writing essay-02

User Generated

znttvrznttvr

Writing

Description

No outside resources needed, only use the readings that I provided. Topic would be gained from readings, about Anthropocene. Need 2 citation, one direct quote. Total 4 pages. There is one sample essay, it's helpful, please follow that format. Need one enthymeme, example in the sample essay first paragraph last sentence. . Need this essay is about Question at Issue, explanation attached in file.

Readings: 1. https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/l...

2. https://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/hope-in-the-age-of-...

3. http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA3215801...

4. http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA3215801...

5. http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA3215801...


Task:

Write an essay that responds to a question at issue of your own invention (meaning you came up with it) on some topic of your choice regarding the Anthropocene directly. (The Q@I doesn’t need to use the word Anthropocene itself, and could be on some essential aspect of the Anthropocene such as climate change or changing relationships between human society and non-human nature.) It may be tempting to ask a broad question (such as about technology, society, humanity, and so on), but remember that the narrower and more focused your Q@I is, the more manageable and probably more interesting your essay will be.

In the essay, introduce your topic and question at issue in the first paragraph (the introduction). Your essay’s enthymeme must appear in bold in your paper. The end of the first, introductory paragraph is almost always an appropriate place to put it. Use your enthymeme to develop your essay. Use evidence and reasoning to support your argument. I encourage you to make the essay’s structure follow the enthymeme’s line of reasoning and make the essay’s content meet the enthymeme’s burden of proof. This evidence may come from (but isn’t limited to) your own experience and knowledge or class readings and/or discussions. You will probably want to include your own definition of the Anthropocene as part of this.

You must include ALL your sources, with correct citations, including non-written ones (like an advertisement). Use the formatting guidelines in the syllabus. Use the Purdue OWL website for information on grammar, language usage, and citations. As this is not a research essay, you should not need to do any research outside of what we have discussed in class. No research or sources outside what we’ve covered in class are allowed. One exception is that you may read other articles in the Exploring the Anthropocene casebook on Canvas. This may mean you have to be general rather than specific in your evidence, but that’s fine.

Criteria:

An Essay that is complete will do the following:

  • Respond to an original question at issue of your choice and formulation that has to do with the Anthropocene.
  • Include an enthymeme that is used to develop the essay (not judged on “quality”)
  • Include Introduction and Conclusion
  • Include at least two citations of others’ work (from two different sources), integrating those sources into your essay
  • Include at least one quotation from our course readings in a body paragraph
  • Address other voices/perspectives on your topic (at least one) that differ from yours, which may be as a counterargument to your own argument, and need not be from another source
  • Cite all sources and includes a Works Cited section (need not be a separate page)
  • Include no outside research
  • Be no more than 4 full pages in length, unless doing the Expanded Evidence Advanced Labor

