Obviously the specific focus of responsibility is the collectivity which is constituted by a particular common value-orientation.įinally, it is quite clear that the ‘sentiments’ which support such common values are not ordinarily in their specific structure the manifestation of constitutionally given propensities of the organism. Furthermore, this attachment to common values, while it may fit the immediate gratificational needs of the actor, always has also a ‘moral’ aspect in that to some degree this conformity defines the ‘responsibilities’ of the actor in the wider, that is, social action systems in which he participates.
30-31) as a prime example of bad writing in his field.Īttachment to common values means, motivationally considered, that the actors have common ‘sentiments’ in support of the value patterns, which may be defined as meaning that conformity with the relevant expectations is treated as a ‘good thing’ relatively independently of any specific instrumental ‘advantage’ to be gained from such conformity, e.g., in the avoidance of negative sanctions. Wright Mills used in his own book, The Sociological Imagination (pp. Check out this passage from his book, The Social System, which sociologist C. It didn’t hurt his standing in the field (turgidity can pass for professionalism), but no one reads him any more. Let me show you an example from a renounced sociological theorist of the 20th century, Talcott Parsons, who was famously difficult to follow.
It will provide you with an assessment of how flabby or fit your writing is in this case. 
Try pasting a text (up to 1,000 words) into Writer’s Diet, the Sword’s website. I’ve used this book in my class on academic writing. She’s the author of Stylish Academic Writing - which she shows is not an oxymoron. Try using the test that Helen Sword provides online. There’s an easy - if jarring - way to see how tight or flabby your own writing is. Avoid “there is” followed by a nominalization, which is another case of words that add nothing to the story except length. Overuse of the verb to be – which carries no action. “Conducted an investigation” instead of “investigated”. Be wary of any main clause that makes you wait too long to get to the verb (excluding introductory phrases). Toward this end, consider some of the following points: As Stephen Toulmin once said, “ The effort the writer does not put into writing, the reader has to put into reading.” You do the work of telling your story with clarity and narrative vigor so readers can just breeze right along through the text. Don’t make the reader work any harder than is absolutely necessary. These superfluous words and phrases create barriers that make it more difficult for readers to understand what you’re trying to say. Flab is any verbiage that is nonessential in telling your story. You’ll find more about using actors and actions in the Williams and Bizup book, Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace, which I used in my writing class.Ī second key element of good writing is to remove the flab from your sentences. Readers don’t want to hear that things were done they want to who did them to whom and why. You need the passive voice sometimes, but you shouldn’t use it too often because active verbs propel the story forward and engage the reader. But you rely on them too heavily - a central characteristic of turgid academic writing - you clog up the text, slow down the action, and diffuse the focus of the story you’re trying to tell. They’re often necessary, since abstract forces are a central factor in shaping social life. But some nominalizations are ok, since they simplify the sentence, refer to previous action, or are so familiar they act as nouns (abortion, taxation without representation, etc.). Use verbs to convey important actions instead of turning verbs into nouns the latter is known as nominalization, which is itself an instance of the problem. Sort out necessary complexity from unnecessary complexity so the line of action is clear. Using the first person is ok it’s your paper, so you’re an actor too. Try using “you” as the subject, then maybe substitute an appropriate actor. 
Figure out who is doing what and put that up front, preferably in the opening paragraph. Make main characters or initiators of action the subjects of sentences. 
Some force or factor or person is exerting an impact on some process or structure or outcome. Who’s doing what to whom? In academic writing, the actors are often not people but social entities - bureaucracy, racism, curriculum, schools, universities - but the principle is the same. This post is about two key elements in good writing, one of which is to focus on actors and actions.
0 kommentar(er)
