In writing my repurposing paper, I wanted to take a fairly narrow argument concerning politics and broaden its scope. Politics are often a fairly divisive issue, so I thought: wouldn’t it be interesting to take a paper that was politically one-sided and complicate it? As I re-read the original paper that I wrote, I noticed that some sort of personal preference or opinion is always at play in political discourse, even though there are many nuances that we tend to ignore with our predispositions. Oftentimes this leaves us with a somewhat skewed view of a particular policy or political ideology.
The transformation that the original paper took was quite remarkable because of this. By opening up to a more wholesome perspective and by removing some heavy-handed language, an otherwise small target audience was effectively switched to a wider, more encompassing audience. The paper still remained politically driven – so perhaps the paper only appealed to politically interested individuals – but arguably a wider subset of people would at least be able to participate in the presented arguments. Undoubtedly this change was incredibly interesting to see happen, but perhaps even this change didn’t reach what would be the ideal target audience.
When I think of politics, one of the things that immediately comes to mind is argument – and specifically, spoken argument. At least for me, I find this rather fascinating. In situations where oral arguments take place, you don’t necessarily have time to sit and think about what you want to say. Everything is purely reactionary. Though this facet of political discourse may be hard to incorporate into a written paper, this is an idea I want to explore in remediation. I want to try and use some of the “impulse” thinking that often accompanies political thoughts. Perhaps this could be accomplished through something like a radio talk show or maybe even a pseudo-speech of some sort. At any rate, I think using either of these two strategies (in one form of media or another) would more faithfully convey what I am trying to argue in my repurposing paper. A change in the mode of delivery would be an interesting twist to an argument that might be better served in a spoken medium.