Hi, everyone.
For Tuesday's in-class analysis, here are your concepts and questions. Work through the set that is relevant to your group; we'll break for discussion either before or after the synthesis questions. One group member will probably want to use the assignment sheet and available Internet resources to find out more about the context of your chosen text.
Lung Group: “Letter to Hu Jintao”
1. examples of illustrating, authorizing, borrowing, or extending (Harris ch.2)
2. the rhetorical “move” in each paragraph (i.e., its communicative function or the role it plays in her larger argument)
3. cogent reasoning (Lazere ch. 2) and/or Rogerian “believing and doubting”
Preparation for Synthesis: Cite the passage(s) that you think holds your writer’s main argument. Very briefly, list the main points your writer uses to develop that argument. There should be an implied logical progression in that list, so you might have to dig through the examples and illustrations to get at them.
Synthesis Question: What role could cultural context play in how Lung wrote her open letter, given that it was originally written in Chinese for a Taiwanese audience, before being translated into and circulated in English?
Neeleman Group: JetBlue triad of documents
1. cogent reasoning (Lazere ch. 2) and/or Rogerian “believing and doubting”
2. use or avoidance of disembodied voice (Matalene)
3. how the 3 different documents work together to create or remove certainty
Preparation for Synthesis: Cite the passage(s) that you think holds your writer’s main argument. Very briefly, list the main points your writer uses to develop that argument. There should be an implied logical progression in that list, so you might have to dig through the examples and illustrations to get at them.
Synthesis Question: How does Neeleman construct audience in these documents in terms of Ong's audience construction?
Sheils and Musgrove Group: “Why Johnny Can’t Write” debate
1. cogent reasoning (Lazere ch. 2) and/or logical fallacies (Lazere ch. 2)
2. ESBYODS principles (Lazere ch. 5)
3. conflict levels or clashing value pairs (Kaufer)
4. examples of illustrating, authorizing, borrowing, or extending (Harris ch.2)
Preparation for Synthesis: Cite the passage(s) that you think holds your writer’s main argument. Very briefly, list the main points your writer uses to develop that argument. There should be an implied logical progression in that list, so you might have to dig through the examples and illustrations to get at them.
Synthesis Question: What kind of audience does each writer write for, and how do you think that affected their decisions about how to argue (note specific differences where you can)?
Pausch Group: “Childhood Dreams—The Last Lecture”
1. the rhetorical “move” in each paragraph (i.e., its communicative function or the role it plays in his larger argument)
2. use of experience as evidence (Matalene)
3. use of irony
Preparation for Synthesis: Cite the passage(s) that you think holds your writer’s main argument. Very briefly, list the main points your writer uses to develop that argument. There should be an implied logical progression in that list, so you might have to dig through the examples and illustrations to get at them.
Synthesis Question: How does Randy Pausch use his own experiences as a way for the audience to reflect on current values, beliefs, and trends of the American middle-class?
-Dr. Graban
Monday, October 27, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Tres Questions
1. As the president of my high school’s gay straight alliance I received a lot of criticism from my peers. I did my best to remain calm, and to not give people the reactions that they were looking for when they teased and tormented my group of “faggots”. There was one instance when one man just took things too far, personally attacking me for working with these students. We stood yelling at each other in the hallway outside my Spanish room, both of us reaching unimaginable levels of frustration. We were having a conflict on level four, conflicting local values. He believed that the students, with whom I confidentially worked, were sinners on the deepest level, while I believe that they are decent human beings that deserve the same rights as anyone else. We were unable to resolve our argument because there was no way for me to convince him that his religious beliefs are wrong.
2. Savio draws on analogies of other instances in which human rights are denied. In Brave New World people are denied even the most basic rights, such as love and passion. Comparing this to the conditions at your university would make quite the statement. As a University official I would want to take into consideration the argument being presented, and work to resolve the issue at hand.
3. Obama’s emphasis on the stases of cause helps readers identify with his reasoning. If readers can understand why he feels such a deep loyalty to Jeremiah Wright, they can relate and forgive him. Understanding the history of racial tension pushes Savio, and Wells-Barnett’s arguments, by helping the reader come to terms with the terrible elements of the past. Describing the emotional elements creates audience construction, by unifying everyone behind one dreadful happenings of our nation’s history.
2. Savio draws on analogies of other instances in which human rights are denied. In Brave New World people are denied even the most basic rights, such as love and passion. Comparing this to the conditions at your university would make quite the statement. As a University official I would want to take into consideration the argument being presented, and work to resolve the issue at hand.
3. Obama’s emphasis on the stases of cause helps readers identify with his reasoning. If readers can understand why he feels such a deep loyalty to Jeremiah Wright, they can relate and forgive him. Understanding the history of racial tension pushes Savio, and Wells-Barnett’s arguments, by helping the reader come to terms with the terrible elements of the past. Describing the emotional elements creates audience construction, by unifying everyone behind one dreadful happenings of our nation’s history.
1. My job requires making calzones. The drivers criticize how quickly I make calzones. They argue that the customers will be happier if they receive their calzones quickly. I argue that a better product offers a more satisfied customer. This is a level three argument in that the drivers and I give weight to different evidence. The drivers receive better tips when the calzones are made quickly. However, the customer has not seen the product at this time. I argue that making the calzones correctly will result in a more satisfied customer. It only adds one minute of extra work to make the calzones correctly. I believe this out ways making the calzones sloppily and getting them out a few minutes faster.
2.Savio's analogy that "Sproul Hall is to students rights as Mississipi is to civil rights" is relatable to his allusion that states the university is "in the world but not of the world," in that the the comparison of Sproul Hall to Mississipi points out the essential rights and due process that are missing in both places. This is to the allusion of the university in that there is a certain censorship in the school that takes away from these essential rights of expression and culture. Some of the students are barred from expressing themselves in that their views are seen as controversial and therefore, not good for the schools identity. If I were the Administrator, I would be responsive to what Savio defines as depersonalization. However I would not let the school run rampant. There would need to be civil and logical debating.
3.Obama makes the case that while he associates with individuals who have made mistakes in the past, it does not affect his ideals. Moreover, everyone's identity is different and made up of complex components of family, belief, and environment. It is important to weigh our view of him on these ideals he holds prevalent. Putting people in boxes based on race and identity gets us no where, besides attaining a mass of unopened boxes. Obama argues on the stasis of cause in order to very basically point out the misconception in order to identify how different we all are and how we cannot base one man's actions on another's. What Wells-Barnett and Savio could take from this is that ethos must be presented in a way that can be accepted by a more diverse populace.
2.Savio's analogy that "Sproul Hall is to students rights as Mississipi is to civil rights" is relatable to his allusion that states the university is "in the world but not of the world," in that the the comparison of Sproul Hall to Mississipi points out the essential rights and due process that are missing in both places. This is to the allusion of the university in that there is a certain censorship in the school that takes away from these essential rights of expression and culture. Some of the students are barred from expressing themselves in that their views are seen as controversial and therefore, not good for the schools identity. If I were the Administrator, I would be responsive to what Savio defines as depersonalization. However I would not let the school run rampant. There would need to be civil and logical debating.
3.Obama makes the case that while he associates with individuals who have made mistakes in the past, it does not affect his ideals. Moreover, everyone's identity is different and made up of complex components of family, belief, and environment. It is important to weigh our view of him on these ideals he holds prevalent. Putting people in boxes based on race and identity gets us no where, besides attaining a mass of unopened boxes. Obama argues on the stasis of cause in order to very basically point out the misconception in order to identify how different we all are and how we cannot base one man's actions on another's. What Wells-Barnett and Savio could take from this is that ethos must be presented in a way that can be accepted by a more diverse populace.
3 Questions
Question 1
My sister and I thought it would be a good idea to share an apartment this semester, and at the time this idea came up, I really thought this was a good idea. This was until I realized that I had no say in anything. I have found that it really is easier to just not argue than to fight a losing battle. I enjoy things like my friends and my comfort, and she would rather have the cleanest and neatest room in the entire world. So basically in this social experiment of life, I have found it best to just agree to disagree. I would rather have her not fighting with me over little detail, then to choose my battles and still lose.
Question 2
Mario Savio believes whole heartedly that the students at UC Berkley are facing the same denial of civil rights, as people of color faced in Mississippi. Although he compares issues of race to those of free speech, Savio still believes that no injustice should go unnoticed. The idea that the university being “in the world but not of the world” demonstrates that civil injustice is present, but is not the way of the rest of the world. This speech is directly intended for the ears of the administration, the deniers of the student’s civil liberties.
Question 3
Barak Obama uses his history to establish the credibility of who he is, and what makes him a fair representative of every American. Obama had to defend himself when people in the media questioned his character. Obama uses his family’s history and his story of his upbringing to present a case of what makes him who he is. Obama speaks a very positive message, opposed to Savio’s rant on the problems with the bureaucracy. Savio’s message may have been better received if he was able to draw out the good things of why civil rights are important, rather than compare the university to a dystopia, in a world not of this world.
My sister and I thought it would be a good idea to share an apartment this semester, and at the time this idea came up, I really thought this was a good idea. This was until I realized that I had no say in anything. I have found that it really is easier to just not argue than to fight a losing battle. I enjoy things like my friends and my comfort, and she would rather have the cleanest and neatest room in the entire world. So basically in this social experiment of life, I have found it best to just agree to disagree. I would rather have her not fighting with me over little detail, then to choose my battles and still lose.
Question 2
Mario Savio believes whole heartedly that the students at UC Berkley are facing the same denial of civil rights, as people of color faced in Mississippi. Although he compares issues of race to those of free speech, Savio still believes that no injustice should go unnoticed. The idea that the university being “in the world but not of the world” demonstrates that civil injustice is present, but is not the way of the rest of the world. This speech is directly intended for the ears of the administration, the deniers of the student’s civil liberties.
