Hello, everyone.
For Tuesday's in-class analysis, here are your concepts and questions. Please read ahead and examine your chosen genre samples for concepts listed below. On Tuesday, I will ask you to spend a few minutes with your partner discussing them and locating explicit examples in the text. However, you will spend most of your time talking through and composing your post. We will break for discussion after the "synthesis" questions.
Lung: "A Question of Civility: An Open Letter to Hu, Jintao"
preparation for synthesis:
1. cite the passages that hold Lung's main argument and list them in a logical progression
2. "value" terms (terms or definitions that carry value in the argument)
3. tropes (Killingsworth)
4. identification/association/representation -- use of metaphors, metonymy, or synecdoche (Killingsworth)
5. forwarding -- illustrating, authorizing, borrowing, or extending (Harris 39-48)
6. stasis in which the letter is primarily conducted
synthesis:
Lung originally wrote her open letter in Chinese for a Taiwanese audience, before it was translated into English and circulated widely in other countries. Considering the complexity of her cultural context and her multiple audiences, discuss how you think this letter strikes a balance--if you think it does--between embodied voice and voicelessness. How does it promote complexity in the way that Lazere defines "complexity"? Discuss whether and how the letter demonstrates some kind of reciprocity of ideas, rather than mere opinion or egocentrism.
Linzey: "Why Animals Deserve Special Moral Solicitude"
preparation for synthesis:
1. claim with reason, grounds (evidence), and warrant (the unstated premise that connects the claim with the grounds)
2. Kaufer conflict level (or value pair) that is most visible (58-60)
3. possible competing analogies if it represents a "level 5" disagreement (Kaufer 63-66)
4. relationship of human to the environment on the continuum of perspectives (K/S 171)
5. evidence of or against oversimplification (Lazere)
6. stasis in which the article is primarily conducted
synthesis:
Select up to two passages from the handout and discuss how they resonate with Linzey's principal aim. Discuss whether and how you see Linzey opening up spaces for debate and/or making spaces for a proactive response. What are all of our options for responding?
Ledbetter and Daniels: "Is there a Decline in Literacy?"
preparation for synthesis:
1. Kaufer conflict level (or value pair) that is most visible in the disagreement (58-60)
2. possible competing analogies if it represents a "level 5" disagreement (Kaufer 63-66)
3. "value" terms (terms or definitions that carry value in the argument)
4. embodiment or authenticity of voice (Matalene)
5. forwarding -- illustrating, authorizing, borrowing, or extending (Harris 39-48)
6. stasis in which the debate is primarily conducted
synthesis:
What kind of audience does each writer seem to construct (or to write for), and how could that have impacted their decisions about how to argue? (Please note specific differences where you can.)
The 11th Hour Film (chapter 8 or 10)
preparation for synthesis:
1. claim with reason, grounds (evidence), and warrant (the unstated premise that connects the claim with the grounds)
2. Kaufer conflict level (or value pair) that is most visible (58-60)
3. possible competing analogies if it represents a "level 5" disagreement (Kaufer 63-66)
4. "value" terms (terms or definitions that carry value in the argument)
5. relationship of human to the environment on the continuum of perspectives (K/S 171)
6. identification/association/representation -- use of metaphors, metonymy, or synecdoche (Killingsworth)
synthesis:
Select up to two passages from the handout and discuss how they resonate with the film's principal aim. Discuss whether and how you see the film opening up spaces for debate and/or making spaces for a proactive response. What are all of our options for responding?
Please respond by commenting to this post.
-Professor Graban
Lacey and Rebekah:
ReplyDeleteLedbetter seems to construct an audience of higher education personnel - administrators, professors, and possibly politicians. He is writing for a postsecondary audience in a literary journal about K-12 education. It impacted his decision to argue with what is considered "classic literature." In reality, very few K-8 teachers would think that reading Kipling in their classes would be helpful (age appropriate literature is important). He constructs teachers as victims of education bureaucracy, with very little control over their own classrooms. Ledbetter assumes (rightly) that his audience is already convinced that English education is imperative - he does not need to make a persuasive argument about that. Ledbetter constructs his audience as an "us" against "them."
