WR 122 Student Writing - Fall 2005
Sincere thanks to my students who gave me permission to webpublish their work! ~ CoraComparative Essay - Reading, Analyzing, & Evaluating Arguments:
Jackie Boisineau, "Understanding Arguments" (Fall 2005)
Mike Dougherty, "Things That Make You Go Huh?" (Fall 2005)
Terra Hurdle, "The End of Struggling with Argument" (Fall 2005)
Chelsea Phegley, "Recommended Practices for Reading, Analyzing, and Evaluating Arguments" (Fall 2005)Formal Academic Summary & Critical Response Essay:
Jackie Boisineau, Formal Academic Summary (Fall 2005)
Jackie Boisineau, "Assessment of an Argument" (Fall 2005)
Terra Hurdle, Formal Academic Summary (Fall 2005)
Terra Hurdle, "The Color of Justice . . . " (Fall 2005)Research-Based Argument Essay (using at least 3 sources):
Chelsea Phegley, "TV: The Ever-Present Friend, Teacher, Babysitter, and Brainwasher" (Fall 2005)
Comparative Essay - Reading, Analyzing, & Evaluating Arguments
Fall 2005 WR 122 Assignment
Jackie Boisineau
Wr122, Prof. C. Agatucci
Comparative Essay Final Draft
9 October 2005Understanding Arguments
It is probably true to say that most people have read an argument in their lives. Among other genres these arguments can come in the form of political advertisements, editorial columns, or letters of reference for job applicants. Although these are very different types of writing, they do have one thing in common. That commonality is the intention to help the reader understand the author’s point of view and to convince the reader to support that point. At first glance a well written argument can be very persuasive. It is easy for the reader to be swayed by the author’s emotional appeal and zeal for the subject. Good arguments are designed specifically to draw the reader in and try to change his/her opinion, making it difficult to formulate one’s own stance. So, it is important for readers to become good critical evaluators of arguments. Once a reader does this, he/she can look objectively at the intentions and reasons for the argument and decide for himself/herself if it is valid. Therefore, understanding arguments is a skill that must be honed.
In the text The Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide, the authors Timothy Crusius and Carolyn Channell describe various steps in a process that is useful for understanding arguments. The main aspects of their process are reading, analyzing, and evaluating. In the text, Crusius and Channell further divide these three categories into specific techniques used for analysis. Some of these are familiar to me, such as annotating while reading. But many of the techniques are new concepts. After studying their process, I have chosen a few steps that I think are extremely helpful for understanding argumentative writing. These are sampling the text in advance, analyzing word choice and meaning, and evaluating the reasoning in an argument.
The first of these techniques is sampling or glancing over the text in advance. While sampling the text, the key words are noted. These words can give the reader a general feel for the author’s point of view before the essay is read completely. For example, in Amber Young’s essay “Capital Punishment: Society’s Self-Defense”, she uses the words “bashed”, “torture”, and “savage” (55). During the process of pre-reading, these words jump out of the text. The negative connotations of these words give the reader a feel for the tone of the text. This sampling allows the reader to grasp the author’s point of view before thoroughly reading the essay. Another aspect of sampling listed in The Aims of Argument is discerning the rhetorical context of the author, the publisher, and the audience (22, 23). According to Crusius and Channell, knowing this background information allows the reader to better understand the intentions of the argument. For example, William F. May’s essay “Rising to the Occasion of Our Death” was originally published in The Christian Century, and May is a professor at Southern Methodist University (45). Because of this gleaned information, the reader can assume that the text may have a pro-life slant. This information, therefore, sets the tone for the essay in advance. In summary, Crusius and Channell point out that sampling not only allows the reader to better understand the text when read in full, but it also allows him/her to discern whether or not the text is worthy of his/her time (23).
Also, Crusius and Channell explain that after the initial reading of an argument it is necessary to read it again and to analyze it. One of their analyzing techniques that I found helpful was determining the author’s meaning by analyzing his/her word use. Things like unfamiliar words and allusions must be understood in order to under deduce the author’s exact intentions. An example is found in May’s essay when the term “patient autonomy” is used (47). After consulting the New Webster’s Dictionary, I learned that this phrase means “the power and right to self government”. This knowledge helped me understand May’s reasoning and opposing view regarding active euthanasia. Accordingly, understanding the author’s allusions, as Crusius and Channell suggest, also helps one to analyze argumentative writing. They define allusions as, “brief references to things outside the text” (29). For instance, in Leonard Pitts’s essay, “You Also Have the Right to Tell a Bigot What You Think,” Pitts mentions John Rocker, Eminem, and Dr. Leonard Jeffries. These references are given without much background information. Therefore, to better understand Pitts’s meaning and reasoning, the reader must investigate these allusions. After investigation, it is obvious that these are three people that have made bigoted remarks to the media. Pitts uses these allusions to illustrate his argument and support his stance on freedom of speech. This illustration helps the reader to better grasp his reasoning. So, to sum up, Crusius and Channell suggest that the time spent interpreting the author’s word choice is helpful for understanding the full intention of the argument.
Finally, after reading and understanding an argumentative essay, the reader can then evaluate the author’s reasoning. The evaluation process allows the reader to decide whether it is a good argument or not. Crusius and Channell suggest the use of the Toulmin Method for evaluating. Among other things, this method has the reader determine the author’s reasoning and then analyze the given evidence (53). With the Toulmin Method the main claim, reasons, and evidence are determined by the reader. To illustrate the breakdown of the Toulmin Method, I will use Pitts’s essay. The main claim of his essay it that often when a bigoted remark is made the listeners let it go without rebuttal. He feels that this inaction is unacceptable. He reasons that many people hide behind the First Amendment instead of voicing their own opposing opinions to such bigoted statements. He thinks that these people “embrace moral cowardice” by staying quiet and by referring to the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause (8). His evidence that supports his reasoning is that the First Amendment does not apply when a common citizen censures another. He states that it only applies when the government is the censor (8). This reasoning and evidence becomes obvious when the Toulmin method is utilized. By using this method it is easier for the reader to hone in on the main claim, reasoning, and evidence for an argument. This, in turn, allows the reader to refute or agree with the main claim. Therefore, the reader can better critically evaluate the argument and form his/her own informed opinion about it by applying the Toulmin method of analysis.
In conclusion, the ability to critically read and understand argumentative writing is crucial. In our daily lives, we are constantly bombarded with others’ opinions. Being able to evaluate these opinions can help one sort through the jargon and emotional tactics associated with such arguments. For instance as mentioned before, political candidates use argumentative writing to try to win votes. By utilizing a system for critically evaluating such arguments, the voter can make the best choice of candidate. Of course the ability to critically evaluate arguments can be applied to all types of persuasive speech and writing, and that is why Crusius and Channell believe that it is important to develop this skill. I agree with them.
Works Cited
Crusius, Timothy W., and Carolyn Channell, ed. Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006.
