DiPietro 1

Our Understanding Is The Problem

You quickly glance over your notes for the last time before the test. You know
you have done all you can; you made flashcards, copied down notes, and read over your
book. Now all that is left to do is regurgitate that information on to the Scantron sheet.
But did you ever question the information that was presented to you by your professor
and your book? Like mostly students, you probably just accepted it and encoded it into
your brain. Does this blind acceptance of presented material help or hurt us in our efforts
to solve problems? Dr. Lakshman Yapa, a professor at our very own university,
discusses his views, specifically in regard to the issue of poverty, in his essay entitled
Visualization of Discourse Theory.
Dr. Yapas main argument is that in some instances, the way that we understand a
problem is the very reason we cannot fix it. He says that the problem of poverty as we
currently know it cannot be solved (Yapa 2). The discourse surrounding poverty has
been constructed through discursive selection, discursive aggregation, and discursive
differentiation. When someone attempts to converse with another human, they must
identify the object which they desire to talk about. The way they identify that object (that
red thing, that pen, that writing utensil, that long thing, etc.) is completely up to the
speaker. They discursively select the characteristic that they aim to highlight in the
object. What we select to bring to ones attention in an object can affect the conclusions
drawn about that object tremendously. Dr. Yapa uses the example of two identical maps
of Philadelphia, each presenting different demographic information. One map shows the
varying levels of poverty in each region. The other map shows the varying levels of
unemployment in each region. Dr. Yapa does not claim that one map is not wrong while
DiPietro 2
the other is right, but that discursive selection is crucial to how knowledge is
constructed. The conclusions drawn from each map regarding the same city are
different because of the information chosen to be presented.
There are no elemental units in our world, and we discursively aggregate in order
to make sense of our world. Without this, we would have no way of discussing things
and definitely no way of conversing. Dr. Yapa uses the example of the word North
America. The landmass of North America of course existed before we named it, but
now we can say the word North America and most will know what we are referring to.
Discursive aggregation must be used with caution because one person could potentially
group an object that another does not under the same umbrella.
Discursive differentiation is the final way in which we come to understand an
object. We must name the object in order to differentiate it from everything surrounding
it. By differentiating the object from its surroundings, we are differentiating it from
everything it is not.
Dr. Yapas essay is a persuasive paper in which he makes the argument that the
way in which we understand a problem may hinder our ability to solve it. He makes is
argument in a variety of ways, one being reminding his readers of his creditability. The
first sentence of the paper starts off, As a teacher, a researcher, and an activist (Yapa
1). Right off the bat, Yapa is establishing his creditability with his readers. Throughout
the piece, he interjects things like the amount of time he has been teaching and personally
studying this material. When making a controversial point, Yapa often brings in an
experts opinion on the matter. For example, Yapa walks his audience through his
thought process, then says, This is the larger point that Foucault (1973) makes in his
DiPietro 3
classic book, The Order of Things (Yapa 8). If the audience has any doubts about
Yapas ideas, their mouths are immediately shut by the experts opinion.
Yapa waits until the conclusion to use any statistics. He draws figures about
world poverty from the Census Bureau and The World Bank. The point he intends to
make is successful: the issue of poverty is not getting better. His argument that our
understanding of poverty is working against its solution is validated through the high
percentages of poverty stricken human beings. We can assume that he hopes that the
readers will make this connection and realize that how we understand problems can
hinder our abilities to solve them.
In Dr. Yapas introduction, he says that Visualization of Discourse Theory is
primarily meant for undergraduates and teachers who incorporate discourse theory in
their undergraduate teaching (Yapa 3). Clearly, he wishes to in some way influence
undergraduate students with his ideas. In one part of his essay, Yapa appeals to
presumably teachers when he explains a video that goes along with the lesson. He says