In contrast, Daniels is writing to the same audience, but he constructs them quite differently. His argument seems more distanced - less "us" against "them." Daniels appeals to history and demonstrates patterns of what he sees as overreacting. He appeals to major literary figures, but uses them in a different way - to show how much "oh no!" type rhetoric has been seen throughout US history. The quotes he uses strengthen his argument - it seems to be more than simply his experience and opinions.
Kyla Tosti/Kae Grossman
ReplyDeleteLinzey: Why Animals Deserve Special Moral Solicitude
Albert Einstein is quoted as saying "... Our task must be to free ourself from this prison by widening our circle of understanding and compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." This quote ties into Linzey's claim that humans are not masters or dominators of the animals, but rather a part of the "circle"; this implies the interconnected nature of human and animal life and argues against being given the right to exploit animals for our own gain. This however, opens the debate, as Linzey argues his point from a theological perspective (that humans are given a Christlike duty to shepherd animals. While he does address atheists within his claim, the heavy reliance on Biblical reference and narrative dominates the argument and may provoke a call to action to Christians, or perhaps cause non-believers to decry his claims.
Linzey offers as a comparison "alongside the use of animals, vulnerable human subjects", not bifurcating "your dog or your baby" but "your dog and your baby". In a further point of this, Henry Thoreau argues that we "regard man as an inhabitant, or a part and parcel of Nature, rather than a member of society". Linzey would agree with this, given his claim as man as part of the natural world, not as a hierarchal object.
Ieshia Hill and Tim Mattingly
ReplyDeleteLedbetter and Daniel construct two separate audiences in their articles. Ledbetter, on the one hand, is intending his argument for those that are possibly connected with the educational community, such as teachers and students. Daniels, on the other hand, constructs a much more general audience.
With Ledbetter’s audience, he writes in a tone that other teachers may identify with. By referring to his classroom environment and showing his students’ reactions to his teaching method, he is trying to cause his assumed audience of teachers to empathize with his argument.
Daniels argument serves as a voice from the educational community to those that are not involved. He gives both perspectives of students and teachers. He uses historical context and cultural context, referencing television media in the way the news portrays the “decline in literacy.”
Cindy and Megan:
ReplyDeleteLedbetter and Daniels are both writing to an audience of English teachers, being published in The English Journal, but they address their audiences in different ways. Ledbetter not only addresses educators, but mentions legislators and government officials as well. He urges policy makers to stop attempting to improve the methods in which teachers instruct students in learning how to read. He argues that if teachers are given freedom and good books, they can teach their students just fine and literacy will improve on its own. Because he is trying to reach this wide audience, he uses his own personal experience with the educational system to demonstrate the flaws with the system. The emotion with which he charges his argument is meant to shake the reader into understanding.
Daniels, on the other hand, presents his argument more towards a general audience. He tells his reader to calm down about literacy, and in doing so, he conveys his argument very calmly as well. His tone is much more relaxed than Ledbetter's, and he displays evidence in a rational manner for his audience. Daniels even takes a playful tone at times, lightening the mood of the subject by jokingly addressing the people he deems as "doomsayers" ("how about that for a Bicentennial minute, Ed?"). He creates a logical claim that those discussing literacy standards need to examine the evidence more clearly and understand the difference between language change and language degeneration.
Dipti, Kimberley
ReplyDeleteLinzey first introduces his claim by question that animals are not threatening humans, they do not have any means of offence or defence” then why are we being harmful to them? He states out three considerations to make the argument of why animals need special care. He is claiming with reason using Toulmin’s model of classical argument. The writer is making his claim by arguing with the reader how we should give them special care. Because according to the writer, animals don’t have moral values but humans do have moral values so it is our responsibility to be moral to them. Then Linzey answers his question by backing it up with different perspective such as theological perspective. Here, he is using both warrant and backing method of Toulmin in his article. Overall, he is using the argumentation by representation. It is a trope that using the phrase, “moral solitude” he is referring to animal rights to be not just left alone but also give them special care. Here he represents his claim by representing many ideas.
The quote by Albert Einstein, “A human being …its beauty” seems to be very relevant to the article we have chosen to analyze. It says how human beings have ability to think and how we should look broadly to the world and “compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.” It is persuasive in a way that we are responsible for animal rights and therefore, the writer is a member in the American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS).
