Sunday, April 18, 2021

Final Paper Workshop

 

Final Paper Workshop Worksheet

Many of you will be crafting a close reading or research paper for your final projects. As I have said before, if you are looking for general guidance about what I tend to look for in such a paper, remember the Four Habits of Argumentative Writing which we discussed in an earlier workshop: 1. Have a strong clear thesis (a strong thesis is defined as one for which you can imagine an intelligent opposition), 2. Define key or idiosyncratic terms and use those terms in a way that remains consistent with your definition, 3. Support your claim with evidence (from the text itself if you are producing a close reading, and remember, a page without a quote has often lost its way, but a quote too long confuses your point, so always quote just what you need and never more), and 4. Anticipate and attempt to circumvent key objections to your claim. A handout on the Four Habits is available on our blog in case you want a more detailed discussion. Here is a link to the handout: https://peaceinpiecessfai.blogspot.com/2021/04/four-habits-of-argumentative-writing.html

This workshop exercise is designed to help you turn general observations and impressions about a text or a topic into the beginnings of a paper that exhibits all the Four Habits of Argumentative Writing. I am providing these instructions to enable students who missed the in-class workshop to get the benefit of this process, but also for those of you who have changed your mind about your topic since the workshop but would still benefit from the workshop process to sharpen your new focus. Doing the full workshop in a classroom setting usually takes about two hours, and I recommend you set aside a couple hours to go through these exercises on your own as well. I am including elaborate instructions for each of the many steps, and I hope you will continue to use these exercises in the future to help you with writing in other courses or in other contexts in which you seek to offer complex arguments for sophisticated audiences.

Exercise 1. BRAINSTORM (20 Minutes)

The first exercise of the Workshop is a straightforward brainstorming exercise. In it, I ask you to set an alarm to give you between 15 and 20 minutes. In that time, you should write down between 20 and 30 claims about your chosen text, topic, or question. Don't worry whether the claims are "deep," but it IS important that you only write down claims that you think are both TRUE and INTERESTING about your text. Do not lose patience with the exercise. Continue through to the end of the time. You should never stop writing during the brainstorming process. Don’t let yourself drift, keep writing or tapping at the keyboard. Don’t censor yourself, you may be surprised by the connections and observations you find yourself making. Try out various forms of the same claim, some stronger than others. Try on different ideas for size. Experiment a little, don’t be afraid to contradict yourself at this stage. If you start feeling bored, it is because you are being boring. You could spend a year making observations about a box in your cupboard, you can surely fill a page with truthful observations about a complex text that interests you! There are no mistakes. Let yourself tell yourself what you didn’t notice yourself noticing before.

Exercise 2. EDIT (20 minutes)

You have 25 or so claims before you. Look them over. Do you actually believe all of them to be true? Some more than others (if yes, what does that tell you)? Are some more important than others (if yes, what does that tell you)? If some of the claims say similar or related things, place them together and think about the strongest versions of the claim. Some of the true observations you make may seem like candidates for a thesis you could argue for in the paper, other claims could become a thesis if they were sharpened a bit. Other claims may be more like data or evidence you could draw on to support a larger thesis. Think about this for a while. Often, you will want to edit your brainstorm, add a few claims that hadn’t occurred to you at first, change a few claims, either making them stronger or more qualified or even changing your mind and altering a claim more substantially. After you have done all this, PICK THE THREE BEST THESIS CANDIDATE CLAIMS from your brainstorm and edit and then write them down in their best, clearest form, 1, 2, and 3.

Exercise 3. ANTICIPATING OBJECTIONS (10 minutes)

 

Now, for each of the three thesis candidate statements you have chosen and polished up in the last exercise, I want you to come up with the strongest or most obvious objection to each thesis claim. Of course, it is easy in a way to come up with a forceful objection to ANY claim: simply deny the claim by claiming exactly the opposite. This should always be an available option – but of course, sometimes claiming the opposite of your claim will simply lead to a nonsensical utterance. Remember, if you can’t imagine an intelligent or even sane objection to your claim, then it probably is a claim too obvious to require a close reading in a long paper in the first place! Often, though, the best objection to your claim won’t be an outright denial of its truth, but an objection that the truth is more complicated that your claim or maybe that there are far more interesting things to say about the text that your claim distracts us from.  


