Nonverbal Guide

Raven Jackson researched the changes in women’s underwear that occurred with during the nineteenth century. Underwear is the most intimate form of dress and has many meanings and connotations. The significance of underwear is not what it does, but what it means.

The changes in women’s underwear during the nineteenth century brought about changes in the social constructs regarding women’s sexuality. Underwear as we know it has only been around since the nineteenth century. Women wore plain, open- crotch underwear. With the advancements in textile technology brought about by the industrial revolution, women began to wear colored and adorned underwear that was meant to conceal and also show the area that it was concealing. The changes in women’s underwear that occurred during the nineteenth century made women’s sexuality more acceptable and acknowledged.

Resources:
1. Fields, J. "Erotic Modesty: (Ad)dressing Female Sexuality and Propriety in Open and Closed Drawers, USA, 1800–1930." Gender & History 14, no. 3 (November 2002): 492-515. History Reference Center, EBSCOhost (accessed September 29, 2011).
2. “Fashion,” http://library.thinkquest.org/C004179/fashion.htm.
Archive." Textile History 40, no. 2: 185-201. History Reference Center, EBSCOhost (accessed September 29, 2011).
3. Fields, Jill. "Drawers." In An Intimate Affair: women, lingerie, and sexuality. Berkley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, 2007.
4. Houlbrook, Matt. 2010. Desire: A History of European Sexuality. Victorian Studies. 53, no. 1: 183-185,193.
5. Storr, Merl. 2002. Classy Lingerie. Feminist Review. 18-36.
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9eAiy0IGBI&feature=youtube_gdata_player




Eduardo Segura (Eddie) researched about sustainable architecture and the different possibilities to try to achieve the highest level of sustainability, using policies, different types of materials which have specific qualities in order to save energy and the construction of “intelligent buildings” to maximize the amount of energy saving.

All of theses different ways to get the sustainability are always developing itself by Technology and the changes made by these will be able to be perceived in the future because the problem of sustainability is a long term issue.


Resources:

1. Erenovable.com, renewable energy blog: http://erenovable.com/category/edificios-sostenibles/

2. Janda, Kathryn B, Buildings don’t use energy: people do,( Architectural Science Review, Mar2011, Vol. 54 Issue 1, p15-22, 8p, 1)

3. Peck, Martin, Strong, Long Lasting, Energy Efficient-Addressing Future Needs with Concrete, (Mar/Apr2010, Vol. 2010 Issue 2, p178-182, 5p)

4. Riekstins, Roberts, Architectural Shaping Potential in Energy Efficiency Provision of Buildings, (Architecture & Urban Planning, 2010, Issue 4, p100-105, 6p)

5. Green Buildings can save energy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzc79N9WfuY&feature=related

6. Building energy savings, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5lMAe0WF0w&feature=related


Maria D Silva’s research paper was about music as a form of nonverbal communication. Traces of music have been found from prehistoric time, where humans imitated natural sounds with percussion instruments. As Victor Hugo said “Music expresses that which cannot be put into words and cannot remain silent.” Since the prehistoric times music has been evolving due to technological changes. There are several examples of music genders that portrays it as a form of communication. One of them is classical music, specifically piano where composers tend to express their feelings through different sonatas. Even though Djs use completely different devices, they still maintain the essence of music, which states that it is not solely a form of entertainment but a complex form of communication.


Resources
1. Mark Katz, Capturing sound: How technology has changed music. California: The Regents of the University of California, 2004.

2. Terence McLaughlin, Music and Communication. London: Faber and Faber, 1970.

3.“The importance of communication in music: Interview of Kirk Whalum”
http://www.artistshousemusic.org/videos/the+importance+of+communication+in+music (Accessed on 10/13/2011)

4. “Roberto Spano on music as philosophy”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-MLUgFHbrA
Accessed on 11/10/2011

5. On music and non-verbal communication with Naomi Bell.
http://musicianintheboardroom.com/2011/10/23/on-music-non-verbal-communication-with-naomi-bell/
Accessed on 11/10/2011


Jennifer Rattray researched church architecture and how it changed as society changed. She focused on Gothic architecture which started in the early 12th century and is seen as the most recognizable form of religious architecture. The social, scientific, and economical changes during this period reflect a change in society that directly correlates with the change from Romanesque to Gothic styles. So how is this nonverbal communication? It is easy to see that art is nonverbal communication because it conveys emotions and stories to people by use of their eyes. Architecture is similar in this sense. Imagine yourself a serf, what would looking at a Gothic cathedral tell you. Would the tall spires intimidate you? What would you think of the massive flying buttresses? What could you infer from the massive stained glass windows?

