Throughout the semester, I've very much enjoyed reading Joe Harris' book, "Rewriting: How to Do Things with Texts." On Monday, Joe Harris came to IU to give a presentation about teaching writing, based on this book. As a student teacher and a writing tutor, there were several points in his presentation that I made a note of to use when I'm talking to my students or the college students who come into WTS about their writing.
1. The "Project" of the writer vs. the "Main Idea"
Harris prefers to have students find the "project" of the writer rather than the "main idea." It's a simple change of term, but it leads to a more helpful way to begin looking at another writer's purpose and a way to begin the process of "coming to terms." The idea of the writer's "main idea" is fairly static. It brings to mind asking "What's the point?" It can also lead to oversimplification - it's tempting to construct the author's intent as one statement, one purpose, and one explicit intent. Using the idea of "project" leads to a more complex and accurate statement about what the writer is trying to do that incorporates the writer's aim, main ideas, thesis, methods, sources, and more. Of course, it is a more complicated idea to teach, and therefore it takes more time to teach and explain. "Main idea" is fairly self-explanatory. Still, the extra teaching time is worth it - both for the students benefit and the benefit of the writer's whose work they are examining.
2. Assessing a text's uses and limits
This idea is somewhat related to the idea of the writer's project, but it moves from simply deciding what the writer is doing (coming to terms) to evaluating how the writer achieves his/her project (countering). On Monday, Harris articulated this concept by asking two questions, "What is the writer trying to do, and what do they actually do?" Other questions under this concept might be, "Who would find this text useful, and for what is it useful?" or "Where would this text fall short of its aims, or who might not find this useful?"
Both of the above ideas I think would be helpful in talking with students who are stuck, or having trouble getting started on their papers, or who aren't sure whether they understand the texts they need to use.
3. Uncovering Unstated Assumptions
This concept is a really tough one for a lot of the students I tutor, and even after Joe Harris' talk, I'm struggling to make it easier to understand. Harris expressed this as "What concepts, beliefs, or values does the text rely on but not talk about?" That helped clarify the topic, but I am still wondering how to help students identify the underlying assumptions accurately.
4. "What can you say at the end that you could not say at the beginning?"
Hooray!! All semester, I have been struggling to find SOMETHING to say when I try to explain what should go into a conclusion to students that I tutor. (The standard W131 answer of "it's the So What?" just doesn't work. Far too broad.) When Joe Harris said this, I was quite excited and wrote it down, KNOWING I would use it in tutorials. This way of explaining a conclusion also fits in with the idea that an argument should unfold and develop over the course of the paper, rather than simply prove the thesis.
5. My absolute favorite thing that Joe Harris said was, "We should point out to our students what works and say, 'Do more of that!'" This is such a valuable teaching/tutoring technique and sometimes, in our haste to point out all of the things that are wrong, we forget to point out things that work, so that the student has some idea of what TO do when they start to fix stuff. And, as always, a little praise goes a long way in motivating a student to keep working.
After reading "Rewriting" and hearing Joe Harris speak, what I have most taken away is the idea that texts are live, practical, useful things, active pieces of discourse which are in conversation with other texts all the time. And, frankly, this makes me excited.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Administrative Nature?
Within modern conservation rhetoric, we are used to hearing fairly gentle rhetoric about caring for Earth and appeals to preserving natural beauty or animal habitats. The stronger rhetoric usually come in the form of what might be construed as that which firmly places responsibility and culpability (appropriately) for the current environmental misuse on humans in the developed world. It would be far more unusual to hear environmental rhetoric that appeals to patriotism and governmental efficiency, and uses language appropriate to times of war. Consider the title of Richard Lieber’s speech: “Administrative Management in the Government of the United States.” It certainly doesn’t sound like it has anything to do with the environment. However, on closer examination, it deals with extensively with the environment, and in a way quite unfamiliar to the modern audience.
Richard Lieber's speech "Administrative Management in the Government of the United States," uses conservation in government as a comparison (and a trope) for conservation of natural resources. He appeals to shared national values, and thus constructs environmental discourse as a domestic concern. The speech dates around 1943, only a few years after President Roosevelt’s New Deal program created several work initiatives which focused on environmental conservation and building national parks. It is a persuasive (or deliberative) speech, but there are elements of epideictic rhetoric which strengthen the patriotic relationship between the author and the audience – many of which come early in the speech, in an effort to establish common ground between the author and the audience. Consider these rather stereotypical phrases: “country of unlimited possibilities,” “self-made Nation, “Will the US remain God’s country?” and “safeguard of life and liberty.” It strikes the reader as a bit strange that conservation of natural resources would lead to all of these things.
The controversy in this particular speech might be articulated as, how should government conservation efforts be structured to best achieve competent service in national parks and long-range conservation of natural resources. Lieber broadens his appeal to his audience in ways similar to Kaufer’s concept of using analogous cases to analyze a situation. While he directly relates government waste and disorganization to conservation of natural resources, it is possible that he is advocating for different administrative organization in other ways as well. For example, Lieber makes several broad statements which appeal to stereotypical American values. Consider this quotation: “Do we not believe fervently that the present antiquated and broken down administration of public affairs is really the true safeguard of American life and liberty? (page 3).” This quote implies that the problems of the conservation programs are perhaps only reflective of larger governmental issues, while also appealing to patriotic fervor often pervasive in times of war.
Lieber first notes that the war was one that the United States was not prepared for, and some of the excess cost was due to “lack of order in the government.” In using this first example of the major issues caused by government disorganization, Lieber is beginning to set up his extended analogy about how conservation is related to governmental organization. He assumes that his audience believes that efficient, small, and well-organized government is preferable to large and disorganized government, and draws the parallel to natural resource conservation.
The rhetoric in this speech sounds very similar to rhetoric of war – appropriate to the historical time period, but curious to the modern reader. “A weak administration can neither advance nor retreat successfully. Those who waiver at the sight of needed power are false friends of modern democracy. Strong executive leadership is essential to democratic government today. Our choice is not between power and power, but between responsible but capable popular government and irresponsible autocracy.” Consider the militant language in this passage: Lieber talks of “advance and retreat,” spreading democracy (sound familiar?), power and autocracy – all topics at the forefront of his audience’s mind. This is not the only instance of war-like rhetoric and metaphor. Earlier in the speech, Lieber states that current conservation efforts are “…barnacles of waste, incompetence, and corruption and incrusting the ship of the State, impeding its progress and endangering its safety. I wonder we [will] do to prevent slovenly, wasteful, and wildly extravagant action with order?” Here, naval-type language and more appeals to safety also aid his effort to show the urgency of conservation.
Convincing the audience that conservation is a pressing issue was something of an uphill battle. As the US was in the middle of a world war at the time, conservation might have been seen as something less than imperative. However, in order to construe conservation as pressing, Lieber constructs his argument in ways that appeal to national identity and security. Lieber equates conservation of natural resources with national well being: “We need first to guard out natural resources, which are necessary to national well-being and security. Second, to bring about greater harmony, order, efficiency, and economy in government….Unless conservation is entrusted to one department present wasteful methods will continue.”