May, William F. “Rising to the Occasion of Our Death.” Christian Century 11 July 1990: n.p. Rpt. In Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. Ed. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006. 45-47.
Pitts, Leonard, Jr. “You Also Have the Right to Tell a Bigot What You Think.” Miami Herald 1 March 2001: n.p. Rpt. in Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. Ed. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn Channell. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006. 7-8.
Young, Amber. “ Capital Punishment: Society’s Self-Defense.” Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. Ed. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006. 54-58.
© 2005, Jackie Boisineau - reprinted with student author's permission
Mike Dougherty
Wr 122, Prof. C. Agatucci
Comparative Essay Revision
3 November 2005
Things That Make You Go Huh?
I have been a prolific reader my whole life. I read an average of one book a week, newspapers I happen to pick up, and even the back of the Captain Crunch box when I am eating breakfast. I have read all of the classics that interested me, tons of novels of almost every genre, and even had a fling with Shakespeare, just because I thought it was neat. With all the reading I have done if you were to ask me today what any of it really meant, I might come up with the general point, but for the most part I could not tell you what the little text balloon on the back of the cereal box I read that morning said. I started back to school after a twenty-seven year absence. In one of my first classes, the instructor started talking about something she called Critical Reading. Critical Reading is hard work, takes a lot of practice, and a few tools like annotation and background checks to help you. Critical Reading is the first step to Critical Thinking. To me, this means how I react with my thoughts and emotions to an author’s text. Simply put, “How do I feel about what I have just read”?
I have found that only reading over and over, and using different tools with each reading are the best ways for me to get the most from a text. My first tool, and only because at the time was all I knew of, was the bright yellow highlighter. I found early on that it could be my best friend, but if used too much it could be my worst enemy. It was too easy for me to highlight something, then come back in a later reading and wonder why I wasted the ink. Since then I have developed a tool I call “Things that make me go Huh.” I call it this mainly because when I come across a word or sentence that I do not understand, I write “Huh?” beside it. I can then read on and try to get an understanding of what the author trying to say. At the very least this tool gives me a place when I read the passage later, to stop and look up the word or study the sentence to really understand its meaning. I believe that Crusius and Channell in The Aims of Argument, would call this “Annotation”(35). Although I use this tool now, I do not use it willy-nilly. Like a highlighter, sometimes it is a friend sometimes not. I used this tool in Leonard Pitts’s essay “You Also Have the Right to Tell a Bigot What You Think”. Pitts was writing about the “rapper Eminem’s violently homophobic and misogynistic music”(7). I could figure out what “homophobic” means but “misogynistic”? HuH? The second time I read the essay, I took the time to look “misogynistic” up in the dictionary to find out it means, “The hatred of women.
As I am getting ready to read a second time, the background of the author and the essay becomes important to me. Using the internet can be one way to find out about the author, his other works, and the time and place in history he/she wrote the essay. Having some background leads to a much deeper understanding of what brought the author to his theses. I used the tool of researching background in an essay I wrote for another class on Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream,” a speech he gave in 1963. It was very informative. The history of who King was, and what drove him to write that groundbreaking speech, helped me to write a much better essay than I would have without it. I used this tool again when reading Pitts’s essay. I looked up his bio and found out who he was and what he did. It made the second reading much clearer as to what drove him to pen this particular essay. It was also very interesting to find that he was a black man writing, what I felt was a very conservative article. I have one more point I would like to make about using background information as a tool. I remembered I had an Eminem CD that someone had given me, I put it in the player, and after two songs, let’s just say sometimes background is good, sometimes it’s not.
The third reading is where I really begin the critical thinking process. This is where I get my “feelings” about what was written, did I agree or disagree with what was said, and most important to me, am I excited about reading it. Lets face it, reading something you are not excited about is like having a tooth pulled, and then having to write something about it, is the Pits of Hell. As I read I jot thoughts down where I can come back to them as I write later. The points I write down are what most interest me and then I try to take them further into my own life experience. As an example, take Andres Martin’s essay “On Teenagers and Tattoos”. His last paragraph says:
Adolescents’ bodily decorations, at times radical and dramatic in their presentation, can be seen in terms of figuration rather than disfigurement, of the natural body being through them transformed into a personalized body (Brain, 1979). They can often be understood as self-constructive and adorning efforts, rather than prematurely subsumed as mutilatory and destructive acts. If we bear all of this in mind, we may not only arrive at a position to pass more reasoned clinical judgment, but become sensitized through our patients’ skins to another level of their internal reality. (28)
As I studied this paragraph my first thought was, what does he mean, “self-constructive,” and “adorning”(28). I’m sorry, the old dude in me is having trouble with this concept. But it made me stop and think. My daughter brought home this baggie pants, tattooed, and pierced thing to meet me one night. I tried my best to get him out of my house as fast as possible. Since that night, he has become a great son-in-law. As I have gotten to know him better, I feel there is not a nicer or gentler person in the world for my daughter to marry. That thought in itself would be enough to excite me into taking a shot at writing an essay based on tattoos.
I usually will read a text, or parts thereof, many more times as I am thinking about what I am putting on paper. Annotation, background, and just coming up with something from the text to get the Critical thinking process started, are the three main tools I like to work with. I hope that they will be of some help in your own efforts. Of course, as time and writing classes go on I am sure I will find other methods and ways to read critically, think critically and write coherently.
Works Cited
Crusius, Timothy W., and Carolyn E. Channell, ed. Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006.
Martin, Anders. “On Teenagers and Tattoos.” Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 36.6 (1997): 860-861 Rpt. in Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. Ed. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn Channell. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006. 24-28.
Pitts, Leonard, Jr. “You Also Have the Right to Tell a Bigot What You Think.” Miami Herald March 2001: n.p. Rpt in Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. Ed. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn Channell. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006. 7-8.
© 2005, Mike Dougherty - reprinted with student author's permission
Terra Hurdle
Wr122, Prof. C. Agatucci
Comparative Essay Revised Final Draft
25 October 2005The End of Struggling with Written Argument
In a world where no two minds think exactly alike, we are faced with different ideas, beliefs, and opinions each day. Sometimes we form a judgment without a second thought and move on with our day. For example, listening to the news in the morning and contriving our own ways of resolving the world’s problems. However, there are times, like in a college writing class, that we must analyze an argument more in depth. Such an argument may come in the form of an essay. So, how can an inquiring student best read, analyze, and evaluate a written argumen t? The following methods provide insight on some of these processes and have proven to grant me success as a student of critical reading and argumentation.
