Plan, Reflect...

On tap: 

First Draft of Your Reflection Letter (which is also Response 8) 

Planning and Pre-Writing Workshop

Big Plans?

Planning Project 3 with 4 steps: (not all are necessary in each case, but having a sense of all four will likely ensure a stronger draft ready for peer review next week)

A) From your research identify at the main 'discourse communities' and stake-holders in your audience

B) Start brainstorming your criteria match (p 120 in Good Reasons 4th ed./ p.94 in 5th edition), then write the best one to two sentence definition  

C) Identify at least one KIND of DEFINITION you will work through in a draft.

D) Consider the organizational structures below...and play with arrangement in an outline. 

A.

A rudimentary definition of discourse community: "The term discourse community links the terms discourse, a concept describing all forms of communication that contribute to a particular, instructionalized way of thinking; and community, which in this case refers to the people who use, and therefore help create, a particular discourse."  Discourse communities are found in academic disciplines (i.e. your major has one way of talking about problems, concepts, goals, etc.) or community organizations (outreach organizations, NGOs), online communities (groups of bloggers, 'hacktivists' like Annonymous), but also in your personal life (your friends share a common way of talking, vs. your co-workers, vs. your classmates, vs. your coach and her hockey players, etc).

Identify the key discourse communities interested in your 'term' for project three.  

What DC's are using your term in your research?  Are they different? Similar? Why are they interested? What's at stake for them?

Now answer the invention question we've used for all projects: What is the rhetorical situation for your project?  

Especially: who is the audience? What? 

B.

Use p 120 and 134 in Good Reasons 4th ed. (or p.94 and the last page in Chapter 8 in 5th edition) to help you draft an initial definition with criteria.

Based on your initial research and ideas, make an initial claim (that you can change) and work through steps 1 through 4

Strategies for your Criteria Match:

Strategy One: Many CRITERIA MATCH STRATEGY will likely use:  Resemblance/contrast:  One way of defining something is to say what it is not. If you're defining the idea of "marriage," you could begin by suggesting that marriage is not "just a legal contract", not just a social convention between any two individuals. This is a process of INCLUSION (of religion as a necessary term) and EXCLUSION...[what (and who) does your definition of marriage exclude...]

You could also compare marriage to a similar term to bolster the meaning of the term under consideration.  Marriage today is no different than living "common-law" ... 

Strategy 2: Cause and Effect:  Is your term/concept defined in part by what causes it, or what affects/effects it has socially? For example, do you want euthanasia to be defined (or not) by the act of relieving pain (an effect) or the terms selected by a campaign of a bioethics committee (causes a certain definition), or a religious group (causes a certain definition)

C. Identify a type (or types) of Definition you will use to generate a draft of your Argument:

• Formal Definition: (many of you will have a 'formal' component to your definition argument) 

• Application to a hard case/Definition by example (taking an existing definition and applying it to a particularly hard example; example from GR: free speech and provocative tee-shirts)

• Operational Definition (creating a new defintion of a poorly defined concept in order to make a certain point or reorder items inside and outside of this category; example from GR: just and unjust laws)

Draft a short paragraph that states why you will use this 'method' for your argument.  What will this show us?  What research might help you in this approach? 

D. POTENTIAL OUTLINES: STRUCTURES FOR ARGUMENTATION 

Structure One: The Wikipedia Entry!

Example: abortion

We can often use wikipedia as a guide to how we might organize and structure our definition.  The terms are often broken down into types, methods, history, debate, controversy, law, policy...  Of course, it would be suicide to try to use the same outline as your term!  However, we can use these structures as a means to help us think about how we might organize our own definitions; but we do need to give added attention to arguing the controversial or debated section, since the primary purpose of this assignment is to argue (or liberate) your definition.

 

Other Examples of Definitions with Controversy and Commentary

Example: Sexual Harrasment

Example: Artificial Life

 

Structure Two: The Classical Argument!