Another passage is by Friedrich Nietzsche which seems little bit relevant to Linzey’s article. Because of this quote, it mentions buzz word like protection and power. From this passage, we pulled that animals need protection and special care where as humans have awful power to control the animals. Similarly, in Linzey article, he mentions that many times people say that, “We have dominion over animals” and that’s why we have obligation to protect animals.
Kaufer’s conflict level 4 and 5 is most visible in this article because the human beings are struggling to understand their moral duties and values. Holding a local value and global values are both misunderstood by an ordinary person and may be scientists would disagree with these kinds of arguments. We have lot of room for debate with the writer’s claims. If a reader is a scientist, he would question how the test should be done on no subjects. If the subjects for the experiment are neither animal nor human then on whom they should conduct experiments. Some would argue that god has created the animals for humans to use them in whatever way we want to such as for livestock or for experiments.
Stasis of cause and values are primarily conducted because if the human beings don’t have any values then the action would not take place. The writer argues that we can’t do something bad and expect good outcome, similarly, we can’t harm animals and expect that there is no harm being done to the animals.
Shelli, John
ReplyDeleteLinzey's principal aim claims that animal testing cannot be justified through theological or logical means. He sets up the position that in certain religions, humans were created to be superior and have dominion over all other animals. Linzey argues that this does not justify animal testing as many have claimed, but it insteasd determines that humans have a responsibility to protect animals because humans are superior to them.
As Albert Einstein wrote in a letter in 1950, that a human is "part of the whole" and the human has the idea that his "thoughts and feelings" are "seperate from the rest". According to Einstein, this is in fact a "delusion" and a "prison". He goes on to say that as humans, our task is to "free ourselves from this prison" and to "embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
This resonates with Linzey's claim that humans and animals must coexist and humanity has forgotten that even if they are theologically superior, they are still part of the same universe.
Linzey's aricle does not leave much room for debate. He wrote the article in an ethics stasis and when he stated his own arguments he also predicted a counter-argument, which limits any kind of response a reader has. His warrant is a Level 5 argument which states that animal testing is ethically wrong. He turns it into a Level 4 argument by stating his claim, which is that animal testing is logically unsound and unethical.
It is a little strange that Linzey argues mostly in a theological area when many people would argue that science and theology do not have much common ground. However, he leaves a large hole in his argument when he fails to discuss any benefits to animal testing or even painless or non-harmful animal testing. He also fails to discuss any sort of medical advancement that has been achieved in animal testing or any animasl that have seemed to have for nothing. Linzey gives no actual concrete evidence, only philosophical and rational arguments.
In response, any person can use some concrete examples of the advancements in medicine for both humans and animals and also research any less harmful animal testing or other painless alternatives.
Lily Homstad and Zayin
ReplyDeleteLung
The embodied voice that is represented in Lung's article "A Question of Civility" comes from trying to speak on behalf of herself as well as the Taiwanese people as a collective. By using first-person plural, she invites the audience to share her viewpoints. The embodied voice is present in her use of radical metaphors, by representing the Hu Jintao government as executioners, as present in the quote, "...the day the one remaining throat has been cut." She also represents how "[Mother China] lets the most slavish take charge by handing him the whip, the ruler and the keys." By representing the opposition like this, she is more easily able to garner support for her cause. The language she uses creates a very one-sided argument.
By taking this complex argument and diving into the issues which underlie it, she shows her viewpoint and judgement on how the Chinese government is running Chinese people's lives. When she says "what really matters is a concrete event like the closing down of freezing point." she uses this example to represent a broad pattern of abuse in Chinese government. She is promoting complexity by using an explicit example to represent the larger, more complicated issue of personal freedom.
Although she forwards a discouraging remark in the beginning of her essay, and the ideals of a chinese historian, she mainly uses her own opinion in the rest of the article. By using first person singular in this article "I believe that this...," "my decision to write this...," "I think you must understand..." she uses the authority of her ethos as both a writer, and a Taiwanese. She also uses various rhetorical questions to align the public on her point of view. By doing this she eliminates the reciprocity of ideas and pulls the audience towards her side.