Developing a reading process acts as a key step in analysis. Sometimes articles can be deciphered with speed reading or page skimming, but in order to grasp a true understanding for every aspect of an article, it must be read more thoroughly. As authors Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell suggest in their book The Aims of Argument, skilled readers should be mature reasoners (14). Mature reasoners build their opinions upon knowledge and support their beliefs with dependable up-to-date information. Approaching arguments with unbiased views and reading objectively are the importa nt skills that allow a mature reasoner to truly listen to the author’s ideas and consider them fairly (12). For example, in Andres Martin’s essay “On Teenagers and Tattoos,” he provides reasons behind teenagers’ inclination towards body piercing and tattoos (12). He writes to persuade his audience that understanding and considering these reasons can help bridge the gap between today’s youths and adults (26). If someone with pre-established negative views about tattoos spends time internally arguing with the author while reading, he or she may squander the ability to contemplate both the positive and the negative aspects of each claim. So, how does one avoid unintentional biases? We can use alternatives in the reading process to help counter any assumptions one might already have.
Searching for the author’s claims and taking steps to examine each of them, allows the reader to set aside some of the opinions already acquired due to personal experience (Crusius and Channell 12, 34). To examine the claims, the reader must identify the reason for each contention and whether or not the author provides sufficient evidence to that effect (34, 35). In Martin’s essay, he makes the claim, “They (tattoos) can often be understood as self-constructive and adorning efforts, rather than prematurely subsumed as mutilatory and destructive acts” (28). Now we must ask, why does the writer feel this way? One of the many reasons supporting his claims states, “Exploring the motivations and significance (underlying) tattoos and piercings can go a long way toward resolving such differences and can become a novel and additional way of getting to know teenagers” (26). Martin effectively breaks up his essay into three sections that provide specific reasons behind youth tattooing with real life examples of each. One of the reasons supplied for evidence reads, “Tattoos and piercing can offer a concrete and readily available solution for many of the identity crises and conflicts normative to adolescent development” (28). Recognizing these passages in Martin’s essay with the claim, reason, and evidence gives a greater understanding of the entire piece. The reader can now react with ma ture reasoning.
The process of mature reasoning during the reading of an argument builds a foundation for another important part of studying the argument: critical analysis. Annotation may prove to be an exceptionally useful method of analysis in organizing thoughts, questions, responses, and information gathered throughout the reading. As a fellow student, I have experienced numerous lectures and assignments on taking notes. I admit, taking notes seemed futile at times. However, as annotation develops into habit, it clearly reveals itself as an act of discovery as opposed to busy work. Crusius and Channell also recognize these ideas and encourage note taking in their book. Taking notes serves as a very useful step during analysis because the information and responses recorded build upon each other and often lead to an epiphany about the work. So what do you write down? In short, everything! Some of the recommendations Crusius and Channell make include the following: the claims, reasons and evidence you identify, key terms and how they do or do not function, exceptions or contradictions within the argument, ideas about the author’s assumptions, cause and effect involved in the argument, the author’s tone, values, or biases revealed in the writing, and all of your personal questions and responses (37). We can easily ap ply this method to Leonard Pitts’s article, “You Also Have the Right to Tell a Bigot What You Think.” One paragraph describing how Americans should react towards bigots reads, “But after acknowledging the right of the hateful to be hateful and the vile to be vile, it seems to me that the least I can do is use my own right of free speech to call those people what they are. It seems to me, in fact, that I have a moral obligation to do so. But many people embrace moral cowardice instead and blame it on the First Amendment” (8). Some of the ideas one might notate about this passage may include some of the following: When Pitts says he will “call those people what they are,” does he simply imply that he will individually advocate for what is morally correct, or disput e with that person on the subject? What does our moral obligation require of us and how do we decide this? Do people “embrace moral cowardice,” or simply ignore bigots because they think too closed minded for anyone to sway them otherwise? If we practice good morals in our personal lives each day, does a moral obligation to involve ourselves with these societal conflicts still exist? Would opposition to a bigot’s ideas over highly controversial issues cause the problem to escalate and lead to pickets and rioting? With all of this information documented, the reader can easily understand every dimension of the piece, not just the basic concepts presented by the writer. Elements of an argument that may originally seem u nclear often unveil themselves throughout the process of taking notes.
As mature reasoning is inclusive throughout the process of reading and analysis, this criterion finally allows readers to make an impartial evaluation of the argument. Of the four principles of mature reasoning described by Crusius and Channell, we have already discussed how mature reasoners are well informed and how an argument can be approached with this skill (14). Another criterion useful during evaluation of an argument reads “Mature Reasoners Are Self-Critical and Open to Constructive Criticism” (14). In this case, the individual has passionate beliefs but also has the capability to step back and question whether or not substant ial evidence truly supports their convictions. Under the right circumstances, mature reasoners are also willing to change their minds about an opinion. People often feel that changing their mind on an inherent opinion demonstrates inability to stand up for their beliefs. However, acknowledging the positive aspects of the opposition’s argument displays the maturity of an open mind (12). Amber Young uses this concept as a tactic for persuasion in her essay “Capital Punishment: Society’s Self-Defense.” In the midst of stating why we should implement capital punishment for every convicted murderer, she says “Of course, the possibility of executing an innocent person is a concern (56).”& nbsp; Although Young proceeds to exlain why we must overlook this concern, she demonstrates her ability to argue fairly and acknowledge all of the key issues involved. If the writer gives the reader the impression that he or she understands all sides of an argument, it may compel the readers to continue reading or reconsider their own beliefs. Overall, maintaining an open mind is critical for a reasonable evaluation.
Keeping these recommendations in mind will provide any student with the means to read, analyze, and evaluate an argument with a high level of success. The days of staring blankly an essay of argumentation are over. A door labeled understanding is opening straight ahead. These are the tools every student of critical reading and argumentation should have to build knowledge.
Works Cited
Crusius, Timothy W., and Carolyn Channell, ed. Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006.
Martin, Andres. “On Teenagers and Tattoos.” Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 36.(1997): 860-861. Rpt. in Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. Ed. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channel. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006. 24-28.
May, William F. “Rising to the Occasion of Our Death.” Christian Century 11 July 1990: n.p. Rpt. In Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. Ed. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006. 45-47.
Pitts, Leonard, Jr. “You Also Have the Right to Tell a Bigot What You Think.” Miami Herald 1 March 2001: n.p. Rpt. in Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. Ed. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn Channell. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006. 7-8.
Young, Amber. “ Capital Punishment: Society’s Self-Defense.” Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. Ed. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006. 54-58.
© 2005, Terra Hurdle - reprinted with student author's permission
Chelsea Phegley
Wr122, Prof. C. Agatucci
Comparative Essay Revision
25 October 2005Recommended Practices for Reading, Analyzing, and Evaluating Arguments
Doubtless, at some point, we’ve all read a written argument that doesn’t sit well with us. Maybe for some reason we don’t believe or trust the claims being made, or maybe we don’t know exactly what the claim is. Sometimes we might dismiss small sections or even entire writings because the vocabulary seems too complex. I know how frustrated I can get sometimes trying to extract and process information from literature. It’s for this reason I’d like to share a few practices that I’ve learned throughout my lower and higher education for reading, analyzing, and evaluating a written argument.