Exercise 4. PONDERING OBJECTIONS (20 minutes)

Take a look at your three strongest thesis candidate statements and at the objections you have proposed to each. Which of the three excites you the most? Are there exciting elements of the text that are overlooked if you focus on supporting your chosen theses and objections? Can you think of a different thesis that would take you closer to the issues that excite you? Does this new thesis generate a strong objection? (Sometimes, students actually come to realize they are more excited by the implications of an objection to a thesis than to the thesis itself – if that happens to you, rejoice! Just change your objection into a new thesis candidate and craft a new objection to it. It often happens that doing a workshop exercise will change your mind about the text you are exploring – that’s not a mistake, that’s a good thing, a discovery!) It is important at this stage that you be absolutely honest with yourself. This is where it is best to do this workshop in a group setting! Be very vigilant about your favorite thesis claims and their best objections – be sure you are honest about whether a real person, a person you consider to be intelligent and sensitive, would propose the objection you have crafted to your thesis. If only a mad-man or complete ignoramus would make the objection you have proposed, this almost always means that your claim is too general or too obvious in its present form to be sufficiently strong to hold a long argumentative paper together. That tells you to make your claim more specific or to dig a bit deeper into your impressions.  

 

Exercise 5: CHOOSE! (10 minutes) 

Pick the strongest thesis and its best opposition and write them down.

Exercise 6: OUTLINE (25 minutes)

Identify three key moments in the text that seem to you to support your claim or to provide a context for talking about the salience of your chosen thesis claim. And then identify a key moment in the text that would enable you to circumvent the objection you have chosen for that claim. Ideally, you can come up with many examples of each and you will have to think deeply about the reasons to pick just three or so really powerful moments of textual support and one really interesting circumvention of a key objection. Notice that the results of Exercises 5 & 6 provide you with a first rudimentary outline for your paper, like so:

Chosen Thesis:

1. (textual/data support)

2. (textual/data support)

3. (textual/data support)

Opposition:

(textual/argumentative circumvention)

 

Exercise 7: DEFINITIONS (5 minutes)

Are there words that keep coming up over and over again during the workshop? Some of these may be commonplace words with widely accepted meanings already, but you may have found yourself using the terms in a more specific technical or idiosyncratic sense of your own. Especially if these are terms on which your reading ultimately turns, it may be necessary for you to define your usage of the terms explicitly to avoid confusion for your readers. Of course, one can’t define EVERY term without making a text unreadable, so this is an exercise about determining the few key terms you actually depend on and ensuring you are as clear as possible about what they convey.

*     *     *

What follows is a copy of the actual physical form of the worksheets I use during the in-class version of the Workshop. By all means, make copies and use it in future coursework or future argumentative writing!

Final Paper Workshop Worksheet

Final Paper: Close Reading and Research Paper Workshop Worksheet

Your Name: _______________________________________________________________

 

The Assigned Text (or object) You Are Reading Closely in Your Argument: 

 

__________________________________________________________________________

 

BRAINSTORM! Take 15 mins. or so to write down 20-30 claims about your chosen text, topic, or question. Don't worry whether the claims are "deep," just write down claims you think are TRUE and INTERESTING. Be as clear and specific as you can.


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.


10.

11.

12.

13.


14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

 

21.

 

22.

 

23.

 

24.

 

Continue on the back of the page if you like. The more claims you have to work with, the better.

 

End of page one. *     *     *     *

 

Final Paper/Close Argumentative Reading Workshop Worksheet (PART TWO: In Class)

Your Name: _______________________________________________________________________________

 

The Text (and/or Object) You Are Reading Closely in Your Argument: ___________________________

 

I. In groups of three: Discuss your BRAINSTORM and then PICK THE THREE BEST THESIS CANDIDATE CLAIMS and write them down in their best, clearest form here (Twenty-Four Minutes):

 

1.

 

2.

 

3.

 

II. Now on your own, for each of your three thesis candidate claims COME UP WITH THE STRONGEST OR MOST OBVIOUS OPPOSITION TO EACH THESIS (Ten Minutes):

1.

2.

3.

III. In NEW groups of three: Discuss your thesis candidates and their OPPOSITIONS and write down the results, reconsiderations, and re-edits here (Twenty-Four Minutes):

 

1.

 

2.

 

3.

 

IV. On your own, pick the strongest thesis and its best opposition and write them down in the template below (Five Minutes):

 

V. In NEW groups of three discuss your text/topic, thesis, opposition, and quotes/data that may support the thesis or provide a means to circumvent its objection. Also, determine whether any key terms need definitions (Thirty Minutes):

 

Thesis:

 

1. (textual/data support)

 

2. (textual/data support)

 

3. (textual/data support)

Opposition:

 

(textual/argumentative circumvention)


Terms requiring definition?

Four Habits of Argumentative Writing

For the final paper of the course you will be producing an argument based on a close reading of your chosen text. We have spent a good deal of time talking together about what it means to write persuasively and read closely (audience and intention, the Toulmin schema, four ends of argument, etc.), but as a first approximation of what I mean I am offering you four general habits of attention and writing practice, guidelines I will want you to apply to your final which should continue to be useful in future writing as well. If you can incorporate these four writing practices into your future work you will have mastered the task of producing a competent argumentative paper for just about any discipline in the humanities that would ask you for one. Incidentally, I will also say that taking these habits truly to heart goes a long way in my view toward inculcating the critical temper indispensable for good citizenship in functioning democracies in a world of diverse and contentious stakeholders with urgent shared problems. 