Question 3
Barak Obama uses his history to establish the credibility of who he is, and what makes him a fair representative of every American. Obama had to defend himself when people in the media questioned his character. Obama uses his family’s history and his story of his upbringing to present a case of what makes him who he is. Obama speaks a very positive message, opposed to Savio’s rant on the problems with the bureaucracy. Savio’s message may have been better received if he was able to draw out the good things of why civil rights are important, rather than compare the university to a dystopia, in a world not of this world.
Question One:
My YOUNGER sister and I participate in a traditional argument over who gets to drive our ten year old Ford Taurus when we come back from our respective universities on winter, spring, and summer break. If we fail to negotiate like civilized people, we both end up stranded at home, if we can’t be bothered to pay $1.25 to ride the metro, usually throwing mean looks at one another. Thank god we usually manage to come to some sort of agreement. After all, we hold the same local values, or maybe we prize them so much they’ve become global values- that of socializing and going to the beach, or even just going for a drive down PCH at sunset. Our level of conflict is certainly then the first level, a conflicting sense of certain statements. When I argue my age would allow me driving privileges, she rebuts that she can’t help that she was born two years after me. When I say that the only reason Sarah would ever succeed in attaining the car and the freedom that comes with it IS her age and THAT is unfair- of course she is the baby of the family and of course completely doted on by my parents, my bothers, and let’s face it- even I cannot always say no to my little sister, stubborn and viciously argumentative as she is. Nevertheless, we realize that sharing a car and giving each other a lift now and again is better than no car at all.
Question Two:
The allusion to Brave New World in Savio’s speech functions in a manner that highlights the fact that citizens cannot participate in a democratic society if the bureaucracy managing the society is “depersonalized [and] unresponsive”. Allowing free speech requires that someone is there is listen, and not only that, to respond as well. Power in the hands of a few threatens the citizen’s right to speak out. Saying that “impersonal bureaucracy is the efficient enemy in a ‘brave New World’” reaffirms the silent, stoic power of a government that is unfettered by the speech of its people. In order to change to take place, Savio explains, higher government officials must respond to the demands, questions, comments, concerns, etc. of the people. That is essentially what Savio is getting at with his allusion to Brave New World.
Questions Three:
In formulating his response around the stasis of cause, Obama is able to assert fact about his history with Wright in a way that explains the reasons he has been associated with the Rev. This allows Obama the opportunity to respond honestly and in a manner that answer various questions his audience might have about their relationship. He also redirects the accusations away from his character in a way- by giving a brief history that includes solid, factual explanations, he is providing claims that are irrefutable (as long as they are honest, certain FACT cannot be rebutted). His both clears his character of any malice as well as explains some of his political and social history, something that would be of interest to both his audience and his rivals.
My YOUNGER sister and I participate in a traditional argument over who gets to drive our ten year old Ford Taurus when we come back from our respective universities on winter, spring, and summer break. If we fail to negotiate like civilized people, we both end up stranded at home, if we can’t be bothered to pay $1.25 to ride the metro, usually throwing mean looks at one another. Thank god we usually manage to come to some sort of agreement. After all, we hold the same local values, or maybe we prize them so much they’ve become global values- that of socializing and going to the beach, or even just going for a drive down PCH at sunset. Our level of conflict is certainly then the first level, a conflicting sense of certain statements. When I argue my age would allow me driving privileges, she rebuts that she can’t help that she was born two years after me. When I say that the only reason Sarah would ever succeed in attaining the car and the freedom that comes with it IS her age and THAT is unfair- of course she is the baby of the family and of course completely doted on by my parents, my bothers, and let’s face it- even I cannot always say no to my little sister, stubborn and viciously argumentative as she is. Nevertheless, we realize that sharing a car and giving each other a lift now and again is better than no car at all.
Question Two:
The allusion to Brave New World in Savio’s speech functions in a manner that highlights the fact that citizens cannot participate in a democratic society if the bureaucracy managing the society is “depersonalized [and] unresponsive”. Allowing free speech requires that someone is there is listen, and not only that, to respond as well. Power in the hands of a few threatens the citizen’s right to speak out. Saying that “impersonal bureaucracy is the efficient enemy in a ‘brave New World’” reaffirms the silent, stoic power of a government that is unfettered by the speech of its people. In order to change to take place, Savio explains, higher government officials must respond to the demands, questions, comments, concerns, etc. of the people. That is essentially what Savio is getting at with his allusion to Brave New World.
Questions Three:
In formulating his response around the stasis of cause, Obama is able to assert fact about his history with Wright in a way that explains the reasons he has been associated with the Rev. This allows Obama the opportunity to respond honestly and in a manner that answer various questions his audience might have about their relationship. He also redirects the accusations away from his character in a way- by giving a brief history that includes solid, factual explanations, he is providing claims that are irrefutable (as long as they are honest, certain FACT cannot be rebutted). His both clears his character of any malice as well as explains some of his political and social history, something that would be of interest to both his audience and his rivals.
Blog Questions
1.
Ever since my younger brother, Matt, received his license, we have constantly bickered over who gets the car and when. I had my license for over two years before he got his, and it was a difficult to adapt to not being able to take the car whenever I pleased. We each think that we have more of a right than the other person to use the car. The major argument is age. I say that I'm older and I should have first choice on when I need it, so long as it doesn't interfere with his work schedule; and Matt says that I've had plenty of time to use the car since he got his license after me. Although we've been legal drivers at the same time for more than two years, we still continue to argue. I wish it were as simple as clarifying our references; however, we place a higher value on our own evidence and thus, the arguing continues. Our level of conflict is 3. We often use "statistics", as in who uses more gas, or generally puts on more miles, to try and convince our mediator (our mother) who deserves the car. We also pull from past experiences, generally negative ones, such as who has a speeding ticket, or who gets more parking tickets (we live right outside Chicago-and parking is almost as bad as Bloomington!) Our arguments will probably never stop unless we both realize how to share and make sacrifices.
2.
The issues of students' rights at Sproul Hall is compared to the issue of civil rights in Mississippi. I believe this analogy made by Savio is closely related to the allusion of Kafka. The rights for both parties are fighting for are the similar and the authorities "dealing" with each situation act similarly as well. Savio describes the universities bureaucracy as "unresponsive" and "depersonalized." This shows that the bureaucracy is suppressing the students' rights through ignoring them. Similarly, the autocrats in power in Mississippi also suppress the powerless majority. These ideas are Kafkaesque in the sense that the bureaucrats have intentionally distorted reality to justify their actions. I think the analogy worked well because it compared a small scale legal rights issue to a larger, more well-known one. I think it would be impossible for the university's administration not to recognize the lack of student rights after their oppression has been compared to that of civil rights. Savio's article would influence me to not only listen to the students, but also make policy changes on behalf of the students' rights. These changes would be made not only because they would be the just thing to do, but also because the university would have to deal with public humiliation for suppressing their students' opinions and legal rights.
3.
Obama uses history to argue for his character because it creates a clearer relationship between his argument and his background. He explains where he comes from and his personal background and how he has worked for his American dream. Jeremiah Wright is Obama's former Reverend who helped Barack grow into the person and the American he is today, despite Wright's few Anti-American slams. By giving this historical background of their relationship, Obama is creating an ethos appeal, not only for himself, but also for the Reverend. This helps the reader better connect with why this man was Obama's Reverend and how much of a positive impact Wright has had on Obama's character. I think that Wells-Barnett and Savio would have furthered the effectiveness of their arguments by constructing strong ethos appeals like Obama had. Their arguments would be questioned less since the audience would have less reason to doubt the authors' credibility or knowledge on their topics.
Ever since my younger brother, Matt, received his license, we have constantly bickered over who gets the car and when. I had my license for over two years before he got his, and it was a difficult to adapt to not being able to take the car whenever I pleased. We each think that we have more of a right than the other person to use the car. The major argument is age. I say that I'm older and I should have first choice on when I need it, so long as it doesn't interfere with his work schedule; and Matt says that I've had plenty of time to use the car since he got his license after me. Although we've been legal drivers at the same time for more than two years, we still continue to argue. I wish it were as simple as clarifying our references; however, we place a higher value on our own evidence and thus, the arguing continues. Our level of conflict is 3. We often use "statistics", as in who uses more gas, or generally puts on more miles, to try and convince our mediator (our mother) who deserves the car. We also pull from past experiences, generally negative ones, such as who has a speeding ticket, or who gets more parking tickets (we live right outside Chicago-and parking is almost as bad as Bloomington!) Our arguments will probably never stop unless we both realize how to share and make sacrifices.
2.
The issues of students' rights at Sproul Hall is compared to the issue of civil rights in Mississippi. I believe this analogy made by Savio is closely related to the allusion of Kafka. The rights for both parties are fighting for are the similar and the authorities "dealing" with each situation act similarly as well. Savio describes the universities bureaucracy as "unresponsive" and "depersonalized." This shows that the bureaucracy is suppressing the students' rights through ignoring them. Similarly, the autocrats in power in Mississippi also suppress the powerless majority. These ideas are Kafkaesque in the sense that the bureaucrats have intentionally distorted reality to justify their actions. I think the analogy worked well because it compared a small scale legal rights issue to a larger, more well-known one. I think it would be impossible for the university's administration not to recognize the lack of student rights after their oppression has been compared to that of civil rights. Savio's article would influence me to not only listen to the students, but also make policy changes on behalf of the students' rights. These changes would be made not only because they would be the just thing to do, but also because the university would have to deal with public humiliation for suppressing their students' opinions and legal rights.