 

Hook:

• Appeals to ethos and to emotion are extremely effective in swaying public opinion. Why else do you think so many inarticulate athletes and dim-witted supermodels become spokespersons for commercial products and political causes?  Many public relations campaigns are intelligent and well-researched, but marketers and politicians care about motivating a reader to do something -- buy this brand of soap, or vote this way on this issue.
• Introduction: State your thesis. 
• Don't waste your reader's time by arguing an overly simple thesis.
• "Drug abuse is a bad thing." (By definition, "abuse" is bad.)
• "Drug abuse today should include 'intellectual enhancers.' Just as student athletes must regularly submit to drug testing, student scholars should also prove that they are drug-free in order to enroll in college, because these 'enhancers' are illegal and giving them an unfair advantage." (An interesting and arguable definition with two initial criteria: illegal and unfair advantage) 
• Narration: Think of this as "quick background."
• Provide context or background information that lays the foundation for your argument.  What is at stake? Why are you bothering to argue it?
• This section should be brief and subtle.
• Do not treat this section as an opportunity to puff up the size of your paper.
• If you overstate your case here, your reader will be more likely to reject your arguments.
• Confirmation: Lay out the evidence that supports the position you wish to defend.
• Assemble all the supporting evidence.
• Divide your argument into main points and sub-points. Provide an overview to ensure the reader knows how you plan to proceed.
• Present and defend each point in turn. Quote experts, cite facts, define criteria, analyze data, provide examples.
• Handling the Opposition: Refutation and Concession. Present a thorough summary of opposing arguments that refute the claims you want to make.  If you are writing an academic paper, or if you simply want to be as thorough as you can, you should quote experts, cite facts, analyze trends, give examples, and, in short, work just as hard in this section as you did when laying out your supporting evidence.  .
• State the opposing argument fairly and thoroughly.
• It is not sufficient to spend two pages confirming your thesis, and then pretend to introduce an opposing argument by writing, "Some people hold a different opinion; however, those people are stupid/racist/sexist/anarchists/left-wingers/right-wingers/fence-sitters/brainwashed."
• For each opposing point you raise, you must either refute or concede.
• Refutation: You present enough additional evidence to counter the opposing claim.
• Concession: You admit that the opposing claim is valid; however, you demonstrate how it is possible to accept it without rejecting your whole argument.
• Summation: Not a simple repetition, but an amplification.
• In the oral Greek culture, the summation was the message that the speaker wanted to linger in the listener's mind once the speech was over.
• For an academic essay, you want your grader to finish a paper with a clear understanding of what you feel your paper has accomplished.
• Please do not write, "Therefore, my paper has proved [original thesis]."
• You should address the refutations and concessions you have made, showing how slight modifications in your original claim easily handle even the strongest opposition.
• At the same time, you show that your thesis, as you originally proposed it, is really the best solution to the problem.

NOTE: If You Change Your Mind While Writing

If, during the course of your writing, you find your opinion changing (intensifying, lessening, or even flip-flopping), wonderful! Get ready for revision!  You might be interested in: the principles of Hegelian dialectics, also known as the "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" method.

 

 

Structure Three: AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENTS, or Rogerian Arguments

 

 

We're all sick and tired of attack ads, and bi-partisan politics without an eye to fairness or compromise with opponents.  There are particular issues that we can, indeed must take a stand on, but in our everyday efforts to make meaningful communication and do meaningful acts, antagonism typically gets us nowhere.  It is this kind of talk ("argument" or "rhetoric") that has lead to politics and religion as "off-limits" at dinner tables, or as conversation killers at parties. 

 

Could things change if if the form of our arguments changed? 

 

Plato's and Hegel's dialectic often worked in BINARIES:  the old way vs. the new way   /   tradition vs. innovation   /   liberal vs. conservative   ...

These "freeze-frames" give us a momentary picture of what we tend to believe and even who we are.  But they are reductions of real engagement and enacted responses.  Furthermore, they create a sense of "winners" and "losers"...always with a sense of "the other."

 

Or perhaps it goes this way...you've made your point, you've figured out what you're going to say...now add a little "managerial rhetoric" to get your message out there...  You've accomplished everything before the rhetorical act of delivering your message.  Good for you.