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Robert Zandstra Writing 121 Example Essay The Value of Teaching Canonical and “Difficult” Texts Thus the texts that are used in this course have at least some significance for the entire university. As Gerald Graff convincingly argues in “Hidden Intellectualism,” “pop culture” texts and texts that deal with contemporary, relevant issues can provide the subject matter for developing written argumentation skills as well as the interest for students to desire to write and invest in their writing. I am convinced by Graff’s argument to an extent. However, I am not sure if more traditional academic material should be excluded from these classes, which leads me to wonder, should Writing 121 teachers require students to engage with difficult and canonical texts in addition to texts that deal with relevant issues and pop culture? Engaging with canonical and “difficult” texts should be required of students in written rhetoric classes because engaging with these texts challenges students to think more deeply about significant issues than “relevant issues” and “pop culture” texts are able. Four categories of texts seem to be available for teachers to assign in Writing 121. The first category is “pop culture,” which consists of contemporary texts of widely varying literary quality that deal with aspects of contemporary society. These texts often primarily deal with or are themselves primarily disposable consumer objects. The second category I call “relevant issues” texts. These texts, such as those in They Say / I Say, provide good examples of written reasoning about significant contemporary issues. The third category I call “difficult” texts: excellent (often contemporary) texts that engage with canonical texts or enduring issues the way canonical texts do, but which have not (yet) proven canonical. The fourth category is canonical texts, which I define as texts of widely recognized, enduring value that provide insight into persistent, trans-historical issues or problems. “Difficult” and canonical texts challenge students to think more deeply by providing students models of the deepest critical thought. Canonical and “difficult” texts wrestle with significant issues at their most fundamental levels. Their reasoning often seems abstract, but what appears as abstract in these cases is often reasoning that can be applied to a very wide number of concrete situations. Furthermore, canonical and “difficult” texts tend to be more sophisticated in style and form as well as reasoning and content. This sophistication of thought will challenge students to dig deeply into a text and actually engage its ideas. Let me use the example of texts about music to show how this difference in challenge looks. A student could make arguments about “pop culture” texts, say, on the relative merits of two albums or the meaning of a cryptic lyric. An example of a “relevant issues” text a student could engage with might be a Rolling Stone article explaining how the development of a band’s music reflects changing political attitudes in the United States. Difficult texts on the subject would include Allan Bloom’s provocative chapter on music in The Closing of the American Mind, which discusses the role pop music has played in causing Americans to become more narrow-minded as well as its negative effects in the university. Bloom engages with canonical thinkers like Plato and Nietzsche, who made arguments about the very nature of music and its relationship to human minds, bodies, and societies. Students modeling their own arguments off those of Bloom will make deeper arguments about music by emulating Bloom’s arguments, which go much deeper than Rolling Stone’s. Comparing texts about food also reveals the superiority of deep thought modeled by more difficult texts. A “pop culture” text about food might include food product reviews or a TV show episode that features food choices like Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution. Examples of “relevant issues” texts would be the essays by David Zinczenko or Radley Balko in They Say / I Say. A “difficult” text might be an essay by Wendell Berry or Michael Pollan regarding ethical considerations in industrial agriculture or the pleasures of eating. Canonical works on food would include Animal Liberation by Peter Singer, discussed by Pollan, or sections of sacred texts such as the Bible that deal with dietary, agricultural, and hospitality practices and regulations.i A student reading Pollan, Berry, and Singer alongside articles in They Say / I Say would be challenged to think more deeply about the complexity of food systems than by the relatively unnuanced arguments given by Zinczenko, Balko, and Oliver. Engaging with each of these levels of critical thought is important and worthwhile, but beyond just modeling good reasoning, engaging with the texts at more sophisticated levels (difficult and canonical) prepares students for better engaging with the “lower” levels. Canonical texts help determine the discourses within certain cultures, including texts of “pop culture” and issues of contemporary relevance. Engaging with them then provides a wider cultural, ethical, etc. understanding of a network of issues related to the issue at hand. Engaging with Plato and Bloom will offer insights into the nature of music that “relevant issues” texts by nature do not offer. These insights and more difficult concepts may be applied to texts of purely contemporary relevance to gain insight about them. The reverse is rarely, if ever, true. One might argue that canonical texts should not be taught because they represent times and ideas in which those in power sought to silence the voices of the less powerful (women, certain ethnic groups, etc.). A large majority of texts in the Western canon are by dead, white or European males. And it is true that this class of people often silenced the voices of other groups. However, canonical texts are still valuable to study because the ideas they contain are useful in other contexts than their own. They can provide insights to readers far deeper than simple insights into the dominant ideologies of a certain time and place. Furthermore, it is healthy for students to engage with texts that show excellent reasoning that the student still disagrees with. Engaging with texts that evince fundamentally different worldviews or presuppositions about the meaning of life will help a student articulate their own views of these things. “Pop culture” texts and “relevant issues” texts tend to uncritically reinforce aspects of contemporary worldviews or simply obscure their own presuppositions. Canonical texts work well taught alongside contemporary “difficult” texts that deal with significant issues. These texts are far more likely than canonical texts to have been written by a member of a historically voiceless group of people and can demonstrate how canonical texts remain relevant. Someone might argue that students will not be challenged by difficult, canonical texts; rather, they will be bored and uninterested as Graff was as a child (Graff 381). This argument, although frequently made by students, does not actually address the core of the enthymeme’s logic. It reveals more about some students’ unwillingness to do the work of engaging deeply with significant issues. I do not believe that students are always or even usually unwilling to do this work and to think deeply, but it is often easier not to and can become a habit, which results in boredom. The solution to this is not to cater to students’ boredom but rather to help students escape it into the much vaster depths of the world that can be opened by more difficult texts. We shouldn’t lower standards; we should raise them (Robinson). Another counter-argument to mine is one raised by Graff: “No necessary connection has ever been established between any text or subject and the educational depth and weight of discussion in can generate” (Graff 381). Graff suggests that the category of text itself doesn’t lead directly to educational benefit like improved writing. While it is true that there are other variables, such as teaching, in the educational benefit to texts, I believe that some texts do model good writing to students who don’t necessarily have skills in argumentation. Furthermore, discussion is probably best done in a context of different texts in all four categories, including the “difficult” and canonical texts. “Pop culture” and “relevant” texts might only generate discussion or argument “for the sake of discussion/argument” rather than for the sake of understanding deeper issues. Graff supports this argument by contrasting an “intellectual” thinking about pop culture texts and a “dullard” thinking about canonical texts. Graff is merely shifting the dichotomy of “dumb” and “intellectual” onto individuals rather than texts. While some people, like him, might be “hidden” intellectuals trying to act tough, they are still clearly distinguished from the real toughs, the dullards. Such a dichotomy is a result of the Enlightenment theory of the mind that has caused so much damage to students in current educational systems (Robinson). Texts that eventually help students reason most deeply are the texts that should be required in composition classrooms. An important purpose of the composition classroom is to help students think deeply about significant issues. The deep thinking that engagement with canonical and “difficult” texts foster will also allow students to make reasoned arguments both in their academic pursuits and in decisions they face in their daily lives, decisions like whether or not to listen, if at all, to certain kinds of music or why to produce, procure, prepare, present, and eat food in certain ways and not others. Such a result is the goal of liberal arts education (Wallace 199). A teacher cannot force a student to engage with such texts, but without exposure to these texts from their teachers, many students will miss out on the opportunity. Writing teachers should offer students these resources in conjunction with actual writing instruction to help them become better at thinking, reasoning, loving, and participating in university life. Works Cited Graff, Gerald. “Hidden Intellectualism.” “They Say / I Say”: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing: With Readings. Ed. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst.2nd ed. New York: Norton, 2012. 380-386. Print. Robinson, Ken, Sir. “Changing Paradigms.” RSA. Web. 6 March 2013. Wallace, David Foster. “Kenyon Commencement Address.” “They Say / I Say”: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing: With Readings. Ed. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst.2nd ed. New York: Norton, 2012. 