: The story’s over…Toward a field theory of journalism…
To begin understanding the influence of journalism on culture I think it’s important to consider the concept of noetic field. A noetic field (as defined by James A. Berlin in Writing Instruction in Nineteenth-Century American Colleges) is a “closed system defining what can, and cannot, be known; the nature of the knower; the nature of the relationship between the knower, the known, and the audience; and the nature of language.” Berlin concludes from this (and I agree) that rhetoric “is thus ultimately implicated in all a society attempts. It is at the center of a culture’s activities.”
At any given time there is a dominant noetic field and, therefore, a dominant rhetoric.
I notice that changes in the noetic field can be mapped to changes in writing/rhetoric instruction in American universities (I am not suggesting cause). I also notice that changes in journalism map to these changes in writing instruction and the noetic field. For example, objectivity as a value in discourse arose in journalism and writing instruction at the same moment.
Also at any given time, alternative rhetorics fight for dominance on the margins of the culture. These alternative noetic fields also map to changes in writing instruction and journalism. For example, the expressivist movement (emphasis on personal voice) arose in the universities in the 1960s at the same time writers began practicing the so-called New Journalism. Today, we see civic journalism fighting in margins to influence professional practice at the same time that the classical concerns of rhetoric (taught by professors with PhDs in rhetoric rather than English literature) are returning to academia.
I contend that journalism is the most important discoursive practice in our culture. As such, it reflects and drives the noetic field. And this means that it has a profound, even establishing, effect on the dominant rhetoric. Journalism tells us who the knower is, what he can know, how he can know it, his relationship to an audience, and the nature of language as a medium of thought and expression. When I say that journalism is an under-theorized practice (as I have many times), one of the things I mean to suggest is that most journalists practice their profession without understanding their role in the noetic field.
In civic journalism, I see the possibility for a change in the noetic field–something that hasn’t happened for about 100 years.
UPDATE (9:26 a.m.): Although he doesn’t use the term, Jay Rosen’s latest essay concerns the concept of noetic field.
Glad to see you back on the blog today.
Blogging a noetic theory
Andrew Cline is putting together a scholarly book on his blog, well, at least pieces of it. It’s worth a read if you’re interested in serious discussion of journalism theory. Today’s installment is about the relationship among the journalist, the…
Reason #153: Blogging is Safer than Grill Repair
First signs of spring include firing up the grill and contemplating an oil change and point by point inspection of the lawn mower. I did both today, firing and contemplating. The firing was inspired when D. returned from the market…
Could your comments on journalism writing’s influence within a “noetic field” be extended to include elements of literature writing (the novelist’s craft)? Is there any cross-pollination with journalism (writing) and fiction (writing) that links them in terms of how they condition or influence “knowing and knowledge,” “writer and audience” and language in society?
In a word, is all fiction actually an extension of journalism–factual, objective and based on people/events/emotions/places that are “true and known”?
I’m sorry if my questions appear a vague at all, I have not spent a lot of time crafthing them. But I was intrigued by your 5 January 2004 posting. Thank you.
David Pendery
Could your comments on journalism writing’s influence within a “noetic field” be extended to include elements of literature writing (the novelist’s craft)? Is there any cross-pollination with journalism (writing) and fiction (writing) that links them in terms of how they condition or influence “knowing and knowledge,” “writer and audience” and language in society?
In a word, is all fiction actually an extension of journalism–factual, objective and based on people/events/emotions/places that are “true and known”?
I’m sorry if my questions appear a vague at all, I have not spent a lot of time crafting them. But I was intrigued by your 5 January 2004 posting. Thank you.
David Pendery
Reason #153: Blogging is Safer than Grill Repair
First signs of spring include firing up the grill and contemplating an oil change and point by point inspection of the lawn mower. I did both today, firing and contemplating. The firing was inspired when D. returned from the market with bra…