Student 2

This text is an article published online in The Cagle Post in 2012. In the context of historical time, 2012 may be regarded as a time where considerable controversy surrounded the idea of in vitro fertilization, or genetically engineering babies derived from the technological advancement of science and engineering. The article attempts to persuade the audience, who may be frequent readers of the website, potential parents, parents, or those considering in vitro fertilization to question the ‘production’ of babies through engineering, and to possibly reject this method by addressing the differences in values. The combination of word choice, syntax, and graphology effectively engage the audience.

The article is published in the form of a dialogue between a doctor and a patient, who may be considering genetically engineering their child, thus putting the intended reader in a position that parallels that of the patient in the article, whilst establishing a clear difference between the doctor and patient roles. The doctor in the text uses facts and research to establish credibility with his patient, and indirectly with the real reader. However, in using words such as ‘custom design’, ‘catalog’, and ‘mix and match’ – a lexical cluster suggesting product design – the doctor is portrayed as interested in humans as produce rather than sentient, living beings. The doctor is guilty of dehumanizing human beings. The effect of this puts the reader in a different position than the doctor, who may be a representative of real engineers and creators of this method of fertilization. In turn, the reader may be able to relate to the patient in the text, as they are addressed as more emotional human beings, having ethically sound beliefs, and considering children to be ‘blessings from God’. This contrasts with the doctor, who is addressed as an authoritative figure, claiming to have the power to alter humans.

Synthetic personalization connects the real reader to the patient in the article. Through the use of pronouns, such as ‘we’ and ‘our’, the text seems to include the actual reader, potentially developing a sympathetic perspective through, identifying with the patient, on the issue of genetically modified children. The patient in the article questions the doctor, provoking the reader to a similar critical questioning of the doctor’s views. Initially, the patient asks ‘what breakthrough, doctor?’ and ‘choices, doctor?’, questioning the doctor’s authority through mirroring the same phrases used by the doctor. In this way, the patient seems to ask questions that we should all ask of the medical profession in regard to genetic manipulation. The doctor, by contrast, addresses his patient as ‘you’ and ‘your wife’, suggesting that he is disassociated from the real lives of people.

The text ridicules the method of in vitro fertilization by mocking society’s expectations of physical appearance. The doctor suggests that ‘a bit chubby’ – potentially a euphemism for ‘fat’ – is negative, and something that can be improved by gene manipulation. The doctor then offers his patient a solution to ‘a bit chubby’, giving the patient the opportunity to have a daughter who is ‘as skinny as a rail’. The simile used to compare skinny to a rail is sarcastic. In everyday language, to be ‘skinny’ is negatively connoted, and it is not generally thought desirable to appear to look as malnourished as a ‘rail’. The text, then, derides genetic manipulation since the doctor offers choices that wider society would not want for their children. Through the doctor’s use of colloquialisms, the tone of the article becomes increasingly sarcastic, as it seems unusual for an authoritative figure such as a doctor to use this register.

The text names inspiring figures from the past to endorse the case against genetic engineering. Through mentioning people who have been successful without genetic modification the reader is again encouraged to side against in vitro fertilization. The real reader relates to the patient of the article who does not dehumanize babies. This can be contrasted to the dismissive doctor who says ‘whatever’, suggesting that he does not care for his patients.

The visual and written modes combine to creative a cohesive intertextual relationship. For example, the illustrated cartoon image of a baby holding a mobile phone addresses the issue of technology’s influence on society, suggesting that technology has become very significant in contemporary societies. Although the text may originally have been printed in colour, the polymodal effect of the text is that the reader is able to see the probable future influence of technology on today’s newly born children.

The website name is printed in large text, establishing the name for the reader to remember. The website also has links to social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and a ‘like’ button on the page, highlighting the technological and temporal context of the text, where readers are able to express opinions about the text and to share it with others.

The text conveys the issue of genetically engineering children, and how that can change the value of naturally occurring children instead of being able to modify it with desirable traits. The text addresses a serious social issue in an amusing way. However the audience does not have to read the text in any one way. Although the texts seems to be against artificial modification of children, readers may feel that there are good reasons for allowing or wanting to carry out genetic modification, and it could be argued that genetic modification is only really an extension of present medical practices.