In reading
Edward P.J. Corbett and Rosa A. Eberly’s, “Citizen
Critic” and Donald Lazere’s, “Oversimplification”
I believe that together make an interesting dialogue. In both pieces both
appeal to the reader by stating examples of oversimplification, facts, claims,
and fallacies. The presentation of words can make a statement more complex than
it really is and both readings explain their opinion on the topic.
In reading
further and also grasping the idea of a “citizen critic” I formed an idea of
the social conceptions that go along with different forms of public discourse. The
way that we present our words or form our arguments can determine how they are
determined. It sort of reminded me of how my mom always taught me that actions
are louder than words so in a sense our public discourse is our way of getting
are actions heard by through writing. Corbett and Eberly writes:
After
all, how can you assume to know what is inside the head or heart of another
person… (124)
They continue
to say, “ – particularly when all you have to go on are their words uttered
across a room, on the phone or radio, or in a text you hold in your hands or
view via computer?” (124). I completely agree with Corbett and Eberly in that
they see the presentation of public discourse as a complex concept. A concept
that can be seen by the way it is presented by order, tone, fallacies, facts, or
claims.
I found
Corbett and Eberly pinpointing several examples through subtopics during the
reading such as: “Begging the Question, False Dilemma, and my favorite WYISWYG
(“What You See Is What You Get”).
According to
Lazere, one thinks critically to understand the complexities of others. I
thought that sometimes that would just come naturally for readers while trying
to understand multiple viewpoints. Once I continued reading it all just made
sense because we as people all don’t think alike. Lazere writes:
Artists’
approach to life is the opposite of that of politicians. Politicians are
required to provide answers, artists ask questions (245).
Everyone is
different in perceiving public discourse. I like Lazere’s sub section titled:
“Reading Between The Lines”. This section goes into further detail about how
readers can perceive information through an example of rituals of
courtship. I found this example very
relatable and was able to relate and understand what he meant that “with
growing experience we learn to “read between the lines” (247).
Personally,
after reading these pieces, I have discovered that I relate to both. I find the
presentation of words very affective while reading a statement or anything for
that matter. These specific viewpoints that were discussed furthered my
knowledge of the categories that public discourse may fall in and just how
complex our words can be.
Sources:
Corbett,
Edward P.M., and Rosa A. Eberly. “Becoming a Citizen Critic: Where Rhetoric
Meets the Road.” In The Elements of
Reasoning, 2nd Edition, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000. 121-136.
Lazare,
Donald. “Avoiding Oversimplification and Recognizing Complexity” In Reading and Writing for Civic Literacy: The
Critical Citizen’s Guide to Argumentative Rhetoric. Boulder, CO: Paradigm
Publishers, 2005. 244-256
The Donald Lazere reading contained a series of information that consistently focused on fallacies, and more specifically the process of oversimplification. However the title of the chapter should be changed from "Avoiding Oversimplification, Recognizing Complexity" to "Avoiding Oversimplification & Recognizing Irony." There is nothing in the title or opening paragraphs to indicate that one of the main topics addressed will be types and uses of irony, but as you read on further that is what you find. "Recognizing Complexity" which is supposedly one of the main sub topics appears for only about a minimal brief analysis, while about half of what remains in the piece is dedicated to irony. Although this seems to be something that is trivial and insignificant, it's really quite important and significant. As I read through the reading more, I kept searching for ways to connect the section on irony to either oversimplification or recognizing complexity, but it was a tough task. To be honest I became very confused as I continued to read. Once I realized that Lazere had simply bounced from one topic to another I felt compelled to go back and read the passage, but up until that point I couldn't really make much sense of most of it because I was so confused. Regardless, the things that I did like about the chapter was the wide variety of works and references Lazere uses to exemplify the types of fallacies and ironies. After reading the Edward P.J. Corbett and Rosa A. Eberly’s, “Citizen Critic” article the Lazere article became clearer. In the "Citizen Critic" article the way public discourse was described and ultimately used in real life situations was very beneficial to my understanding of the concepts. These uses of the material allowed me to think of different scenarios in which I personally used their methodology appropriately. Especially on the football field were there is often a lot of jarring going back and forth between both teams. The bickering leads to a influx of big play and obvious adrenaline rushes that result in magnificent plays. These eves and flows highlight the momentum shifts and game changing plays that determine the outcome of specific games that also defines individual legacies as well.
ReplyDeleteWe actually added another reading that I think you would have found very interesting in context with your ideas here. It was Melinda FIne's "You Can't Just Say That The Only Ones Who Can Speak Are Those Who Agree With Your Position: Political Discourse In The Classroom." This piece was really important in that it discussed the struggle between desiring to be an individual and also fit in with others. I reference this because you state in your blog post the idea of actions speaking louder than words. Yet, I would somewhat disagree with that from this article's standpoint. Words became very powerful weapons in this classroom. Friendships became divided. People's opinions of one another completely shifted from just one simple sentence at times.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your claim that we all react differently to public discourse. I think it is so interesting, as I mentioned earlier, to notice the complex of simultaneously desiring to be unique in thought and deed and accepted for it. I also agree with you that the presentation of public discourse is a complex one. Yet, I would invite you to consider what makes it that way. Where does the power lie with situations of public discourse? One quote that opened my eyes to the multifaceted-ness of this was from “Citizen Critic: “In order to use reasoning to get readers or listeners to imagine themselves as the kinds of people who can rise to the occasion to judge and act in ways that can make further reasoning productive, we must invoke as well as address democratic audiences.” In a sense, we have to encourage debate, and this is only done in encouraging people to stand behind and defend their own opinion. Yet, it becomes more complicated when people do so inadequately, as you have noted in your examples such as WYSIWYG.
The most interesting concept I latched onto was that of the discussion of Irony in Lazere’s piece. He writes, “Most children haven’t developed a strong sense of irony because they lack the experience to understand that things aren’t always what they seem or what we instinctively expect, or that what their elders say is not always true or consistent with their behavior.” This, for me, ties everything together and explains why people commit these fallacies at times. It comes from programming early on and our societal markers. Irony and Sarcasm are huge facets of our culture and missing out on such important devices could cause great and constant misinterpretation in today’s society. I point this out because I know you personally in class and can tell that you personally implement these in daily life. So, I thought you might find it interesting to see them analyzed.
I like how you related the readings and their perceived meanings to your personal life. When you said the part about how actions speak louder than words, and that’s what your mother taught you growing up, you are able to connect with the readings and I think understand them better. In saying that, I do no necessarily agree with your interpretation of the subject. Actions do speak loudly, but so do words, and especially in public discourse. If you write something, no matter if you act on it or not, people will still take it into consideration that you wrote it, and judge you nonetheless. In reading the comments, I agree with Brittany’s suggestion that the Melinda Flne reading would have tied into your post nicely, because of the talk of public discourse in the classroom. In the classroom is a lot like in a place of work or business, and anything in writing can prove to be powerful and meaningful in determining relationships.
ReplyDeleteYou’re right in claiming that we as people don’t think alike, and thus will interpret situations differently. This concept in turn makes it somewhat difficult at times to understand, as you put it, the “complexity of others.” In trying to understand people better, we need to keep an open mind and realize that the way I interpreted what was said or written may not be how someone else did or how it was intended. This also ties in with Lazere’s discussion about irony. Irony and sarcasm are huge in communication, and are used daily by almost everyone. Lazere makes a great point about how children don’t understand the concept, and thus misinterpret the meaning of a lot of things. This is also apparent in adults. In writing, as opposed to speaking, irony and sarcasm can sometimes be hard to pick up, and in turn the interpretation would be completely different than the authors intent.
I really like your understanding and connection with Corbett and Eberly here though, in noting that order, tone, fallacies, facts, or claims will determine the meaning or intent of what your communicating, and misinterpreting any would cause for the reader to have a wrong sense of meaning. WYSIWYG is an interesting subtopic, because in my opinion it is the complete opposite. What you see may not be at all what you were meant to see, and this ties back into everyone understanding public discourse differently. People all think differently, and it is up to a mutual understanding of thinking deeper than just reading the words.
The readings assigned to us provided an audience with an analysis of examples of oversimplification and fallacies. I really enjoyed your response to both Corbett and Eberly’s Citizen Critic and Donald Lazere’s Oversimplification. Both articles divulge on the necessity of introducing facts in a public argument, but also explain how claims can be made in a “heated” moment to express a statement. Lazere’s Oversimplification was an eye-opening text, that points out all the things we try to avoid as writers. I enjoyed both texts and it allowed me to understand how we can apply ideas from each text to our upcoming Wikipedia project.
ReplyDeleteIn class today we gave our own definitions for facts and claims. What was interesting to notice after creating both lists is how pertinent it is for an author to use facts in a public argument versus making unethical claims containing fallacies. May seem like a stupid realization, but claims can be masked by many writers as their own perception of a topic or argument.
I completely agree with your ideas of social conceptions that correspond with different aspects of public discourse. I liked your analysis of the way in which individuals present themselves in conversation and how arguments are determined. I believe this idea was an important aspect to take away from these readings. The complexity of words is what attracts a certain audience and allows a writer to reach a higher stases. I agree with you that both articles gave effective explanations and furthered my knowledge of public argument as well.