Of course the first step is reading. One of the things that makes reading easier for me and something that Crusius and Channell also recommend in their book, Aims of Argument, is to first read through the whole text and underline or write down all the words or references that I don’t understand. I recently read an article by Leonard Pitts, called "You Also Have the Right to Tell a Bigot What You Think" (6-7). In that article he makes references to three specific happenings involving popular media figures making inappropriate comments. If you’re not familiar with those happenings you might wonder why he chooses to include them in his argument. By researching those happenings you develop a better understanding of what Pitts is trying to say and why he feels he needs to say it. Pitts also seems to possess a pretty extensive vocabulary. He uses sentences like, "It’s a specious claim" (8: par. 11). Since I wasn’t familiar with the word "specious," it was tempting to just ignore the sentence altogether. However, I did take the time to look it up in the Oxford University Press Dictionary which stated that "specious" means "superficially plausible, but actually wrong." Knowing the definition changed that sentence from nondescript to a loaded statement, something I would have missed had I not taken the time to look it up.
One of the steps we take after reading an argument is analyzing it. The most helpful part of analyzing an argument for me is to look for the claim. According to Crusius and Channel in Aims of Argument, the claim is "the thesis or central contention" (48). Generally the claim is summed up by the author in one or two sentences. If you have a hard time finding the author’s claim remember that the claim is usually stated in the first and/or the last paragraph of the writing, and the title of article is often a clue to what the author’s claim is. As in Amber Young’s essay, "Capital Punishment: Society’s Self Defense" (54), her entire claim isn’t stated until the 5th paragraph, but by reading the title we already have an idea what her claim is when we first begin reading. Later she states that "Capital Punishment is society’s means of self defense. Just as a person is justified in using deadly force in defending herself against a killer, so society also has a right to execute those who kill whenever the opportunity and the urge arises" (56: par. 5). By recognizing the title claim within her essay, we can immediately take notice and then see how she expounds on that in her second sentence. Thus, we see exactly what her claim is, and in turn we’re better prepared to analyze the reasons and evidence for her opinion.
Another important step in processing a written argument is evaluation. One of the ways we can evaluate an argument is to use Crusius and Channell’s "Four Criteria of Mature Reasoning" (14). One of those four criteria states how important it is that the writer be "well informed" (14). The author’s opinion should be well supported by valid reasoning and current evidence. I find this to be one of the most important parts of evaluation. Crusius and Channell talk about how, as people, we tend to defend our unsupported opinions more passionately and blindly than we do opinions that we have a more in depth knowledge of.
I personally become weary when I read an argument that contains outdated evidence, unsupportable or one-sided reasoning. An example of one-sided reasoning is in Young’s essay. Young brings up an opposing claim of Hertzberg’s that "paints a graphic picture of how horrible and painful even lethal injection is to the prisoner" (56: par.6). I felt as though she was mocking this "graphic picture" painted by Hertzberg when she states soon after that "A needle prick in the arm is hardly cruel and unusual" (56: par. 6). However, Young begins her essay with a litany of gruesome murder stories. In the first paragraph of her essay she describes one of Ted Bundy’s murder victims as "pretty" and "lively and vivacious" (54: par.1) She continues to portray the victim as someone who, I can only speculate, is the most ingenuous victim in Young’s eyes. The adjectives she chooses are completely subjective and serve no other purpose that I can see except to paint a more "graphic picture." This small contradiction leads me to believe she might forsake her own reasoning to refute an opposing opinion. This is something we should definitely be aware of in argumentative essays.
Young also offers reasoning that suggests the death penalty is no more extreme than life in prison and that in fact many prisoners would rather die than be incarcerated for life. Young uses quotations taken from letters written by Bundy to convince us that this is true (57: par.12) However, while Bundy’s quotations express anguish over being in prison, he never mentions anything about death as something he would prefer, nor even an alternative he may have allowed himself to consider. Young’s lack of evidence leaves us skeptical about her reasoning.
Overall, I find that by reading, analyzing, and evaluating a written argument I further my knowledge of not only the topic at hand, but also the topics surrounding it. I also further my understanding of what I’m reading. It’s happened more than once that upon reading through something a second time I might find that I missed the main point entirely the first time. By applying practices like the ones I’ve described here, we can help ourselves be less susceptible to becoming a pawn for somebody else’s opinion. These practices can act as safeguards against adopting illogical or unreasonable opinions as our own and then spreading them to others in our ignorance.
Works Cited
Crusius, Timothy W., and Carolyn E. Channell. Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006.
Pitts, Leonard, Jr. "You Also Have the Right to Tell a Bigot What You Think." Miami Herald 1 March 2001: n.p. Rpt. in Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. Ed. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. 5th ed. Boston McGraw-Hill, 2006. 7-8.
Young, Amber. "Capital Punishment: Society’s Self Defense." Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. Ed. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006. 54-58.
© 2005, Chelsea Phegley - reprinted with student author's permission
Formal Academic Summary & Critical Response Essay
Fall 2005 WR 122 Assignments
Jackie Boisineau
Wr122, Prof. C. Agatucci
Formal Academic Summary/Final Draft
26 October 2005Spidel, Justin. “Who Should Have the Right to Marry?.” Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. Ed. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006. 222-225.
In Justin Spidel’s essay “Who Should Have the Right to Marry?” the author states that allowing homosexual couples to legally marry would benefit everyone. He thinks that all loving couples, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be allowed to partake in the ancient tradition of marriage. However, he notes that many people are against this type of marriage due to their religious beliefs and protection of good family values. While Spidel understands the basis for these arguments, he denies that they are valid. Among other reasons, he asserts that family values are actually strengthened when homosexuals are allowed to legally marry. He claims that married parents are better role models, and that a two-parent home, regardless of sexual orientation, is a “secure environment for children”. He also argues that the government’s separation of church and state legalizes many practices that are deemed “sinful” by religious groups. Spidel goes on to state that denying same-sex marriage is a violation of basic human rights. He quotes sources who assert that the censure of same-sex marriage denies the legal benefits and protection that marriage provides. He also claims that this censure bars homosexuals from participating in “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Ultimately, Spidel supports any good marriage, and he thinks that no one should be denied this natural progression of love.
Jackie Boisineau
WR 122, Prof. C Agatucci
Critical Response Essay/Final Draft
27 October 2005Assessment of an Argument
In the student essay “Who Should Have the Right to Marry?” the author, Justin Spidel, argues in support of same-sex marriage. He proposes that allowing homosexual couples to legally marry would benefit society as a whole (222). However, not everyone shares his view. He acknowledges this opposition, which is based mainly on religious beliefs and the perceived threat to family values. Many of these opponents feel so strongly that he does not even consider trying to convince them. Therefore, he targets a specific group of individuals. He states in his audience profile that these individuals are heterosexual adults that already accept same-sex couples (204). These people oppose the marriage of homosexuals not homosexual relationships in general. Spidel believes they object to such unions because they seek to preserve the traditional family (204). In addition, Spidel feels that his target audience are supporters of basic human rights and the right to the “pursuit of happiness”(204). By appealing to this support, Spidel attempts to convince this audience that the denial of same-sex marriage is not a threat to family values, and that it is a violation of human rights. I feel that this is an argument to convince, because by providing reasons and evidence to support his position, he is trying to change the thinking of his target audience and get their “assent to his thesis” (Crusius and Channell 16).
