For this assignment, I chose an article from the Resolutions folder, the Concurrent Resolution, Apologizing for the
enslavement and racial segregation of African-Americans. In this article,
the author is giving details of what happened to African Americans after slavery
and how the fight is not over yet. While he is apologizing in this piece, the
author does note that an apology does not erase what happened. “Whereas an apology for centuries of brutal
dehumanization and injustices cannot erase the past, but confession of the
wrongs committed and a formal apology to African- Americans will help bind the
wounds of the Nation that are rooted in slavery and can speed racial healing
and reconciliation and help the people of the United States understand the past
and honor the history of all people of the United States;” (Harkin paragraph
16). This article gives distinct details about what African Americans have been
dealing with since slavery and how they are still struggling. Throughout the
article, the author discusses particular events that happened in our history
and how, no matter what apology is made, we cannot undo Slavery.
Lazere’s article, Viewpoint, Bias
and Fairness: From Cocksure Ignorance to Thoughtful Uncertainty, gives many
definitions of ideas that are used throughout criticism and writing in general.
The first definition given in the article, partisan viewpoint, which is
defined as a viewpoint siding with a particular party of ideology, seemed to be
relevant while reading Harkin’s article. Harkin is not exactly siding with
African Americans, but he is giving explicit details about their hardship
during and after slavery. Lazere introduces many terms in his article, but skepticism
is one that stood out to me. Skepticism is defined in the article as “the
philosophical doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible and that inquiry
must be a process of doubting in order to acquire approximate or relative
certainty” (Lazere 125). I felt that this was an important aspect because while
reading this article, if the author’s ideas in the article do not agree with the
readers point of view, they will become skeptical of the article.
With that, I also think primary
certitude is important. This is defined as a “psychological term for the
mindset of people who are fixed in absolute beliefs so dogmatically, without
recognizing their own bias, that they cannot bear to have their beliefs
questioned or doubted” (Lazere 126). People may have this attitude and not even
realize it is affecting their view of things, while on the other hand, can
easily see this bias in others. Critics need to be fair-minded in the delivery
of their articles, and present both sides of the story. Pertaining to Harkin’s
article, I believe that people can read it and feel for African Americans, or
they can feel that this article is pushing too much into the topic. Because of
their bias opinions on the subject, their take away from this article can range
from either of these opinions.
Corbett and Eberly’s The Elements
of Reasoning; Becoming a Citizen Critic, discusses what a citizen critic
is, how this affects our ability to argue in a public sphere. “Becoming a
citizen critic is a matter of habit; like reasoning itself, it is a matter of
habitual practice” (Corbett/Eberly 122). The article gives the reader diversions
of reasoning section, where it offers critics a way to critique and examine without
attacking the author. One of the ways discussed is pandering. “People are said
to pander to their audiences when
they use emotional appeals as diversionary tactics or scare tactics”
(Corbett/Eberly 127). In Harkin’s article, I believe he is pandering to the
audience’s values.
“In a democracy, rhetoric
as the actualizer of potential depends on citizens who are able to imagine
themselves as agents of action, rather than just spectators or consumers”
(Corbett/ Eberly 131). Corbett and Eberly state in their article, “we must
invoke ad well as address democratic audiences”. I believe by that they mean to
bring up the issue and give reason for the audience to change it. Corbett and Eberly are saying that it is important for the audience to be able to walk away and feel the need to change something. With Harkin's slavery article, I believe he wants his readers to walk away with the need to change how African American's are viewed.
Works cited:
"Concurrent Resolution Passed by U.S. Senate." Federal Sentencing Reporter 16.5 (2004): 360. Web.
Corbett, Edward P. J., and Rosa A. Eberly. The Elements of Reasoning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000. Print.
Lazere, Donald. “Viewpoint, Bias, and Fairness: From Cocksure Ignorance to Thoughtful Uncertainty.” In Reading and Writing for Civic Literacy: The Critical Citizen’s Guide to Argumentative Rhetoric. Boulder, CO: Paradigm P, 2005. 125-38. Print.
The more I consider the biases and subsequent rhetorical fallacies committed by would-be citizen critics, as discussed by Lazere, Corbett and Eberly, the more I wonder how policy argument can avoid such biases. Policy argument is inherently assertions that some sort of social change needs to be enacted by some group, i.e. the intended audience. By asserting that change needs to occur, it seems almost impossible for bias to stay out of the picture. How can someone argue for something without offering a perspective? These articles made me consider Michelle Alexander's "The New Jim Crow" further than I had previously and I was forced to come to conclusion that her argument is heavily biased. Normally this would make me cringe because I would need to then deem her argument as fallacious, but I realized that having a perspective doesn't ruin an assertion. It's when the bias overcomes your ability to make a solidly fair case with the appropriate amount of evidence supporting your claim while still respecting the other side's right to make its own case. So while Michelle Alexander's argument may be biased, it can still be fair so long as she treats the rhetorical situation and opposing arguments with respect and creates an argument of sound value and reasoning.
ReplyDeleteSkepticism is a significant term that Donald Lazere points out in his article, not only because it is what people develop by reading differing viewpoints from there own, but is also what drives people to develop their own biases. It's important for authors to recognize and acknowledge there skepticism, and in turn their biases, in order to relate with their opponents. This helps opponents to empathize with the author. It's also important for the author to recognize, address, and attempt to understand the possible skepticism of the opponent in order to empathize better with them.
ReplyDeleteEnjoyed reading!