We are following the syllabus as usual -- no changes! As a reminder, please bring back your case study materials to Tuesday's class meeting, since we are extending the case study into next week and performing our workshop on those genres.
See you then, if not before,
-Prof. Graban
Added on 10/7: Folks, after our workshop today, I'll be directing each group to answer some of the following questions. You can feel free to compose your response as a "comment" on this post.
Today, we're synthesizing principles that may help us better understand Kaufer's "levels of conflict" in a way that is meaningful to making policy arguments in the public sphere. I'm not so sure that the best way to use Kaufer's article is simply to apply one or more of his stock issues to what we're doing. Instead, I think Kaufer gives us several options for understanding how policy conflicts are diagnosed, but it's up to us to decide how his classification of conflicts fits with our other logical, rhetorical, and discursive knowledges, and what questions this raises for public sphere writing on potentially polarizing issues. So -- onward! Please answer one of the following questions:
1) How does one of the texts you discussed present other possibilities for responding than just dis/agree? Based on how the writer uses historical evidence, please respond in terms of some of the things you analyzed for today (e.g., claim structure, stasis level, conflict analogy, stylistic "ethics," value terms, clarity, etc.). Whatever you do -- and with the full knowledge that the writer's language is not the only factor in this discourse -- please try to build a coherent theory of how this text uses history to make a policy argument, or how it uses history to respond to a problem of discourse. "Building a coherent theory" requires more than just making assumptions about what the writer does or what the audience knows, and it requires more than just making generalizations.
2) In one of the texts you discussed, where do you see conflict and perspective most clearly? Where are you included or excluded as a reader? Drawing on some of today's concepts (e.g., claim structure, stasis level, conflict analogy, stylistic "ethics," clarity, etc.) please try to build a coherent theory explaining why/how this has occurred. Pay special attention to the role of key terms in the text -- especially if you think certain time-tested definitions of a term are being challenged, or if you think a term is being used significantly but without explicit definition or discussion. Again, "building a coherent theory" requires more than just making assumptions about what the writer does or what the audience knows, or making generalizations.
3) Revisit one of the texts you discuss and decide whether it qualifies as a “simulation” of an argument or whether it qualifies as a real “ethical deliberation” (Jones 158). Justify your choice in Jones’s terms. Also, justify your choice in Kaufer's claim about weight of policy conflicts versus scale of conflict (61). Finally, justify your choice in terms of some of the other things you gridded for today (e.g., stylistic "ethics," clarity, word choice or ideographs, etc.). It's possible you will find a statement similar to what Williams and Bizup might call an "ethical violation of style" (e.g., obscurity, misdirection, subversive clarity, opacity) (Style lesson 11) or what Jones might call a violation of “The Usage Rule” (177). If so, explain how that occurs.
4) Is there anything in one of the texts you discussed that acts like a "value" term or an "ideograph"? The concept of "Ideograph" was popularly coined for rhetoric by Michael Calvin McGee, although the word in its general definition has existed for some time. McGee's "ideograph" is a word that uses abstractions in order to develop support for a political position (e.g., "freedom," "liberty," "justice," "pursuit of happiness," etc.). Not just any term can be an ideograph, but if -- in the context of discourse -- the word carries ideological assumptions and inspires familiar associations among an audience, it is likely functioning this way. Please draw on some of the concepts we analyzed for today in explaining your ideograph.
The word "caste" is the ideograph. It draws off of previously known knowledge--weighty connotation. It strengthens her argument for why current racism is a problem. It describes an institution, something that feels concrete. It builds off the Hindu idea that has been around for millenia. It gives weight to her issue but maybe to some readers (particularly those who are not swayed so easily) it feels like it might be TOO MUCH to overcome. Aubrey, Melissa, Emily, Katherine C.
ReplyDeleteComment by: Lindsey Marcus, Kaylah Jackson, Allyn Farach, Christina Morgan
ReplyDeleteThe word "criminality" from the Bouie article functions as an ideograph. Perhaps the definition of what it means to identify as a a criminal or what criminality means can be different based on ethnic groups. As stated in Bouie's article there is a direct correlation with "blackness" and "criminality". If you are a Black male, your perspective of what it means to be viewed as a criminal might be different than say a White male who is affected by public policy in a different way.
Question #4
ReplyDeleteSegregation could be a possible ideograph that Nakasa uses. Based on the writings by Nakasa the overarching ideograph would be segregation because this is not only what motivates his writing but also is the very concept that Nakasa wishes to get his audience to view differently. Nakasa discusses the act of writing as somewhat of a metaphor for segregation thus helping to further abstract the term for the audience. Segregation's definition changes for the audience because Nakasa is able to present it as representing more than just something that happens to others. Rather, segregation is an abstract quality of humanity that develops based on a variety of changing variables.
2. In Lunchlines the conflict is the two segregated lunch lines and how prevalent division can arise even without an exigence. There was no problem that arose in the original idea, which was splitting the lunch line based on practicality, but by dividing the students it creates an economical disunity. As a reader we aren't involved but we're forced to bare witness the situation that is occurring.
ReplyDelete4. An example of an ideograph in Alexander’s piece was the use of the word “caste.” When I hear the term “caste,” my first association is with the Indian caste system and specifically the “untouchable” (although I’m only familiar with these in name). I believe Alexander’s use of caste to describe racial hierarchy in America was done specifically with this in mind, especially since it intersects so vividly with American “post-racial” ideology surrounding self-sufficiency, self-determination, and class mobility. The implication behind her use is that if you, the reader, care about this values at all, you will be horrified at the fact that she is a) using the term and b) has presented the facts to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her use of the word is correct.
ReplyDelete