMA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are a few of these discourse communities.
AOPA strongly follows the last pillar of a discourse community. There is a well-balanced ratio of the number of aviation experts, highly-experienced pilots and influential ambassadors to the number of general members of the organization. There is also a consistent influx and outflow of members as they learn to fly or retire from flying.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that a discourse community can exist without fulfilling the second pillar of Swales’ definition of a discourse community. Having said that, its members should maintain some sort of interaction or influence - whether it be direct or indirect - on the communities’ decisions and the process of achieving its goals.
Rahil, I am glad you talked about the second second Swales'
ReplyDeletecharacteristic about the intercommunication because I was
still confused about the Cafe Owners case. I felt like he was
contradicting himself later in the work, when he said that
discourse community members don't necessarily need to
have any form of interaction.