3.
Obama uses history to argue for his character because it creates a clearer relationship between his argument and his background. He explains where he comes from and his personal background and how he has worked for his American dream. Jeremiah Wright is Obama's former Reverend who helped Barack grow into the person and the American he is today, despite Wright's few Anti-American slams. By giving this historical background of their relationship, Obama is creating an ethos appeal, not only for himself, but also for the Reverend. This helps the reader better connect with why this man was Obama's Reverend and how much of a positive impact Wright has had on Obama's character. I think that Wells-Barnett and Savio would have furthered the effectiveness of their arguments by constructing strong ethos appeals like Obama had. Their arguments would be questioned less since the audience would have less reason to doubt the authors' credibility or knowledge on their topics.
No Class Questions
Question 1
My dad and I always argue about his girlfriend. She is really bossy and she picks certain people that she likes on certain days but then usually the next day she picks a new person. If I was the person she liked one day then she will be my enemy the next. She is really selfish and gets upset when my dad and I do things without her and she also gets upset if she is not allowed to be the center of any family argument that we might have between one of my siblings and me or my dad and me. She will get herself into the argument someone by either being a huge bitch (sorry it’s really the only thing that describes her) or by creating a bigger argument with whomever I was originally arguing with. In this case we hold conflicting global values because we do not agree that an argument should stay between father and daughter, or between a sister and a sister—if that is where it began and all others should stay out of it unless they are affected. She holds the belief that if she if is around an argument she is automatically part of it, where I hold the belief that everyone should stay out of it unless it is their fight to fight. I hope this is clear. Possibly it comes down to the fact that she is not a member of the family and therefore she does not have the authority to act as if she were, while she believes that she should have that power. We have conflicting ideas about this, and I assume that this is a globally held belief that a new girlfriend should not put herself into family matters.
Question 2
This argument that “Sproul Hall is to students rights as Mississippi is to civil rights” is similar to the idea in paragraph eleven that the university is “in the world but not of the world” because Sproul Hall is intended to support student rights and be a place where students are able to have their ideas heard, but they are taking away the students rights. The students are trying to express themselves but their freedom is being taken away by not being allowed to protest. Therefore the students can be part of the university but not agreeing with the things the university is trying to accomplish. Savio is trying to advocate for students’ rights and this allusion adds to his claim by bringing a new way of understanding how these students feel to the table. If I were the university administrator I would feel as though he was calling me a hypocrite and I would feel as though things needed to change in order for the students to feel as though they belong in the university.
Question 3
He uses cause because he needs to bring himself back from something that could possibly damage his character. I think he details his history in order for the audience to see that he does not believe in some one the things accused of him and he has the past to prove it. This same strategy could be applied to Savio’s article if he would have given a little bit more about himself and how he has been commited to the things he is giving his speech about in the past. That makes it seem like he will continue to fight for these things, as he is currently doing when he gives the speech, until they have been righted.
My dad and I always argue about his girlfriend. She is really bossy and she picks certain people that she likes on certain days but then usually the next day she picks a new person. If I was the person she liked one day then she will be my enemy the next. She is really selfish and gets upset when my dad and I do things without her and she also gets upset if she is not allowed to be the center of any family argument that we might have between one of my siblings and me or my dad and me. She will get herself into the argument someone by either being a huge bitch (sorry it’s really the only thing that describes her) or by creating a bigger argument with whomever I was originally arguing with. In this case we hold conflicting global values because we do not agree that an argument should stay between father and daughter, or between a sister and a sister—if that is where it began and all others should stay out of it unless they are affected. She holds the belief that if she if is around an argument she is automatically part of it, where I hold the belief that everyone should stay out of it unless it is their fight to fight. I hope this is clear. Possibly it comes down to the fact that she is not a member of the family and therefore she does not have the authority to act as if she were, while she believes that she should have that power. We have conflicting ideas about this, and I assume that this is a globally held belief that a new girlfriend should not put herself into family matters.
Question 2
This argument that “Sproul Hall is to students rights as Mississippi is to civil rights” is similar to the idea in paragraph eleven that the university is “in the world but not of the world” because Sproul Hall is intended to support student rights and be a place where students are able to have their ideas heard, but they are taking away the students rights. The students are trying to express themselves but their freedom is being taken away by not being allowed to protest. Therefore the students can be part of the university but not agreeing with the things the university is trying to accomplish. Savio is trying to advocate for students’ rights and this allusion adds to his claim by bringing a new way of understanding how these students feel to the table. If I were the university administrator I would feel as though he was calling me a hypocrite and I would feel as though things needed to change in order for the students to feel as though they belong in the university.
Question 3
He uses cause because he needs to bring himself back from something that could possibly damage his character. I think he details his history in order for the audience to see that he does not believe in some one the things accused of him and he has the past to prove it. This same strategy could be applied to Savio’s article if he would have given a little bit more about himself and how he has been commited to the things he is giving his speech about in the past. That makes it seem like he will continue to fight for these things, as he is currently doing when he gives the speech, until they have been righted.
3 qquestions
1. My ex-room mate (who is still my best friend) and I constantly disagreed about the upkeep of our apartment. At first the arguments centered around which tasks each of us were responsible for in terms of cleaning and organizing. For instance, if a dirty dish was left out, it was the responsibility of the person who used the dish to clean it. Or, if one person made a mess, they ought to clean it up. These initial arguments centered around the first point of policy conflict: the argument of fact. We could never quite agree on who contributed more to the mess, therefore we could never agree on who should clean what. Even when this argument was settled by doling out a legitimate division of the work, the point of conflict then became the fact that my roommate did not want to clean at all. His justification for this is that cleanliness is not necessarily important to him. He can live with a little mess as long as it doesn’t get in his way. For me, however, I feel that a clean space and clean utilities and utensils enables me to stay focused on other things like schoolwork. So, after the point of conflict between us being a confusion on the facts of who used what and who needs to clean what, the point of conflict became a difference in values. He felt very little need to clean and stay clean, whereas I felt that cleaning and staying clean is a very important factor in being productive. So, our different values on household upkeep revolved around the point of policy conflict of differing global values. The nature of this fifth point of policy conflict is such that it is very difficult to resolve it, as one or both parties must compromise their values in order to reach a solution. Therefore, our solution was to live in separate places the next year.
2. Savio’s main point in making this analogy between the civil rights movement and the students’ rights issue at Berkley is to show the universal nature of the bureaucratic mindset, which operates on the idea that everything is fine the way it is and change or push for change is a mere disruption or annoyance to the current environment. He makes an allusion to Kafka’s texts in which a common theme involves people trying to navigate through a world in which change is impossible and the status quo must be maintained. These stories often focus on a main character who is hurt by and feels the hardships of this bureaucratic environment. Thus Savio’s allusion to Kafka’s writing works on the level of relating those hopeless emotions of the burden of bureaucracy to the reader, whom he is trying to convince that bureaucracy, whether in Mississippi or Berkley, is a harmful thing. In other words, he uses Kafka’s negative portrayal of a bureaucratic and static world to frame the situation of student rights at Berkley in the same portrayal.
3. Obama’s point in discussing the cause of his relationship with Jeremiah Wright, rather than the fact of the relationship, the procedure of the relationship, or the value of that relationship, is so that the reader can understand why Obama would associate with a person with such radical views. While valuing the relationship as good or bad would help Obama either distance himself from or locate himself near the reverend’s political views, explaining the cause of the relationship to the reader helps the reader understand why he had relations with him, but still allows him to distance himself from a polarized political viewpoint.
2. Savio’s main point in making this analogy between the civil rights movement and the students’ rights issue at Berkley is to show the universal nature of the bureaucratic mindset, which operates on the idea that everything is fine the way it is and change or push for change is a mere disruption or annoyance to the current environment. He makes an allusion to Kafka’s texts in which a common theme involves people trying to navigate through a world in which change is impossible and the status quo must be maintained. These stories often focus on a main character who is hurt by and feels the hardships of this bureaucratic environment. Thus Savio’s allusion to Kafka’s writing works on the level of relating those hopeless emotions of the burden of bureaucracy to the reader, whom he is trying to convince that bureaucracy, whether in Mississippi or Berkley, is a harmful thing. In other words, he uses Kafka’s negative portrayal of a bureaucratic and static world to frame the situation of student rights at Berkley in the same portrayal.
3. Obama’s point in discussing the cause of his relationship with Jeremiah Wright, rather than the fact of the relationship, the procedure of the relationship, or the value of that relationship, is so that the reader can understand why Obama would associate with a person with such radical views. While valuing the relationship as good or bad would help Obama either distance himself from or locate himself near the reverend’s political views, explaining the cause of the relationship to the reader helps the reader understand why he had relations with him, but still allows him to distance himself from a polarized political viewpoint.
This was harder than I Thought it was Going to Be.
Question 1
After buying my car this summer my friend and I could not agree on whose car was better. Now these cars were very different. Mine a 1990 Volvo wagon, his a 2000 Mitsubishi Eclipse. We went back and forth about how his was faster and mine could carry more. Mine was more fuel efficient his looked better. We could not come to an agreement because we hold different local values about what makes a good car. He thinks what makes a good car is its looks and speed, and I think that for an everyday car practicality is the most important. We ended up agreeing to disagree on which was better. And decided that mine was better for a road trip, and his would be better in a race.
