Americans have embraced debate since before we were a country. The idea that we would provide reasoned support for any position that we took is what made us different from the English king. Our love of debate came from the old country, and embedded itself in our culture as a defining value. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that the affinity for debate is still strong, and finds itself as a regular feature of the mainstream media. However, if Deborah Tannen of the New York Times is correct, our understanding of what it means to argue may be very different from what it once was; a “culture of critique” has developed within our media, and it relies on the exclusive opposition of two conflicting positions (Tannen). In her 1994 editorial, titled “The Triumph of the Yell”, Tannen claims that journalists, politicians and academics treat public discourse as an argument. Furthermore, she attempts to persuade her readers that this posturing of argument as a conflict leads to a battle, not a debate, and that we would be able to communicate the truth if this culture were not interfering. This paper will discuss the rhetorical strategies that Tannen utilizes, outline the support given in her editorial, and why her argument is less convincing than it should be. Firstly , Tannen introduces the term “culture of critique” by beginning three successive paragraphs with the term so that the reader will not forget it. Tannen then identifies the problem presented by the “culture of critique”, that is, a tendency to attack the person making an argument, or misrepresenting the issue, rather than arguing against their position itself. She points out that instead of listening to reason, people who are caught up in the culture of critique debate as i... ... middle of paper ... ...dibility by mentioning that journalists and television producers defer to her as an authority, but she does not make a case for being an expert. Moreover, she maintains a detached tone for a majority of the editorial, as an appeal to her authority on the matter, but switches to and involved perspective when giving illustration. This would otherwise be acceptable, except that the illustration is given in place of supporting theory or fully supported argument. To that end, Tannen’s argument would be much more persuasive if she had articulated her position with an even tone, and avoided sensationalism when giving examples. Works Cited Robinson, David. “Web Page of Deborah Tannen.” Georgetown College - Georgetown University. 28 Feb 1998. 15 Jun 2008 Tannen, Deborah. “The Triumph of the Yell.” New York Times 14 Jan 1994.
There are many examples of strong argumentative writing in the second half of the book Everyday Arguments. Topics of writing examples include today’s college student, the internet, sports, earning your living, diet, and reading popular culture. Of the writings, two stood out as notable works to be critiqued; Who is a Teacher, and Thoughts on Facebook.
Tannen states, “In the argument culture, criticism, attack, or opposition are the predominant if not the only ways of responding to people or ideas. I use the phrase “culture of critique,” to capture this aspect. “Critique in the sense is not a general term for analysis or interpretation but rather a synonym for criticism.” Tannen states that she is calling attention to and calling into question the inherent dangers of the argument culture, however her article does not discuss an approachable strategy that would solve this social
The critical case study to the novel establishes a definition of a type of critical response, and then gives as close an example that fits that mode of criticism—BORING! First, the book has these forms of criticism laid out contiguously, as if they occurred only spatially and not temporally. This flattened and skewed representation of critical approaches, taking an argument out of its context (an academic debate) and uses it as if it were a pedagogical tool. Just as criticism in many ways takes the life out of the text, by dissecting it and making it a part of an argument, the “model critical approach” takes the life out of criticism.
Are there more than two sides to an argument? The Argument Culture was written by Deborah Tannen (Tannen, 1998). She would have us believing that there are more sides to an argument than just two. Professor Deborah Tannen is a best-selling author. She is a professor of linguistics at Georgetown University. She has written many books, articles, and educational essays. She would say that high-tech communication pulls us apart. She also states that argument culture shapes who we are. Tannen also believes that we can end the argument culture by looking at all sides of the story or situation. She seems to be very knowledgeable on the subject.
In her article “The Argument Culture,” professor of linguistics and author Deborah Tannen believes that we have collapsed into a society where arguing, criticizing, and debating is the solution to every problem. Tannen introduces this idea of society as the “argument culture”. The argument culture is a way of life that settles on the belief that the best way to get things done is to oppose everything. The way we freely and blatantly express problems is one of our society’s greatest strengths. People tend to express their beliefs and automatically expect someone to reply with their own view, therefore turning into an argument as to why each side is right and the other is wrong. We tend to look at both sides of an argument to side with the one
Smithson, Robert, Eugenie Tsai, Cornelia H. Butler, Thomas E. Crow, and Alexander Alberro. Robert Smithson. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. Web. 15 Nov. 2011
According to Aristotle, a speaker could frame any debate using three approaches: an appeal to logic, an appeal from credibility, or an appeal to emotions. All speakers and writers use the tripartite approach to rhetoric in varying degrees and ultimately the audience judges their effectiveness in the context presented. In America, few topics are as hotly debated as that of undocumented migration, and it can be difficult to pick through the partisan and often vitriolic rhetoric in order to come to a rational conclusion. Politicians frame the debate using elements of the American mythos. While the evidence they present to back their conclusions may be factual, it necessarily omits the full truth in order to present a partisan political front. As such, politicians predominantly rely on the reader or listener’s emotional satisfaction. And even the most scrupulous journalists—meant to impart objective fact to the public—are not free from personal bias, making the discourse even more convoluted. In analyzing three prominent voices in the immigration debate, US president Obama, journalist Sonia Nazario, and Arizona congressman J.D. Hayworth, we can evaluate the effectiveness of the different rhetorical approaches by whether or not they reach their intended audiences. Nazario fulfills her journalistic raison d’être by succeeding at objectivity, while Obama and Hayworth as politicians succeed by lying by omission in speeches and in writing in order to pursue policy goals and appease supporters.