Lieber’s effort to demonstrate the urgency of conservation ends with yet another metaphor, but this one isn’t related to war. He writes that conservation efforts are often weighed down with the “…heavy dew of congressional appropriations. The travesty of conservation in this case is no different from that of branches of our resources. Branches…they are, boughs, limbs, and shoots, twigs and sprigs, all suspended in midair from political skyhooks…All of the branches are there, missing only is the supporting trunk, deeply rooted in national soil.” This metaphor seems far more appropriate (even close to cliche) to conservation discourse than does that of war, but it yet again ties together government and environment, stressing the overall comparison of government and nature.
Interestingly, Lieber’s last line in this speech is, “The time is now!” In order to convince his listeners that the time for conservation was then, all of the war rhetoric which sounds so strange to modern readers was completely necessary and appropriate. It is even possible that the comparison Lieber creates between government and conservation works the other way around as well. Perhaps Lieber is emphasizing that well-run democratic government is that which is worth conserving - natural and worth fighting for.
Careful examination of Lieber’s speech, then, reveals how urgency is constructed. Through this speech, the issue is constructed as urgent because of the analogies and metaphors Lieber uses as comparison points. Lieber ties conservation to an epideictic issue (patriotism that is usually present in time of war) that is tied to an obviously urgent current situation, and a deliberative issue that is in public interest (efficient and non-wasteful government), thus constructing conservation as equal to and related to these issues – which isn’t something that immediately meets the eye.
Richard Lieber's speech "Administrative Management in the Government of the United States," uses conservation in government as a comparison (and a trope) for conservation of natural resources. He appeals to shared national values, and thus constructs environmental discourse as a domestic concern. The speech dates around 1943, only a few years after President Roosevelt’s New Deal program created several work initiatives which focused on environmental conservation and building national parks. It is a persuasive (or deliberative) speech, but there are elements of epideictic rhetoric which strengthen the patriotic relationship between the author and the audience – many of which come early in the speech, in an effort to establish common ground between the author and the audience. Consider these rather stereotypical phrases: “country of unlimited possibilities,” “self-made Nation, “Will the US remain God’s country?” and “safeguard of life and liberty.” It strikes the reader as a bit strange that conservation of natural resources would lead to all of these things.
The controversy in this particular speech might be articulated as, how should government conservation efforts be structured to best achieve competent service in national parks and long-range conservation of natural resources. Lieber broadens his appeal to his audience in ways similar to Kaufer’s concept of using analogous cases to analyze a situation. While he directly relates government waste and disorganization to conservation of natural resources, it is possible that he is advocating for different administrative organization in other ways as well. For example, Lieber makes several broad statements which appeal to stereotypical American values. Consider this quotation: “Do we not believe fervently that the present antiquated and broken down administration of public affairs is really the true safeguard of American life and liberty? (page 3).” This quote implies that the problems of the conservation programs are perhaps only reflective of larger governmental issues, while also appealing to patriotic fervor often pervasive in times of war.
Lieber first notes that the war was one that the United States was not prepared for, and some of the excess cost was due to “lack of order in the government.” In using this first example of the major issues caused by government disorganization, Lieber is beginning to set up his extended analogy about how conservation is related to governmental organization. He assumes that his audience believes that efficient, small, and well-organized government is preferable to large and disorganized government, and draws the parallel to natural resource conservation.
The rhetoric in this speech sounds very similar to rhetoric of war – appropriate to the historical time period, but curious to the modern reader. “A weak administration can neither advance nor retreat successfully. Those who waiver at the sight of needed power are false friends of modern democracy. Strong executive leadership is essential to democratic government today. Our choice is not between power and power, but between responsible but capable popular government and irresponsible autocracy.” Consider the militant language in this passage: Lieber talks of “advance and retreat,” spreading democracy (sound familiar?), power and autocracy – all topics at the forefront of his audience’s mind. This is not the only instance of war-like rhetoric and metaphor. Earlier in the speech, Lieber states that current conservation efforts are “…barnacles of waste, incompetence, and corruption and incrusting the ship of the State, impeding its progress and endangering its safety. I wonder we [will] do to prevent slovenly, wasteful, and wildly extravagant action with order?” Here, naval-type language and more appeals to safety also aid his effort to show the urgency of conservation.
Convincing the audience that conservation is a pressing issue was something of an uphill battle. As the US was in the middle of a world war at the time, conservation might have been seen as something less than imperative. However, in order to construe conservation as pressing, Lieber constructs his argument in ways that appeal to national identity and security. Lieber equates conservation of natural resources with national well being: “We need first to guard out natural resources, which are necessary to national well-being and security. Second, to bring about greater harmony, order, efficiency, and economy in government….Unless conservation is entrusted to one department present wasteful methods will continue.”
Lieber’s effort to demonstrate the urgency of conservation ends with yet another metaphor, but this one isn’t related to war. He writes that conservation efforts are often weighed down with the “…heavy dew of congressional appropriations. The travesty of conservation in this case is no different from that of branches of our resources. Branches…they are, boughs, limbs, and shoots, twigs and sprigs, all suspended in midair from political skyhooks…All of the branches are there, missing only is the supporting trunk, deeply rooted in national soil.” This metaphor seems far more appropriate (even close to cliche) to conservation discourse than does that of war, but it yet again ties together government and environment, stressing the overall comparison of government and nature.
Interestingly, Lieber’s last line in this speech is, “The time is now!” In order to convince his listeners that the time for conservation was then, all of the war rhetoric which sounds so strange to modern readers was completely necessary and appropriate. It is even possible that the comparison Lieber creates between government and conservation works the other way around as well. Perhaps Lieber is emphasizing that well-run democratic government is that which is worth conserving - natural and worth fighting for.
Careful examination of Lieber’s speech, then, reveals how urgency is constructed. Through this speech, the issue is constructed as urgent because of the analogies and metaphors Lieber uses as comparison points. Lieber ties conservation to an epideictic issue (patriotism that is usually present in time of war) that is tied to an obviously urgent current situation, and a deliberative issue that is in public interest (efficient and non-wasteful government), thus constructing conservation as equal to and related to these issues – which isn’t something that immediately meets the eye.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Justice and Compassion in Public Discourse
1. Form in "A Matter of Simple Justice: The Report of the President's Task Force on Women's Rights and Responsibilities."
This genre sample is in our course packet under the "Political Rhetoric and Public Policy." It's not one we discussed in class, but it is worth examining with respect to form. The very basic form is one of a formal business letter. However, like many of the open letters that we have read in other genres, the intended audience is much wider than the addressee (the President). The letter serves as an introduction to a larger report.
The deeper (non-surface level) form might be articulated this way: justification, elaboration, recommendation. This structure is not tied to the form of a letter, but to the form of an effective argument. The letter opens by immediately justifying why this topic is worth the president's (and by implication the government and nation's) attention. The topic, write the authors, is related to the "democratic ideal" and the US's place in the international spectrum. This justification serves to demonstrate why attention is needed and therefore expands the audience.
The "elaboration" phase of the letter further explains why discrimination against women is a problem from both a legal and social standpoints, and also points to the analogous case of the Civil Rights movement. The recommendation section clearly outlines the solutions to the problems articulated in the elaboration.