198-209. Print. Notes As these examples suggest, the categories are flexible. What one person might consider a “relevant issues” text, another might consider “difficult.” What one person sees as “pop culture,” another might see as “relevant issues.” The categories point to a continuum more than four discrete or definable bodies of texts. i B R U N O L AT O U R / D A N I E L S A R E W I T Z / M A R K S A G O F F P E T E R K A R E I VA / S I D D H A R T H A S H O M E / E R L E E L L I S LOVE YOUR M ON S T E RS PO ST ENVIRO NMENTALISM and t he A NTHRO PO CENE Edited by MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER and TED NORDHAUS ABOUT THE AUTHORS MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER AND TED NORDHAUS (“Evolve,” p. 8) are executive editors of the Breakthrough Journal and founders of the Breakthrough Institute. B R U N O L AT O U R (“Love Your Monsters,” p. 16) is professor and vice president for research at Sciences Po Paris, and author of We Have Never Been Modern (Harvard 1993) and The Politics of Nature (Harvard 2004). He is a Breakthrough Institute Senior Fellow. P E T E R K A R E I VA (“Conservation in the Anthropocene,” p. 24) is a Breakthrough Institute Senior Fellow and chief scientist and vice president of The Nature Conservancy and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. He, along with Michelle Marvier, is the author of Conservation Science (Roberts & Co 2011). ROBERT LALASZ (“Conservation in the Anthropocene,” p. 24) is director of science communications for The Nature Conservancy. He is founding editor of the Conservancy’s blog, “Cool Green Science” (blog.nature.org). MICHELLE MARVIER (“Conservation in the Anthropocene,” p. 24) is professor and department chair of Environmental Studies and Sciences at Santa Clara University. She recently coauthored Conservation Science with Peter Kareiva. ERLE ELLIS (“Planet of No Return,” p. 33) is associate professor of Geography and Environmental Systems at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. MARK SAGOFF (“The Rise and Fall of Ecological Economics,” p. 39) is director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy at George Mason University and author of The Economy of the Earth (Cambridge 2007, 2 nd ed). DANIEL SAREWITZ (“Liberalism’s Modest Proposals,” p. 53) is professor of Science and Society and codirector of the Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes at Arizona State University. His latest book is The Techno-Human Condition (MIT 2011; coauthored with Braden Allenby). He is a Breakthrough Institute Senior Fellow. SIDDHARTHA SHOME (“The New India Versus the Global Green Brahmins,” p. 63) is an engineer at Parametric Technology Corporation and a Breakthrough Institute Senior Fellow. LO VE Y OUR MONSTER S WH Y WE MUS T CAR E FOR OU R TECHNOLOGIES AS WE DO OUR CH ILDR EN B R U N O L AT O U R I n the summer of 1816, a young British woman by the name of Mary Godwin and her boyfriend Percy Shelley went to visit Lord Byron in Lake Geneva, Switzerland. They had planned to spend much of the summer outdoors, but the eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia the previous year had changed the climate of Europe. The weather was so bad that they spent most of their time indoors, discussing the latest popular writings on science and the supernatural. After reading a book of German ghost stories, somebody suggested they each write their own. Byron’s physician, John Polidori, came up with the idea for The Vampyre, published in 1819, which was the first of the “vampire-as-seducer” novels. Godwin’s story came to her in a dream, during which she saw “the pale student of unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together.” Soon after that fateful summer, Godwin and Shelley married, and in 1818, Mary Shelley’s horror story was published under the title, Frankenstein, Or, the Modern Prometheus. Frankenstein lives on in the popular imagination as a cautionary tale against technology. We use the monster as an all-purpose modifier to denote technological crimes against nature. When we fear genetically modified foods we call them “frankenfoods” and “frankenfish.” It is telling that even as we warn against such hybrids, we confuse the monster with its creator. We now mostly refer to Dr. Frankenstein’s monster as Frankenstein. And just as we have forgotten that Frankenstein was the man, not the monster, we have also forgotten Frankenstein’s real sin. Dr. Frankenstein’s crime was not that he invented a creature through some combination of hubris and high technology, but rather that he abandoned the creature to itself. When Dr. Frankenstein meets his creation on a glacier in the Alps, the monster claims that it was not born a monster, but that it became a criminal only after being left alone by his horrified creator, who fled the labo16/ LOVE YOUR MONSTERS BRUNO LATOUR ratory once the horrible thing twitched to life. “Remember, I am thy creature,” the monster protests, “I ought to be thy Adam; but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed… I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous.” Written at the dawn of the great technological revolutions that would define the 19th and 20th centuries, Frankenstein foresees that the gigantic sins that were to be committed would hide a much greater sin. It is not the case that we have failed to care for Creation, but that we have failed to care for our technological creations. We confuse the monster for its creator and blame our sins against Nature upon our creations. But our sin is not that we created technologies but that we failed to love and care for them. It is as if we decided that we were unable to follow through with the education of our children. Let Dr. Frankenstein’s sin serve as a parable for political ecology. At a time when science, technology, and demography make clear that we can never separate ourselves from the nonhuman world — that we, our technologies, and nature can no more be disentangled than we can remember the distinction between Dr. Frankenstein and his monster — this is the moment chosen by millions of wellmeaning souls to flagellate themselves for their earlier aspiration to dominion, to repent for their past hubris, to look for ways of diminishing the numbers of their fellow humans, and to swear to make their footprints invisible? The goal of political ecology must not be to stop innovating, inventing, creating, and intervening. The real goal must be to have the same type of patience and commitment to our creations as God the Creator, Himself. And the comparison is not blasphemous: we have taken the whole of Creation on our shoulders and have become coextensive with the Earth. What, then, should be the work of political ecology? It is, I believe, to modernize modernization, to borrow an expression proposed by Ulrich Beck. This challenge demands more of us than simply embracing technology and innovation. It requires exchanging the modernist notion of modernity for what I have called a “compositionist” one that sees the process of human development as neither liberation from Nature nor as a fall from it, but rather as a process of becoming ever-more attached to, and intimate with, a panoply of nonhuman natures. 1. At the time of the plough we could only scratch the surface of the soil. Three centuries back, we could only dream, like Cyrano de Bergerac, of traveling to the moon. In the past, my Gallic ancestors were afraid of nothing except that the “sky will fall on their heads.” LOVE YOUR MONSTERS /17 BRUNO LATOUR Today we can fold ourselves into the molecular machinery of soil bacteria through our sciences and technologies. We run robots on Mars. We photograph and dream of further galaxies. And yet we fear that the climate could destroy us. Everyday in our newspapers we read about more entanglements of all those things that were once imagined to be separable — science, morality, religion, law, technology, finance, and politics. But these things are tangled up together everywhere: in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in the space shuttle, and in the Fukushima nuclear power plant. If you envision a future in which there will be less and less of these entanglements thanks to Science, capital S, you are a modernist. But if you brace yourself for a future in which there will always be more of these imbroglios, mixing many more heterogeneous actors, at a greater and greater scale and at an ever-tinier level of intimacy requiring even more detailed care, then you are… what? A compositionist! The dominant, peculiar story of modernity is of humankind’s emancipation from Nature. Modernity is the thrusting-forward arrow of time — Progress — characterized by its juvenile enthusiasm, risk taking, frontier spirit, optimism, and indifference to the past. The spirit can be summarized in a single sentence: “Tomorrow, we will be able to separate more accurately what the world is really like from the subjective illusions we used to entertain about it.” The very forward movement of the arrow of time and the frontier spirit associated with it (the modernizing front) is due to a certain conception of knowledge: “Tomorrow, we will be able to differentiate clearly what in the past was still mixed up, namely facts and values, thanks to Science.” Science is the shibboleth that defines the right direction of the arrow of time because it, and only it, is able to cut into two well-separated parts what had, in the past, remained hopelessly confused: a morass of ideology, emotions, and values on the one hand, and, on the other, stark and naked matters of fact. The notion of the past as an archaic and dangerous confusion arises directly from giving Science this role. A modernist, in this great narrative, is the one who expects from Science the revelation that Nature will finally be visible through the veils of subjectivity — and subjection — that hid it from our ancestors. And here has been the great failure of political ecology. Just when all of the human and nonhuman associations are finally coming to the center of our consciousness, when science and nature and technology and politics become so confused and mixed up as to be impossible to untangle, just as these associations are beginning to be shaped in our political arenas and are triggering our most personal and deepest emotions, this is when a new apartheid is declared: leave 18/ LOVE YOUR MONSTERS BRUNO LATOUR Nature alone and let the humans retreat — as the English did on the beaches of Dunkirk in the 1940s. Just at the moment when this fabulous dissonance inherent in the modernist project between what modernists say (emancipation from all attachments!) and what they do (create ever-more attachments!) is becoming apparent to all, along come those alleging to speak for Nature to say the problem lies in the violations and imbroglios — the attachments! Instead of deciding that the great narrative of modernism (Emancipation) has always resulted in another history altogether (Attachments), the spirit of the age has interpreted the dissonance in quasi-apocalyptic terms: “We were wrong all along, let’s turn our back to progress, limit ourselves, and return to our narrow human confines, leaving the nonhumans alone in as pristine a Nature as possible, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa…” Nature, this great shortcut of due political process, is now used to forbid humans to encroach. Instead of realizing at last that the emancipation narrative is bunk, and that modernism was always about attachments, modernist greens have suddenly shifted gears and have begun to oppose the promises of modernization. Why do we feel so frightened at the moment that our dreams of modernization finally come true? Why do we suddenly turn pale and wish to fall back on the other side of Hercules’s columns, thinking we are being punished for having transgressed the sign: “Thou shall not transgress?” Was not our slogan until now, as Nordhaus and Shellenberger note in Break Through, “We shall overcome!”