Question 2
The analogy “Sproul Hall is to student rights as Mississippi is to civil rights” works together with the allusion to Kafkaesque to help illustrate that the situation at Berkeley is also constraining. The analogy is there to illustrate that the student’s rights are not being recognized by the Berkeley administration contained in Sproul Hall, just as civil rights were not recognized for all in Mississippi. This was a rather bold statement that was trying to show how important student rights were and also how difficult it can be to have rights be recognized by an authority. This is where Kafkaesque comes in, that difficulty with the bureaucracy to accomplish change. Kafkaesque is a term in reference to Franz Kafka, a writer who often satirized the absurdity of bureaucracy. Savio uses this term to help introduce his claim that change within a bureaucracy is nearly impossible. They work together to show how difficult change can be. If I were an administrator with authority to make policy, I would try and meet with the student leaders and discuss options.
Question 3
Arguing on the stasis of cause is a good way not to alienate most people. People in general like to get down to the bottom of things. From the little kid who asks why, to the scientists in the lab who come up with fancy ways of asking why, we all seem to want to know why. Now in this case when Reverend Wright said these things most of the media did not ask why, they mostly said that he hated America and questioned Obama’s character. Obama could not defend the statements because the fact was that they were inflammatory. But rather if he explained the cause of the frustration of African Americans and other minorities he can help everyone have a better understanding on where the other is coming from. This creates an ethos of being a mediator between the races. Showing that he is not a hateful man but one who wants to understand and work with one another.
Arguing on the stasis of cause also helped Savio seem less a disestablishment radical, and more of a person for a better functioning government. He does this by telling us the steps he has gone through with the administration and how his ideas for change were blocked by the poor functioning of bureaucracy.
After buying my car this summer my friend and I could not agree on whose car was better. Now these cars were very different. Mine a 1990 Volvo wagon, his a 2000 Mitsubishi Eclipse. We went back and forth about how his was faster and mine could carry more. Mine was more fuel efficient his looked better. We could not come to an agreement because we hold different local values about what makes a good car. He thinks what makes a good car is its looks and speed, and I think that for an everyday car practicality is the most important. We ended up agreeing to disagree on which was better. And decided that mine was better for a road trip, and his would be better in a race.
Question 2
The analogy “Sproul Hall is to student rights as Mississippi is to civil rights” works together with the allusion to Kafkaesque to help illustrate that the situation at Berkeley is also constraining. The analogy is there to illustrate that the student’s rights are not being recognized by the Berkeley administration contained in Sproul Hall, just as civil rights were not recognized for all in Mississippi. This was a rather bold statement that was trying to show how important student rights were and also how difficult it can be to have rights be recognized by an authority. This is where Kafkaesque comes in, that difficulty with the bureaucracy to accomplish change. Kafkaesque is a term in reference to Franz Kafka, a writer who often satirized the absurdity of bureaucracy. Savio uses this term to help introduce his claim that change within a bureaucracy is nearly impossible. They work together to show how difficult change can be. If I were an administrator with authority to make policy, I would try and meet with the student leaders and discuss options.
Question 3
Arguing on the stasis of cause is a good way not to alienate most people. People in general like to get down to the bottom of things. From the little kid who asks why, to the scientists in the lab who come up with fancy ways of asking why, we all seem to want to know why. Now in this case when Reverend Wright said these things most of the media did not ask why, they mostly said that he hated America and questioned Obama’s character. Obama could not defend the statements because the fact was that they were inflammatory. But rather if he explained the cause of the frustration of African Americans and other minorities he can help everyone have a better understanding on where the other is coming from. This creates an ethos of being a mediator between the races. Showing that he is not a hateful man but one who wants to understand and work with one another.
Arguing on the stasis of cause also helped Savio seem less a disestablishment radical, and more of a person for a better functioning government. He does this by telling us the steps he has gone through with the administration and how his ideas for change were blocked by the poor functioning of bureaucracy.
Questions
Question 1
My mom and I used to argue about a friend that I was very close to. He was someone who got himself into trouble often and my mom didn’t think that I should be associated with him. However, he had always been loyal and respectful to me and I was not going to budge when it came to our friendship. According to Kaufers levels I would have to say that this ranked at level four. My mom and I disagreed on what was more important when in came to judging friends. For her, having a good reputation and staying out of trouble was more important than my value on being a loyal and trustworthy friend. We were able to resolve the issue because she agreed that as long as I wasn’t participating in the same behavior as my friend, she could learn to accept him.
Question 2
Mario Savio’s speech argues for students to have the right to speak their minds on campus. According to Savio, the university doesn’t allow students to express their political views and it is unwilling to move with the changes taking place in the country. The analogy of Sproul Hall to Mississippi is related to the statement of “in the world, but not of the world” because like those against the civil rights movement in Mississippi, the administrators at Berkeley are resisting change. By saying that the university is in the world, but not of it is implying that although it exists, it is not an active part of a growing and changing world. The university would rather silence its students than hear their opposing ideals. If I were the administrator, I would try to allow the students a chance to have a voice, but also make them aware that there are rules that the university is obligated to follow.
Question 3
Through discussing the history of this country as well as his own history, Obama is making himself relatable to every American in one way or another. He says he is the son of a black and a white and has family from every race and hue. This is somehow connecting him racially to every person in this country. He also talks about being a grandson to a veteran and a woman who knows what it is like to have a husband away at war. This helps him relate to a country full of voters who are in the military or loved ones who have or are fighting. By using history and the stasis of cause, Obama is connecting himself to voters and building his credibility as someone who is living the American dream. The history he gives establishes him as more than simply a black American. It allows him to take the issue with Reverend Wright and turn it from an issue of black race or white race and make it an issue of the human race as a whole. This strategy could help Wells and Savio because it can make them more relatable to all audience members, not just a single race.
Questions!
Question 1
A particular misunderstanding that comes to my mind occurred between my best friend Abby and I over a few nights this past summer. Abby and I hung out practically everyday during the summer, sometimes making elaborate plans, and sometimes just sitting around her house. Though we share many of the same personality traits, Abby has a hard time making decisions and more often than not changes her mind at the last minute about all sorts of things. She had turned a couple 180’s on me from time to time, but it was sporadic enough that it never really was an issue, until one particular week during the summer. I was presented with the opportunity to hang out with some people that I hadn’t seen in awhile, and, yes, there was this boy. So I, as usual, asked Abby to go with me and she agreed. The plans were for Friday and we made the arrangement to go together on a Monday. As the week went by I made sure to repeatedly bring up Friday’s plans and reinforce her decision to go due to her sometimes flaky nature. Everything seemed okay right up until Friday night at 6:00pm when I arrive at her house to pick her up and she tells me she has decided not to go. Undoubtedly I am not happy, and we argue; me repeating the fact she had the entire week to make her decision, and her claiming she made the decision only 5 minutes before I arrived. She was under the impression that I wouldn’t care, if she decided not to go, when essentially I would have never wanted to go alone. This makes me believer our conflict resided on level three. I placed much more weight on the importance of her agreeing to hang out this particular night than she did, and she emphasized her belief that it wasn’t a big deal if she went or not. We worked out our conflict later that evening, though I did not end up going where I intially wanted to go, by making sure we were on the same page. I realized I had never expressed any annoyance at her breaking plans or changing her mind at the last minute before, and she realized that these things mean more to me than she originally thought.
Question 2
The allusion to the university being “in the world and not of the world” works because it can be applied to both aspects of the analogy “Sproul Hall is to student’s rights as Mississippi is to civil rights.” Savio states in his speech that university administrators feel the task of the university, and the students within it, is to, essentially, be stagnant; to be a physical part of the world, but to do nothing to its change or advancement. This same concept can be applied to the events surrounding civil rights in Mississippi. The mindset of those who intended to suppress African Americans in Mississippi was that African Americans served no part in the development or progress in the world. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had passed mere months before this speech was given, and using this allusion puts segregationists and university administration on the same level; a place where assumedly they would not want to be.
If I were the university administrator I would have taken a particularly good look at the allusions he used to support the analogy in the beginning of the speech. I would have taken offense at the comparison of myself to a segregationist or for that matter the scientists in “A Brave New World.” Because Savio used allusions that appealed to me emotionally educationally I would have tried to come to some sort of compromise with him and the students.
Question 3
Accusations surrounding Obama’s character based on his relationship with Reverand Wright are stemmed from multiple controversial statements made by Wright. Obama uses his own personal history in order to essentially contradict potential opinions that because he is associated with Wright, he in turn believes the same things. Obama states specifically that he does not agree with many things spoken by Wright, but uses their history to highlight why, stasis of cause, they bonded in the first place. This history stresses the positive reasons Obama was drawn Wright, in effect emphasizing the positive characteristics of himself. Arguing on any other level of stasis would not challenge the Obama/Wright relationship in the same way. The stasis of fact would draw potential conclusions that they are alike merely because Wright is Obama’s reverand, the stasis of procedure may only state how they met and became connected, and not why. The stasis of value may come a little closer in credibility, but then again the audience may only gain insight on their present relationship, why their bond is so strong now. In this case history and cause serve Obama the best in establishing his own credibility.
A particular misunderstanding that comes to my mind occurred between my best friend Abby and I over a few nights this past summer. Abby and I hung out practically everyday during the summer, sometimes making elaborate plans, and sometimes just sitting around her house. Though we share many of the same personality traits, Abby has a hard time making decisions and more often than not changes her mind at the last minute about all sorts of things. She had turned a couple 180’s on me from time to time, but it was sporadic enough that it never really was an issue, until one particular week during the summer. I was presented with the opportunity to hang out with some people that I hadn’t seen in awhile, and, yes, there was this boy. So I, as usual, asked Abby to go with me and she agreed. The plans were for Friday and we made the arrangement to go together on a Monday. As the week went by I made sure to repeatedly bring up Friday’s plans and reinforce her decision to go due to her sometimes flaky nature. Everything seemed okay right up until Friday night at 6:00pm when I arrive at her house to pick her up and she tells me she has decided not to go. Undoubtedly I am not happy, and we argue; me repeating the fact she had the entire week to make her decision, and her claiming she made the decision only 5 minutes before I arrived. She was under the impression that I wouldn’t care, if she decided not to go, when essentially I would have never wanted to go alone. This makes me believer our conflict resided on level three. I placed much more weight on the importance of her agreeing to hang out this particular night than she did, and she emphasized her belief that it wasn’t a big deal if she went or not. We worked out our conflict later that evening, though I did not end up going where I intially wanted to go, by making sure we were on the same page. I realized I had never expressed any annoyance at her breaking plans or changing her mind at the last minute before, and she realized that these things mean more to me than she originally thought.