Resources

Collins, Randall. Sociological Insight: An Introduction to Non-Obvious Sociology.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Corel Family. Gothic Church Diagram. Gif, http://www.historylink101.com/lessons/
art_history_lessons/ma/gothic_church_digram.gif (accessed November 6th,
2011)

Durantis, Gulielmus. The Symbolism of Churches and Church Ornaments, trans. Rev.
John Neale and Rev. Benjamin Webb. New York: AMS Press. 1973.

Frankl, Paul. Gothic Architecture. London: Penguin Books, Ltd. 1962.

Mannheim, Karl. Essays on the Sociology of Culture. London: Lowe & Brydone
Printers. 1956.

Norman, Edward. The House of God: Church Architecture, Style, and History.
London: Thames and Hudson, Ltd. 1990.

O’Donnell, J. B.. Church Building and Furnishing: The Churches Way. Notre Dame:
University of Notre Dame Press. 1956.

Trabia, Carlo. Gothic and Romanesque, gif, http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/
art193b.gif (accessed November 6th, 2011)

Unknown. Untitled, jpeg, http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v487/blank14/
Untitled-8copy.jpg (Accessed November 9th, 2011)


Ishita Bose wrote about the art of photography and the invention of the camera and how it has affected nonverbal communication over time. Before photographs existed, paintings and sculptures were the main method of recording visual representations of people and events. However, these were not necessarily accurate since the idea of a perfect portrait was to emphasize the inner essence of a person, leading portraits to to depict people in good taste rather than how they actually were. Photography allows audiences to see a scene or person exactly how the photographer sees it. Using certain techniques and methods, such as poses or lighting, photographers evoke emotions and covey messages through their work.

Resources
1. Crews, Austin. “Communicating through Photography.” Human Communication Theory, University of Colorado at Boulder. (accessed November 8, 2011).

2. Rosenblum, Naomi. A World History of Photography. New York: Abbeville Press Publishers, 2007.

3. Welling, William. Photography in America: The Formative Years, 1839-1900 – A Documentary History. Crowell, 1978.

The right to write

Some people, like David Phillip Miller, author of The Sobel Effect, believe that only experts should write about topics in their respective fields. However, I believe that anyone who has enough knowledge and passion about a subject and wants to write an article about it should be allowed to. A person does not have to be in a particular major to be knowledgeable about the material learned in it. For example, although a good friend of mine, Charles, did not go to college, he is like a walking, talking encyclopedia, able to speak for hours on almost any topic thanks to his constant thirst for knowledge and reading. I believe that anyone can become an "unofficial" expert on a subject if they are interested enough.

On a related note, should authors--these experts--alter their language depending on what kind of audience they are aiming for or should they keep the same type of language throughout their work?Although I agree that sticking with the same way of explaining gives the author a consistency that is nice to find in a writer, some material is just nearly impossible to read when targeted to a different kind of audience than myself. Imagine if a science elementary school teacher tried to explain photosynthesis to a student of ten years old on the basis of which he or she was taught. There would be terms even someone of my age would never have heard of: pyruvate oxidation, glycolysis, etc! Enough to make your head whirl for days and days on end! This is why I believe that material should be written in a language the intended audience understands; reading the material would be pointless if no sense could be made from it.

Who are you writing for?

Through the last several weeks I have been reading extract of books that weren’t specifically addressed to me as a reader. Most of them were covering the same theme which is science technology and culture, but from different points of view. For example Bill Bryson, tends to write about the human part of the scientists. He portrays a friendlier story, without much detail regarding the experiment. Everyone would be able to understand his work without knowing anything about the topic. He also writes narrative stories like “ I’m a stranger here myself”, which is basically about the author and his experience with the mail. On the other hand I have been able to read other works like “On the Electrodynamics of Stationary Events” by Peter J. Femmel. This was about electrons and chemistry, a much complicated reading to follow. Though I believe you could understand it if you read it word by word, it was definitely much difficult than Bryson’s excerpts.