? In the name of indisputable facts portraying a bleak future for the human race, green politics has succeeded in leaving citizens nothing but a gloomy asceticism, a terror of trespassing Nature, and a diffidence toward industry, innovation, technology, and science. No wonder that, while political ecology claims to embody the political power of the future, it is reduced everywhere to a tiny portion of electoral strap-hangers. Even in countries where political ecology is a little more powerful, it contributes only a supporting force. Political ecology has remained marginal because it has not grasped either its own politics or its own ecology. It thinks it is speaking of Nature, System, a hierarchical totality, a world without man, an assured Science, but it is precisely these overly ordered pronouncements that marginalize it. Set in contrast to the modernist narrative, this idea of political ecology could not possibly succeed. There is beauty and strength in the modernist story of emancipation. Its picture of the future is so attractive, especially when put against such a repellent past, that it makes one wish to run forward to break all the shackles of ancient existence. LOVE YOUR MONSTERS /19 BRUNO LATOUR To succeed, an ecological politics must manage to be at least as powerful as the modernizing story of emancipation without imagining that we are emancipating ourselves from Nature. What the emancipation narrative points to as proof of increasing human mastery over and freedom from Nature — agriculture, fossil energy, technology — can be redescribed as the increasing attachments between things and people at an ever-expanding scale. If the older narratives imagined humans either fell from Nature or freed themselves from it, the compositionist narrative describes our ever-increasing degree of intimacy with the new natures we are constantly creating. Only “out of Nature” may ecological politics start again and anew. 2. The paradox of “the environment” is that it emerged in public parlance just when it was starting to disappear. During the heyday of modernism, no one seemed to care about “the environment” because there existed a huge unknown reserve on which to discharge all bad consequences of collective modernizing actions. The environment is what appeared when unwanted consequences came back to haunt the originators of such actions. But if the originators are true modernists, they will see the return of “the environment” as incomprehensible since they believed they were finally free of it. The return of consequences, like global warming, is taken as a contradiction, or even as a monstrosity, which it is, of course, but only according to the modernist’s narrative of emancipation. In the compositionist’s narrative of attachments, unintended consequences are quite normal — indeed, the most expected things on earth! Environmentalists, in the American sense of the word, never managed to extract themselves from the contradiction that the environment is precisely not “what lies beyond and should be left alone” — this was the contrary, the view of their worst enemies! The environment is exactly what should be even more managed, taken up, cared for, stewarded, in brief, integrated and internalized in the very fabric of the polity. France, for its part, has never believed in the notion of a pristine Nature that has so confused the “defense of the environment” in other countries. What we call a “national park” is a rural ecosystem complete with post offices, welltended roads, highly subsidized cows, and handsome villages. Those who wish to protect natural ecosystems learn, to their stupefaction, that they have to work harder and harder — that is, to intervene even more, at always greater levels of detail, with ever more subtle care — to keep them “natural enough” for Nature-intoxicated tourists to remain happy. 20/ LOVE YOUR MONSTERS BRUNO LATOUR Like France’s parks, all of Nature needs our constant care, our undivided attention, our costly instruments, our hundreds of thousands of scientists, our huge institutions, our careful funding. But though we have Nature, and we have nurture, we don’t know what it would mean for Nature itself to be nurtured. The word “environmentalism” thus designates this turning point in history when the unwanted consequences are suddenly considered to be such a monstrosity that the only logical step appears to be to abstain and repent: “We should not have committed so many crimes; now we should be good and limit ourselves.” Or at least this is what people felt and thought before the breakthrough, at the time when there was still an “environment.” But what is the breakthrough itself then? If I am right, the breakthrough involves no longer seeing a contradiction between the spirit of emancipation and its catastrophic outcomes, but accepting it as the normal duty of continuing to care for unwanted consequences, even if this means going further and further down into the imbroglios. Environmentalists say: “From now on we should limit ourselves.” Postenvironmentalists exclaim: “From now on, we should stop flagellating ourselves and take up explicitly and seriously what we have been doing all along at an ever-increasing scale, namely, intervening, acting, wanting, caring.” For environmentalists, the return of unexpected consequences appears as a scandal (which it is for the modernist myth of mastery). For postenvironmentalists, the other, unintended consequences are part and parcel of any action. 3. One way to seize upon the breakthrough from environmentalism to postenvironmentalism is to reshape the very definition of the “precautionary principle.” This strange moral, legal, epistemological monster has appeared in European and especially French politics after many scandals due to the misplaced belief by state authority in the certainties provided by Science. When action is supposed to be nothing but the logical consequence of reason and facts (which the French, of all people, still believe), it is quite normal to wait for the certainty of science before administrators and politicians spring to action. The problem begins when experts fail to agree on the reasons and facts that have been taken as the necessary premises of any action. Then the machinery of decision is stuck until experts come to an agreement. It was in such a situation that the great tainted blood catastrophe of the 1980s ensued: before agreement was produced, hundreds of patients were transfused with blood contaminated by the AIDS virus. The precautionary principle was introduced to break this odd connection LOVE YOUR MONSTERS /21 BRUNO LATOUR between scientific certainty and political action, stating that even in the absence of certainty, decisions could be made. But of course, as soon as it was introduced, fierce debates began on its meaning. Is it an environmentalist notion that precludes action or a postenvironmentalist notion that finally follows action through to its consequences? Not surprisingly, the enemies of the precautionary principle — which President Chirac enshrined in the French Constitution as if the French, having indulged so much in rationalism, had to be protected against it by the highest legal pronouncements — took it as proof that no action was possible any more. As good modernists, they claimed that if you had to take so many precautions in advance, to anticipate so many risks, to include the unexpected consequences even before they arrived, and worse, to be responsible for them, then it was a plea for impotence, despondency, and despair. The only way to innovate, they claimed, is to bounce forward, blissfully ignorant of the consequences or at least unconcerned by what lies outside your range of action. Their opponents largely agreed. Modernist environmentalists argued that the principle of precaution dictated no action, no new technology, no intervention unless it could be proven with certainty that no harm would result. Modernists we were, modernists we shall be! But for its postenvironmental supporters (of which I am one) the principle of precaution, properly understood, is exactly the change of zeitgeist needed: not a principle of abstention — as many have come to see it — but a change in the way any action is considered, a deep tidal change in the linkage modernism established between science and politics. From now on, thanks to this principle, unexpected consequences are attached to their initiators and have to be followed through all the way. 4. The link between technology and theology hinges on the notion of mastery. Descartes exclaimed that we should be “maîtres et possesseurs de la nature.” But what does it mean to be a master? In the modernist narrative, mastery was supposed to require such total dominance by the master that he was emancipated entirely from any care and worry. This is the myth about mastery that was used to describe the technical, scientific, and economic dominion of Man over Nature. But if you think about it according to the compositionist narrative, this myth is quite odd: where have we ever seen a master freed from any dependence on his dependents? The Christian God, at least, is not a master who is freed from dependents, but who, on the contrary, gets folded into, involved with, 22/ LOVE YOUR MONSTERS BRUNO LATOUR implicated with, and incarnated into His Creation. God is so attached and dependent upon His Creation that he is continually forced (convinced? willing?) to save it. Once again, the sin is not to wish to have dominion over Nature, but to believe that this