I tried to understand pompous theatrical bullshit....

Oh yeah.... that's right now. And the past 10 times that I have read and tried to comprehend what the hell this prompt is saying.

"Sandra Richards writes: “Humanists and scientists seeking to articulate a ‘new science of the human’ have argued that human species survival depends upon our being socialized through the ‘enchantment’ of symbolic discourse into desiring a particular mode of being; thus, each culture must create, as it were, necessary lies or an order of discourse that presents itself as the true narrative in opposition to all others in order to function systematically as a behavior regulatory mechanism. By beginning to understand how we are necessarily seduced into thinking and feeling certain aspects of identity as an irreducible category of existence, we become aware of the limits of our own discourse and may be more open to entertaining different modes of being that address some of those limitations" (CAUGHT IN THE ACT OF SOCIAL DEFINITION, 50). How is this principle employed/enacted/embodied by Anna Deavere Smith in the video of TWILIGHT: LOS ANGELES 1992?"

It's making a bit more sense the more I read it in the context of the rest of the text and after looking up the definition of the word "discourse" which is, in case you were also unware, written or spoken communication or debate. Interesting. This is going to be tough to write because I know that I am can be an excellent BSer but... I feel that if I begin my BS now without complete and total understanding of the topic then I might be totally off. Maybe I'll go around the house and legitimately ask people to read it to help me understand. Alright I'm going to go try that. Wish me lucky. I'm doomed. It's already 12:44. Good thing it only has to be 500 words.