This form contributes to the idea of sustainable discourse for several reasons: first, the form reaches past the audience of women to an audience of all citizens who may be concerned not only with women's rights, but also with international affairs, social justice, and fair and equal application of the law. (It also functions as deliberative and epideictic rhetoric at same time.) Justification and elaboration are imperative to this piece of discourse's ability to achieve its aim and reach a desired number of people.
2. Within my historical-causal analysis, I will be exploring the topic of literature and resources for family and friends of people who self-injure (known colloquially as "cutting"). While there is a significant amount of information for the professional community (social workers, psychologists, medical professionals), there is a serious lack of good, compassionate, helpful information for lay people (parents, friends, teachers, students, etc.). Unfortunately, I have seen a lot of harmful sources of information on this topic that are highly judgmental, inaccurate, tied to religious language in hurtful ways and such. The few good sources I have come across are small and often limited in scope.
I am interested in investigating exactly what has caused this lack of quality information for non-professionals. While there are certainly unhelpful or harmful publications in every area of mental health, most areas have a significant number of good quality resources.
Some audience considerations will be the use of medical terminology in both the historical-casual analysis, sensitivity to possible audience reactions given the nature of the topic, and making sure the analysis paper does not appeal to an audience only of people who are impacted by this topic.
One thought I have had concerning the final genre project (inspired by the guidebook for Little League parents Dr. Graban mentioned in class) was a short handbook for family and friends of people who self-injure. I am aware, as I am not a medical professional or mental health professional, that this could be a difficult undertaking, and I am very open to other ideas.
Works Cited:
Presidential Task Force on Women's Rights and Responsibilities. "Letter to the President" (1969). In A Matter of Simple Justice. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. iii-vi. Microfilm. ED 055157.
Winerowd, W. Ross. "Dispositio: The Concept From of Discourse." College Composition and Communication. 22.1 (Feb 1971):39-45.
This genre sample is in our course packet under the "Political Rhetoric and Public Policy." It's not one we discussed in class, but it is worth examining with respect to form. The very basic form is one of a formal business letter. However, like many of the open letters that we have read in other genres, the intended audience is much wider than the addressee (the President). The letter serves as an introduction to a larger report.
The deeper (non-surface level) form might be articulated this way: justification, elaboration, recommendation. This structure is not tied to the form of a letter, but to the form of an effective argument. The letter opens by immediately justifying why this topic is worth the president's (and by implication the government and nation's) attention. The topic, write the authors, is related to the "democratic ideal" and the US's place in the international spectrum. This justification serves to demonstrate why attention is needed and therefore expands the audience.
The "elaboration" phase of the letter further explains why discrimination against women is a problem from both a legal and social standpoints, and also points to the analogous case of the Civil Rights movement. The recommendation section clearly outlines the solutions to the problems articulated in the elaboration.
This form contributes to the idea of sustainable discourse for several reasons: first, the form reaches past the audience of women to an audience of all citizens who may be concerned not only with women's rights, but also with international affairs, social justice, and fair and equal application of the law. (It also functions as deliberative and epideictic rhetoric at same time.) Justification and elaboration are imperative to this piece of discourse's ability to achieve its aim and reach a desired number of people.
2. Within my historical-causal analysis, I will be exploring the topic of literature and resources for family and friends of people who self-injure (known colloquially as "cutting"). While there is a significant amount of information for the professional community (social workers, psychologists, medical professionals), there is a serious lack of good, compassionate, helpful information for lay people (parents, friends, teachers, students, etc.). Unfortunately, I have seen a lot of harmful sources of information on this topic that are highly judgmental, inaccurate, tied to religious language in hurtful ways and such. The few good sources I have come across are small and often limited in scope.
I am interested in investigating exactly what has caused this lack of quality information for non-professionals. While there are certainly unhelpful or harmful publications in every area of mental health, most areas have a significant number of good quality resources.
Some audience considerations will be the use of medical terminology in both the historical-casual analysis, sensitivity to possible audience reactions given the nature of the topic, and making sure the analysis paper does not appeal to an audience only of people who are impacted by this topic.
One thought I have had concerning the final genre project (inspired by the guidebook for Little League parents Dr. Graban mentioned in class) was a short handbook for family and friends of people who self-injure. I am aware, as I am not a medical professional or mental health professional, that this could be a difficult undertaking, and I am very open to other ideas.
Works Cited:
Presidential Task Force on Women's Rights and Responsibilities. "Letter to the President" (1969). In A Matter of Simple Justice. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. iii-vi. Microfilm. ED 055157.
Winerowd, W. Ross. "Dispositio: The Concept From of Discourse." College Composition and Communication. 22.1 (Feb 1971):39-45.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Conflict, Policy, and Theology (and other stuff too)
Conflict and Policy
Over the past two years, I have had an ongoing disagreement with one of my good friends over to topic of ordaining women as pastors. My friend, Zach, is a devout Roman Catholic (the Catholic Church does not ordain women as priests/pastors), and I am Lutheran (the ELCA Lutheran church does ordain women as pastors). This has been, like many issues involving faith, a complicated disagreement, and a touchy topic. We’ve argued, debated, discussed Biblical evidence, and eventually came to a temporary agreement not to discuss the topic.
Usually, the debate over women’s ordination is primarily a level five conflict – people who address this issue have conflicting global values about gender roles within faith communities (and sometimes within society as a whole) and conflicting global values on Biblical interpretation. As a frame of reference, certain interpretations of the letters of Paul are the most frequently cited Biblical evidence against women’s ordination; however, there are parts in the Gospels that can also be used. I will refrain from going into detail about competing interpretations of the letters of Paul. If you are interested, here are a few websites that can tell you more:
Christians for Biblical Equality: http://www.cbeinternational.org/
ELCA Beliefs on Women in the Church: http://www.elca.org/Our-Faith-In-Action/Justice/Justice-for-Women.aspx
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: http://www.cbmw.org/
Roman Catholic Response to Women in the Priesthood: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19761015_inter-insigniores_en.html
However, my experience with Zach has been a bit different. There are elements of conflict levels 3 and 4 in our disagreement.
Kaufer defines level four as holding competing local values. Zach’s main contention with the idea of women as pastors actually has nothing to do with Pauline texts that concern women speaking in churches, working as leaders, or being silent in the presence of men. Nor do he and I have competing global values about women in leadership within the church or society. Zach’s objection to women as priests centered on the sacraments, specifically, the Eucharist. Within the Catholic tradition, during the communion part of the Mass, the priest is acting “in the person of Christ,” as in, substituting for Christ in the weekly reenactment of the Last Supper. As such, only men can fill this role. The Catholic tradition also places emphasis on the fact that Jesus’ twelve apostles were men. My objection to excluding women from serving as pastors/priest was centered in the fact that nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus forbid women from serving God in any capacity. At the Last Supper, when Jesus instituted the sacrament of Holy Communion, he gave very simple instructions: “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me…This is the cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” Or, as Mark tells it, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” These instructions didn’t come with any additional gender requirements, and Jesus didn’t add a footnote mentioning that only men could do this.
This situation also demonstrates that Zach and I have a level three conflict: we give decisive weight to different evidence. The evidence for and against women’s ordination generally comes from scripture, church tradition, and writings of theologians. Zach (and the Catholic community in general) values the symbolism and tradition heavily. I do not give as much weight to church tradition, especially where I see it in conflict with scripture. However, this difference in weight of evidence could also be seen as a level five conflict: the disagreement about what weight tradition has in relation to scripture is one that goes far beyond this single issue. Interestingly, that could explain why I cannot seem to solve our disagreement at level three in the way that Kaufer suggests. There are no “standard tests of evidence” for such faith-based disagreements, anyway. (If you find one...let me know!)