dominion means emancipation and not attachment. If God has not abandoned His Creation and has sent His Son to redeem it, why do you, a human, a creature, believe that you can invent, innovate, and proliferate — and then flee away in horror from what you have committed? Oh, you the hypocrite who confesses of one sin to hide a much graver, mortal one! Has God fled in horror after what humans made of His Creation? Then have at least the same forbearance that He has. The dream of emancipation has not turned into a nightmare. It was simply too limited: it excluded nonhumans. It did not care about unexpected consequences; it was unable to follow through with its responsibilities; it entertained a wholly unrealistic notion of what science and technology had to offer; it relied on a rather impious definition of God, and a totally absurd notion of what creation, innovation, and mastery could provide. Which God and which Creation should we be for, knowing that, contrary to Dr. Frankenstein, we cannot suddenly stop being involved and “go home?” Incarnated we are, incarnated we will be. In spite of a centuries-old misdirected metaphor, we should, without any blasphemy, reverse the Scripture and exclaim: “What good is it for a man to gain his soul yet forfeit the whole world?” / LOVE YOUR MONSTERS /23 Discourse Community  Discourse: the use of language on a topic over time  “A group of people who share ways to claim, organize, communicate, and evaluate meanings.” (Schmidt and Vande Kopple 1993) Discourse Communities: Anthropocene Written Reasoning and Academic Inquiry Our WR 122 Class & Work Your other interests, academic disciplines, communities, home places, etc. Like writing, it’s a difficult skill that must be learned and practiced! Charitable Reading  First, read generously and sympathetically in order to      understand what is being said and why Put yourself in the writer’s place Consider the context (social, historical, etc.) What conversation is this text participating in? Whose interests are being served? What can I learn from accepting what I’ve read? Critical Reading  Then read in order to test and analyzewhat you’ve read     and understood. What context or realities does the text ignore? Whose interests does the text neglect? Evaluate the strength of arguments and evidence. In what ways does the text earn its conclusions, or not? What can I learn by pushing back against it? Reading Strategies  Just as you come up with a thesis and general outline before writing an essay, overview the article for the essence of its argument before reading it.  This is different than just skimming.  First, read just the abstract (if present), Intro and Conclusion (often the first few and last paragraphs), subheadings, and topic sentences (first sentences in ¶s).  Identify the discourse and purpose/thesis (the intervention into that discourse).  Perhaps look up the authors or topic for background. Reading Strategies  Then, read the whole text closely and annotate it.  Mark key ideas  Look for patterns, such as repeated words  Reread difficult passages  Look up unfamiliar terms  Write questions or responses in the margins  Finally, record quotations, summaries, paraphrases and ideas with citation information, clearly distinguishing your ideas from the author’s, for use in essays. Discussion of Moore, Jensen, Speth  How would you characterize/describe the conversation they’re all participating in?  Which article did you find most compelling in the context of that conversation? Why?  What did you learn about the Anthropocene from this articles that most interests you or seems most important?  What name would you give to “the Anthropocene” (whatever it is we mean by that)? Good Q@Is (in academic discourse)  Demand an answer & need to be asked  Matter to the community—people care  Allow for reasonable inquiry and a possible change of mind Good Q@Is (in academic discourse)  Demand an answer & need to be asked  Matter to the community—people care  Allow for reasonable inquiry and possible change of mind  Produce genuine disagreement & divergent answers  Are focused and narrow Stasis  From Latin status (related to the words state, station, stand, stay, statute, standard, stage, etc.)  In rhetoric, refers to a point of disagreement  a problem in the status quo, some way that the way things are understood or done no longer works,  that prompts a specific question  which requires members of a discourse community to take a stand or stance. Kinds of Q@I (or Stasis):  FACT—Is X the case? Is X true?  DEFINITION—What is X?  INTERPRETATION—What is the significance of X?  (To what extent )can X be considered Y?  CONSEQUENCE—Will/did X cause/influence Y?  VALUE—Is X good (or better/worse than Y)?  POLICY—Should someone (or we) do X? What should we do about X? Discussion of Writing  What has characterized your experiences with writing (and writing in academic contexts in particular)?  What one word or phrase best captures your experience?  Find one thing in common in your group about what you do or don’t like about writing in school. Grading Contract  What do you think? Does this contract and rationale make sense to you? Do you think a labor based grading contract is a good idea? Do you agree there’s a problem with grading, but think there’s a better way to deal with it? How do you think a grading contract will affect how you do work in the class?  Which of my reasons for changing from a conventional grading system seem most compelling to you and your group? Which seem the least important?  Find consensus on one thing you like or agree with about the contract model of grading.  Find consensus on one thing you don’t like or are unsure about. (What would you want to change, broadly or details?) Discussion of Latour’s “Love Your Monsters”  In groups of 3, share how you each summarized Latour, and then how you think Strand would respond Discussion of Latour’s “Love Your Monsters”  In groups of 3, share how you each summarized Latour, and then how you think Strand would respond  With a new partner, share about how you agreed with Latour and why  Then find one area regarding Latour where you agree with each other Discussion of Latour’s “Love Your Monsters”  In groups of 3, share how you each summarized Latour, and then how you think Strand would respond  With a new partner, share about how you agreed with Latour and why  Then find one area regarding Latour where you agree with each other  With a new partner, share how you disagreed with Latour and why  Then find one area regarding Latour where you disagree with each other Discussion of Latour’s “Love Your Monsters”  In groups of 3, share how you each summarized Latour, and then how you think Strand would respond  With a new partner, share about how you agreed with Latour and why  Then find one area regarding Latour where you agree with each other  With a new partner, share how you disagreed with Latour and why  Then find one area regarding Latour where you disagree with each other  With a new partner, share how you agreed and disagreed with Latour and why Discussion of Latour’s “Love Your Monsters”  In groups of 3, share how you each summarized Latour, and then how you think Strand would respond  With a new partner, share about how you agreed with Latour and why  Then find one area regarding Latour where you agree with each other  With a new partner, share how you disagreed with Latour and why  Then find one area regarding Latour where you disagree with each other  With a new partner, share how you agreed and disagreed with Latour and why  Debrief about your 3 conversations in your original group: share one partner’s differing view, and your own overall reactions …into your own writing and arguments Integrating Sources  Summary  When the main point or general ideas matter (to your work)  Paraphrase  When details or particular ideas matter but not specific words  Quotation  When the ideas and words matter    Clarity or originality Emphasis on the speaker Distinguishing another’s words from yours (especially if you disagree, in order to be fair to their meaning) Quotation Paragraph      Topic Sentence Context Signal Phrase “The quotation” In-text citation  This issue is “quote” (Berry 5).  According to Berry, “quote” (5).  Paraphrase (optional)  Analysis  Connection to argument Example from “An Animal’s Place” by Michael Pollan Yet here’s the rub: the animal rightist is not concerned with species, only individuals. Tom Regan, author of “The Case for Animal Rights,” bluntly asserts that because “species are not individuals . . . the rights view does not recognize the moral rights of species to anything, including survival” (35). Peter Singer concurs, insisting that only sentient individuals have interests. But surely a species can have interests–in its survival, say–just as a nation or community or a corporation can. The animal rights movement’s exclusive concern with individual animals makes perfect sense given its roots in a culture of liberal individualism, but does it make any sense in nature? It does not. Example from “An Animal’s Place” by Michael Pollan Yet here’s the rub: the animal rightist is not concerned with species, only individuals. Tom Regan, author of “The Case for Animal Rights,” bluntly asserts that because “species are not individuals . . . the rights view does not recognize the moral rights of species to anything, including survival” (35). Peter Singer concurs, insisting that only sentient individuals have interests. But surely a species can have interests–in its survival, say–just as a nation or community or a corporation can. The animal rights movement’s exclusive concern with individual animals makes perfect sense given its roots in a culture of liberal individualism, but does it make any sense in nature? It does not. Topic sentence Context Signal phrase Quotation In-text citation Paraphrase Analysis & development of Pollan’s reasoning Paraphrase Paraphrase  Here are two possible paraphrases of : Works Cited  Biello, David. "Welcome to the Anthropocene." Earth Island Journal, vol. 5, no. 2, Spring 2013. Academic OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A321580109/AONE?u= s8492775&sid=AONE&xid=3afe1682. Accessed 29 Jan. 2018. Davies & Scranton  What helps you cultivate intrinsic hope, or what gives you hope in general?  Facing our Feelings  Living in Gratitude  Taking Action  Perseverance  Are Scranton and Davies more in agreement or disagreement with each other? Why? How so?  