Question 2
The allusion to the university being “in the world and not of the world” works because it can be applied to both aspects of the analogy “Sproul Hall is to student’s rights as Mississippi is to civil rights.” Savio states in his speech that university administrators feel the task of the university, and the students within it, is to, essentially, be stagnant; to be a physical part of the world, but to do nothing to its change or advancement. This same concept can be applied to the events surrounding civil rights in Mississippi. The mindset of those who intended to suppress African Americans in Mississippi was that African Americans served no part in the development or progress in the world. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had passed mere months before this speech was given, and using this allusion puts segregationists and university administration on the same level; a place where assumedly they would not want to be.
If I were the university administrator I would have taken a particularly good look at the allusions he used to support the analogy in the beginning of the speech. I would have taken offense at the comparison of myself to a segregationist or for that matter the scientists in “A Brave New World.” Because Savio used allusions that appealed to me emotionally educationally I would have tried to come to some sort of compromise with him and the students.
Question 3
Accusations surrounding Obama’s character based on his relationship with Reverand Wright are stemmed from multiple controversial statements made by Wright. Obama uses his own personal history in order to essentially contradict potential opinions that because he is associated with Wright, he in turn believes the same things. Obama states specifically that he does not agree with many things spoken by Wright, but uses their history to highlight why, stasis of cause, they bonded in the first place. This history stresses the positive reasons Obama was drawn Wright, in effect emphasizing the positive characteristics of himself. Arguing on any other level of stasis would not challenge the Obama/Wright relationship in the same way. The stasis of fact would draw potential conclusions that they are alike merely because Wright is Obama’s reverand, the stasis of procedure may only state how they met and became connected, and not why. The stasis of value may come a little closer in credibility, but then again the audience may only gain insight on their present relationship, why their bond is so strong now. In this case history and cause serve Obama the best in establishing his own credibility.
Yay for no class!
Question 1
My ex boyfriend and I still speak frequently with each other. We spend most of our time arguing about each other’s actions, and more times than not, I am upset about his actions. One of the main problems that we had in our relationship was communication. JT would never want to talk on the phone, and we lived an hour away from each other. When I would ask him about it he would tell me that he doesn’t even talk to his mother everyday, so why should he have to talk to me everyday. He would accuse me of trying to be more important than his mother. This would make me furious because he was unable to see that his relationship with his mother and his relationship with me are very different. Continually we would argue about this same topic. If I were to want to change something about him he would say, “This is the way that I am, why would you want me to change? Tiffany I can’t change.” I feel that most of our arguments were level 2 arguments. Most of the time he misunderstood my frame of reference and I would do the same. Finally one day after arguing over the same issue of the phone call he was able to understand my point of view. I explained to JT that he does not talk grandmother the same way that he talks to his “homeboys”. Their relationships with him are much different. Just because his mother is important to him and I am important to him does not mean that we are at the same level and should be treated the same. At this point, I was also able to understand that when he doesn’t call me it doesn’t mean that he doesn’t care about me, it is something that he is not used to doing. He also asked me one day to stop being so sensitive and stop crying. I then told him that being sensitive was a part of who I was and I can’t change everything about myself, just like he told me. Because we were able to understand each other’s intended frame of reference, the problem was solved.
Question 2
In this article it is apparent that Savio is arguing against the administrators at Berkeley for free speech for students. Although this is him main point, he is arguing much more than that. He continues to refer to bureaucracies and says that “the greatest problem in our nation—depersonalized, unresponsive bureaucracy”. Again in paragraph 11, he discusses America’s “crucial problems” of automation. Savio is not just concerned with the free-speech at Berkeley, but also the dehumanization in the United States. His analogy, “Sproal Hall is to student rights as Mississippi was to civil rights”, gives a historical reference that all administrators would be able to recall. It shows the importance of the issue. The allusion to “This chrome-plated consumer’s paradise” corresponds with Savio’s statements towards America’s major problems. He is able to tie the analogy with the allusion by stating that because “America is becoming a ever more the utopia of sterilized, automated contentment”, people are not only losing their jobs to robots and machines, but eventually they will lose their voices completely. Being “well-behaved children” does not allow people to speak against the government and what is wrong. These are the things that Savio is seriously concerned about. Administrators should be able to see this tie, and the unforeseen future that could be ahead it student’s are not allowed to speak their minds.
Question 3
Throughout Senator Obama’s campaign, he has focused on the middle class, hard working man and women. When he focuses on the cause and the history of his own background, he is not only saying “this is how I am”, but he is also allowing others to see that he is the American Dream. Because he has a mixed background with a white mother and a father that is from Kenya, he is able to appeal to a diverse crowd. His mother raised him alone like so many other women in the United States. Obama continues to use many examples of how he is just like everyone else. A kid with a dream to do big things, and with the help of his hard working mother he was and is able to do so. He is able to defend his character by focusing on how he was raised and what type of person he really is. He becomes more credible when he is open, honest, and sincere. If Well and Savio had constructed more appropriate ethos for their audiences they may have seemed more credible and even personable. I feel that Wells actually does do this well by focusing on cause and the history of lynching. She is able to stray away from the black/white issue, and allow the reader to understand that the action of lynching is “barbaric” and “uncivilized” regardless of whom it happens to. Savio could have been more personable and even more credible if he too had constructed ethos for his audience.
My ex boyfriend and I still speak frequently with each other. We spend most of our time arguing about each other’s actions, and more times than not, I am upset about his actions. One of the main problems that we had in our relationship was communication. JT would never want to talk on the phone, and we lived an hour away from each other. When I would ask him about it he would tell me that he doesn’t even talk to his mother everyday, so why should he have to talk to me everyday. He would accuse me of trying to be more important than his mother. This would make me furious because he was unable to see that his relationship with his mother and his relationship with me are very different. Continually we would argue about this same topic. If I were to want to change something about him he would say, “This is the way that I am, why would you want me to change? Tiffany I can’t change.” I feel that most of our arguments were level 2 arguments. Most of the time he misunderstood my frame of reference and I would do the same. Finally one day after arguing over the same issue of the phone call he was able to understand my point of view. I explained to JT that he does not talk grandmother the same way that he talks to his “homeboys”. Their relationships with him are much different. Just because his mother is important to him and I am important to him does not mean that we are at the same level and should be treated the same. At this point, I was also able to understand that when he doesn’t call me it doesn’t mean that he doesn’t care about me, it is something that he is not used to doing. He also asked me one day to stop being so sensitive and stop crying. I then told him that being sensitive was a part of who I was and I can’t change everything about myself, just like he told me. Because we were able to understand each other’s intended frame of reference, the problem was solved.
Question 2
In this article it is apparent that Savio is arguing against the administrators at Berkeley for free speech for students. Although this is him main point, he is arguing much more than that. He continues to refer to bureaucracies and says that “the greatest problem in our nation—depersonalized, unresponsive bureaucracy”. Again in paragraph 11, he discusses America’s “crucial problems” of automation. Savio is not just concerned with the free-speech at Berkeley, but also the dehumanization in the United States. His analogy, “Sproal Hall is to student rights as Mississippi was to civil rights”, gives a historical reference that all administrators would be able to recall. It shows the importance of the issue. The allusion to “This chrome-plated consumer’s paradise” corresponds with Savio’s statements towards America’s major problems. He is able to tie the analogy with the allusion by stating that because “America is becoming a ever more the utopia of sterilized, automated contentment”, people are not only losing their jobs to robots and machines, but eventually they will lose their voices completely. Being “well-behaved children” does not allow people to speak against the government and what is wrong. These are the things that Savio is seriously concerned about. Administrators should be able to see this tie, and the unforeseen future that could be ahead it student’s are not allowed to speak their minds.
Question 3
Throughout Senator Obama’s campaign, he has focused on the middle class, hard working man and women. When he focuses on the cause and the history of his own background, he is not only saying “this is how I am”, but he is also allowing others to see that he is the American Dream. Because he has a mixed background with a white mother and a father that is from Kenya, he is able to appeal to a diverse crowd. His mother raised him alone like so many other women in the United States. Obama continues to use many examples of how he is just like everyone else. A kid with a dream to do big things, and with the help of his hard working mother he was and is able to do so. He is able to defend his character by focusing on how he was raised and what type of person he really is. He becomes more credible when he is open, honest, and sincere. If Well and Savio had constructed more appropriate ethos for their audiences they may have seemed more credible and even personable. I feel that Wells actually does do this well by focusing on cause and the history of lynching. She is able to stray away from the black/white issue, and allow the reader to understand that the action of lynching is “barbaric” and “uncivilized” regardless of whom it happens to. Savio could have been more personable and even more credible if he too had constructed ethos for his audience.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
I GOT A RESPONSE! Three to be exact.