Rottenberg, A.R. & Winchell, D. H (2012). Elements of Argument: a text and reader (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s
The presidential debate was an event where most of the population not only of United Stated of America but the whole world was waiting anxiously for. The first of the three presidential debates was developed in Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY. The first debate drew a record of the audience being one of the most watched debated in the history of United States of America. Some people watched the debate support and cheer one of the candidates, other to clarify to whom they should vote for. In this rhetorical analysis, the purpose is to establish some examples of ethos, logos, and pathos of each on the candidates.
During the debate, we covered all three elements of the rhetorical appeals: pathos, logos and ethos. In the beginning, Jiale talked about the Second Amendment, stating that United States citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. She then applied this concept with a historical event of the independence war with Britain. From referring to the history, this established the ethos of our group. Audience knew that we have done research about the topic and our arguments are reliable. During the debate, we paid close attention to other
* The Aims of Argument. 4th ed Ed.Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. New York:McGraw Hill,2003, 352-355.
Wilhoit (2009) explains building an argument is a complex task that does not require adhering to a specific rules and methods prescribed to you throughout your high school career. Although they certainly have a place in arguments in that they provide the infrastructure, the key premised to building an academic argument is understanding and establishing the rhetorical situation. It will give you an understanding of who the writer and the audience is, what is the subject or topic, the reason or occasion and finally the purpose of why the argument it being written (p.1-4). In this essay we will take a step by step look at how to construct a reflective argument in response to Michael Hardt’s “Are we capable of Democracy” argument in Examined Life.
A mere question is how Tannen pulls the reader into her article titled “The Argument Culture.” Deborah Tannen uses multiple rhetorical devices such as language, logos, and imagery to explain in depth the “adversarial mindset” plaguing America and shows us her solution in the article “The Argument Culture”. Tannen wanted to inform Americans how argument based we truly are and persuade us to make change. Like I stated earlier Tannen begins this process by placing a question in our minds, “Balance. Debate. Listening to both sides. Who could question these Noble American traditions” (Tannen 403)? Tannen then structures her article to develop understanding of the concept among the uninformed. Ethos, Pathos, and Logos also play a key role in the description of the culture, but Tannen adds in real life examples and imagery to create mental
“What is Critique?” by Michel Foucault contains explanations for why we are governed in the way we are, the accompanying want to not be governed so much or at all, and to finally be governed not because we want to but because we consider the consequences for doing otherwise and decide to not rebel against authority. (In “What is Critique?”, Foucault refers to the French people when he means “we” but his essay is often relevant to and expanded to the entire Western world and culture.) Foucault defines being governed as “a certain way of thinking, speaking and acting, a certain relationship to what exists, to what one knows, to what one does, a relationship to society, to culture and also a relationship to others” and he states that there is a critical attitude of this that forms out of rebellion to the way we are being governed as well as it exists indefinitely in perpetuity to it (42). Put more simply, the critical attitude exists alongside our way of being governed and the critical attitude is as dependent upon our way of being governed as much as our way of being governed is as dependent upon the critical attitude. This critical attitude appears as a reaction to “modernity” also known as a prevailing attitude that came into being due to the Enlightenment in post-dark ages times. Furthermore, he sees much of who we are or have become as something that has been governed into us (as well as he alludes to a power and knowledge dichotomy he will discuss later). Foucault argues that this is the foundation of the critical attitude and he states that the main purpose of his essay is to define criticism, cause hi...
According to Stephan Feuchtwang, early British social anthropology sought “knowledge of total systems or structures from small-scale social units by direct personal observation with as little participation as possible” (1973:72). By applying minimal and often misconstrued knowledge imbued with personal biases to complex social systems, early anthropologists left much of their proposed evidence up to assumption. Using comparative methods, many early anthropologists focused on unilineal evolution and classified societies as progressing through stages from primitive to civilized. Wrought with racism, misunderstanding, and assumption, these types of studies continually reinforced misconceptions of the racial other as less civilized, primitive,