Which article did you resonate with more? Why that one? What resonated? Ethical Argumentation  Argumentation as Inquiry rather than Debate  Not just “opinion” vs. fact  “Truth Decay” =     increasing disagreement about facts and analytical interpretations of facts and data; a blurring of the line between opinion and fact; an increase in the relative volume, and resulting influence, of opinion and personal experience over fact; and declining trust in formerly respected sources of factual information  Anomy (and the importance of norms)  What makes argumentation ethical or unethical? Rhetorical Appeals (Types of Evidence)  Ethos  Pathos  Logos Enthymeme  a claim that answers a Q@I along with the reason why that answer is the best  Claim because Reason  “a process of creating relationships between ideas in such a way that belief in one is intended to follow as a consequence of belief in another.” –The Shape of Reason Charitable & Critical Argumentation Knowledge Beliefs Ideas Feelings Discourse (for example, Anthropocene) …because Reasoning and evidence Desires Identity Motives Commitments Assumptions Claim/ answer Q@I Problem Issues Movement of Argumentation Disagreement Stasis Q@I Common Ground Shared Assumptions Accepted Facts Agreement Persuasion Shared Belief Example  Should soda machines (A) be banned from elementary schools(C)? Example  Should soda machines (A) be banned from elementary schools(C)?  Syllogism  A=B  B=C  Therefore A=C Example  Should soda machines (A) be banned from elementary schools(C)?  Syllogism  A=B  B=C  Therefore A=C  Q@I: Should A→C?  Enthymeme: A→C because A→B  Unstated Assumption (UA)/Warrant/Premise: B=C, but also the most basic warrants for knowledge Example  Should soda machines (A) be banned from elementary schools(C)? Soda machines (A) should be banned from elementary schools (C) because they (A) make an unhealthy product too available for young children (B).  Shared Term?  Kinds of Stasis?  Unstated Assumption?  Warrant Line of Reasoning More Controversial Less Controversial Evidence Unstated Assumption/ Premise Reason Q@I Claim Line of Reasoning Less Controversial Evidence Soda is unhealthy, Soda is widely available in schools, etc. More Controversial Unstated Assumption/ Premise/ Warrant Things that make an unhealthy product too available for young children should be banned from elementary schools. Harmful things should be kept from children. Reason Soda machines make an unhealthy product too available for young children Q@I Claim Soda machines should be banned from elementary schools Line of Reasoning Knowledge Beliefs Ideas Feelings Discourse (for example, Anthropocene) Controversial claim Desires Identity Motives Commitments Assumptions Reasons/ assumptions Evidence/ shared knowledge problems/ issues Enthymemes should avoid  False dilemma—Are businesses or governments more important to reversing climate change?  Circular Reasoning— The Anthropocene will be bad for students because it will harm their education.  Reason merely restates the claim  Mere Explanation instead of Reasoning— The Anthropocene will be bad for students because it will increase the amount of distractions they face.  This explains how instead of arguing why.  Restating the Problem as Reasoning— Hawai’i should ban chemical sunscreen because chemical sunscreen is damaging coral reefs there. E1 Q@I & Enthymeme  Questions we’ve considered:  4 you generated last class  Name  “golden spike”  End of Biello’s article, and elsewhere E1 Q@I & Enthymeme  Is the Anthropocene related to the growing anomy in society (or politics, etc.)?  Better: To what extent can the Anthropocene be considered to be related to the growing anomy in society (or politics, etc.)?  What will be the consequences of the Anthropocene for _____________?  Better: What will be the most significant consequence of the Anthropocene for _____________ in this century? E1 Q@I & Enthymeme  What is the best policy for reducing greenhouse gasses?  Voluntary market based schemes are the best policy for reducing greenhouse gasses because these schemes will produce less economic disruption than other ways of achieving the same aims.  Unstated assumptions?  The state of Washington should enact a carbon emissions fee that will fund climate change-mitigation projects because this carbon fee …  The state of Michigan should get at least 25% of its energy from renewable sources by 2030 because a higher proportion of renewable energy will… Mindful Breathing Mindful Breathing  Our Purpose : to calm ourselves, focus, and prepare for today’s       work; to be here right now, paying attention to what is happening. Sit comfortably with your eyes closed (if that is comfortable for you) and feet flat on the floor. Keep your back straight and relax your muscles, including your face, shoulders, legs, arms, hands, and feet. Breathe in with your belly and use a word like “in” to focus your mind (say it in your head). Exhale through your mouth and use a word to focus your mind like “out” (say it in your head). Focus your attention on the sensations of your breath. When you mind wanders, notice it, and return your attention gently to your breath. Arguments of Policy  Should we [or “society”] promote the use of renewable energy?  What is the best role for renewable energy to play in meeting energy needs/demands?  To what extent should the Senegalese government [or NGOs in Senegal] promote the use of renewable energy? Arguments of Policy  Often correspond to practical problems because they directly affect people. They can directly answer, "So what? Who cares?" which is good.  Policy claims just refer to specific entities implementing the specific policy. You need to be clear in a policy claim about exactly WHO should do WHAT.  Policy claims must be actionable. They must be concrete next-step proposals.  Realize that your reasoning and evidence will still focus on facts, consequences, values, and interpretations as much as actual policies. An enthymeme with a policy claim should not have a policy reason. How to use an Enthymeme to determine what an Essay is responsible for covering Five-Paragraph Essay Introduction Thesis Body Paragraphs Conclusion 5-¶ vs. Enthymematic Essays 5-¶ vs. Enthymematic Essays  5-¶ paragraph  Enthymeme-based  Topic Sentence= piece of  Topic Sentence= point of evidence (ex. example)  ¶ body=elaboration of evidence  End of ¶= tie back to thesis reasoning (from enthy.)  ¶ body= evidence  End of ¶= transition to the next point of reasoning 5-¶ vs. Enthymematic Essays (Water = Discourse) Burden of Proof: Example  More people eating vegetarian will benefit animals because more people eating vegetarian will result in less money going to the food corporations that harm animals.  Q@I?  Shared term(s)?  Other key terms or actors?  UA?  What kinds of stasis are present? In which words? Burden of Proof: Example  More people eating vegetarian will benefit animals because more people eating vegetarian will result in less money going to the food corporations that harm animals.  How are each of these underlined terms related to the others? What needs to be shown about each of those relationships? Line of Reasoning  More people eating vegetarian will benefit animals because more people eating vegetarian will result in less money going to the food corporations that harm animals.  More eating vegetarian→ Less money to corps.  Less money to corps.→ fewer profits  Fewer profits→ less production  (production is harmful to animals)  less harmful production → fewer animals harmed  fewer animals harmed = benefit to animals Old & New Information  Keep in mind that the evidence in your paper is going to fall into two major categories:  What does your audience know already? They might need to see where you already share common ground, or you can remind them of the significance of certain ideas or facts.  What more does your audience need to know? Some of your information or perspectives might be unfamiliar to your audience, so be prepared to identify and explain these ideas and the way they support your argument.  Writing your paper will be a balance between presenting familiar and unfamiliar information for your reader, in part because unfamiliar ideas or new arguments are typically most effective when framed with ideas that audiences already recognize. Your Burden of Proof includes both types of information. You may need to go into more detail with the information that will be new to your audience. Paragraphs (¶)  Develop one idea in support of your enthymeme per ¶.  Each paragraph should connect an idea/reason/argument and     evidence/support/fact. Use transitions between paragraphs. Follow a line of reasoning throughout the essay Should conform to the burden of proof, whatever the order Paragraphs are like building blocks or railroad cars. ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ Paragraphs (¶)  Develop one idea in support of your enthymeme per ¶.  Each paragraph should connect an idea/reason/argument and     evidence/support/fact. Use transitions between paragraphs. Follow a line of reasoning throughout the essay Should conform to the burden of proof, whatever the order Paragraphs are like building blocks or railroad cars. Intro Q@I enthymeme ¶ ¶ ¶ …and so on, more ¶s  If you come up with a new idea while writing, add a new ¶. Topic Sentences  The enthymeme is the most important sentence in your essay, but topic sentences also essential because they connect your enthymeme to each paragraph by arguing for or asserting some aspect of the enthymeme.  The main idea of each TS should be an idea from your enthymeme.  Topic sentences act like mini-introductions to your paragraph. The first sentence of every body paragraph should be a topic sentence. The rest of the paragraph should contain supporting evidence and analysis. Topic Sentences  Topic Sentences help your reader understand what they are reading and why it matters.  Topic sentences should introduce these three things:  Topic of the Paragraph—what is it about? Invoke some ideas or terms from your enthymeme. Give enough detail to give a clear idea of the paragraph that will follow and the idea you’re working through.  Relationship of the Paragraph to the Argument—why does it matter to your reasoning? Again, the topic sentence should follow from your enthymeme. It should be specific enough to your argument that it is clearly a topic sentence that will fit only in your paper.  