However, level four provides a possible solution. It is interesting to note that Zach’s local values on women’s ordination are not consistent with his values about women serving in other leadership positions in the church or speaking in church. His local values are also not consistent with his beliefs about women in general society. (For reference, Zach’s beliefs about women in society are quite mainstream.) While I fully recognize my bias on this issue, I do believe that my beliefs about ordaining women are consistent with my own global values: women are fully equipped to serve God in a wide variety of vocations, as are men. There are no gender distinctions outside biology.
In case anyone is curious, recently Zach and I did reach a tentative agreement on this issue, in the way Kaufer suggests at level four. To make a long story (very) short, Zach re-examined his beliefs (major kudos to Zach…that’s a tough thing to do) and came to the conclusion that it is possible for women to be called to be pastors/priests.
I’m afraid that this answer was anything but brief, however, I hope it was interesting and thorough!
Analogies and Conflict Levels
In “An End to History,” one of the allusions Savio makes is to Aldous Huxley’s dystopian futuristic novel Brave New World. (Fits well with the title of the speech, doesn’t it?) Within the first paragraph, Savio makes the point that the University bureaucracy is like the system in Brave New World – a system which ultimately exists to fuel itself. This allusion furthers Savio’s characterization of bureaucracies a-historical systems with contempt for individuality and change. It seems, from Savio’s speech, that he and the university hold differing global values: the university (we presume) values stability, limits to free speech, and predictability, while Savio’s Free Speech Movement values change, movement, and free speech. Savio’s comparison of the Free Speech Movement to the Civil Rights Movement gives FSM a certain legitimacy and integrity (at least in retrospect), and in the moment it probably gave FSM a more global appeal.
Stasis and Ethos Construction
Bullard’s article argues in the stasis of cause by appealing to history. By demonstrating for the audience that the racial situations resulting from recent hurricane seasons are not specific to just that instance, but are related to responses to earlier disasters as well, Bullard demonstrates for the audience that the racial problems are not a fluke nor is he exaggerating their significance for some sort of political agenda. If Bullard appealed mainly to the stases of fact/conjecture or value, his argument would suffer because the reader would lack the context he provides and it would be easy to write his concerns off. Historical precedents and demonstrating patterns of cause in like events (see Ramage pages 110-111) do lend authority to an argument. Using this same strategy (historical precedents), Wells-Barnett is able to convince her audience that lynching is a nation-wide problem that affects far more than white and African-American Southerners. She moves from writing as an African-American woman about a supposedly regional problem and instead constructs her ethos as an American journalist to other Americans about a common issue.
Over the past two years, I have had an ongoing disagreement with one of my good friends over to topic of ordaining women as pastors. My friend, Zach, is a devout Roman Catholic (the Catholic Church does not ordain women as priests/pastors), and I am Lutheran (the ELCA Lutheran church does ordain women as pastors). This has been, like many issues involving faith, a complicated disagreement, and a touchy topic. We’ve argued, debated, discussed Biblical evidence, and eventually came to a temporary agreement not to discuss the topic.
Usually, the debate over women’s ordination is primarily a level five conflict – people who address this issue have conflicting global values about gender roles within faith communities (and sometimes within society as a whole) and conflicting global values on Biblical interpretation. As a frame of reference, certain interpretations of the letters of Paul are the most frequently cited Biblical evidence against women’s ordination; however, there are parts in the Gospels that can also be used. I will refrain from going into detail about competing interpretations of the letters of Paul. If you are interested, here are a few websites that can tell you more:
Christians for Biblical Equality: http://www.cbeinternational.org/
ELCA Beliefs on Women in the Church: http://www.elca.org/Our-Faith-In-Action/Justice/Justice-for-Women.aspx
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: http://www.cbmw.org/
Roman Catholic Response to Women in the Priesthood: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19761015_inter-insigniores_en.html
However, my experience with Zach has been a bit different. There are elements of conflict levels 3 and 4 in our disagreement.
Kaufer defines level four as holding competing local values. Zach’s main contention with the idea of women as pastors actually has nothing to do with Pauline texts that concern women speaking in churches, working as leaders, or being silent in the presence of men. Nor do he and I have competing global values about women in leadership within the church or society. Zach’s objection to women as priests centered on the sacraments, specifically, the Eucharist. Within the Catholic tradition, during the communion part of the Mass, the priest is acting “in the person of Christ,” as in, substituting for Christ in the weekly reenactment of the Last Supper. As such, only men can fill this role. The Catholic tradition also places emphasis on the fact that Jesus’ twelve apostles were men. My objection to excluding women from serving as pastors/priest was centered in the fact that nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus forbid women from serving God in any capacity. At the Last Supper, when Jesus instituted the sacrament of Holy Communion, he gave very simple instructions: “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me…This is the cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” Or, as Mark tells it, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” These instructions didn’t come with any additional gender requirements, and Jesus didn’t add a footnote mentioning that only men could do this.
This situation also demonstrates that Zach and I have a level three conflict: we give decisive weight to different evidence. The evidence for and against women’s ordination generally comes from scripture, church tradition, and writings of theologians. Zach (and the Catholic community in general) values the symbolism and tradition heavily. I do not give as much weight to church tradition, especially where I see it in conflict with scripture. However, this difference in weight of evidence could also be seen as a level five conflict: the disagreement about what weight tradition has in relation to scripture is one that goes far beyond this single issue. Interestingly, that could explain why I cannot seem to solve our disagreement at level three in the way that Kaufer suggests. There are no “standard tests of evidence” for such faith-based disagreements, anyway. (If you find one...let me know!)
However, level four provides a possible solution. It is interesting to note that Zach’s local values on women’s ordination are not consistent with his values about women serving in other leadership positions in the church or speaking in church. His local values are also not consistent with his beliefs about women in general society. (For reference, Zach’s beliefs about women in society are quite mainstream.) While I fully recognize my bias on this issue, I do believe that my beliefs about ordaining women are consistent with my own global values: women are fully equipped to serve God in a wide variety of vocations, as are men. There are no gender distinctions outside biology.
In case anyone is curious, recently Zach and I did reach a tentative agreement on this issue, in the way Kaufer suggests at level four. To make a long story (very) short, Zach re-examined his beliefs (major kudos to Zach…that’s a tough thing to do) and came to the conclusion that it is possible for women to be called to be pastors/priests.
I’m afraid that this answer was anything but brief, however, I hope it was interesting and thorough!
Analogies and Conflict Levels
In “An End to History,” one of the allusions Savio makes is to Aldous Huxley’s dystopian futuristic novel Brave New World. (Fits well with the title of the speech, doesn’t it?) Within the first paragraph, Savio makes the point that the University bureaucracy is like the system in Brave New World – a system which ultimately exists to fuel itself. This allusion furthers Savio’s characterization of bureaucracies a-historical systems with contempt for individuality and change. It seems, from Savio’s speech, that he and the university hold differing global values: the university (we presume) values stability, limits to free speech, and predictability, while Savio’s Free Speech Movement values change, movement, and free speech. Savio’s comparison of the Free Speech Movement to the Civil Rights Movement gives FSM a certain legitimacy and integrity (at least in retrospect), and in the moment it probably gave FSM a more global appeal.