Question 1:
My freshman year of college is not one that I am very proud of. I did not attend Indiana University, I fact attended Ball State. Once I had gotten there, I discovered I had made a very bad decision. Where does the conflict come into play. I was dating a girl at the time who was a Ball State alum. I stated to her that I was very unhappy there and was looking to transfer. She disagreed with me, telling me that I was just having to adjust to my new surroundings and that I was at the best place for my major at the time (Telecommunications). Being the people pleaser that I am, I decided to go with it instead of transferring at the end of the semester. This only lead to more arguments between her not caring about me being happy and she saying that it is all in my head. This to me I feel really feels as if it could be considered a level 4, conflicting local values, in Kaufer's list of Policy Conflict Sources. I was assessing my happiness in the light of the direction I was taking my education, while she was becoming more concerned with whether I was at the "correct" school for my major. While I ended up following my heart and transferring out at the end of my freshman year and we as a couple broke up, I can see now why this is a Level 4 conflict. The very end of Kaufer's description of level 4 states, "...we might be able to to resolve the conflict by convincing ourselves that one set of local values is more consistant with certain global values we think also ought to be enforced." This stand out to me with this argument because I did weigh my options and being happy with my education is something that I really think I should be proud of, doing what makes you happy is the global value found here.
Question 2:
Mario Savio makes his argument very clear from the beginning, he calls the situation in his first analogy a battlefield, these are people fighting for their denied human rights. He starts off by mentioning that his past summer was spent fighting for civil rights in Berkley, Mississippi and he did not expect that once he arrived to his college campus, he would be fighting for the same exact rights that he was working towards the summer before. He continually calls this situtation a struggle, and once he says against the same enemy, the beurocratic way things were being dealt with when it dealt with people of different race, age, and background. He finishes this paragragph by saying "...that impersonal bureacracy is the efficiant enemy in a "Brave New World." How does all of this tie together you may ask? To me the phrase, "Brave New World" really deals with a person's fear of the unknown. This speech was written during a time period when people viewed change as a very bad thing and very unnecessary. This all ties together by saying here is the situation we have come to, this battle has now spread its way from city to city, campus to campus, across the country, we are now in a position where decisions made do not represent the majority anymore. We must move ahead from the past to gain a lead, what the future holds is unknown, but we have to find out. If I were the administrator who recieved this letter I would really look into this situation of what is going on. An administrator is there to help the students and improve the school. I would probably join their fight for their voices to be heard and attempt to give this issue more attention with other administrators, because if students are no longer getting heard, most potential students would probably begin to look elsewhere to further their education.
Question 3:
Senator Barack Obama has had countless among countless things thrown at him throughout his presidential campaign. He has had everything from being called an elitist or a terrorist and has even had FOX News hold specials on how he is not fit to run this country. Obama set the stage right with his speech, he introduces himself, he describes his childhood, being raised by his single mother and her parents, aknowleging that he has a diverse background, this is what he does to make hiself appear to be equal to us as Americans. While many of us did not have the experiences that he had growing up, he gives you the knowlege that he had to work for everything he has, the key commonality among almost all of us. Like many Americans, he makes sure to state he does in fact practice religion, the basis of the founding of our country. However, he has to deal with comments made by his preacher, the Rev. Jermiah Wright. Obama goes through and gives you a complete history of his relationship with Wright, such as he officiated his wedding to his wife, baptized their children, shared dinner with them at their home. It really seemed to me as if the stasis Obama is really getting to is that we are seeing a distorted one-sided view of this man, a cause that if this is the only thing you are going to see, then you are seeing the wrong thing. His cause is to say, the Rev. Jermiah Wright is not a bad man, he made a few bad comments and the press is wanting to say this is all that represents both him and Obama. We are only hearing about the comments dealing with race and not the other, more postive things. This helps Obama's charactor by showing he realizes we all make mistakes and we can move past them. This could help both Wells and Savio with their articles by both of them realizing that we can move past this, yes it will take time, but we all have to work together, without the distorted views other people are giving us. All three of these articles/speeches give us a view of how things are and set up the image. However the one thing that Obama does that the other two really do not, is state that we are all equals, we are all the same, something that sets the tone and could ultimately be even more persuasive.
My freshman year of college is not one that I am very proud of. I did not attend Indiana University, I fact attended Ball State. Once I had gotten there, I discovered I had made a very bad decision. Where does the conflict come into play. I was dating a girl at the time who was a Ball State alum. I stated to her that I was very unhappy there and was looking to transfer. She disagreed with me, telling me that I was just having to adjust to my new surroundings and that I was at the best place for my major at the time (Telecommunications). Being the people pleaser that I am, I decided to go with it instead of transferring at the end of the semester. This only lead to more arguments between her not caring about me being happy and she saying that it is all in my head. This to me I feel really feels as if it could be considered a level 4, conflicting local values, in Kaufer's list of Policy Conflict Sources. I was assessing my happiness in the light of the direction I was taking my education, while she was becoming more concerned with whether I was at the "correct" school for my major. While I ended up following my heart and transferring out at the end of my freshman year and we as a couple broke up, I can see now why this is a Level 4 conflict. The very end of Kaufer's description of level 4 states, "...we might be able to to resolve the conflict by convincing ourselves that one set of local values is more consistant with certain global values we think also ought to be enforced." This stand out to me with this argument because I did weigh my options and being happy with my education is something that I really think I should be proud of, doing what makes you happy is the global value found here.
Question 2:
Mario Savio makes his argument very clear from the beginning, he calls the situation in his first analogy a battlefield, these are people fighting for their denied human rights. He starts off by mentioning that his past summer was spent fighting for civil rights in Berkley, Mississippi and he did not expect that once he arrived to his college campus, he would be fighting for the same exact rights that he was working towards the summer before. He continually calls this situtation a struggle, and once he says against the same enemy, the beurocratic way things were being dealt with when it dealt with people of different race, age, and background. He finishes this paragragph by saying "...that impersonal bureacracy is the efficiant enemy in a "Brave New World." How does all of this tie together you may ask? To me the phrase, "Brave New World" really deals with a person's fear of the unknown. This speech was written during a time period when people viewed change as a very bad thing and very unnecessary. This all ties together by saying here is the situation we have come to, this battle has now spread its way from city to city, campus to campus, across the country, we are now in a position where decisions made do not represent the majority anymore. We must move ahead from the past to gain a lead, what the future holds is unknown, but we have to find out. If I were the administrator who recieved this letter I would really look into this situation of what is going on. An administrator is there to help the students and improve the school. I would probably join their fight for their voices to be heard and attempt to give this issue more attention with other administrators, because if students are no longer getting heard, most potential students would probably begin to look elsewhere to further their education.
Question 3:
Senator Barack Obama has had countless among countless things thrown at him throughout his presidential campaign. He has had everything from being called an elitist or a terrorist and has even had FOX News hold specials on how he is not fit to run this country. Obama set the stage right with his speech, he introduces himself, he describes his childhood, being raised by his single mother and her parents, aknowleging that he has a diverse background, this is what he does to make hiself appear to be equal to us as Americans. While many of us did not have the experiences that he had growing up, he gives you the knowlege that he had to work for everything he has, the key commonality among almost all of us. Like many Americans, he makes sure to state he does in fact practice religion, the basis of the founding of our country. However, he has to deal with comments made by his preacher, the Rev. Jermiah Wright. Obama goes through and gives you a complete history of his relationship with Wright, such as he officiated his wedding to his wife, baptized their children, shared dinner with them at their home. It really seemed to me as if the stasis Obama is really getting to is that we are seeing a distorted one-sided view of this man, a cause that if this is the only thing you are going to see, then you are seeing the wrong thing. His cause is to say, the Rev. Jermiah Wright is not a bad man, he made a few bad comments and the press is wanting to say this is all that represents both him and Obama. We are only hearing about the comments dealing with race and not the other, more postive things. This helps Obama's charactor by showing he realizes we all make mistakes and we can move past them. This could help both Wells and Savio with their articles by both of them realizing that we can move past this, yes it will take time, but we all have to work together, without the distorted views other people are giving us. All three of these articles/speeches give us a view of how things are and set up the image. However the one thing that Obama does that the other two really do not, is state that we are all equals, we are all the same, something that sets the tone and could ultimately be even more persuasive.
Response to Questions
Question 1:
My ex-fiance and I have definitely had our fair share of misunderstandings and disagreements. One issue that we have always disagreed about is money. Wes feels that it is okay to spend money wherever and whenever he wants to. I personally feel that saving money for something that you may need later on is more important than satisfying your wants and desires now. You never know when you’re going to need money for a financial emergency, and I love planning ahead for such occasions. Wes says that there’s no point in having money if you never indulge in something that you want. I think that our dispute lies in the fact that we have conflicting global values. This issue is a level 5 policy conflict. I believe that we have this disagreement because our upbringings are completely different. Wes’s parents love to spend their money as well. They are always looking for the newest and latest thing to buy. On the other hand, my parents are minimalists, and only spend their money on things they need. Unfortunately, Kaufer says that “Level five conflicts can’t be resolved directly…However, they can be resolved temporarily…” (Kaufer 59). So in order to resolve this issue, Wes and I must pick and choose our battles when it comes to shopping or saving money.
Question 2:
Mario Savio’s speech was given in hopes that the students at Berkeley would be given the chance to think freely and speak openly about topics that concern them. Savio made a point to say that those who do not stick up for their beliefs are “looking toward a very bleak existence afterward in a game in which all the rules have been made up” (par. 13) Savio thought that student rights were so important that he compared this issue at Sproul Hall to the civil rights issue in Mississippi. This analogy relates to the allusion that the university is “in the world, but not of the world,” (par. 11) because it allows us to realize that Sproul Hall is a place much like Mississippi, full of discrepancy; however, unlike the issue of civil rights in Mississippi, the issue of student rights at Sproul Hall is not being recognized. The students at Berkeley are not given the same rights that they normally would be given if they were “in the outside world.” Those who favored civil rights in Mississippi were allowed to stand up for what they believed in. They were allowed to make a difference, but the students are not. They are forced to follow these “made-up rules,” in which they do not agree. Why then are their ideas and concerns being pushed under the rug here at the university when it would not be so anywhere else? This use of the analogy and allusion work together to give the audience a clear example of what should be done in the case of student rights. If I were the University Administrator I would express to the students that I understand their concern; however, in rebuttal, I would tell them that there needs to be a clear line as to where the freedom of speech stops if it causes consequences. It must be decided who has more power, the faculty or the students, and when.