After considering Spidel’s target audience, I realize that I am not a member of it. Although I am a heterosexual adult that believes in basic human rights for everyone, I do not believe that legalizing same-sex marriage would be detrimental to society. For example, I have many friends that are homosexual and I support them in their relationships. I think that they should have the right to get married regardless of their sexual orientation. While I do agree with Spidel, I feel that I read the essay with a fairly open mind. I approached his essay as a mature reader, and I was objective and willing to consider the opposition arguments. I feel that this objective analysis is necessary for critically evaluating arguments.
For tips on evaluating this argument I referred to The Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. Spidel’s essay actually appears in this text as an example of a written argument. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell wrote this book with the intention of teaching techniques that are useful for writing and evaluating arguments. Therefore, I used it as a guide for my evaluation of Spidel’s essay. Among other techniques, Crusius and Channell suggest “picking out the best reasons and stating them in a way that appeals to our readers” (207). Consequently, I needed to isolate each reason to evaluate the supporting evidence. To accomplish this I chose the Toulmin Method, a method of analysis suggested by Crusius and Channell (45-53). After analyzing, I realized that Spidel used numerous reasons to support his claim and that these reasons were all relevant (45-53). Then I evaluated the reasons and to determine if Spidel’s argument would actually convince his target audience and change their beliefs. After evaluating his supporting information I clearly saw the strengths and weaknesses of his reasoning.
One such strength is apparent in his discussion about discrimination. As previously stated, Spidel’s audience upholds the idea of basic human rights for everyone. So Spidel appeals to this shared value by citing the District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977 (244). According to Spidel, this act states, “every individual shall…have an equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of life” (224). He contends that legal marriage is one of these aspects and the denial of it is a violation of the act. This appeal to the “audience’s belief system” is a useful technique according to Crusius and Channell (207). I too believe that this tactic is beneficial to Spidel’s argument. Since Spidel knows his target audience has a belief in basic human rights, he uses that to sway their opinion. Spidel also supports his reasoning by quoting two lawyers. In one quote, Craig Dean states that legal marriage is an important civil right because of the benefits that come with it (224). In the other quote, Thomas Stoddard refers to domestic partners as “second-class” citizens (224). This use of expert opinion is another technique suggested by Crusius and Channell (207). By using these quotes, Spidel brings credibility to his reasoning. As a result, by appealing to his target audience and using professional opinions, Spidel validates his claim.
While Spidel includes expert opinions in his essay, I think his choice of experts is somewhat flawed. For example, he argues that allowing homosexuals to legally marry would strengthen family values and provide good role models for children. This point is important to prove, because his audience supports good family morals and values. For the most part, he uses quotations to support this reason. These quoted experts have valid points and sound arguments, but upon further investigation I found that they are all supporters of gay rights. One quote is from Newsweek, which is a fairly liberal periodical. Others were taken from homosexual publications such as The Journal of Homosexuality and The Essential Guide to Lesbian and Gay Weddings. Spidel even refers to Jonathan Rauch as a “gay writer” in his essay (223). Sources such as these were used throughout the whole essay, and I feel it weakened his argument. While these quotations do support Spidel’s reasoning, I think his audience would like to see some support from a more conservative source as well. I think that it would benefit Spidel to use sources with which the target audience can relate. This may give his audience more incentive to change their views.
Although I feel some of his tactics are flawed, I do think that the quantity of reasons that Spidel offers is beneficial. He presents five reasons to support his thesis. These reasons are promoting family values, providing a secure environment for children, relieving of a “burden on society”, discriminating, and separating church and state (222-225). He approaches the subject from many angles. This tactic provides ample information for his audience to consider. Each of these reasons relates to his main claim, so they are valid. He sufficiently supports these reasons with quotations from experts, survey results, and legal information. Although these reasons are powerful on their own, Spidel strengthens his argument by including the objections to these reasons. For example, he states that some people think that allowing domestic partners to have the same legal rights and benefits as married couples is the answer to this dilemma (224). The acknowledgement of this opposing view is important because is allows Spidel to present his refutations. As a result, I feel that Spidel’s inclusion of opposing information as well as the plethora of support for his claim adds to the strength of his argument.
Although I think Spidel’s essay has strengths, I believe that it is ultimately weak. As an objective reader I considered all the ways this essay could be viewed, which includes Spidel’s target audience’s perspective. He did offer numerous reasons for legalizing same-sex marriage, and these reasons were well constructed and supportive of his claim. Unfortunately his evidence used to support his claim was often one-sided and unsatisfactory. So, even though I personally agree with his point of view, I have to conclude that he may have failed to reach his target audience. As a result, Spidel has written an interesting and insightful essay, but not a very convincing argument.
Works Cited
Crusius, Timothy W. and Carolyn E. Channell. The Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006.
Spidel, Justin. “Who Should Have the Right to Marry?” The Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. Ed. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006. 222-225.
© 2005, Jackie Boisineau - reprinted with student author's permission
Terra Hurdle
Writing 122, Prof. C. Agatucci
Formal Academic Summary Revision
15 November 2005Miller, Charity. “When Will Race Lose the Race?” Aims Of Argument; A Brief
Guide. Crusius, Timothy W., and Carolyn E. Channel, 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-
Hill 2006.
In Charity Miller’s essay, “When Will Race Lose the Race?” she addresses Affirmative Action and seeks to prove that it creates justice and has not yet become futile in our society. Miller focuses her ideas around the cliché “life isn’t fair” and demonstrates how and why this phrase is applicable to Affirmative Action and similar issues. She therefore emphasizes how justice does not equal fairness. For example, when underprivileged families receive financial aid from the government, it may not seem fair that other families do not qualify for this assistance. However, it is just because the destitute families are in greater need. As the author explains, we can view Affirmative Action from a similar standpoint. While Affirmative Action does not offer an absolute state of perfection or equality, it establishes an ideal of fairness we can work towards as a society. Therefore, this act of justice will create diversity, lessen discrimination, and eventually eliminate the need for such a policy. Though concern for whether or not race substitutes for merit still exists, the author recognizes it is merely an admission s procedure to ensure a culturally balanced student body. According to Miller, Affirmative Action has served its purpose and continues to do so, as college discrimination has diminished throughout the years. Conversely, she acknowledges the need for Affirmative Action will eventually cease because whites could be unfairly discriminated against in the future. Conclusively, Miller stresses that minorities are still underrepresented in colleges and we should therefore continue to abide by the standards of Affirmative Action.
