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.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
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)