For the second reading you should have a background or understand the basic concepts of electrodynamics to easily follow it. Through this comparison we can conclude that to whom you are addressing your work defines many aspects of it. Not just the concepts you include but also how you word it, how specific you are, how long it is, and even the title. Authors could write about science and technology either to other scientists or to common readers, it only depends how you word it, that is why when your are writing you should ALWAYS keep in mind who are you writing for?

Resources: http://blog.ezinearticles.com/category/cartoons

Bryson, Darwin or Gurwitsch?

          In the first few sentences I provide insight into what I am going to write about, science and technology, and first impressions are made from my word usage and tone. I could now reference a couple people that I have learnt about to sound respectable and show that I know what I am talking about. Instead, I will not. When it comes down to who should write science, audience and purpose create the cement foundation that leads to an answer.

         Take Bryson as an example. He has been criticized as dumbing down scientific theory and stopping science from advancing. Take a moment to think about his audience and purpose, which he even mentions. He is talking to others like himself, dabblers in science that are interested but not professionals. His purpose is to provide insight to these fellow people. He achieves this goal. Darwin on the other hand wrote for the scientific community in the latter part of his career. His audience was a group of professionals, and his purpose was to convince. He achieves this goal. Gurwitsch is a foreign name for anyone who is not familiar with psychobiology. In some ways, he is even more ‘scientific’ than Darwin for he focuses on very specific topics that none outside of his field would be interested in. Was he a failure because his work is not widely known? A better question to ask is: is his work supposed to be widely known? Gurwitsch’s work is to better science, not to inform the dabbler.

         So how can you say who is worthy to write science? I agree that Bryson should not be writing scientific theory books that try to propel quantum mechanics to a new level. If he wishes to do this, he may need to change professions. Should Gurwitsch spend his time writing books that explain mitogenic radiation or the morphogenic field theory to dabblers in science? To each their own, and in this case, each does a wonderful job of translating their purpose to their respective audience.

Bryson talks about Darwin in his book A Short History of Nearly Everything if you do not wish to read   Darwin's On the Origin of Species.

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY WRITING

Scientific writing is very variable depending for who is it for, writers have to take into account if they are looking for a big audience or for a specific section of people already familiar with the topic that they are going to speak about.

In the case that the book, essay, article etc is addressed to a general audience, it should be written with a vocabulary more easy to understand for the people that there are not in the area of technology, and this is also a way to achieve people to read about science and technology, which probably is the main reason why the book is going to be written, (make people to read about topics that they are not used to, and achieve they enjoy whit it).

In the other hand, we have the specific science books, that are writing for a small sector of people who are familiar (working in that area, college students…) with the topic, therefore, the author can use a more specific way to write because the main reason why the book was written is to extend the knowledge of people who already know something about it in contrast to the “commercial” books for a big group of people.

The most important difference between these two types of writing is the fact of who are they written for.

Who should write about science and technology?

          In The 'Sobel Effect' by David Phillip Miller, the author poses the idea about who should wirte about science and technology. The author argues that only experts of their respective fields should write about a topic. However, I disagree with his argument. After reading A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson, The Leviathan and the Air Pump by Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, and On the Electrodynamics of Stationary Objects by Peter J. Fimmel, I have concluded that anyone with adequate knowledge about science and technology can write on the topics; it is not the writer that it is dependent on but the reader.
         Each author has his or her own strengths that appeal to different audiences. The work by Bryson was very well written and easily understood. There were no terms that I had to look up and no concepts that I did not understand. It was a very good read that would appeal to anyone. In contrast, The Leviathan and the Air Pump and On the Electrodynamics of Stationary Objects were not very easy reads. Both of the works required the reader to have prior knowledge about the subjects. These works were written for special audiences, historians and scientests, respectively. Overall, I think that each of the authors had specific audiences that they were addressing, and each of them were successful in doing so.