|
|
Richard.Jewell.net |
CollegeWriting.info
|
|
|
CollegeWriting.info |
|
|
Advanced Methods in Dialogic Arguing |
|
These advanced ideas and/or applications can help you understand and use this paper's type of thinking better. For additional information, check the chapter's "Links" page, or use a search engine (e.g., www.google.com) with a key word search that uses the name of this type of paper and the words "writing" and "paper."
|
|
|
Other Processes in Dialogic Writing |
Developing a "Higher Resolution"
In developing your final argument of your dialogic paper, what is the difference between a "compromise" and a "higher resolution"? On the one hand, a compromise simply takes elements from the opposing viewpoints as equally as possible to create a middle position. It is new, but only in the sense that it accepts some of the elements of each opposing argument and rejects others. It is not dramatically different from the arguments for which it is a compromise.
There is, on the other hand, a higher resolution that is possible. Choosing a workable higher resolution is like bringing a football play onto a baseball diamond, or choosing a movie by deciding what kind of background music you want to hear. If it works, it brings a third dimension to what formerly was a two-dimensional argument--one between two opposing groups of people who only can see themselves and their opposites.
The word higher often is used in this context because this kind of resolution is better, and because--if one looks at the two opposing arguments as being on the left and right--the "higher" resolution comes from a third dimension, one that is "above" them and seems to descend to show a better way than mere compromise.
This "higher" resolution works by bringing into the debate an entirely different point of view that the opposing viewpoints have not considered. For example, here are four arguments. The first two sets have compromises; the second two, higher resolutions:
| Opposing Viewpoints | Compromise or Higher Resolution |
| 1. Animals should be used freely in testing. 2. Animals should never be used in any testing. |
Compromise: 3. Animals should be used in testing only if they are not harmed or if the testing will save human lives. |
| 1. Religion should not affect one's employment. 2. Religion should be very important in employment. 3. Religion may be just one factor in employment. |
Compromise: 4. In public employment, religion should have no bearing on employment; in the private sphere, the employer may decide its importance. |
| 1. War is ethical. 2. War is unethical. |
Higher or Entirely Different Resolution: 3. Most war would cease if wealth and power were more evenly distributed. |
| 1. The drinking age should be 18. 2. The drinking age should be 21. 3. The drinking age should be 21, but those 18-20 may drink if they are not driving and have broken no laws. |
Higher or Entirely Different Resolution: 4. Individual counties, cities, and towns should control the drinking age. |
How do you create your own higher resolution? Instead of seeing just your initial opposing arguments and the middle ground between them, try looking at the entire subject from differing frameworks. Imagine, for example, how people from entirely different cultures might see the opposing arguments. Another method is to ask yourself, "What kind of situation, place, or person would make these opposing arguments partly or entirely irrelevant?" Yet a third method is to ask how these issues might be resolved in a future time or place where the material conditions--the physical, emotional, social, or psychological backgrounds of life--have changed dramatically.
Special Meaning of "Dialectic"
The concept of a higher resolution comes in part from the work of the philosopher Hegel. He wrote at length about the importance of developing "dialectic" argument. Dialectic argument is composed of two opposing ideas and a higher way of looking at them. Hegel gave a specific name to each part of a dialectic argument:
| Dialectic Argument | |
| thesis: | first argument |
| antithesis: | opposing argument |
| synthesis: | higher resolution |
Here, for example, is one of the issues from above, formed here as a dialectical argument:
| What causes war? (#1) | |
| thesis: | People go to war for ethical reasons. |
| antithesis: | People go to war because they are unethical. |
| synthesis: | People make their ethics justify war, so perhaps the real cause has to do with what is practical. |
Hegel says, in fact, that all of the history of civilization and of thought are a series of dialectic arguments, with each synthesis of an old argument becoming the thesis of a new argument. For example, the synthesis from above ("#1") can become the thesis of a new argument below ("#2"):
| What causes war? (#2) | |
| thesis: | War is fought for practical reasons. |
| antithesis: | Many people go to war for impractical reasons. |
| synthesis: | People go to war for both reasons, so something else--for example, wealth--may be the cause. |
Hegel's dialectic method might take us on further to explore this new synthesis, turning it into yet another thesis and antithesis:
| What causes war? (#3) | |
| thesis: | People go to war to gain wealth. |
| antithesis: | Most soldiers get no wealth from war. |
| synthesis: | Political and business leaders who will gain (or at least maintain) their own wealth start wars. |
Theoretically, this method can continue on without stop. However, in practice, there comes a time, according to Hegel, when we can go no further because we are limited by our historical situation. In practice, according to Hegel, at some point in any argument involving real events and people, society must experiment with a new synthesis before it can go on to the next step--of finding yet another and newer thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.
Developing an Argumentative Analysis
Some instructors may want what they call an "analysis" that involves an examination of opposing viewpoints. For want of a better name, you might think of this as an "argumentative analysis": it analyzes an argument, or it uses opposing arguments to analyze a subject. In many ways, it is similar to the type of reading mentioned in the "Reading College Texts" chapter that is described as having a "Problem-Solving Structure." Such papers usually require some length--a few thousand words or more--because there is so much development of ideas using appropriate proofs and, often, quotations and/or paraphrases.
To write an argumentative analysis, you might find it somewhat helpful to read the "Analysis" chapter in this textbook. However, whereas a strict analysis usually tries to be fair, balanced, and objective--and often reaches no argumentative conclusion whatsoever--an argumentative analysis weighs opposing viewpoints and, often, reaches its own argumentative conclusions, just as does a dialogic paper. Here is one typical organizational pattern for an argumentative analysis:
|
Unique Title |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Body Section
3: 3rd point or part of the subject or argument |
|
Body Sections
4, 5, etc.: additional points or parts of the subject or argument |
|
|
|
|
Here is a more detailed view of this structure:
|
Unique Title |
|
Introduction |
|
Unique
Subtitle |
|
Unique
Subtitle |
|
Unique
Subtitle |
|
Unique
Subtitle |
|
Unique
Subtitle |
|
Conclusion
CENTRAL ARGUMENT/SUBJECT and final result/outcome/statement
[1 par.] |
There are, of course, variations on this. The number of arguments about part of an issue or subject may vary from body section to body section. In addition, the relationships of the arguments among each other may vary: for example, one body section might have two opposing arguments and a choice between them; another body section may have three very different arguments and a fourth that resolves all three in a higher position; and yet another body section might group several positions that are similar, showing some that are are one side and some that are on another. It is best to look at typical expository readings in college texts to see how sections can vary in the arguments they present and how they structure their presentation.
Here are two good examples of argumentative analyses, each one somewhat different, on the University of Minnesota Composition Web Site. In the first, "Your God is a Stupid God," the author first develops (in paragraph 2) her own questions, both obvious (with question marks) and implied (as tentative statements); she then uses a narrative format to analyze her asked and implied questions. In the second, "Let's Listen to What the Kennewick Man Has to Say," the author offers background information (pars. 1-2); a "hidden" thesis implying that scientists are right (par. 3); several paragraphs presenting scientists' viewpoint (pars. 4-5, 9, and 12-13); problems or conflicts with this view (pars. 6-8 and 10-11); and a final resolution with the thesis clearly revealed (pars. 13-15).
|
|
|
Additional Types of Dialogic Papers |
Dialogic Writing and Analysis
Dialogic writing is very similar to another type of writing assignment popular in college: analysis. However, the two also have important differences.
The word analysis means many things, depending on who uses it. At its simplest, the word analyze means "to take apart" or "to show the parts of." Thus, for example, a literary analysis simply shows the parts of a literary work by taking it apart using the literary elements: characters, setting, background, plot, symbols, etc. A psychological analysis of a person, reading, or event simply shows the parts of the subject according to a psychological system. And a business analysis shows the parts of a business or a business transaction according to one or another theory of business practice or economics.
However, in some assignments and some disciplines, you are expected to analyze from several points of view, and these points of view may be argumentative. For example, in a sociology course, you might be asked to analyze a culture or a group of people using two or more sociological theories; in economics, you might be asked to analyze our current economic situation using two or three economic theories; and in philosophy, you might be asked to analyze an idea using two or three philosophers' beliefs. In situations like this--especially when they are placed beside each other--theories function as arguments. While showing their similarities, you also should be sure to highlight the differences between the theories as you use each one to examine or analyze something. There may not be two completely opposing theories, nor, necessarily, a compromise or higher resolution. However, this type of analysis paper is very similar to a dialogic paper because in each, you must use three differing arguments.
The primary difference is that in a dialogic paper, you are trying to prove the truth of--give the reasons and supporting details for--each of your arguments, whereas in an analysis, you simply are applying each theory in turn to the assigned subject. For this reason, it is wise to keep the two separate in your mind, however much they may be alike: a dialogic paper tries to prove all three arguments; analysis using different theories applies those theories to particular situations.
For more information on analysis papers, go to the chapter called "Writing an Analysis."
Dialogic Writing in Professional/Business Writing
In business and professional writing, a paper similar to a dialogic argument is a recommendation report. A recommendation report is a sophisticated form of a business proposal. A simpleproposal argues for one solution to a problem or need. However, a recommendation report offers several possible solutions to the problem, and then recommends one of them (or a combination of them). Thus at some point in a recommendation report, the author must present several different and even sometimes opposing solutions, arguing for each one fairly, logically, and succinctly. Furthermore, the author must then choose one and argue why it is the best, or fashion a compromise among two or more of the solutions and argue for that compromise. Because of this dialogical process, one can call recommendation reports the dialogic arguments of the professional world.
For more information on recommendation reports, go the chapter called "Writing a Recommendation Report."
|
|
 |
Rhetorical Modes |
Go to the
"Rhetorical |
|
ARGUMENT, CAUSE/EFFECT, and EXEMPLIFICATION
See the "Thesis Essay" chapter's "Advanced--Rhetorical Modes" section.
|
|
|
Writing Theory for Students: Dialogic Writing |
This part briefly discusses the theories that instructors use to teach this kind of paper, and then it sends you to the "Theory" page of this section, where there is discussion primarily for composition instructors.
Some philosophers argue that it is only through tensions that human beings develop intellectual awareness. In other words, if we could float in a sea of perfection from the moment we are born, we would have little or no need to change, struggle, and learn. It is in this sense that dialogic argument is a reflection of the human quest for knowledge: just as we struggle with opposing forces in our lives--and these struggles make us grow--so is there struggle with opposing beliefs in a good dialogue, and struggling with it makes us seek compromise and new resolutions. We also use the individual elements of dialogue--argument, opposing argument, and compromise/resolution--to express each step of the struggles we experience, for in our struggles in life, we try one way, another way or person opposes us, and through that opposition we learn to compromise or find a new resolution.
Human groups also demonstrate these dialogical dynamics, whether the groups are as personal as your group of friends, as immediate as the people in your workplace, or as distant as your city, state, country, or global community. Dialogue is the medium through which we all can successfully communicate and, indeed, develop functional communities. A community without real dialogue usually is a dysfunctional (or very simple) community. It follows, then, that one should ask what the conditions of "real" dialogue are. They are, whether in immediate friendship with one person or in civic or global responsibility, a commitment to honesty, openness, frank statement of one's point of view and respect for others' viewpoints, and a desire to find the truth. Of course, the meaning of truth can vary dramatically among us; however, the same basic human values that govern the development of a good friendship and a good democracy also govern the development of good dialogue.
In this regard, an academic community is like any other. It, too, values real dialogue and becomes more functional through such dialogue. However, an academic community in particular is a place where dialogue has a very high value. An academic community--whether in the form of a student body of a school, the instructors of that school, or all members of it combined--tends to revere real dialogue because it is the mark of active thinking. A community in which there is a large amount of dialogue is a community that is always in flux, growing, changing, processing old ideas and developing new ones. Active thinking is thinking that is creative, logical, exploratory, thorough, detailed, expansive, generative, holistic, passionate, deliberate, speculative, and empathetic. While it may not embody all of these elements at any one time, each of them is a mark of some kind of active thinking. Dialogue is, in short, the very lifeblood of an academic community; it is what sets it apart from most other communities. And as these ideals of academic community go forth into other communities in the world, the world itself becomes a place where these ideals are valued. As Brazilian educator and philosopher Paolo Freire argues, real dialogue is one of the most basic methods by which the poorest in the world can affirm their humanity and achieve their goals, and it is one of the most basic methods that societies can use to achieve true democracy and global sharing. Thus it is that learning to argue well in dialogical form and to teach others this skill is, quite possibly, one of the most important lessons we can share with others--and use for ourselves--throughout our lives.
A companion chapter--the one on "Writing a Thesis Essay"--contains a discussion comparing thesis argument to dialogic argument in its theory section for students. To see a brief discussion comparing thesis argument to dialogic argument, go to "Writing Theory for Students" in the "Advanced Methods" part of the chapter called "Writing a Thesis Essay."
There also is discussion primarily for instructors in the "Theory for Instructors" page of this major section of the textbook. It describes dialogic argument in the educational theory of Brazilian political philosopher Paolo Freire. If you are interested in reading this instructor-oriented page, please go to "Theory for Instructors."
----------
|
Contents and Page Design © 2002-2004 by Richard Jewell. Nonprofit copying for education is allowed. Images
courtesy of Barry's Clip Art, Clip
Art Warehouse, The
Clip Art Universe, Clipart
Collection, Microsoft Clip Art Gallery and Design
Gallery Live, School Discovery,
and Web Clip Art |
|
- End -