Question 3:
It is quite evident that Barack Obama used the stasis of cause in his address to the American public because it helps us to understand where he is coming from. If we understand where he is coming from, then we may better understand where he is going; or rather, where he will lead us if he becomes the next president. By using this particular stasis and by developing the ethos appeal Obama helps his audience relate to him. We are all different. We all come from different places, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that we all share different values and beliefs for our country. I think that this is the point that Obama was trying to get across when he gave the American people a background of his life. America needs to be united if we want to make progress towards a better life for us and for our children. This sense of togetherness helps establish our confidence in Obama to lead our nation in the right direction. If he had argued on the stasis of fact, value, or policy, there may very well be a global conflict that would just not be resolved among the American people. You can’t really argue a fact, therefore, it would not be necessary to spend a great deal of time trying to persuade someone of the fact. You can’t really argue a value or a policy either because global conflicts will present a problem of resolving the issue. However, presenting a cause helps us to better understand why Obama supports the things that he does; and by knowing this, the issue may be resolved temporarily because we have reached this understanding of Obama as a man and as an American. We all have friends and loved ones that we may respect, but not necessarily agree with. This is the point that Obama was trying to make when he was trying to explain his character. If Wells-Barnett and Savio had used this same strategy, those that they were trying to persuade might have understood their argument better, and the argument itself may have been more effective. If you know why someone is arguing the way that they are, then the argument makes better sense.
My ex-fiance and I have definitely had our fair share of misunderstandings and disagreements. One issue that we have always disagreed about is money. Wes feels that it is okay to spend money wherever and whenever he wants to. I personally feel that saving money for something that you may need later on is more important than satisfying your wants and desires now. You never know when you’re going to need money for a financial emergency, and I love planning ahead for such occasions. Wes says that there’s no point in having money if you never indulge in something that you want. I think that our dispute lies in the fact that we have conflicting global values. This issue is a level 5 policy conflict. I believe that we have this disagreement because our upbringings are completely different. Wes’s parents love to spend their money as well. They are always looking for the newest and latest thing to buy. On the other hand, my parents are minimalists, and only spend their money on things they need. Unfortunately, Kaufer says that “Level five conflicts can’t be resolved directly…However, they can be resolved temporarily…” (Kaufer 59). So in order to resolve this issue, Wes and I must pick and choose our battles when it comes to shopping or saving money.
Question 2:
Mario Savio’s speech was given in hopes that the students at Berkeley would be given the chance to think freely and speak openly about topics that concern them. Savio made a point to say that those who do not stick up for their beliefs are “looking toward a very bleak existence afterward in a game in which all the rules have been made up” (par. 13) Savio thought that student rights were so important that he compared this issue at Sproul Hall to the civil rights issue in Mississippi. This analogy relates to the allusion that the university is “in the world, but not of the world,” (par. 11) because it allows us to realize that Sproul Hall is a place much like Mississippi, full of discrepancy; however, unlike the issue of civil rights in Mississippi, the issue of student rights at Sproul Hall is not being recognized. The students at Berkeley are not given the same rights that they normally would be given if they were “in the outside world.” Those who favored civil rights in Mississippi were allowed to stand up for what they believed in. They were allowed to make a difference, but the students are not. They are forced to follow these “made-up rules,” in which they do not agree. Why then are their ideas and concerns being pushed under the rug here at the university when it would not be so anywhere else? This use of the analogy and allusion work together to give the audience a clear example of what should be done in the case of student rights. If I were the University Administrator I would express to the students that I understand their concern; however, in rebuttal, I would tell them that there needs to be a clear line as to where the freedom of speech stops if it causes consequences. It must be decided who has more power, the faculty or the students, and when.
Question 3:
It is quite evident that Barack Obama used the stasis of cause in his address to the American public because it helps us to understand where he is coming from. If we understand where he is coming from, then we may better understand where he is going; or rather, where he will lead us if he becomes the next president. By using this particular stasis and by developing the ethos appeal Obama helps his audience relate to him. We are all different. We all come from different places, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that we all share different values and beliefs for our country. I think that this is the point that Obama was trying to get across when he gave the American people a background of his life. America needs to be united if we want to make progress towards a better life for us and for our children. This sense of togetherness helps establish our confidence in Obama to lead our nation in the right direction. If he had argued on the stasis of fact, value, or policy, there may very well be a global conflict that would just not be resolved among the American people. You can’t really argue a fact, therefore, it would not be necessary to spend a great deal of time trying to persuade someone of the fact. You can’t really argue a value or a policy either because global conflicts will present a problem of resolving the issue. However, presenting a cause helps us to better understand why Obama supports the things that he does; and by knowing this, the issue may be resolved temporarily because we have reached this understanding of Obama as a man and as an American. We all have friends and loved ones that we may respect, but not necessarily agree with. This is the point that Obama was trying to make when he was trying to explain his character. If Wells-Barnett and Savio had used this same strategy, those that they were trying to persuade might have understood their argument better, and the argument itself may have been more effective. If you know why someone is arguing the way that they are, then the argument makes better sense.
Response to Questions
Question 1:
My roommate and I tend to argue about everything from politics, to bars, to money, etc. JUST EVERYTHING! I have decided that in Kaufer's levels our main conflict is at a level 4. Typically we tend to argue about things that we each do that are a product of our upbringing. I do not think that a job or a course of study is good or interesting just because the end result means it pays well. I believe in choosing to do something I love and worry about money later. However Gina has chosen a major which she consistently curses and complains about. Another example is the way she talks in general. I am quiet and soft-spoken which annoys her endlessly. She is loud and abrasive and doesn't see anything wrong with that. We tend to disagree a lot. If we could clarify maybe why we behave the way we do, and what specifically these values mean to us (money, language) we can come to an agreement. Maybe not an agreement in the sense that I think that I was wrong and she is right or vice versa, but an agreement that language and money issues are barriers for our discourse. We must find ways around our conflicting values to continue on with our discourse (and live happily in a very small apt.)
Question 2:
Savio is claiming that the University is not doing enough to promote student's political feelings and ideas. Savio says that basic civil rights are at stake and in both places are being controlled by a powerful minority who influences the university. Later it is said that a conception of a university is that it be "in the world but not of the world". The opposite is that the university can only promote two kinds of speech, one that promotes nothing but what already is, and the other, which is too radical to ever be taken seriously. The university does not permit sit-ins against discrimination and re-affirms Savio in that fact that the university is controlled and suppresses what the students actually want. This works to give another example a better idea of what Savio means but saying the university is run by bureaucrats and does not allow students to express themselves. If I were an administrator I would feel compelled to attempt an explanation, but they have already admitted to being pressured to not let students speak about important issues. Berkeley has failed its students by providing them with a life in which "all of the rules have been made up".
Question 3:
Senator Obama begins his argument by telling you who he is. He provides credibility by being a black man, with having a mixed background, and African-American wife, and by being at least somewhat privileged in going to the best schools in America. Senator Obama creates his diverse background on purpose. He gives an image of someone a little bit like us, but for most of us much more educated, and that helps some people to believe him--simply on the basis of his intelligence. I think it works. Senator Obama is explaining himself against a radical pastor that he was associated with. He gives a background, a reason, he uses cause by answering this, "Why am I here talking about this reverend and who am I?" Senator Obama uses the history of his relationship with the reverend such as how he brought him to his faith, and explaining what a good man he is, but also acknowledges that he may at times be very critical of America and does not share the same values as Senator Obama. Responding this way sets the Senator apart. It provides an extremely valuable ethos description, and also answers questions about the pastor he is associated with. If the other two authors had constructed a more whole ethos the audience would be more apt to take what they are saying as truth. When reading the audience asks itself, “Who is this, why believe them, etc.?” These are questions that make the writer or speaker seem much more of credible source if they are answered up front. Constructing an ethos is obviously extremely important to an argument.
-AJ
My roommate and I tend to argue about everything from politics, to bars, to money, etc. JUST EVERYTHING! I have decided that in Kaufer's levels our main conflict is at a level 4. Typically we tend to argue about things that we each do that are a product of our upbringing. I do not think that a job or a course of study is good or interesting just because the end result means it pays well. I believe in choosing to do something I love and worry about money later. However Gina has chosen a major which she consistently curses and complains about. Another example is the way she talks in general. I am quiet and soft-spoken which annoys her endlessly. She is loud and abrasive and doesn't see anything wrong with that. We tend to disagree a lot. If we could clarify maybe why we behave the way we do, and what specifically these values mean to us (money, language) we can come to an agreement. Maybe not an agreement in the sense that I think that I was wrong and she is right or vice versa, but an agreement that language and money issues are barriers for our discourse. We must find ways around our conflicting values to continue on with our discourse (and live happily in a very small apt.)
Question 2:
Savio is claiming that the University is not doing enough to promote student's political feelings and ideas. Savio says that basic civil rights are at stake and in both places are being controlled by a powerful minority who influences the university. Later it is said that a conception of a university is that it be "in the world but not of the world". The opposite is that the university can only promote two kinds of speech, one that promotes nothing but what already is, and the other, which is too radical to ever be taken seriously. The university does not permit sit-ins against discrimination and re-affirms Savio in that fact that the university is controlled and suppresses what the students actually want. This works to give another example a better idea of what Savio means but saying the university is run by bureaucrats and does not allow students to express themselves. If I were an administrator I would feel compelled to attempt an explanation, but they have already admitted to being pressured to not let students speak about important issues. Berkeley has failed its students by providing them with a life in which "all of the rules have been made up".