 

So is rhetoric just a supplement to communication?  Do we just figure out something to say, or something others have said...add rhetoric and hope for the best?

 

What if you take the basis for your claims (your definitions, evaluations, proposals) as something less confrontational, will that change the content of your argument, or the result?  Is this something that makes sense for your current project?

 

What hapeppens if YOU ground your claim in the unstated beliefs (enthymeme) of people and propose practical reasoning (phronesis) that functions at that moment, within those circumstances (kairos)?  You end up with a Rogerian Argument.

If you feel that you need to build a more practical or consensual style of argument, proceed as follows...

 

Rogerian Argument: Less confrontational; focuses more on locating common ground, rather than disproving the other side. Useful when dealing with values and ethics, when polarized emotions threaten to cloud an issue (for example, abortion, racial politics, sexual politics, or religion). In order to work, you must not merely tolerate, but embrace the opposing viewpoint, putting yourself in the mind of the other person, in order to determine whether there is an underlying problem that both sides could work to support.

 

• A Rogerian argument, or indeed any fair argument, should never skew the issue thus: "baby killers vs. protectors of the innocent unborn" or "heroic women's healthcare advocates vs. misogynist Bible-thumping fascists").  Further, no group identifies itself as "Anti-Choice" or "Pro-Babykilling." To use such biased terms is to stack the deck unfairly (and to miss the whole point of rhetoric or logic for that matter).  A politician wants to "win" and will stretch logic in order to do so; as a scholar, you're supposed to demonstrate that you won't let your emotions cloud your understanding of the issue; you're supposed to prove you can use evidence to support a non-obvous position on a complex topic.
• A Rogerian thesis does not incite conflict, but rather emphasizes shared values: "Regardless of whether the fetus is entitled to legal protection, society as a whole will benefit if we treat a high abortion rate as symptomatic of a greater social illness. Identifying and addressing that illness will do more practical good than endlessly pitting the rights of a woman against the rights of her fetus."

 

Maxine Hairston has identified five elements of a non-threatening Rogerian argument. These are not meant to be the outline of a paper; Rogerian argument, in particular, does not lend itself well to formulae. A non-threatening argument should, however, contain these elements:

1. A brief and objectively phrased statement that defines the issue. Including your definitional claim (and the x,y,z, criteria)
2. A complete and neutrally worded analysis of the other side’s position.
3. A complete and neutrally worded analysis of the position you hold. You should carefully avoid any suggestion that you are more moral or sensitive than your audience.
4. An analysis of what your positions have in common and what goals and values you share.

     5.  A proposal for resolving the issue in a way that recognizes the interests of both parties. 

Overview of Outlines 2 and 3:

	Classical			Rogerian
Introduction (Exordium)	Capture the audience’s attention.  Introduce the issue and create exigence for your claim. Why is this an issue?  Why do we need to pay attention?  State your thesis.		Introduction	State the definition as a problem you hope to resolve, rather than an 'issue'.  By presenting your issue as a problem you raise the possibility of positive change.  Often opponents will want to solve the same problem.  Include a thesis and preview of criteria.
Statement of Background (Narratio)	Supply the context needed to understand the case you present.  What circumstances, occurrences, or conditions do we need to be made aware of?		Summary of Opposing Views	As accurately and neutrally as possible, state the views of the people with whom you disagree.  By doing this you show that you are capable of listening without judging and have given a fair hearing to people who think differently from you.
Proposition (Partitio)	Re-state your position (claim/thesis), based on the information you have presented, and outline the major points that will follow.  The partitio divides the background information from the reasoning.		Statement of Understand-ing	Also called the statement of validity.  Show that you understand that there are situations in which these views are valid.  Which parts of the opposingargument s do you concede?  Under which conditions might you share these views?
Proof (Confirmatio)	Present your reasons, subclaims, and evidence.  Establish inferences between claim and support.  Provide additional evidence for subclaims and evidence, where necessary.  Explain and justify assumptions.		Statement of Your Position	Now that readers have seen that you’ve given full consideration to views other than your own, they should be prepared to listen fairly to your views.  State your position.  This means restating your thesis and quickly turning to all your forms of proof...
Refutation (Refutatio)	Anticipate and refute opposing arguments.  In this section you demonstrate that you have already considered the issue thoroughly and have reached the only reasonable conclusion.		Statement of Contexts	Describe situations in which you hope your views will be honored.  By showing that your position has merit in specific contexts, you recognize that people won’t agree with you all of the time.  However, opponents are allowed to agree in part and share common ground.
Conclusion (Peroratio)	Summarize the most important points.  Make a final appeal to values, motivations, and feelings that are likely to encourage the audience to identify with your argument		Statement of Benefits	Appeal to the self-interest of your opponents by showing how they would benefit from accepting your position; this concludes your essay on a hopeful, positive note.

 

DRAFTING YOUR first REFLECTION:  This will count as Response 8.  

Create an "About the Author" link on your Roster Page (which we will revise later in the semester), then link us to it for your Response Credit

Writing Sample Returned:

Why Reflect on Writing?

Metacognitive reflection: Prompts and support students in planning, monitoring and evaluating their own thinking.

Example: Before a challenging task, ask questions to cue ‘backward-reaching transfer’ eg: What does this problem/task/activity remind you of? Have you done anything before that might help? What strategies could you try that you have used before? Do you think they will work here?

After an activity, cue ‘forward-reaching transfer’ by asking students to reflect on, 'What went well, what was hard, how could I handle what was hard better next time, what skills/strategies have I learned that I might be able to use again, elsewhere?' 

Explore purpose and value: Ask students to reflect on the value of what is being learned. Research shows that we are more likely to retain new knowledge and skills – and therefore be able to retrieve them from memory when the need arises – if we have recognised, for ourselves, their use and value.

Reflection Basics

= moving backward? Asks: what have I done well in the past?

= moving forward? Asks: How will I 'boot up' these concepts and practices in the future?

To start developing a sense of your goals and your skills as a reader, writer and thinker, reflect on your initial goals as you came into this course, and your goals for the rest of the term by answering the following:

REFLECTION QUESTIONS for your first draft of an "ABOUT THE AUTHOR PAGE" 

MODEL ANSWER:

Coming into this course I was reasonably well prepared.  Though I feel that my previous writing was a bit disconnected from real audiences.  Especially entering into project three that is writing to an audience that is outside of this class, that makes me think the stakes are a bit higher.  (So, to deal with question one) I feel that the main process in writing that is changing my approach is feedback and revision.  As a writer this kind of conversation with readers changes the way you structure your writing, making me emphasize my purpose and think about persuasive strategies (or just what works on the writer).  Feedback isn't always helpful mind you.  Sometimes you get a sense that readers just don't get it, but there is almost always something in their response that makes you think.  This seems to be another aspect of 'recursive' writing, or a writing process I return to, that I value more.  You can almost always improve in writing and that's great, but that's also painful at times.  The concepts that I've been developing (besides more attention to audience) are mostly about rhetoric.  I used pathos in my second paper to construct an analysis of how Malcolm Gladwell explains the 'tipping point' as a spreading 'virally' and mostly through our emotions.  This captured one of his three rules of epidemics.  I also used synecdoche here to say that he uses these small examples to relate to very large phenomenon, such as how the introduction of one new drug on a street-corner, could cause a different epidemic in two weeks.  Examples like this are used to explain larger social phenomenon.  I will 'boot up' my ethos on project three, that's for sure.  My definition on 'recession' will need to leverage research if I'm going to establish my credibility.  I will also include a personal example, since both my parents have lost jobs, gained employment, and lost jobs again over the past few years.  I still haven't worked out an audience for this yet.  For upcoming projects I'll write about the economy (evaluate and propose I think), since I think I will work in the business world and writing about these persuasively will be key for me in many ways (so I might as well get the practice now).  I will also probably write several papers if I work towards an MBA at Wayne.

Student X

Zen: M. Python - Argument Clinic