Terra Hurdle
Writing122, Prof. C. Agatucci
Critical Response Essay
Final Draft Revision
15 November 2005The Color of Justice:
A Critical Response to an Essay on Affirmative Action
In student essay, “When Will Race Lose the Race?” author Charity Miller argues in favor of Affirmative Action. She uses personal experiences and analogies to convince her audience that Affirmative Action has helped establish fairness in our society and presently continues to do so. She makes her case with the intention of bringing forth a decision from the targeted audience: upper class white students (Crusius and Channell 16, 263). Miller supports her claims with reasoning and evidence that summon her audience to agree and take action for her cause. Thus, her argument aims to persuade (15). She uses appeal to emotion through the style and personality apparent in her writing as a tactic for persuasion. The empathy drawn forth from the reader, with support from the mature reasoning and evidence in the text, makes an excellent effort in evoking a decision about the issue at hand (228). With each real life example, Miller finds the means to identify with the audience on a personal level. She therefore persuades them to share in her opinion (231).
Through Charity Miller’s writing, we can determine that she is a college student and encounters situations subject to Affirmative Action throughout daily life on campus. Her first hand experience strengthens her argument. She also interjects some historical background on Affirmative Action and how it played a role in her personal family history. Understanding how the author forms her opinions based off of her personal experiences builds a rational foundation for her argument the reader can more easily relate to (23). For example, Miller opens her essay with a personal story in which she goes to purchase a snack from a bake sale at school. However, when she approaches the table she finds a sign that reads, “Affirmative Action is Racist,” and another poster designating snack prices according to race and gender. The snack vendor refers to this display as “a practical example to show that affirmative action is unfair” (Miller 263). We can see that the author may direct her argument at affluent white students because as the snack pricing suggests, whites must unavoidably pay more than other races and it is not fair to them. As this passage reveals her direct involvement with affirmative action and her target audience, other statistics and factual information continue to make her work credible. For example, “It is [also] insanely unfair that all minorities together make up only 19.9 % of students and 13.8% of faculty at Southern Methodist University” (263). Because Miller wrote her essay in a first-year college composition course, we can also speculate as to her incentive for discourse on affirmative action. The following passage may indicate motive:
My father is a product of mandatory Affirmative Action. Despite excellent grades in school, he could not afford college, and as a minority, he was not eligible for admission into the colle ge of his choice because it was a ‘white school.’ However, Affirmative Action stepped in like Superman to save the day. The government threatened to suspend funding for the school if it did not admit and support minority students (264).
The author relays that the year in which she composed her essay and experienced these situations is 2003 (263). During present time, Affirmative Action remains an issue. We can hypothesize that because Charity Miller was a college student who dealt with these matters directly and also had a family member immediately affected by Affirmative Action, she wanted to advocate during a time significant to the future of her cause.
As a fellow student of written argumentation, I consider myself a member of the author’s targeted audience. After examining Charity Miller’s rhetoric, I can see that she strives to create a common thread between herself and her audience and I therefore find it easy to agree on many of her contentions. In past English classes, I have studied arguments on the same subject but in opposition to Miller’s views. Some of these articles suggested Affirmative Action is reverse racism. I believe a previous understanding of another viewpoint on the issue allows me to weigh equally the positive and negative aspects of both arguments. After I read Miller’s article, I also gained knowledge of how Affirmative Action directly affected my own family history. One of my family members could not obtain the much needed financial aid for college because he did not belong to a minority. I then had to reassess my response to the content of Miller’s article. Maybe Affirmative Action was not an act of justice when my family member needed financial aid as much as a minority member. After all, he had high aspirations for shaping a successful future. Despite this knowledge, I know many people possess pre-established judgments on a variety of topics and I make great efforts to temporarily dismiss my beliefs. When evaluating Miller’s essay, I maintain an open mind by first recognizing the author's claims and then verifying she has mature reasoning and evidence to support them. Mature reasoning will allow me to acquire the most knowledge from what I’m studying.
One of Charity Miller’s easily recognizable strengths is revealed in her frequent use of analogies. Her ability to conceive corresponding situations strengthens her argument because it shows how the claim applies in a less controversial situation from a simplified perspective. She therefore illustrates her reasoning for the reader in another way. A similar scenario that the readers can relate to might make them more apt to agree with her thesis. For example, when Miller tries to persuade her audience that Affirmative Action is a strategy to resolve inequality, she says, “Our government, our schools, and even our families implement laws and procedures to resolve life’s inequalities” (Miller 263). She then supports her statement with the following analogy:
A mother with two sons may give her ill son two tasty Flintstone vitamins but give her well son only one. She “unfairly” gives the sickly son two vitamins to maintain a healthy level of nutrition in both of her children. In the same manner, some tactics that appear biased are intended to make up for the biases of life (263).
The idea of “maintaining a healthy level of nutrition” for both the strong and weak child, is parallel to providing an adequate education for both the majority and minority. Thus, Miller argues, “Justice does not equal fairness. Rather, justice creates fairness” (264). By portraying her reason in a situation people can more easily assent to, the author convinces the reader that he or she should view Affirmative Action the same way. This tactic of persuasion builds a stronger foundation for her argument.
While her analogies support her argument well, some of the statistical evidence provided does not. Although the statistical information she supplies can be effectively applied to her argument, she focuses only on a limited part of the data that she should incorporate to support her claims. For example, Miller makes several references to how statistics show minorities are under populated in college student bodies. However, she only uses records from Southern Methodist University. In order to prove Affirmative Action’s success in colleges nationwide, she would need to offer an evenhanded sampling of data from several universities: thus, illustrating the accuracy of its effects. In Miller’s conclusion she says, “…some schools, such as SMU, no longer adhere to Affirmative Action policies, and minority percentages are still increasing. The 2003 incoming class at SMU is one of its most diverse ever. This proves Affirmative Action has impacted some schools and is becoming less necessary” (265). The fact that Affirmative Action has proven successful at SMU does not support the idea that “Affirmative Action has impacted some schools” positively. Although the author does not consent to Affirmative Action’s effici ency in all schools, the phrase “some schools” remains misused because she only demonstrates its accomplishments in one school. As far as the audience knows, every other school in the nation could suffer from highly negative effects directly resulting from Affirmative Action. Additional evidence is needed to show the effects nationwide.
Despite Charity Miller’s limited statistical evidence, she does an excellent job of qualifying her claims. By identifying the exact circumstances in which reader should apply her thesis, she establishes boundaries for the function of Affirmative Action and makes it more defendable. An absolute claim on an opinion basis can prove impossible to substantiate (Crusius and Channell 48). Towards the end of her essay she makes sure to qualify her argument by saying,
If it [Affirmative Action] outlives its purpose, it will generate a counterproductive effect. If the government continues to aid minorities when schools have become more diverse, equal opportunities more available, and discrimination less tolerated, then Affirmative Action will unjustly discriminate against Whites. Affirmative Action should serve only temporarily to resolve inequalities (Miller 265).
