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