Tak & Aaron
ReplyDeleteChapter 8 of this film particularly covers deforestation and desertion that are rapidly occuring. A specialist points out that approximately 75% of the forest is gone in the world and 95% of the forest is gone in the U.S. The film goes on to speak about the importance of trees, and that destryoing one tree can leave a huge impact to the surrounding environment. This chapter does not provide a solution or suggestions of how to go about stopping this problem.
Albert Einstein's remark of “A human being …its beauty” seems to indicate that there is a definite separation between human beings and the rest of the planet. While planet works and "feels" together, as a whole, human beings "experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something from the rest." In other words, human beings function for their sole existence and survival by causing negative impact to the planet, while the rest of the planet sees the purpose survival directly related to the existence and preservation of the entire environment of the Earth.
This passage is connected to this film in a way that while Einstein suggests that human beings must acknowledge this separation, the authors of this film seems to identify this problem inavoidable and unfixable. Therefore the approach that this film takes is that in order for human beings to realize and act on the environmental degregation, letting them know that catastrophe DIRECTLY endangering the human beings is coming. Thus Einstein and this film may be taking different appraoches for the same goal of saving the planet, but they both seem to be using the knowledge of the distinct difference of purposes and survival between human beings and the rest of the planet.
Kellin, Elizabeth, and Ben
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 8 of "The 11th Hour" experts discuss can examination of what the cutting of trees has done to the soil of the Earth, as well as the future consequences that are sure to come due to this over use of resources. "He teaches us that the total economy of this planet cannot be guided by an efficient rationale of exploitation alone, but that the exploiting part must itself eventually suffer if it too greatly disturbs the balance of the whole..." Kenneth Burke (Attitudes Toward History, 1937). In this quote Burke warns that if resources are too quickly depleted then those who use them will eventually suffer. The experts in the film strongly warn that if the Earth's resources are not conserved there will be great suffering for future generations. They discuss that we must work with the Earth to create a balance by using the resources only when we are able to give them back.
"A technological society has two choices: first, it can wait until catastrophic failures expose systemic deficiencies, distortions, and self-deceptions. Secondly, a culture can provide social checks and balances to correct for systemic distortion prior to catastrophic failures." (Mohandas Gandhi) This quote brings up the sense of urgency with which the experts in the film describe the resource depletion. They stress to the viewer that the time for action is now, because there may only be a few short decades before all of Earth's natural resources are used up with no hope of restoration. Gandhi's quote resonates with their plea to make government officials face the growing problem or else face "catastrophic failures".
Ledbetter and Daniels: "Is there a Decline in Literacy?"
ReplyDelete"Is There a Decline in Literacy?" is quite the unique work in that while it was written by two brilliant minds of the English language for others in the academic field, it addresses the decline in "literacy." This is strange to me, since they are adding their views and criticisms to a method of reading/speaking that they are not familiar with anymore. However, Daniels does write his piece for more of an "everyman" audience, so I can see where they are at least attempting to cater to those who are not as eloquent in speaking as they are.
The conflict level that is most visible in the disagreement is the word "literate" itself. Literacy can either be viewed as speaking the sophisticated level of English that comes with academic writing, or the modern changes that occur in language to make it applicable to society, even if the words are simpler. Since the two writers struggle to find a good frame of definition for which weight should apply to making something "literate," the Kaufer level that applies is the third.
The word "literate" continues to bear value as more than its literal meaning, which means capable of reading. Ledbetter views "literacy" as "familiar with literature," which is certainly a step up from the basic level of simply being able to read language. Familiarity with literature bears significance in artistic and intelligent capability.
The authenticity of voice in this article is vital. In convincing people that sophisticated language is better than "declined literacy," it takes casual language to win the audience over, according to the article's own theory that most people do not read well anymore!
Ledbetter seems to write for a sophisticated audience of English scholars, which seems to imply why he brings up the issue of English classes getting cancelled before any others - academics are likely to have relished in their English class and faced the issue of education cuts, so this will tear at them emotionally to see his cause. Daniels, on the other side, seems to be writing for a more relaxed, casually-speaking crowd, so it is a key concept in his writing to bring up that the increase of "monosyllabic jargon" is a part of the English language for hundreds of years and should not be taken too seriously. The language is simply evolving as the people are evolving, according to him.
synthesis:
What kind of audience does each writer seem to construct (or to write for), and how could that have impacted their decisions about how to argue? (Please note specific differences where you can.)