that he uses the video to illustrate the concept, a piece of advice that could be employed
by any undergraduate teacher reading the paper. Yapa clearly keeps this part of his
audience in mind throughout his piece.
Yapa also appeals to the audience of undergraduate students in the paper. He is
aware that the information being presented is like nothing they have ever heard before.
For this reason, Yapa often outlines the plan of the essay before actually diving into the
topics. He gives the students a glimpse of what to expect, and he helps them prepare for
a point to be made. Dr. Yapa also sympathizes with his audiences naivet. Throughout
the essay, he can be seen saying things such as At first this may seem a bit convoluted,
DiPietro 4
but (Yapa 11). He does not expect his audience to grasp the concepts the second after
they are presented. Yapa is aware of their background knowledge about the subject: none
in most cases.
My undergraduates would respect Dr. Yapas tone throughout the essay. He
comes off as respectable, yet playful, just the way he actually is as a professor. His essay
is easy to follow because he sets up plans for his paper in introductory paragraphs. At
one point, he starts to talk about a subject, then says, more on that later (Yapa 2). Just
as reading the chapter in a book before it is taught in a class is helpful, subtly introducing
topics before they are presented is greatly appreciated by his audience. Without his
structured paper, undergraduates may find themselves lost in the whirlwind of novel
ideas. Along with the handholding tactic, Dr. Yapa also walks the undergraduates
through examples that illustrate his points. Without these simple examples, I for one
would have lost him at many times. Yapa closes the paper with how discourse theory
changes his understanding of issues such as poverty. This personal touch brings readers
back in from a twenty-six pages of ideas and examples. It allows them to focus on the
main topic at hand.
Dr. Yapa chooses to target undergraduates with his paper because he can
influences them the most out of any other age group. Undergraduates are impressionable.
They have not been exposed to enough of the world to formulate their own opinions
about issues such as poverty. Yapas paper and course are amazing things to be exposed
to as an undergraduate. He teaches his students not to accept information when it is
presented. He teaches them to question the sources of the information and to actually
think about what they are learning. If anything is gained from Visualization of Discourse
DiPietro 5
Theory, it should be the ability to look at a problem in a different way and think of
solutions from there. We can assume that Dr. Yapa aims to educate his undergraduates at
how to think from multiple perspectives. This skill will certainly serve them well in
whatever profession they decide to pursue.
Dr. Yapa may also have a more selfish goal in mind by writing this essay for
undergraduate students. As young people searching for a cause to dedicate their lives to,
he may be trying to convince them to join forces in the fight against poverty. In his
paper, poverty is presented as a complicated, layered problem in need of fresh minds to
think of a solution. His essay and course at Penn State may serve as a type of recruitment
process. His passion is able to be spread to many others who may not have even known
it was a job option.
As summed up perfectly by Dr. Yapa, the world is in need. Poverty is a rising
issue on our world, and it is in need of the younger generations dedication. According to
Global Issues, almost half of the world lives on less than $2.50 a day. You cannot even
buy a bag of grapes at McLanahans for that much money. Research more about current
actions being taken
Dr. Yapas paper would have looked and sounded completely differently if it had
been written for say, his colleagues. Just as in the classroom, he remembers his audience
members are about nineteen years old and presents the information accordingly. Yapa
walks the undergraduates through his carefully developed ideas, and it gives them a sense
of what it was like for him to develop these ideas on his own. This tactics keeps the
audience interested in what conclusions Yapa will help them draw next. He opts to
support his arguments with expert opinions and the creditability established by his
DiPietro 6
experience. Overall, Visualization of Discourse Theory is a well-organized paper that
caters to its intended audience. Its points are very well received because of its
organization and the creditability of Dr. Yapas argument.




















DiPietro 7
Bibliography
Shah, Anup. "Poverty Facts and Stats." Global Issues. N.p., 07 Jan. 2013. Web.
Oct. 2013.
Yapa, Lakshman. Visualization of Discourse Theory. N.p., Summer 2013. Web.
Oct. 2013.










.