EmpoWord: A Student-Centered Anthology & Handbook for College Writers Part Three: Research and Argumentation Author: Shane Abrams, Portland State University This chapter is licensed with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License Download this book free at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/pdxopen/20/ Part Three: Research and Argumentation 236 Section Introduction: Research and Argumentation “Fake news”86 is a phrase you’ve probably encountered way more than you would have liked since the 2016 U.S. presidential election. While this phrase has gained more and more momentum and traction, it holds different purposes and meanings in different contexts. Across all these different rhetorical situations, though, we can agree that the popularization of the phrase speaks to an increased skepticism toward the bodies of knowledge that surround us. For me, such distrust points to the oversimplified dichotomy of fact vs. opinion. The gray area between fact and opinion is much broader than we like to believe, and often we present deeply entrenched opinions as if they were facts. (Whether or not it is intentional, this phenomenon has serious consequences.) As Michael Kinsley points out in his 1995 essay, American individualist ideology dictates that citizens be “omni-opinionated”—at the expense of having many poorly informed opinions.87 It is crucial, Kinsley says, that we take two steps to confront the “intellectual free lunch”: 88 a) Develop increased humility about what we can and do know to be true; and b) Increase the intensity and frequency of our critical interrogation of truth (or what seems to be true). Because yes, there is a lot of fake news out there. And there’s a lot of real news that certain people insist is fake. How do we mobilize skepticism to produce a more ethical world, rather than letting it undermine the pursuit of truth? In Section 1 of this text, you explored your own truth through personal narrative; in Section 2, you interrogated the truths embedded in a certain text. Here, in Section 3, you will learn how to encounter a body of texts, then develop an argument that synthesizes diverse truths. Writing in a research-based context means exploring and interrogating the broad, complex networks of rhetoric and knowledges that you have always been a part of. It means situating yourself in an interconnected world of discourse, and carefully bringing your own voice into that world. To induct you into this mode of rhetoric production, this section focuses on research concepts and techniques, as well as traditional methods of argumentation. Section 3 concludes with a persuasive research essay assignment in which you will synthesize your ability to research, interpret, and argue in a formal writing situation. Part Three: Research and Argumentation 237 Chapter Seven Argumentation To a nonconfrontational person (like me), argument is a dirty word. It surfaces connotations of raised voices, slammed doors, and dominance; it arouses feelings of anxiety and frustration. But argument is not inherently bad. In fact, as a number of great thinkers have described, conflict is necessary for growth, progress, and community cohesion. Through disagreement, we challenge our commonsense assumptions and seek compromise. The negative connotations surrounding ‘argument’ actually point to a failure in the way that we argue. Check out this video on empathy: it provides some useful insight to the sort of listening, thinking, and discussion required for productive arguments. Video: The Importance of Empathy by Lifehacker Now, spend a few minutes reflecting on the last time you had an argument with a loved one. What was it about? What was it really about? What made it difficult? What made it easy? Often, arguments hinge on the relationship between the arguers: whether written or verbal, that argument will rely on the specific language, approach, and evidence that each party deems valid. For that reason, the most important element of the rhetorical situation is audience. Making an honest, impactful, and reasonable connection with that audience is the first step to arguing better. Part Three: Research and Argumentation 238 Unlike the argument with your loved one, it is likely that your essay will be establishing a brand- new relationship with your reader, one which is untouched by your personal history, unspoken bonds, or other assumptions about your intent. This clean slate is a double-edged sword: although you’ll have a fresh start, you must more deliberately anticipate and navigate your assumptions about the audience. What can you assume your reader already knows and believes? What kind of ideas will they be most swayed by? What life experiences have they had that inform their worldview? "Conversation" by Jim Pennucci is licensed under CC BY 2.0 This chapter will focus on how the answers to these questions can be harnessed for productive, civil, and effective arguing. Although a descriptive personal narrative (Section 1) and a text wrestling analysis (Section 2) require attention to your subject, occasion, audience, and purpose, an argumentative essay is the most sensitive to rhetorical situation of the genres covered in this book. As you complete this unit, remember that you are practicing the skills necessary to navigating a variety of rhetorical situations: thinking about effective argument will help you think about other kinds of effective communication. Part Three: Research and Argumentation 239 Chapter Vocabulary Vocabulary Definition a rhetorical mode in which different perspectives on a common issue are argument negotiated. See Aristotelian and Rogerian arguments. Aristotelian a mode of argument by which a writer attempts to convince their audience argument that one perspective is accurate. the intended consumers for a piece of rhetoric. Every text has at least one audience audience; sometimes, that audience is directly addressed, and other times we have to infer. a persuasive writer’s directive to their audience; usually located toward the call-to-action end of a text. Compare with purpose. ethos a rhetorical appeal based on authority, credibility, or expertise. the setting (time and place) or atmosphere in which an argument is kairos actionable or ideal. Consider alongside “occasion.” a line of logical reasoning which follows a pattern of that makes an error in logical fallacy its basic structure. For example, Kanye West is on TV; Animal Planet is on TV. Therefore, Kanye West is on Animal Planet. logos a rhetorical appeal to logical reasoning. a neologism from ‘impartial,’ refers to occupying and appreciating a variety of perspectives rather than pretending to have no perspective. Rather than multipartial unbiased or neutral, multipartial writers are balanced, acknowledging and respecting many different ideas. pathos a rhetorical appeal to emotion. rhetorical a means by which a writer or speaker connects with their audience to appeal achieve their purpose. Most commonly refers to logos, pathos, and ethos. a mode of argument by which an author seeks compromise by bringing Rogerian different perspectives on an issue into conversation. Acknowledges that no argument one perspective is absolutely and exclusively ‘right’; values disagreement in order to make moral, political, and practical decisions. a line of logical reasoning similar to the transitive property (If a=b and b=c, syllogism then a=c). For example, All humans need oxygen; Kanye West is a human. Therefore, Kanye West needs oxygen. Part Three: Research and Argumentation 240 Techniques “But I Just Want to Write an Unbiased Essay” Let’s begin by addressing a common concern my students raise when writing about controversial issues: neutrality. It’s quite likely that you’ve been trained, at some point in your writing career, to avoid bias, to be objective, to be impartial. However, this is a habit you need to unlearn, because every text is biased by virtue of being rhetorical. All rhetoric has a purpose, whether declared or secret, and therefore is partial. Instead of being impartial, I encourage you to be multipartial. In other words, you should aim to inhabit many different positions in your argument—not zero, not one, but many. This is an important distinction: no longer is your goal to be unbiased; rather, it is to be balanced. You will not provide your audience a neutral perspective, but rather a perspective conscientious of the many other perspectives out there. Common Forms of Argumentation In the study of argumentation, scholars and authors have “Honest developed a great variety of approaches: when it comes to disagreement is convincing, there are many different paths that lead to our often a good sign of destination. For the sake of succinctness, we will focus on two: the progress.” Aristotelian argument and the Rogerian Argument.89 While these - Mahatma Gandhi two are not opposites, they are built on different values. Each will employ rhetorical appeals like those discussed later, but their purposes and guiding beliefs are different. Aristotelian Argument In Ancient Greece, debate was a cornerstone of social life. Intellectuals and philosophers devoted hours upon hours of each day to honing their argumentative skills. For one group of thinkers, the Sophists, the focus of argumentation was to find a distinctly “right” or “wrong” position. The more convincing argument was the right one: the content mattered less than the technique by which it was delivered. In turn, the purpose of an Aristotelian argument is to persuade someone (the other debater