Relationship to the previous Paragraph—why do we need to know it now? How does it fit into the line of reasoning? Topic Sentences  Topic Sentences, for this class, should NOT:  Focus on authors, readings, or quotes. They are about your     argument, not someone else’s. Quotes, etc., go after the TS. Pose a question. Avoid rhetorical questions (or at least answer them). Instead make clear assertions. Be a pure statement of fact. Topic sentences introduce parts of your argument. Rely on a formula of “One reason…” or “Another reason…” Accumulating examples or reasons does not make an argument. Instead use examples to develop your argument. Simply assert that something is important, critical, or essential. Rather than describing it as such, tell us why, how, or for whom it is important. Rhetorical Appeals (Types of Evidence)  Ethos – appeal to authority or character  Pathos – appeal to emotion, desire, values  Logos – appeal to logic, reasoning Ways of Giving Evidence  Quotations and ideas from authorities (with your analysis)  Explanations/Illustration/Concrete Descriptions  Narration  Personal experiences  Another’s experience  Examples  from current events  from shared knowledge  from personal knowledge        Definitions Counter-arguments and rebuttals/refutations Comparing and Contrasting Classifying (or Dividing into parts) Analyzing cause and effect Hypothetical and Counterfactual Analogy (C-A) Counterargument (C-A)  Why Should You Include Them?  Anticipating objections  Establishing common ground  Deepening your own analysis  Finding Counter-Arguments  Claim  Reasoning  Language  Evidence Counterargument (C-A)  Choosing the Strongest C-A  What might the most readers object to or question?  What do I know enough about?  What is most relevant to my argument?  What is most appropriate to the scale of my essay?  “Straw man” counter-arguments vs. ethical argumentation Counterargument (C-A)  Incorporating a C-A into your essay  Signal Phrase  “Someone might argue that…”  “Someone who advocates for ___________ might argue that…”  “Someone like __________, who believes _________, might…”  Development  Explain the disagreeing position, ideally both counter-assertion and reasoning, ideally in more than one sentence  Response  Concessions if the C-A is partly correct  Rebuttal to show that the C-A doesn’t defeat your argument  Refutation if the C-A isn’t logical or is false Counterargument (C-A) Example  Enthymeme  The state of Oregon should ban the use of sonar in its coastal waters because sonar disrupts the communication of marine life to the point of destroying marine ecosystems.  Counterarguments  “Someone might argue that maritime industries’ profitability are more     indispensable to the state that marine life.” “Someone might argue that, although marine life is disrupted by sonar, changes to marine ecosystems by humans would occur anyway.” “Someone who advocates for the shipping industry might argue that such a ban should not occur until accommodations can be made that would not hurt that industry.” “Someone might argue that new sonar technology can be developed that does not interfere with whale’s communication.” Straw Man: “Someone who hates whales or is too stupid or greedy to realize the importance of oceans might argue…” Essay Structure Examples  Introduction (Q@I ending with enthymeme)  Body paragraphs (topic sentences and evidence)  Definitions/Additional Context  Reason  Assumption  Claim  Counter-argument  Rebuttals/refutations and concessions  Conclusion Essay Structure Examples  Introduction (Q@I ending with enthymeme)  Definitions/ Additional Context  Counter-argument  Body paragraphs (topic sentences and evidence, including rebuttals/refutations and concessions)  Conclusion Essay Structure Examples  Introduction (Q@I ending with enthymeme)  Definitions/ Additional Context  Body paragraphs (Counter-argument and Rebuttals/refutations and concessions)  Conclusion Transitions  From old information to new information  Every sentence should contain old information and new information Transitional Phrases & Words  Cause & Effect- Consequently, Therefore  Comparison Contrast-  Addition Concession Example-  Elaboration Conclusion- Similarly, Likewise On the other hand, However Additionally, Furthermore Granted, Of course For instance, To put it another way, In conclusion, Pointing words  This is important vs. This consequence is important  Pronouns Repeat Key Terms  Title  Q@I  Enthymeme  Topic sentences Repetition with a difference  Old information with new wording Meta-Commentary  Commentary on your commentary  “Let us consider a more concrete example of _______.”  “I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out.”  “The past two paragraphs have given examples of X. Doing X commonly leads to _____” Where Transitions Occur Title Introduction Q@I Enthymeme Topic Sentence Evidence Topic Sentence Evidence Tools for transitions and connecting information  Transitional words & phrases  Pointing words  Key terms  Repetition with a difference  Meta-commentary Introduction: What is at issue?  Prelude/Anecdote— something brief to interest your reader that relates to your issue and argument, perhaps a relatable scenario or relevant story  Context/Discourse— Introduce the topic. Where is there consensus or general agreement on this issue? Perhaps use a quote that you can then explain to elaborate the issue.  Problem/Controversy—Why does this issue matter? What problem demands to be dealt with? Are there consequences associated with it, or the costs of not dealing with the problem? Where particularly is there disagreement or misunderstanding?  Question at Issue—What specific aspect of the issue will you be addressing?  (This should be worded very carefully.)  Enthymeme—the way to solve the problem you raise; the answer to the question and the reason for this answer  Tip: Avoid making arguments in your introduction before you introduce your thesis. The reasoning that supports your enthymeme goes in the body paragraphs, not the introduction. Conclusion: What is at stake?  Reiterate or restate your argument using different words than your enthymeme.  (One way to do this is to state your unstated assumption and relate it to the specific subject—the shared term--of your claim, or an analogous concept. However, you should probably address the logic of the UA earlier in your essay.)  Line of Reasoning— Remind the reader of how you went about making the argument, along with key points of evidence— How have you met the enthymeme’s burden of proof? How does your essay tie together? Give perhaps one sentence to each body paragraph of your essay.  Benefits/Consequences— Remind the audience why your issue and claim matter (to them specifically). What are the ramifications for coming to agree with your argument?  Larger Implications— How might your line of reasoning be extended? What further assertions might be logically supported by your enthymeme’s claim. What areas of your larger issue didn’t you address, and how might they be further explored? Stasis review  A point of divergence under certain conditions in a        context due to costs; produces disagreement Is arguable; not opinion Requires further inquiry to resolve; non-obvious Matters to a discourse community; people care Is important; non-trivial Requires taking a stand or a stance Is carried by specific words or phrases in a Q@I Kinds of stasis: fact, definition, interpretation, consequence, value, policy Stasis review  Given the drought conditions in California, should the state prioritize reducing personal, municipal, industrial, or agricultural water use?  Interpretation/value, consequence, or policy? Stasis review  Given the drought conditions in California, should the     state prioritize reducing personal, municipal industrial, or agricultural water use? Consequence: Reduction in which area of water use will most alleviate [or stop exacerbating] California’s drought conditions? Interpretation/Value: Reducing which area of water use can be considered California’s highest priority? Policy: Which water use sector should California tax most heavily with a water tax? Policy: Should California impose a water tax on the state’s most water-intensive crops, such as almonds? Enthymeme review  The enthymeme is a kind of thesis statement  Claim because Reason  The claim is an argumentative assertion that answers the Q@I, addressing its stasis.  The reason is an assertion from which the claim logically follows (in particular, the claim’s stasis)  The reason provides common ground upon which the claim’s way of addressing stasis can be accepted. Enthymeme review  Oregon should make capital punishment illegal because capital punishment violates an individual’s human right to life. Enthymeme review  Oregon should make capital punishment illegal because capital punishment violates an individual’s human right to life.  Unstated Assumption: If something violates a human right, it should be illegal. Enthymeme review  Capital punishment violates an individual’s human right to life because the right to life is inherent, originating from a higher authority than the state’s authority over its people. Enthymeme review  Capital punishment violates an individual’s human right to life because the right to life is inherent, deriving from a higher authority than the state’s authority over its people.  Unstated Assumption: Rights that derive from a higher authority than the state are violated when individuals are deprived of those rights by the state. Enthymeme review  Charismatic megafauna have outlived their usefulness as symbols for the conservation movement because they distract from the goal of preserving biodiversity in ecosystems. Enthymeme review  Charismatic megafauna have outlived their usefulness as symbols for the conservation movement because they distract from the conservation movement’s goal of preserving biodiversity in ecosystems.  Question at Issue?  Which words carry stasis? Which kinds of stasis?  fact, definition, interpretation, consequence, value, policy  Shared term(s)?  Unstated Assumption?  Counter-argument? Discussion of Orr and Davies  Share your reflections and responses  Are you hopeful about the world? Why or why not?  What is hope? What ISN’T hope, or what is its opposite?  What do you see as the key challenges of sustainability?  How do these challenges relate to spirituality?  What might a necessary “spiritual renewal” look like?  Where does your group have consensus?  Where are there differences? Information Flow  Put at the beginning of your sentences ideas that you have already stated, referred to, or implied, ideas or knowledge that you can safely assume your reader is familiar with and will readily recognize.  Compare these:  The huge number of wounded and dead in the Civil War exceeded all the other wars in American History. One of the reasons for the lingering animosity between North and South today is the memory of this terrible carnage.  Of all the wars in American history, none has exceeded the Civil War in the huge number of wounded and dead. The memory of this terrible carnage is one of the reasons for the animosity between North and South today. Information Stress  Put at the end of your sentences the newest, the most surprising, the most significant information, information that you want to stress, perhaps the information that you will expand on in the following sentence.  