Stasis and Ethos Construction
Bullard’s article argues in the stasis of cause by appealing to history. By demonstrating for the audience that the racial situations resulting from recent hurricane seasons are not specific to just that instance, but are related to responses to earlier disasters as well, Bullard demonstrates for the audience that the racial problems are not a fluke nor is he exaggerating their significance for some sort of political agenda. If Bullard appealed mainly to the stases of fact/conjecture or value, his argument would suffer because the reader would lack the context he provides and it would be easy to write his concerns off. Historical precedents and demonstrating patterns of cause in like events (see Ramage pages 110-111) do lend authority to an argument. Using this same strategy (historical precedents), Wells-Barnett is able to convince her audience that lynching is a nation-wide problem that affects far more than white and African-American Southerners. She moves from writing as an African-American woman about a supposedly regional problem and instead constructs her ethos as an American journalist to other Americans about a common issue.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Rhetorical Tunnel Vision
Jonah Lehrer's "The Future of Reading" is a short opinion piece on the unintended but disappointing results of electronic reading devices (such as Kindles). This piece is clearly intended to be scientific discourse by nature of the topic, evidence offered, and its place of publication. It was published on science blog and appeals to a readership made primarily of people interested in neuroscience.
Lehrer’s article complicated the reader’s understanding of the physical book vs. Kindle/Nook debate. He takes the debate far beyond the usual new vs. old, traditional vs. innovative, though he acknowledges that such a debate exists and gives his position in that debate. It's easy to appeal to the audience's possible nostalgia for books by speaking to the tactile senses involved in reading, perhaps by writing about favorite memories of reading as a child, idyllic scenes of old bookstores, and the like. Lehrer mentions that he is a tradition book-lover (revealing a bias in favor of books), but instead, Lehrer appeals to the scientific argument for books. This is a surprise, at least to me, and possibly to many readers. I did not realize that there are viable scientific reasons to read real books, rather than e-books.
Lehrer’s piece certainly acts as scientific simply by the nature of the evidence given. It does not follow traditional Baconian induction-influenced arrangement, but it does answer all of the stases questions posed by Fahnstock and Secor. States, these authors tell us, are a “format for the arrangement of an argument” (429).
The first question posed by Fahnstock/Secor on page 129 is simply, “What are they?” In the case of Lehrer’s article, “they” refers to electronic reading devices. Fahstock and Secor’s fist None of these questions surprise the reader, nor do they offer any stunning analytical insights. Interestingly, Lehrer’s piece follows Fahnstock and Secor’s assertion about states pattern, but it does not seem so at first glance. According to Fahnstock and Secor, “The stasis pattern not only generates these questions but also determines the order in which they are asked. Questions of fact must be addressed before questions of value or policy can be addressed” (429).
It seems that Lehrer assumes that the audience already knows the answer to the first several questions – questions of fact – that Fahnstock and Secor assert must come first in the arrangement of an argument. The audience to which Lehrer is writing (especially since his article appears in an online science blog) is fairly technologically savvy. They do not need an explanation of how Nooks and Kindles work, who uses them, and how they came to be. It is quite likely, in fact, that many members of the audience already use these devices. Formally answering these first few questions of fact would be redundant and boring for the intended audience.
However, Fahnstock and Secor don’t mention that sometimes the questions of stases may need to be answered for more than one topic in the same article. In this article, the basic, fact-level questions do need to be answered for the secondary topic – how the brain processes written language. On this topic, understanding exactly how the brain processes work is necessary to his argument: the vast majority of his audience does not know the ins and outs of written language processing as it applies to reading e-texts and traditional texts.
Fahnstock and Secor write that articles in the scientific sphere occupy primarily the realms of fact, definition, and cause (432). While Lehrer’s article definitely includes these, he does not stop there. To do so would be extraordinarily dull. It is necessary in this case to address questions of value and policy: otherwise, the audience might understand the relationship between the neuroscience of how people read and how that is loosely related to using Kindles and Nooks, but the argument would stop there – basically, the point of the article would be, “People’s brains read differently when e-book devices are used.” No value judgment would be made, and no policy (or corrective action) could be introduced.
The audience to which Lehrer is writing enables him to skip part of the stases arrangement set forth by Fahnstock and Secor without detracting from his argument – in fact, in this case skipping the basic questions strengthens his appeals. Although Lehrer is writing on a scientific topic to a neuroscience community, he clearly addresses “upper level” stases of value and policy that Fahnstock and Secor believe to appear only (or nearly only) in literature. He offer his argument for value: he sees the worth of e-books (easy access, portable, adaptable to different situations), but articulates that such value is not worth the trade-off. It’s too easy to read e-books, and something major (and neurological) is lost in the process. He also offers solutions to the problem (policy stases).
Lehrer’s article does follow elements of Fahnstock and Secor’s definition of stases, both as it applies to literary and scientific rhetoric. Through using the stases questions (though not necessarily exactly as Fahnstock and Secor intended), Lehrer demonstrates that rhetorical nature of scientific writing truly expands far past Fahnstock and Secor’s definition: it’s not free of value judgments and policy statements simply by nature of appearing in the scientific sphere, and those stases questions from page 429 don’t apply only to the main topic.
In some ways, Fahnstock and Secor seem to have tunnel vision when it comes to scientific rhetoric - they assume that it all falls neatly into one category and one level of complexity (Perhaps they have not read Kinneavy's "Basic Aims of Discourse?") To be fair, Fahnstock and Secor wrote about scientific discourse in the late 1980's, well before the advent of scientific blogging. Still, their writing about stases can assist a reader in understanding the aims and questions answered in scientific discourse; however, the reader has to avoid into the incorrect assumption that all scientific rhetoric must fit into their definition. It's limited.
Jonah Lehrer's "The Future of Reading," from Wired Science blog: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/the-future-of-reading-2/
Fahnstock, Jeanne and Marie Secor. "The Stases in Scientific and Literary Argument." Written Communication 5.4 (Oct. 1988): 427-443.
Lehrer’s article complicated the reader’s understanding of the physical book vs. Kindle/Nook debate. He takes the debate far beyond the usual new vs. old, traditional vs. innovative, though he acknowledges that such a debate exists and gives his position in that debate. It's easy to appeal to the audience's possible nostalgia for books by speaking to the tactile senses involved in reading, perhaps by writing about favorite memories of reading as a child, idyllic scenes of old bookstores, and the like. Lehrer mentions that he is a tradition book-lover (revealing a bias in favor of books), but instead, Lehrer appeals to the scientific argument for books. This is a surprise, at least to me, and possibly to many readers. I did not realize that there are viable scientific reasons to read real books, rather than e-books.
Lehrer’s piece certainly acts as scientific simply by the nature of the evidence given. It does not follow traditional Baconian induction-influenced arrangement, but it does answer all of the stases questions posed by Fahnstock and Secor. States, these authors tell us, are a “format for the arrangement of an argument” (429).
The first question posed by Fahnstock/Secor on page 129 is simply, “What are they?” In the case of Lehrer’s article, “they” refers to electronic reading devices. Fahstock and Secor’s fist None of these questions surprise the reader, nor do they offer any stunning analytical insights. Interestingly, Lehrer’s piece follows Fahnstock and Secor’s assertion about states pattern, but it does not seem so at first glance. According to Fahnstock and Secor, “The stasis pattern not only generates these questions but also determines the order in which they are asked. Questions of fact must be addressed before questions of value or policy can be addressed” (429).
It seems that Lehrer assumes that the audience already knows the answer to the first several questions – questions of fact – that Fahnstock and Secor assert must come first in the arrangement of an argument. The audience to which Lehrer is writing (especially since his article appears in an online science blog) is fairly technologically savvy. They do not need an explanation of how Nooks and Kindles work, who uses them, and how they came to be. It is quite likely, in fact, that many members of the audience already use these devices. Formally answering these first few questions of fact would be redundant and boring for the intended audience.
However, Fahnstock and Secor don’t mention that sometimes the questions of stases may need to be answered for more than one topic in the same article. In this article, the basic, fact-level questions do need to be answered for the secondary topic – how the brain processes written language. On this topic, understanding exactly how the brain processes work is necessary to his argument: the vast majority of his audience does not know the ins and outs of written language processing as it applies to reading e-texts and traditional texts.
Fahnstock and Secor write that articles in the scientific sphere occupy primarily the realms of fact, definition, and cause (432). While Lehrer’s article definitely includes these, he does not stop there. To do so would be extraordinarily dull. It is necessary in this case to address questions of value and policy: otherwise, the audience might understand the relationship between the neuroscience of how people read and how that is loosely related to using Kindles and Nooks, but the argument would stop there – basically, the point of the article would be, “People’s brains read differently when e-book devices are used.” No value judgment would be made, and no policy (or corrective action) could be introduced.
The audience to which Lehrer is writing enables him to skip part of the stases arrangement set forth by Fahnstock and Secor without detracting from his argument – in fact, in this case skipping the basic questions strengthens his appeals. Although Lehrer is writing on a scientific topic to a neuroscience community, he clearly addresses “upper level” stases of value and policy that Fahnstock and Secor believe to appear only (or nearly only) in literature. He offer his argument for value: he sees the worth of e-books (easy access, portable, adaptable to different situations), but articulates that such value is not worth the trade-off. It’s too easy to read e-books, and something major (and neurological) is lost in the process. He also offers solutions to the problem (policy stases).
Lehrer’s article does follow elements of Fahnstock and Secor’s definition of stases, both as it applies to literary and scientific rhetoric. Through using the stases questions (though not necessarily exactly as Fahnstock and Secor intended), Lehrer demonstrates that rhetorical nature of scientific writing truly expands far past Fahnstock and Secor’s definition: it’s not free of value judgments and policy statements simply by nature of appearing in the scientific sphere, and those stases questions from page 429 don’t apply only to the main topic.
In some ways, Fahnstock and Secor seem to have tunnel vision when it comes to scientific rhetoric - they assume that it all falls neatly into one category and one level of complexity (Perhaps they have not read Kinneavy's "Basic Aims of Discourse?") To be fair, Fahnstock and Secor wrote about scientific discourse in the late 1980's, well before the advent of scientific blogging. Still, their writing about stases can assist a reader in understanding the aims and questions answered in scientific discourse; however, the reader has to avoid into the incorrect assumption that all scientific rhetoric must fit into their definition. It's limited.
Jonah Lehrer's "The Future of Reading," from Wired Science blog: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/the-future-of-reading-2/
Fahnstock, Jeanne and Marie Secor. "The Stases in Scientific and Literary Argument." Written Communication 5.4 (Oct. 1988): 427-443.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Ready, Aim, Fire: Where's He Going?
Kinneavy define the aim of discourse as “the effect that discourse is oriented to achieve in the average listener or reader for whom it is intended” (297). Kinneavy also mentions that discovering the intent of the discourse is imperative to understanding its aim. He sorts types of aims by the “focus on the component of the communication process which is stressed in a given discourse.”
"A Rescue Plan for College Composition and High School English," by Micheal B. Prince falls into two of Kinneavy's categories quite neatly. Prince’s intent is fairly clear: he wishes to offer a solution to the problems in high school and college composition courses. Considering this statement of aim, it seems that this piece of writing falls neatly under the “referential/exploratory” division – a subcategory of the “Reality” part of Kinneavy’s triangle. However, the piece also functions as an editorial (persuasive), which is a subcategory of the “Decoder” part of the triangle. This piece fits extremely neatly into both categories, but neither category alone tells the whole picture.
Discourse that is concerned mainly with subject matter falls under that category of emphasis on reality. Kinneavy’s piece focuses on the reality of mismatched aims in high school and college English curricula, a pre-college test that doesn’t really measure what it claims to, and the problems that these situations cause for student writers and teachers. He proposes a solution to the problems.
Were Prince’s aim only to provide information and explore a solution to a problem (that is, if his piece was only referential), the audience construction would be less important. Generally, pieces that provide information only (textbooks, encyclopedia articles) don’t have to “grab” the reader in the same way that persuasive texts do. Prince needs to grab the attention of a broader readership that would generally be interested in a teaching pedagogy article, and so he constructs his article to persuade as well as inform. He structures his piece to persuade the audience both of the urgency of the problem and the sensibility of his solution. He appeals to the audience by relating his topic (teaching English) to two things most people understand: the bad economy and SATs. After catching the reader’s interest by using these two things (especially the vignette about Baylor paying college students to re-take the SATs) he can get into the meat of the article and the real issues.
Prince then shows the audience how the SAT does not measure up to “real world” writing, and then how high school English curricula fail – enormously – at preparing students for what college writing expects. He doesn’t get into the heavier pedagogical material until the second half of the article, after clearly demonstrating how SAT and high school English has failed college preparation and student preparation for actual writing and analytical thinking. It is possible that he will loose some readers who are not personally invested in teaching and writing once he beings writing about product vs. process pedagogy, but if he looses them there, the main and most important points of the article have already been made. Oddly enough, his solution – teach students the craft of writing with an apprenticeship model in all classes – is probably not as important rhetorically as is the beginning to middle of the article, in which he outlines just how far apart high school and college writing aims can be.
Once the author strays into the area of persuasion, the audience construction becomes far more important. The aim of the article is far more complicated – it goes beyond simply providing accurate and helpful information to a certain audience. The article must pull the audience in, establish common ground and give the audience a personal stake in the problem.
Let me demonstrate.
As a reader of this text, I am a member of two different audiences. First, I come to this text as a student studying writing theory and rhetoric. Secondly, however, I do read this text as a teacher, writing tutor, and education student, and it is difficult for me to step back from what I think about Prince’s teaching ideas and suggestions for change to consider only the rhetorical strategies. This situation is, I think, a good example of how the lines of an audience become blurred. I can be a member of two audiences at once; in fact, I can be a member of two audiences with completely different aims – the first, to analyze the rhetorical aims of article and explain how those occur. Secondly, however, I do read the article with my own (strong) teaching philosophy and experiences with high school and college writing courses.
My approach to the article is heavily influenced by both of my situations. I feel as though I have a personal stake in this text: what Prince says has the possibility to influence my tutoring and teaching on a very concrete and almost immediate level, if I so choose. However, my knowledge of writing rhetoric makes me somewhat slower to react to his pedagogical claims. It causes me to hesitate, to reserve action until I have considered how Prince makes his claims, how he constructs his argument, and to what aim he chooses to do this. I am learning to reserve judgment, to do, in fact what college English teachers wish high school curricula would teach: step back and think analytically, rather than jump in and criticize. (Thank you, IU English program.)
So, by Kinneavy’s definition of the aim of discourse, has Prince’s article achieved its desired affect in its average reader? If I am an average reader, yes. Prince has convinced me that there is a much bigger disparity between college and high school English aims than I previously thought. After reading this article, I can definitely identify key differences between teaching critical thinking and teaching analytical thinking. I don’t buy Prince’s proposed solution, but I do understand how he got there. Using both my own contextual situation (teaching, schooling, other education reading, tutoring), and rhetorical analysis (Kinneavy, Killingsworth, Ong), I can come to a more nuanced understanding of Prince’s article, appreciating it’s strengths, learning from the information it provides, and identifying ways that it might influence how I write, think, and teach without agreeing with Prince’s conclusion.
That’s a lot more valuable than simply saying that I disagree and arguing about why.
EDIT (Saturday, 9/18, 7:30pm): I forgot to include the link to the article: http://chronicle.com/article/A-Rescue-Plan-for-College/47452/
Also, here's the citation information for the Kinneavy article:
Kinneavy, James E. "The Basic Aims of Discourse." College Composition and Communication 20.5 (Dec. 1969): 297-304
"A Rescue Plan for College Composition and High School English," by Micheal B. Prince falls into two of Kinneavy's categories quite neatly. Prince’s intent is fairly clear: he wishes to offer a solution to the problems in high school and college composition courses. Considering this statement of aim, it seems that this piece of writing falls neatly under the “referential/exploratory” division – a subcategory of the “Reality” part of Kinneavy’s triangle. However, the piece also functions as an editorial (persuasive), which is a subcategory of the “Decoder” part of the triangle. This piece fits extremely neatly into both categories, but neither category alone tells the whole picture.
Discourse that is concerned mainly with subject matter falls under that category of emphasis on reality. Kinneavy’s piece focuses on the reality of mismatched aims in high school and college English curricula, a pre-college test that doesn’t really measure what it claims to, and the problems that these situations cause for student writers and teachers. He proposes a solution to the problems.
Were Prince’s aim only to provide information and explore a solution to a problem (that is, if his piece was only referential), the audience construction would be less important. Generally, pieces that provide information only (textbooks, encyclopedia articles) don’t have to “grab” the reader in the same way that persuasive texts do. Prince needs to grab the attention of a broader readership that would generally be interested in a teaching pedagogy article, and so he constructs his article to persuade as well as inform. He structures his piece to persuade the audience both of the urgency of the problem and the sensibility of his solution. He appeals to the audience by relating his topic (teaching English) to two things most people understand: the bad economy and SATs. After catching the reader’s interest by using these two things (especially the vignette about Baylor paying college students to re-take the SATs) he can get into the meat of the article and the real issues.
Prince then shows the audience how the SAT does not measure up to “real world” writing, and then how high school English curricula fail – enormously – at preparing students for what college writing expects. He doesn’t get into the heavier pedagogical material until the second half of the article, after clearly demonstrating how SAT and high school English has failed college preparation and student preparation for actual writing and analytical thinking. It is possible that he will loose some readers who are not personally invested in teaching and writing once he beings writing about product vs. process pedagogy, but if he looses them there, the main and most important points of the article have already been made. Oddly enough, his solution – teach students the craft of writing with an apprenticeship model in all classes – is probably not as important rhetorically as is the beginning to middle of the article, in which he outlines just how far apart high school and college writing aims can be.
Once the author strays into the area of persuasion, the audience construction becomes far more important. The aim of the article is far more complicated – it goes beyond simply providing accurate and helpful information to a certain audience. The article must pull the audience in, establish common ground and give the audience a personal stake in the problem.
Let me demonstrate.
As a reader of this text, I am a member of two different audiences. First, I come to this text as a student studying writing theory and rhetoric. Secondly, however, I do read this text as a teacher, writing tutor, and education student, and it is difficult for me to step back from what I think about Prince’s teaching ideas and suggestions for change to consider only the rhetorical strategies. This situation is, I think, a good example of how the lines of an audience become blurred. I can be a member of two audiences at once; in fact, I can be a member of two audiences with completely different aims – the first, to analyze the rhetorical aims of article and explain how those occur. Secondly, however, I do read the article with my own (strong) teaching philosophy and experiences with high school and college writing courses.
My approach to the article is heavily influenced by both of my situations. I feel as though I have a personal stake in this text: what Prince says has the possibility to influence my tutoring and teaching on a very concrete and almost immediate level, if I so choose. However, my knowledge of writing rhetoric makes me somewhat slower to react to his pedagogical claims. It causes me to hesitate, to reserve action until I have considered how Prince makes his claims, how he constructs his argument, and to what aim he chooses to do this. I am learning to reserve judgment, to do, in fact what college English teachers wish high school curricula would teach: step back and think analytically, rather than jump in and criticize. (Thank you, IU English program.)
So, by Kinneavy’s definition of the aim of discourse, has Prince’s article achieved its desired affect in its average reader? If I am an average reader, yes. Prince has convinced me that there is a much bigger disparity between college and high school English aims than I previously thought. After reading this article, I can definitely identify key differences between teaching critical thinking and teaching analytical thinking. I don’t buy Prince’s proposed solution, but I do understand how he got there. Using both my own contextual situation (teaching, schooling, other education reading, tutoring), and rhetorical analysis (Kinneavy, Killingsworth, Ong), I can come to a more nuanced understanding of Prince’s article, appreciating it’s strengths, learning from the information it provides, and identifying ways that it might influence how I write, think, and teach without agreeing with Prince’s conclusion.
That’s a lot more valuable than simply saying that I disagree and arguing about why.
EDIT (Saturday, 9/18, 7:30pm): I forgot to include the link to the article: http://chronicle.com/article/A-Rescue-Plan-for-College/47452/
Also, here's the citation information for the Kinneavy article:
Kinneavy, James E. "The Basic Aims of Discourse." College Composition and Communication 20.5 (Dec. 1969): 297-304
Friday, September 10, 2010
Rhetorical Masquerade
It may seem odd, in a news piece about feminism, bra burning, Miss America, and other hot topics (sorry, no pun intended) to do a textual analysis, rather than focus on the obviously fascinating combination of historical and contemporary context of the piece. I’ve found, however, that the rhetorical twists and turns of this piece are simply to interesting to ignore.
Specifically, the last paragraph of the text provides a mind-blowing moment. It is there that Kantrowitz surprises the audience with what Seltzer would call an “argument by example”(Seltzer 288). Her rhetoric is powerful yet gentle, with the occasional unexpected twist.
However, before appreciating the curious ending, we need to understand the set-up.The piece is, overall, deliberative rhetoric. The author is asking the audience to make a decision about the possible progress and success of the feminist movement since the late 1960s. However, there are clear epideictic elements: the piece opens with a short narrative about what really happened at the fabled bra-burning protest, and from that point on reads a bit like an article one might find in the Reminisce magazine lying around an elderly relative's house – a somewhat nostalgic remembrance of an important historical event. The article continues under the facade of epideictic rhetoric for some time, as the author established ethos and pathos.
The emotional appeal, or pathos, is set up in the first paragraph. The scene is described in a way that will probably cause the reader to remember how he or she felt about the event, if it is remembered, or to give the younger audience a clear picture of what went on. Yet, Kantrowitz tempers the descriptions – perhaps for the sake of reality, or perhaps to moderate the feelings of her more passionate readers. She assures them that, actually, no bras were burned. In reality, this wasn’t a particularly large or violent demonstration. In this way she begins setting up her ethos, or reliability as an author as well. She presents a clear, factual, and fairly dispassionate report of the events surrounding the protest and the Miss America 1970 pageant, while acknowledging their formidable historical significance. She does not hint rhetorically whether or not she has a personal stake in feminism. The only clue of the change to come is a short quote from Miss America 1970, Judith Ford, who says that she does not remember the pivotal moment in which the "Women's Lib" sheet was released at her crowning. The astute reader should wonder why, of all the famous people involved in this event to quote, Kantrowitz chooses Ford - especially as she doesn't say anything particularly inflammatory.
The logos of this article, as developed by Kantrowiz, does not become immediately clear. According to Killingsworth’s “Appeals in Modern Rhetoric,” logos involves “…referneces to the world shared by the author and audience” (Killingsworth 26). For quite awhile, while this article masquerades as an epideictic remembrance, she does not appear to ask the audience to do anything besides listen. Then, in the second to last paragraph, Kantrowitz brings the reader into the present, pointing out the issues that permeate our current news and are still a struggle for the current feminist movement: abortion rights, GLBT rights, and rigid beauty standards. In this move, she raises the question of what progress, exactly, has been made.
Then comes the bomb.
In her final paragraph, Kantrowitz gives her audience the surprising answer as to why she quoted Judith Ford earlier. Ford was not exactly the anti-feminist ideal woman that the protesters thought. Kantrowitz shares that Ford, a child of the Title IX era (sorry, momentary contextual slip), was the first woman to win a varsity letter (on a men's team, no less) at the University of Southwestern Louisiana. In fact, as a divorced single mother, she sincerely appreciated the feminist movement.
Kantrowitz's most amazing rhetorical move is her ability to spin a narrative that persuades the audience to reconsider a long held view in a gentle yet effective way. Her deliberative article – that cleverly masquerades as an epideictic piece – she places in the minds of her rhetorically-minded readers two things:
1. There’s more than one way to burn a bra, as it were.
2. Persuasion doesn’t necessarily involve overt arguments and aggressive discourse.
The sisterhood is powerful, indeed – especially when a sister can write like Kantrowitz does.
Works Cited:
http://www.newsweek.com/2007/11/10/it-s-ms-america-to-you.html
"It's Ms. America to You," by Barbara Kantrowitz, published in Newsweek Magazine, November 10, 2007
"Appeals in Modern Rhetoric: An Ordinary Language Approach." M. Jimmie Killingsworth. Southern IL U.P: 2005
"Rhetorical Analysis: Understanding How Texts Persuade Readers." Ed. Charles Bazerman and Paul Prior: What Writing Does and How It Does It. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003.
Specifically, the last paragraph of the text provides a mind-blowing moment. It is there that Kantrowitz surprises the audience with what Seltzer would call an “argument by example”(Seltzer 288). Her rhetoric is powerful yet gentle, with the occasional unexpected twist.
However, before appreciating the curious ending, we need to understand the set-up.The piece is, overall, deliberative rhetoric. The author is asking the audience to make a decision about the possible progress and success of the feminist movement since the late 1960s. However, there are clear epideictic elements: the piece opens with a short narrative about what really happened at the fabled bra-burning protest, and from that point on reads a bit like an article one might find in the Reminisce magazine lying around an elderly relative's house – a somewhat nostalgic remembrance of an important historical event. The article continues under the facade of epideictic rhetoric for some time, as the author established ethos and pathos.
The emotional appeal, or pathos, is set up in the first paragraph. The scene is described in a way that will probably cause the reader to remember how he or she felt about the event, if it is remembered, or to give the younger audience a clear picture of what went on. Yet, Kantrowitz tempers the descriptions – perhaps for the sake of reality, or perhaps to moderate the feelings of her more passionate readers. She assures them that, actually, no bras were burned. In reality, this wasn’t a particularly large or violent demonstration. In this way she begins setting up her ethos, or reliability as an author as well. She presents a clear, factual, and fairly dispassionate report of the events surrounding the protest and the Miss America 1970 pageant, while acknowledging their formidable historical significance. She does not hint rhetorically whether or not she has a personal stake in feminism. The only clue of the change to come is a short quote from Miss America 1970, Judith Ford, who says that she does not remember the pivotal moment in which the "Women's Lib" sheet was released at her crowning. The astute reader should wonder why, of all the famous people involved in this event to quote, Kantrowitz chooses Ford - especially as she doesn't say anything particularly inflammatory.
The logos of this article, as developed by Kantrowiz, does not become immediately clear. According to Killingsworth’s “Appeals in Modern Rhetoric,” logos involves “…referneces to the world shared by the author and audience” (Killingsworth 26). For quite awhile, while this article masquerades as an epideictic remembrance, she does not appear to ask the audience to do anything besides listen. Then, in the second to last paragraph, Kantrowitz brings the reader into the present, pointing out the issues that permeate our current news and are still a struggle for the current feminist movement: abortion rights, GLBT rights, and rigid beauty standards. In this move, she raises the question of what progress, exactly, has been made.
Then comes the bomb.
In her final paragraph, Kantrowitz gives her audience the surprising answer as to why she quoted Judith Ford earlier. Ford was not exactly the anti-feminist ideal woman that the protesters thought. Kantrowitz shares that Ford, a child of the Title IX era (sorry, momentary contextual slip), was the first woman to win a varsity letter (on a men's team, no less) at the University of Southwestern Louisiana. In fact, as a divorced single mother, she sincerely appreciated the feminist movement.
Kantrowitz's most amazing rhetorical move is her ability to spin a narrative that persuades the audience to reconsider a long held view in a gentle yet effective way. Her deliberative article – that cleverly masquerades as an epideictic piece – she places in the minds of her rhetorically-minded readers two things:
1. There’s more than one way to burn a bra, as it were.
2. Persuasion doesn’t necessarily involve overt arguments and aggressive discourse.
The sisterhood is powerful, indeed – especially when a sister can write like Kantrowitz does.
Works Cited:
http://www.newsweek.com/2007/11/10/it-s-ms-america-to-you.html
"It's Ms. America to You," by Barbara Kantrowitz, published in Newsweek Magazine, November 10, 2007
"Appeals in Modern Rhetoric: An Ordinary Language Approach." M. Jimmie Killingsworth. Southern IL U.P: 2005
"Rhetorical Analysis: Understanding How Texts Persuade Readers." Ed. Charles Bazerman and Paul Prior: What Writing Does and How It Does It. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)