Stating that the need for Affirmative Action will only exist temporarily may persuade a whole new part of her audience: such as those who do not want Affirmative Action as a permanent solution. Qualifying the claim is also extremely important to her argument because her purpose for writing is not to give any one race an advantage over another, but to create equality. She doesn’t want reverse racism to occur for Whites and her qualifier supports this point.
Over all, we can see that Charity Miller addresses the controversy of Affirmative Action efficiently and makes a well-supported case for her thesis. Not only do we receive insight on how society should address racial discrimination, but also an excellent example of how we can approach persuasive writing. By keeping Miller’s strengths and weaknesses in mind, students of written argumentation can implement the knowledge they have gained in their own writing. A wise minded person can discover a lesson from almost any source in life. Charity Miller’s essay is like a garden abundant in knowledge that either those in agreement or opposition can pick from.
Works Cited
Crusius, Timothy W., and Carolyn E. Channell. Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide.
5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006.
Miller, Charity. “When Will Race Lose the Race?” Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide.
Ed. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-
Hill, 2006. 263-265.
© 2005, Terra Hurdle - reprinted with student author's permission
Research-Based Argument Essay (using at least 3 sources)
Fall 2005 WR 122 Assignment
Chelsea Phegley
Wr122, Prof. C. Agatucci
Research-Based Argument Essay (Persuasive Essay)
05 December 2005TV: The Ever-Present Friend, Teacher, Babysitter, and Brainwasher
Parents raising children today are surrounded by a variety of issues. As young children grow into adolescents parents are constantly challenged by new decisions. I would assume that what almost all parents want most of all is for their child to be healthy and happy. This idea seems simple in a sentence, but actually achieving it can be very challenging. First, there is the daily stress involved in raising children. There’s always something to worry about. Some of the more prevalent worries include actual physical safety, doing well in school, eating well, exercising, learning to be independent, learning self-discipline, making friends, and developing and maintaining good values and manners. Secondly, there is all the other everyday stress which ranges from work duties, to household duties, to social duties, and everything in-between. So it’s no surprise that the majority of parents these days find television to be a minute worry on the ever vigilant parental radar.
Nevertheless, maybe television viewing, and even supervised television viewing deserves more than an acknowledging blip. According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 99% of American homes have a television, and the average number of televisions in the home is 2.4. Information from a non profit organization called TV Turnoff Network gives those statistics as well, but also elaborates on them. Reprinting information from the Kaiser Family Foundation, they report that 36% of children under 6 have their own television in their bedroom. That number leaps to 56% when we look at children ages 8-16. Also reprinted are figures stating that children under 2 spend an average of just over 2 hours in front of the TV daily. This is in spite of the fact that the surgeon general recommends that children under 2 should not watch television at all. Children 2-17 years old spend an average of just under 3 hours in front of the TV daily. These figures take on more meaning when we see that according to the American Family Research Council, “The average amount of time children spend in meaningful conversation with their parents is 38.5 minutes per week” (TV Turnoff Network).
Lucky for us we live in the era of technology and we can respond to disheartening statistics like these with only the push of a button. I’m sure you already realize the button I’m talking about is the power button on your television. I’m challenging you and your family to eliminate TV from your life. You might be thinking right now that you don’t let your kids watch that much TV so this isn’t really about you. Unfortunately any amount of television your child is watching, whether they are 2 years old or 17 years old, does have negative effects. Let’s look at some of the effects TV might be having on your child and you. According to Sheila Troppe’s Television and Teens, ADVANCE \d4
We now have evidence that habitual viewing can affect a young person’s basic outlook and sensibilities, predisposition to violence and hyperactivity, IQ, reading ability, imagination, play, language patterns, critical thinking, self-image, perception of others and values in general. Further, habitual TV viewing can affect the physical self as it can alter brain waves, reduce critical eye movements, immobilize the hands and body, and undermine nutrition and eating habits. (Troppe)
Many of the side-effects she mentions we aren’t even able to recognize because just like television they’ve become natural behaviors in the lives of our children and ourselves.
What are some of the things you imagine when you think of eliminating TV? Maybe you think that it will only create more chores and stress for you. This may be true at first. More than 385 families without television were surveyed by TV Turnoff Network about their lives and their transition from TV to no TV. Their response was overwhelming. Many parents said that the first two weeks were the hardest. The majority of TV free parents said that chores did increase for a short time, but eventually seemed to be lighter than before. Something else you might find hard to believe is that nearly 70% of parents surveyed thought their children got along better with each other after they got rid of TV (TV Turnoff Network).
Also, in more than 200 different essays included with the survey parents mentioned their TV free children possessed much longer attention spans than before. This translates into all sorts of possibilities for your child. Generally the television is turned on out of habit as a babysitter, to fill free time, and/or to relieve boredom. However, your children will quickly learn how to amuse themselves once they realize no one or nothing else is going to be constantly entertaining them. One mother in the survey offers this advice: "Be patient. If you can live through 20 minutes of whining, your children WILL find something to do." Another interesting figure is that academically the survey showed that 51% of TV free children got all or mostly all A’s in school (TV Turnoff Network). Getting rid of TV encourages your child to read more. Learning to love reading at a young age is priceless, and something that will continually benefit your children in all areas throughout their lives.
Furthermore, you will never hear a grown child reminisce about all that wonderful time he or she spent in front of the TV with you. One of the greatest gifts you can give your children is teaching them how to live their own lives and not live vicariously through televison. You can get all pumped up watching football all day long and love every minute of it, but the truth is your personal metabolism is even lower when you watch TV than when you’re sleeping (TV Turnoff Network). Not to mention how much television encourages unhealthy eating habits, and facilitates lack of exercise. This is encouragement we don’t need considering we live in a nation that has outstanding and increasing levels of obesity in youth and adults.
I personally got rid of my television when I moved out of my parents house at 18. My only regret is that I could have saved myself a lot of heartache in high school if only I’d gotten rid of it sooner. As an adolescent female in high school I suffered from something that is often called Beautiful People Syndrome. Jerry Mander, in his book The Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, describes this syndrome saying, “You begin to believe, or expect, regular people to act, behave, and look like television stars. Does TV imitate life, or does life imitate TV, or does both happen? Television images portray people as beautiful, smart, wealthy, quick-witted, creative, instantly compelling, and exciting” (217). I watched television every evening for 1-3 hours after school. I was bombarded by a body image that I now know is nearly impossible to acquire naturally.
I was a normal every day teenage girl. However, television had convinced me otherwise. Myself and most other girls I knew believed that no matter what we looked like we certainly didn’t look good enough unless we had the following body characteristics: tall, rail thin, large breasts, clear complexions, and natural overwhelming sex appeal. Most of the girls I knew in high school suffered from an eating disorder at the most and depression at the least. A best friend of mine was hospitalized after dangerously dropping below 90 pounds. She was 5'6" and disgusted with herself whenever she couldn’t fit into a size 0. I never developed an eating disorder, but I was constantly aware of the space I was inadequately filling. If you were to look at my entire high school you would see that not one of us looked like a supermodel. If not from television where did we get this idea that we had to be perfect. Nobody we knew or saw in real life was perfect. So why did we think we had to be perfect? Television isn’t the only media feeding us this unrealistic image of self, but it happens to be our most popular drug of choice so to speak.
What happened to my friends and me in high school happens everyday in high schools everywhere. You might think I went to a big high school in a place like southern California that’s renowned for focusing on body image. On the contrary, I went to high school in Nikiski, Alaska, and my graduating class had 52 people in it. Can we help but notice that television is a influential presence in so nearly every single American home regardless of age, race, or income? And if that is so obvious why can’t we see its correlation with the self-confidence issues affecting teens today that also seem to know no boundaries. Any anthropologist will tell you no personality characteristic is universally and inherently human. However, it is understandable that adolescent children would feel unsure of themselves. It is not understandable that they would dislike themselves completely unless that is what they are somehow being taught. If you analyze data compiled by the US Census Bureau you will see the average child spends more time in front of the television annually than they do in school (US Census Bureau). Getting rid of your television won’t take away all the turmoil and trial of adolescence, but it’s a huge step towards acquiring a more positive, healthy, and realistically ideal self-image.
I saw those benefits and more within 6 months of eliminating TV from my life. Suddenly I was surrounded by normal people like me, and not digitally mastered and airbrushed pictures of perfection. My self confidence began to return, and with it a much more realistic and rewarding outlook on life. I quit feeling guilty about not being perfect, and started being healthier instead. Without television I became more active physically, and I widened my social circle. When I had television I would often look at something someone had made or painted and think, “Wow. That’s cool. I wish I could make something like that. I wish I had talent like that.” Now I think, “Wow. That’s cool. I bet I could learn to do that.” I try new things more often now, and boredom is not even a word in my vocabulary. My relationships have also improved since I got rid of TV. I find time to call old friends and family just to catch up. In the evenings I talk and hang out with my friends or my boyfriend. We play games together, we cook together, we talk, and we try to be creative. I’ve never once regretted not having a television. However, I can’t count the number of times I’ve been thankful I was out doing something, and not sitting on the couch watching TV. I never feel as though I miss out on any news. Through a combination of reading the newspaper, and intelligent conversation I feel just as informed if not more informed than most of my peers. I’m more likely now to think things through because I’m not being bombarded by a new idea instantly. I can take time to formulate my own opinions rather than immediately adopting the opinion of the media.
I know the change I experienced involved more than just getting rid of television, but that’s definitely what got the ball rolling. Since I was older by the time I eliminated TV I had to work to break the unhealthy habits it had helped me build. Some of the hardest ones to break included eating unhealthily and snacking a lot, not being creative or thinking for myself, not being very self-disciplined, not being active, not exercising my brain, and not thinking about real world issues. When you look back to the first paragraph of this essay I talk about a lot of the things parents worry about in life. I would say watching TV negatively affected me in every child-related element in that paragraph. I would also say that not watching TV has positively affected me in all those same ways and more as an adult.
It’s a common wish of many people to once again see the world through the eyes of a child. Unfortunately, if you look through the eyes of children today it’s likely that all you’ll see is a television screen. I only wish that my parents had actively helped me see more than that when I was younger. I feel that a lot of my childhood took place in front of the TV.
I felt a very limited amount of my television viewing was positive. However, I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t a fan of Sesame Street. Some educational programs can be worthy of watching, and can even have slightly positive effects if they’re viewed sparingly. However, many people including myself, find that regulation tends to be harder than elimination when it comes to television. One of the alternatives you can consider is renting educational videos from the library. With educational videos you cut out unhealthy advertising aimed at your kids, and you eliminate the hard to avoid, incidental viewing of inappropriate programs, commercials, and previews. Also, if you try it and realize you can’t find time to make it to the library it’s not that big of a deal. Your kids are well on their way to becoming pros at entertaining themselves.
A wise man once said, “Be the change you want to see in the world” (Mahatma Gandi). So push the power button on the TV at your house, and be the change for you and your children. After all, they are the leaders of tomorrow.
Appendix
I’m including a list of helpful hints on how to go about eliminating TV from your household:
Check out websites and discussion forums such as TV Turnoff Network to talk to other families about their experience.
Definitely eliminate televisions from bedrooms, kitchens, dining rooms, etc . . . Cut it down to one TV if you intend to watch videos. Put the remaining TV in a hard to get to place.
Go cold turkey (kids adapt quickly-if you can handle it).
If you can’t go cold turkey try phasing out cable and then network.
“Fix” the TV so that it only shows videos, and then limit videos.
Have a yard sale or get in on a friend’s yard sale, and sell your TV and old tapes/DVD’s all at once.
Leave the TV behind whenever you move.
Regulate yourself to only videos available at the library, and make going out to the movies a special family time.
Don’t start off with failure as an option. Make a decision and stick to it.
Make an effort to be patient with yourself and your children at least for the first couple weeks.
Make a list of things you enjoy doing and put it somewhere visible.
Take pictures of your kids doing active and creative things, and make those visible.
Go for walks when you’d normally watch your favorite show. Get your heart pumping a little.
Keep a journal of your experience. It’s inspiring and makes for interesting future reading.
Tell people what you’re doing. You may find way more support than you think.
Take a minute to think about how you really want to fill your time.
When we watch TV we forget that cherished memories are often made. They don’t just make themselves. Try to think of memories you’d like, or you’d like your kids to have. Then make them happen.
Works Cited
Mander, Jerry. The Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. New York: Harper Collins, 2002.
Troppe, Sheila H. Television and Teens. Course home page. (1984) Dept. Of Humanities. Yale- New Haven Teachers Institute. 5 Nov. 2005
<http://yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1984/5/84.05.03.x.html>TV Turnoff Network. home page. (2005). Non-profit organization. 9 Nov. 2005
<http://tvturnoff.org/index.html>U.S. Census Bureau. Statistical Abstract of the United States . (2005) Central Oregon Community College Library, Bend, OR. 26 Oct. 2005 <http://www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical‑abstract‑04.html>
© 2005, Chelsea Phegley - reprinted with student author's permission
WR 122 Fall 2005 Syllabus | Course Plan | Student Writing | WR 122 Course Home Page
You are here: WR
122
Student
Writing - Fall
2005
URL of
this
webpage:
http://web.cocc.edu/cagatucci/classes/wr122/StudentWriting.htm
Last Updated:
21 October 2009
Copyright © 1997 -
2005, Cora Agatucci, Professor of English
Humanities Department, Central Oregon
Community College
Please address comments on web contents & links to:
If you have technical website errors or problems, please contact: