Month: December 2020

Max Norton

Writing and Culture

Fall 2020

In the first presidential debate, Trump attacked his opposing viewpoints. The only issue? They weren’t Biden’s. With the current state of American politics, radicalized views are seen as the standard for their respective political parties. But as represented by the countless registered republicans likely casting their votes for Biden this November, and Biden’s repeated opposition to more radical policy, this is not the case. 

Trump and Pence do this to present the Biden campaign in a bad light, trying to convince voters they are radical and unreasonable. Fish claims that “Political Gurus” are “Convinced that an audience’s attention span lasts only a few seconds.” What he means by this is that the truth is unimportant in this matter and that politicians say things to sway voters with the expectation that they won’t actually fact check them. The more you stick to your talking points, the more the argument becomes about those talking points and the way you present them then the actual empirical content of those talking points. It’s not about what’s better or worse, what’s right or wrong. It’s about who structures the better argument. 

The reason they can do this is because in most cases people aren’t going to change their political stances. People have been content with their views for a lifetime, and those views are usually rooted in where they grew up or who they were raised by. If one is raised by conservatives in rural Alabama, they almost always won’t have the same political views as a person raised by progressives in Vermont. The only reason people change their minds is new information, not a new presentation of the information they already know. 

“The more practiced you become in rehearsing the talking points on your side, the less likely it is that persuasion will occur, that you will change your mind. A change of mind requires that you hear something new and are provoked by it to say (if only to yourself), “I never thought of that.” But you, like your opponent, have already thought of everything, have heard it all.” (Fish)

What Fish presents as a “change of mind” doesn’t occur because of an internal revelation, it occurs because a person is exposed to something new. Thus, all a person needs to be convinced to vote for a political candidate is that they oppose their already existent views. 

As a result of this, the American public has gravitated toward electing officials based off of their promises and not their actions. It almost seems like the American political system is a 4 party one rather than a 2 party one. On the left we have democrats and democratic socialists, and on the right, we have republicans and the platform Trump caters to. The outer two go into elections decided on their candidate. The inner two are fair game, and thus the target audience of the politicians. Whoever can convince them that they are less extreme wins the vote. 

American presidential elections, such as this ongoing one, are decided by a handful of states at most. Thus, it’s not about gaining America’s vote, it’s about gaining Florida’s vote. Texas’ vote. Pennsylvania’s vote. Candidates appeal to certain key demographics, not the US as a whole.  This past presidential election, the major factor in Biden swinging the election was taking back the “rust belt” states that won the election for Trump in 2016. The Biden campaign focused heavily on the demographic of the blue-collar middle-class worker that could relate to Biden, and this was key in securing his victory. Political polarization is major, but it is not unsolvable if you have the right argument. 

Reading Summary 4

In his Essay “Universalist Grandeur and Analytic Philosophy”, Richard Rorty breaks down analytical philosophy and its relation to modern politics. He claims that “Nowadays, serious political argument is about how this goal might be reached, not about whether that goal is the correct one to pursue.” Rorty is saying that political objectives and values are the same-but the differences between political opinions stem from course of action instead of direction. Rorty than compares and contrasts analytical and nonanalytical philosophy. Rorty says that “The difference between these two broad areas of interest is highlighted by the fact that the split between “analytic” philosophy and “nonanalytic” philosophy (the kind of philosophy sometimes called “continental”) has little relevance to books that touch on political issues.” He is asserting that in the public eye, analytical philosphers, such as Frank Ramsey and Bertrand Russell, inadvertently connect their macrophilosophy to modern political issues and their writings are applicable to these issues, whereas people think that nonanalytical philosophers such as Hegel and Heidegger have work that is more irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Rorty argues that all of these philosophers are useful in addressing the broader concept of humanity, which is relevant in every argument we have. 

Rorty, Richard. “Universalist Grandeur and Analytic Philosophy.” The Hedgehog Review, 11 Oct. 2004, hedgehogreview.com/issues/meritocracy-and-its-discontents/articles/universalist-grandeur-and-analytic-philosophy. 

Reading Summary 5

In George Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language”, he argues that most people use language as an instrument and weapon for their own devices, but in reality, it should be used for “natural growth.” He explains that “the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes”, and that “individual writers” are not the ones responsible for creating this. Orwell goes on to assert that while they may not be responsible for the existence of this decline, they are responsible for contributing to the reinforcement of this narrative. After explaining the issues and “ugliness” with this newfound form of writing, Orwell breaks down the rest of his paper into the consequences of this writing: Dying Metaphors, Operators or Verbal False Limbs, Pretentious Diction, and Meaningless words. Metaphors no longer are used without a loss of vividness. Sentences are unnecessarily elongated to portray symmetry. Fancy words are used to falsely portray elegance. Often these words are just there and carry no substance to the writing. Orwell says that these issues are curable and that it is necessary for individuals to change their writing style in an effort to accomplish this. 

Orwell, George. “Politics and the English Language.” George Orwell: Politics and the English Language, Horizan, Apr. 1946, www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/. 

Reading Summary 6

In his essay “How to Talk to Friends and Family Who Share Conspiracy Theories”, Charlie Warzel argues that those who subscribe to fringe theories such as qAnon, pizzagate, and anti-vaxxer ideologies are dangerous and need to be addressed. Despite the election results, people will still believe in the election conspiracy theories. Warzel makes this argument in the form of a guide on how to talk to and help friends and family who hold these views. He explains the importance of questioning sources of information, using past theories that were disproven, respect, and patience, as well as knowing when to end the conversation. 

Warzel, Charlie. “How to Talk to Friends and Family Who Share Conspiracy Theories.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 25 Oct. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/opinion/qanon-conspiracy-theories-family.html. 

This class was something I could look forward to. (I’m not blowing steam I assure you). With everything going on in the world, it felt like most of my other classes, though often interesting also, just kind of piled on the work and expected the experience to be a byproduct of that. Because of the structure and grading system, I felt like this class was something I could go to without the pressure of “doing the right thing” every day over and over again, and because of that the critical thinking that I did as a result of this course was a lot more beneficial and productive

Listening to the discussions about the styles of rhetoric and persuasive writing was something I got a lot out of. I know I’m typically not the most outspoken, but I really did gain alot from hearing about the reasons why we write what we write. I thought that the readings that were sent in slack were super interesting. Fish, in particular “political arguments”, especially stood out to me alot as I felt that his message in general was extremely relevant to todays climate. What he says about the importance of the structure of an argument mattering more than the facts because no one is ever going to change their beliefs really resignated with me. You gain so much from thinking more about why a person says or writes what they do rather than trying to comprehend what they’re saying. 

Talking with my peers about this class was especially different from other classes because I felt that the discussion was geared towards the actual subject we were looking in to instead of just what can we do to finish x assignment. There was a lot of room for exploration instead of just following set guidelines. 

In general, I really liked how the class was focused on the topic of rhetoric. I think what is important about that in an academic setting is writing for others. Writing has always been something that I’ve been pretty shy about. It’s not something that I’ve ever shared beyond my teachers. It’s something that’s revealing, and it’s difficult for me to open up in that way. Especially now, when that opening up is going to be on a screen for the foreseeable future. The idea of writing as persuasion helps enforce the idea of writing for an audience in my mind. I think that this class touched on the important areas of academic writing in ways I didn’t expect. For an intro writing class, I was expecting a reinforcement of the things we’ve been taught over and over again for years, but this class really helped me explore a new avenue beyond basic writing structure.

RWD Reflection: http://mbn.georgetown.domains/uncategorized/rwd-reflection/

Ethnography Reflection: http://mbn.georgetown.domains/uncategorized/ethnography-reflection/

Commonplace Reflection:

Commonplace Reflection

Reading Summary Reflection:

Reading Summaries Reflection

For me, the RWD’s were really helpful in breaking down the components necessary for my rhetorical skills to evolve. What I liked most about the RWDs was the outline prescribed because I felt like as I kept filling them out I thought more and more about “conventional” writing techniques and why we use them. Tracing back to the bell hooks reading, I thought that the RWD’s really emphasized the importance of exploring the reasoning behind certain things that we take for granted in writing. We’re all taught in middle school how to structure a five-paragraph essay, how to format a paragraph or quote, but we don’t really look into why these methods would be the most effective and persuasive. 

What the ethnography exercise has helped me realize most about myself as a writer is that the quality of my writing and will to write is very inconsistent. I feel like sometimes I’ll sit down for hours and nothing can come to my mind, and sometimes I just have the urge to spit something out on paper (or screen, more often). I thought it was interesting to reflect on what was going on around me as I was writing. While I didn’t notice a major effect on my writing based on the location, background noise, etc, I liked looking back and seeing what could have been the factor that resulted in writing better or worse. I feel that what has developed most about my writing this semester is that I can do much better with writing independently from a text. I think that in high school almost every assignment was significantly longer and was pretty much just assessing my interpretation of the texts we were reading. Especially in my Philosophy and Theology classes, I feel like I was tasked with illustrating my own thought more than I ever have before. What the ethnographic study has helped me with is understanding that I can’t force myself to write, at least not well. This can be difficult with deadlines, but I think I need to be a little more patient with my writing process in order to maximize my outcome. 

I think what was most significant for me with the commonplace wasn’t evaluating and analyzing the passages, but finding them. Usually, I would re-read something to find something for my commonplace, and that often resulted in thinking of the passage from another point of view. I liked looking back and thinking about the writer’s rhetorical strategy and I feel like that helped develop my own writing. 

I feel like the reading summaries project helped me develop a greater understanding of the intentions and purposes of the writers that I am reading. What stands out to me most about this concept is the idea of “Writing is the expression of thoughts and emotions onto paper”. I think that putting myself in the shoes of the writer I am reading both improves my comprehension and writing skills. Every writer has a different tone and direction. Comparing different genres and levels of writing is comparing apples to oranges. The reading summaries really did help me understand the intricacies of rhetoric and persuasive writing.