Question 3:
Senator Obama begins his argument by telling you who he is. He provides credibility by being a black man, with having a mixed background, and African-American wife, and by being at least somewhat privileged in going to the best schools in America. Senator Obama creates his diverse background on purpose. He gives an image of someone a little bit like us, but for most of us much more educated, and that helps some people to believe him--simply on the basis of his intelligence. I think it works. Senator Obama is explaining himself against a radical pastor that he was associated with. He gives a background, a reason, he uses cause by answering this, "Why am I here talking about this reverend and who am I?" Senator Obama uses the history of his relationship with the reverend such as how he brought him to his faith, and explaining what a good man he is, but also acknowledges that he may at times be very critical of America and does not share the same values as Senator Obama. Responding this way sets the Senator apart. It provides an extremely valuable ethos description, and also answers questions about the pastor he is associated with. If the other two authors had constructed a more whole ethos the audience would be more apt to take what they are saying as truth. When reading the audience asks itself, “Who is this, why believe them, etc.?” These are questions that make the writer or speaker seem much more of credible source if they are answered up front. Constructing an ethos is obviously extremely important to an argument.
-AJ
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Into the Blog-o-Sphere
We'll be holding Thursday’s "Levels of Conflict" workshop on the blog: 3 responses, 2 comments, and 1 rebuttal. (Of course, you may comment and rebut more, if you'd like.)
Question One: Policy Conflicts
Briefly recount a specific disagreement or misunderstanding you have had with someone and analyze it on one of Kaufer’s “5 levels” (pp. 58-59). You’ll want to explain the conflict and then determine whether the source of the conflict was level 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. Please don’t just make something up—the point of this assignment is to reach into your own experience and try to account for it on Kaufer’s terms as accurately as you can. For this to make sense to your classmates, you will need to be clear and detailed with your explanation of what happened during the disagreement or conversation. Unpack any terms that carry assumptions, no matter how small they seem or no matter how much you are sure we would share them.
Question Two: Analogies and Allusions
Mario Savio begins his speech with an analogy that “Sproul Hall is to student rights as Mississippi is to civil rights” circa 1964. Explain the relationship between this analogy and one of the following allusions: Brave New World (par. 1), Kafka (par. 2), the university as being “in the world but not of the world” (par. 11), or the “chrome-plated consumers’ paradise” (par. 14). How do the analogy and the allusion work together to support Savio's overall claim, and how would you have responded if you were the University Administrator he was trying to persuade?
Question Three: Ethos Construction and Stasis of Cause
The immediate context of Barack Obama’s address seems to be responding to questions about his character based on his relationship with Jeremiah Wright, and he uses history (cause) to formulate this response—a strategy we see already employed by Ida B. Wells-Barnett and by Mario Savio. How can arguing on the stasis of cause (rather than on fact/conjecture, value, or procedure) help Obama respond to possible accusations on his character, and how could the same strategy help Wells-Barnett and Savio construct an appropriate ethos for their respective audiences?
Instructions
• Create 1 new post with your responses to the three questions above. Your responses needn't be long; be as concise and focused as possible so that we can follow your argument.
• Respond to any 2 of your classmates' posts by "commenting.”
• Pick any 1 comment for a thorough rebuttal. These comments and rebuttals are opportunities for you to have extended conversations with one another, to teach one another, to forward each other’s ideas, to help one another read more accurately, to “come to terms with” each other's claims, to disagree with each other, and to point out limitations and possibilities in each other's thinking. There are few spaces in our everyday contexts that are designed to make us feel like we can safely learn how to discourse—please take advantage of this one.
• Have fun with it! All responses, comments, and rebuttals need to be submitted by the end of Thursday's class. Before you post, please review the “Blogging Guidelines” (buried in the September archive).
-Dr. Graban
Question One: Policy Conflicts
Briefly recount a specific disagreement or misunderstanding you have had with someone and analyze it on one of Kaufer’s “5 levels” (pp. 58-59). You’ll want to explain the conflict and then determine whether the source of the conflict was level 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. Please don’t just make something up—the point of this assignment is to reach into your own experience and try to account for it on Kaufer’s terms as accurately as you can. For this to make sense to your classmates, you will need to be clear and detailed with your explanation of what happened during the disagreement or conversation. Unpack any terms that carry assumptions, no matter how small they seem or no matter how much you are sure we would share them.
Question Two: Analogies and Allusions
Mario Savio begins his speech with an analogy that “Sproul Hall is to student rights as Mississippi is to civil rights” circa 1964. Explain the relationship between this analogy and one of the following allusions: Brave New World (par. 1), Kafka (par. 2), the university as being “in the world but not of the world” (par. 11), or the “chrome-plated consumers’ paradise” (par. 14). How do the analogy and the allusion work together to support Savio's overall claim, and how would you have responded if you were the University Administrator he was trying to persuade?
Question Three: Ethos Construction and Stasis of Cause
The immediate context of Barack Obama’s address seems to be responding to questions about his character based on his relationship with Jeremiah Wright, and he uses history (cause) to formulate this response—a strategy we see already employed by Ida B. Wells-Barnett and by Mario Savio. How can arguing on the stasis of cause (rather than on fact/conjecture, value, or procedure) help Obama respond to possible accusations on his character, and how could the same strategy help Wells-Barnett and Savio construct an appropriate ethos for their respective audiences?
Instructions
• Create 1 new post with your responses to the three questions above. Your responses needn't be long; be as concise and focused as possible so that we can follow your argument.
• Respond to any 2 of your classmates' posts by "commenting.”
• Pick any 1 comment for a thorough rebuttal. These comments and rebuttals are opportunities for you to have extended conversations with one another, to teach one another, to forward each other’s ideas, to help one another read more accurately, to “come to terms with” each other's claims, to disagree with each other, and to point out limitations and possibilities in each other's thinking. There are few spaces in our everyday contexts that are designed to make us feel like we can safely learn how to discourse—please take advantage of this one.
• Have fun with it! All responses, comments, and rebuttals need to be submitted by the end of Thursday's class. Before you post, please review the “Blogging Guidelines” (buried in the September archive).
-Dr. Graban
Pol Rhet/Pub Pol Discourse Analysis
Hi, everyone.
For today's in-class analysis, here are your concepts and questions. Work through 1-8 as they are relevant for your text; we'll break for discussion either before or after the synthesis questions.
General concepts
1) overall claim and supporting evidence (Lazere)
2) Kaufer conflict level (or value pair) (pp. 59-62)
3) use of analogies
4) important “value” terms in making the argument
5) moral tone and eloquence (pp. 51-53 in Lazere)
6) examples of stylistic objectivism, equal-time, or person-as-function (K/S pp. 158-160, 163-164) or the lack of if relevant
7) use of narrative paradigm or rational-world paradigm (K/S pp. 171) if relevant
8) opacity (Williams pp. 139-140)
Synthesis question:
Mario Savio, “Free Speech Movement”
Savio references some names and makes allusions to other events, but stops short of really “coming to terms with” them the way Harris says a writer does when forwarding the ideas from another text. What role do/could they play in his argument? How do they help him argue, or achieve his whole aim? (You can do some very quick online research into some of these references if they are unfamiliar to you.)
Barack Obama, “A More Perfect Union”
Obama never explicitly defines “race” for us in this address, though he presents a number of anecdotes about how it plays out in the lives of American citizens. What role do these anecdotes play in conveying how Obama thinks we should feel about “race,” and how do they help him to build a deeper argument?
Ida B. Wells-Barnett, “Lynch Law in America”
How does Wells-Barnett push the limits on the journalistic framework by drawing so much on the history of lynching to make her argument? Based on how she uses historical evidences, on what stasis level is most of her argument constructed, and how does this represent her whole aim?
-Dr. Graban
For today's in-class analysis, here are your concepts and questions. Work through 1-8 as they are relevant for your text; we'll break for discussion either before or after the synthesis questions.
General concepts
1) overall claim and supporting evidence (Lazere)
2) Kaufer conflict level (or value pair) (pp. 59-62)
3) use of analogies
4) important “value” terms in making the argument
5) moral tone and eloquence (pp. 51-53 in Lazere)
6) examples of stylistic objectivism, equal-time, or person-as-function (K/S pp. 158-160, 163-164) or the lack of if relevant
7) use of narrative paradigm or rational-world paradigm (K/S pp. 171) if relevant
8) opacity (Williams pp. 139-140)
Synthesis question:
Mario Savio, “Free Speech Movement”
Savio references some names and makes allusions to other events, but stops short of really “coming to terms with” them the way Harris says a writer does when forwarding the ideas from another text. What role do/could they play in his argument? How do they help him argue, or achieve his whole aim? (You can do some very quick online research into some of these references if they are unfamiliar to you.)
Barack Obama, “A More Perfect Union”
Obama never explicitly defines “race” for us in this address, though he presents a number of anecdotes about how it plays out in the lives of American citizens. What role do these anecdotes play in conveying how Obama thinks we should feel about “race,” and how do they help him to build a deeper argument?
Ida B. Wells-Barnett, “Lynch Law in America”
How does Wells-Barnett push the limits on the journalistic framework by drawing so much on the history of lynching to make her argument? Based on how she uses historical evidences, on what stasis level is most of her argument constructed, and how does this represent her whole aim?
-Dr. Graban
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