Compare these:  A charge of gross violation of academic responsibility is required for a Board of Trustees to dismiss a tenured faculty member for cause, and an elaborate hearing procedure with a prior statement of charges is provided for before a tenured faculty member may be dismissed for cause, in most States.  In most States, before a Board of Trustees may dismiss a tenured faculty member for cause, it must charge him or her with a gross violation of academic responsibility and provide him or her with a statement of charges and an elaborate hearing procedure. Rewrite the following paragraph so that it makes better use of information flow and stress. You might switch words and phrases, split or combine sentences, but make sure to convey the same information. The Breton lai became one of the most popular poetic forms in England in the 12th and 13th centuries. The adventures of a single main character formed the content of this relatively short type of poem. The long Continental romance, such as that written by Chretien de Troyes in France during the late twelfth century, preceded the lai as a popular form of literature among the Norman nobility. The concept of “amour courtois,” or courtly love, was at the heart of most romances, and the development of the Breton lai was strongly influenced by the exaggerated attitude toward love and chivalry that was expressed in the courtly love tradition. A lower class and illiterate audience was apparently the major consumer of this form, however; a form peculiar to England, therefore evolved out of these circumstances. Rewrite the following paragraph so that it makes better use of information flow and stress. You might switch words and phrases, split or combine sentences, but make sure to convey the same information. The Breton lai became one of the most popular poetic forms in England in the 12th and 13th centuries. The adventures of a single main character formed the content of this relatively short type of poem. The long Continental romance, such as that written by Chretien de Troyes in France during the late twelfth century, preceded the lai as a popular form of literature among the Norman nobility. The concept of “amour courtois,” or courtly love, was at the heart of most romances, and the development of the Breton lai was strongly influenced by the exaggerated attitude toward love and chivalry that was expressed in the courtly love tradition. A lower class and illiterate audience was apparently the major consumer of this form, however; a form peculiar to England, therefore evolved out of these circumstances. Rewritten paragraph example In 12th and 13th century England, one of the most popular poetic forms was the Breton lai. This relatively short type of poem consisted of the adventures of a single main character. The lai was preceded as a popular form of literature among the Norman nobility by the long Continental romance, such as that written by Chretien de Troyes in France during the late twelfth century. At the heart of most romances was the concept of “amour courtois,” or courtly love, and the courtly love tradition’s exaggerated attitude toward love and chivalry strongly influenced the development of the Breton lai. This form’s major consumer, however, was apparently a lower class and illiterate audience; out of these circumstances, a form peculiar to England evolved. POLICY—Should we do X? Three Principles for Sentence Clarity  Strong verbs that express the crucial actions  Strong subjects that  are the doers of those verbs  are the main terms or characters in the essay  are short, concrete, and specific  Strong sentences that don’t obscure what is happening Strong Subjects  are the doers of the sentences verbs.  Example:  Locke frequently repeated himself because he did not trust the power of words to name things accurately.  The reason for Locke’s frequent repetition lies in his distrust of the accuracy of the naming power of words. Examples come from The Craft of Research 3rd Ed. by Wayne Booth, Gregory Colomb, and Joseph Williams Strong Subjects  are the main subjects, terms, or characters in the story, conversation, or argument you are recounting.  Example:  If rain forests are stripped to serve short-term economic interests, the earth’s biosphere may be damaged.  The stripping of rain forests in the service of short-term economic interests could result in damage to earth’s biosphere. Strong Verbs  express the action of the sentence.  Example of verbs expressing action:  Locke frequently repeated himself because he did not trust the power of words to name things accurately.  Example of nouns/adjectives expressing action:  The reason for Locke’s frequent repetition lies in his distrust of the accuracy of the naming power of words. Tips for Clearer Subjects & Verbs  Avoid passive voice, in which the verb is not performed by the subject. Be mindful when you do use it.  Active: “The dog chased the child.”  Passive: “The child was chased by the dog.”  State of being verbs: am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been  Avoid nominalization, in which verbs and adjectives are expressed as nouns. Be mindful when do you use it.  Often end in with suffixes: -tion, -ment, -ence, -ness, -ity, etc.  Verbs→nouns:  decide→ decision, fail → failure, resist → resistance  Adjectives→nouns:  precise→ precision, frequent→ frequency, intelligent → intelligence Strong Sentences  do not obscure the action and who is doing it.  Example:  If rain forests are stripped to serve short-term economic interests, the earth’s biosphere may be damaged. Strong Sentences  do not obscure the action and who is doing it.  Example:  If rain forests are stripped to serve short-term economic interests, the earth’s biosphere may be damaged.  If agribusiness corporations continue to strip rain forests to serve short-term economic interests, they may damage the earth’s biosphere. Strong Sentences  do not obscure the action and who is doing it.  Example:  If rain forests are stripped to serve short-term economic interests, the earth’s biosphere may be damaged.  If agribusiness corporations continue to strip rain forests to serve short-term economic interests, they may damage the earth’s biosphere.  If agribusiness corporations continue to assault rain forests to serve their short-sighted greed, they may damage the earth’s ability to support life. Exercise  Rewrite the following sentences by using active voice and by changing the subjects and verbs so as not to obscure the actor and action.  The war on terror began after 9-11 and continues to this day.  Osama bin Laden was killed by a U.S. military operation. Rubrics  What does labor in our class mean? What does it look like when you do labor for this class?  How do you know you are doing well in your writing? What does assessment of writing mean in our class?  What qualities do you value in others’ writing? What We Learned about Writing Summing Up: What We Learned about Writing  Week 1:  Discourse Community, Reading and Engaging with Others’ Perspectives  Week 2:  Stasis, Question @ Issue, , Ethical Argumentation, Quoting & using Sources  Week 3:  Enthymemes, Unstated Assumptions, Finding common ground, Line of Reasoning, Giving Evidence, Rhetorical Appeals, Summing Up: What We Learned about Writing  Week 4:  Burden of Proof, Transitions, Giving Feedback  Week 5:  Paragraphs, Topic Sentences, Grading Contract  Week 6:  Counter-arguments, essay structure  Week 7:  Intros & Conclusions, Stasis & enthymeme review  Week 8:  Information flow & stress, Rubrics: what we value in writing, Sentence Level Clarity, Giving Feedback  Week 9-10:  Revision Summing Up: What We Learned about Writing  Knowledge  Skills  Values  Transferability Hidden Curriculum?  Composition Program Learning Objectives  1. Write an essay that develops and responds to a significant question that is relevant to the context in which it is written and appropriate for the audience to which it is     addressed. 2. Provide logical answers to questions at issue and develop lines of reasoning in support of those answers, while taking into account and responding to objections or competing lines of reasoning. 3. Write an essay that is unified around a main claim, proceeds in a logical way, and consists of cohesive paragraphs that separate and connect ideas effectively. 4. Produce written work that displays adherence to the conventions of academic writing, including control of grammar, spelling, word usage, syntax, and punctuation; appropriate tone, style, diction, and register; proper formatting, use, and documentation of sources. 5. Create and refine written arguments by following a writing process: on the basis of critical and sympathetic reading and classroom discussion, come up with a question to which the essay will respond; generate and test a claim that answers that question; apply and develop the claim and reasoning in a first version of the essay; and improve the content and organization of the essay draft in a revision process, both by reevaluating the logical and rhetorical core of the essay and by responding to critiques from peers and instructors. Sustainability Narratives of Response             Reject evidence—skepticism, business as usual, status quo Reframe/ignore evidence of disasters and injustice—live in denial Resignation—we’re screwed, so… do nothing? Repair “broken earth” via technology like geo-engineering Resilience of communities—let’s prepare for the consequences Repentance—we screwed up, so let’s try to put right our wrongs Reconnect with the Earth; actively nurture nature Reparations of/for cultural damage & injustice Renewal of spiritual orientation toward hope, not terror of death Relinquish unsustainable materialistic lifestyles Resist unsustainable, unjust political/economic/social structures Reform political/economic/social structures—unite to educate and influence those with power  Revolution to transform political/economic/social structures— radical change now, or else! Imagining Sustainability  What would a sustainable utopia 100 years in the future look like? Imagining Sustainability  What would a sustainable utopia 100 years in the future look like?  What today is preventing this sustainable future from becoming a reality? Imagining Sustainability  What would a sustainable utopia 100 years in the future look like?  What today is preventing this sustainable future from becoming a reality?  What could/must change to make a sustainable future a reality? Which “narrative of response” regarding sustainability might help us get there? What is one concrete thing you could take up or give up to move us in that direction?
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

...


Anonymous
Really helpful material, saved me a great deal of time.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags