After reading "Becoming a Citizen Critic: Where Rhetoric Meets the Road" and "Avoiding Oversimplification and Recognizing Complexity," I really
like and also found it very interesting that both articles provide multiple key
terms and concepts that act as their own individual sub-headers. “Becoming a Citizen Critic” by Corbett and
Eberly reminded me of Grant-Davie’s “Rhetorical Constraints,” because it
discusses multiple rhetorical practices that can either help or hinder the
rhetor, A.K.A a constraint, and discuss how these concepts will affect the
audience.
The
connection I made between both these articles is that we do need to be careful
in the criticisms and/or arguments we make because a lot of readers will read
along the lines of “what you see is what you get.” Readers may interpret your argument
differently than you intended simply because of the way it is constructed or
delivered.
So after
reading these articles and learning the different concepts on how a citizen critic will present his or her
argument, Corbett and Eberly ask us “how can you assume to know what is inside
the head or heart of another person…?” (124). I think this serves as a reminder
of the overall concept of the connection between the articles.
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
Morgan,
ReplyDeleteI really like that you mentioned the contraints that come along with oversimplification. Constraints were something I wanted to incorporate in our Wikipedia project because it shows our audience that we are well aware of all the effects it causes. Oversimplification is something we as humans are programmed to do in our daily routines whether it be work or watching television or even an election. Which is why during these times, as the speaker, it is important that the message you are relaying is what the audience is taking in and understanding- using rhetoric!
While I agree that one should be careful when constructing any argument, or even just engaging in any type of public discourse, what I found most interesting is how the public addresses or even encourages these types of fallacies. In Donald Lazere’s “Avoiding Oversimplification and Reconizing Complexity,” he says, “oversimplified rhetoric has unfortunately pervaded American public discourse as a characteristic of politics and mass media aimed at appealing to the lowest common denominator of critical thinking skills” (245). These oversimplified and sometimes person arguments hold more appeal because of the entertainment value. Combative talk shows and heated debates bring in viewers and ratings, which only promotes the continuation of this behavior and content. I think the problem doesn’t lie solely within the rhetor, but it is a problem within the community as well.
ReplyDeleteEdward Corbett also touches on this issue in “Becoming a Citizen Critic” when he says, “combined with the increasing emphasis on entertainment and consumption, our relative dearth of public spaces and our relative lack of experience in reasoning together in public endanger our democracy” (131). This is a very powerful statement. Our inability to reason and rationalize on a civil and logical basis is more likely to produce a stalemate in an argument, because issues aren’t being approached with a certain level of respect.
So yes, it is imperative that everyone exercises a degree of caution when composing criticisms and/or arguments. It’s also perfectly reasonable to make impassioned statements in the heat of the moment. It happens. However, when organizations or individuals are constructing their content with the purpose of stirring up a little confrontation for the sake of media attention, that speaks of a problem present in our society rather than just being uninformed in how to create a successful, respectful argument.
I agree that it is very important that everyone exercises political correctness and caution when writing and speaking arguments. However, I do agree with the reply above me that making a claim in a moment of passion is okay too. I think in the articles they were trying to make an argument for a middle ground, and this kind of goes back to Jones' idea of finding the good argument. He encourages passionate statements but within the context of being rational and unbiased. I wish in the articles for today's reading that the authors would have addressed Jones' work because it would have been interesting to see their thoughts on the connection. In "Becoming a Citizen Critic," I agree with the author that the majority of people don't enter an argument with a logical perspective. A lot of people are very inexperienced when it comes to engaging in heated arguments, and this is the reason why it's very hard to have a calm method when arguing. In my AP Language class in high school, we learned about the Rogerian method, a way of arguing where you act like the opponent is a friend you would treat with respect, and argue with them with respect and openmindness. If more people argued like this, we would get a lot more done.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your analysis of both articles and I too agree with the comments inspired by your post. It is a tricky situation when a writer makes a claim in a “heated” moment, basing their argument from a passionate interest. I guess the argument depends on the audience and how the argument is constructed. I do agree that both articles make us aware of the repercussions of our arguments, and how readers can closely can be misconstrued just by the delivery of our content. I also think your mention of constraints in relation to Corbett and Eberly’s article was accurate. A writer must initially think of the constraints of an article while composing it, I just think it is a natural aspiration for a writer to want to influence the reader in a positive way. This “positive” way of constructing an argument usually doesn’t involve oversimplification and fallacies as explained in both articles.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things I found immediately interesting about the Corbett and Eberly’s definition of citizen critic was their stipulation that citizen criticism a some faith in the public or community that is being addressed. This belief in the institution is necessary to giving helpful criticism rather than just aggression or slander. Interestingly, when I looked up synonyms to criticism, I found that thesaurus.com associates “criticism” with words like appraisal, commentary, appreciation, evaluation, and observation. This relationship between criticism and faith is interesting to me because it seems that criticism cannot be effective without that faith.
ReplyDeleteI drew on the similarities between Corbett and Eberly’s ideas of overgeneralization and Lazare’s ideas of oversimplification. In a sense these two are almost interchangeable. I would make the claim that generalizing something is the same as simplifying it.