A First Habit

An argumentative paper will have a thesis. A thesis is a claim. It is a statement of the thing your paper is trying to show. Very often, the claim will be straightforward enough to express in a single sentence or so, and it will usually appear early on in the paper to give your readers a clear sense of the project of the paper. A thesis is a claim that is strong. A strong claim is a claim for which you can imagine an intelligent opposition. It is a claim that you feel a need to argue for. Remember, when you are producing a reading about a complex literary text like a novel, a poem, or a film the object of your argument will be to illuminate the text, to draw attention to some aspect of the wider work the text is accomplishing. Once you have determined the dimension or element in a text that you want to argue about, your opposition might consist of those who would focus elsewhere or who would draw different conclusions from your own focus. Your thesis is your paper's spine, your paper's task. As you write your papers, it is a good idea to ask yourself the question, from time to time, Does this quotation, does this argument, does this paragraph support my thesis in some way? If it doesn’t, delete it. If you are drawn repeatedly away from what you have chosen as your thesis, ask yourself whether or not this signals that you really want to argue for some different thesis.

A Second Habit

You should define your central terms, especially the ones you may be using in an idiosyncratic way. Your definitions can be casual ones, they don’t have to sound like dictionary definitions. But it is crucial that once you have defined a term you will stick to the meaning you have assigned it yourself. Never simply assume that your readers know what you mean or what you are talking about. Never hesitate to explain yourself for fear of belaboring the obvious. Clarity never appears unintelligent.

A Third Habit

You should support your claims about the text with actual quotations from the text itself. In this course you will always be analyzing texts (broadly defined) and whatever text you are working on should probably be a major presence on nearly every page of your papers. A page without quotations is often a page that has lost track of its point, or one that is stuck in abstract generalizations. This doesn't mean that your paper should consist of mostly huge block quotes. On the contrary, a block quote is usually a quote that needs to be broken up and read more closely and carefully. If you see fit to include a lengthy quotation filled with provocative details, I will expect you to contextualize and discuss all of those details. If you are unprepared to do this, or fear that doing so will introduce digressions from your argument, this signals that you should be more selective about the quotations to which you are calling attention.

A Fourth Habit

You should anticipate objections to your thesis. In some ways this is the most difficult habit to master. Remember that even the most solid case for a viewpoint is vulnerable to dismissal by the suggestion of an apparently powerful counterexample. That is why you should anticipate problems, criticisms, counterexamples, and deal with them before they arise, and deal with them on your own terms. If you cannot imagine a sensible and relevant objection to your line of argument it means either that you are not looking hard enough or that your claim is not strong enough.

 

Saturday, April 17, 2021

Individual Meetings For April 29

Thursday, April 29

Diane, 1pm-2pm

Soheil, 2pm-3pm

Helena, 3pm-4pm

(Individual Zoom invites forthcoming)

Saturday, March 20, 2021

Midterm Assignment: Precis With Toulmin Schema

You are expected to hand in a 2pp. precis with an attached Toulmin schema (hence, the assignment will likely be 3pp. total) for our next class meeting, Thursday, March 25. 

As we discussed in our workshop in our last meeting together, a "precis" is simply the concise recapitulation of a complex argument. You are expected to summarize what you take to be the argument and its essential elements for any one of the texts assigned in class from the first day to the day on which the precis is handed in. The purpose of the precis is not to argue for an interpretation of the work you choose, but to capture what you take to be the argument of the work you choose. (Needless to say, this too requires a form of interpretation, but I do hope the distinction still makes sense as far as it goes.) 

Reproducing your chosen text's argument will involve identifying what you take to be its thesis, any qualification or exceptions to that thesis, definitions of terms, supportive reasons and data, implicit warrants, and efforts to anticipate and circumvent objections. You may also want to discuss the illustrative force of metaphors and other figures, or address stylistic effects (use of pronouns, voice, etc.). 

Since so many of these elements are also at the heart of the Toulmin analysis of argument we discussed in class, I am asking that you append to your precis a simple Toulmin Schema identifying as many elements in your chosen argument as seems useful (do not worry if not all of the elements of the Schema we discussed appear to be in evidence in your chosen text, that happens all the time). 

In highly simplified terms, the Toulmin schema models an argument in terms familiar from the adversarial way arguments play out in courtrooms and similar settings. The Toulmin schema distinguishes three basic functions in an effective argument: 

I. The Claim 

a. Thesis 

b. Qualification of the thesis 

c. Exceptions to the thesis? 

II. The Support (of the Claim) 

a. Reasons 

b. Evidence 

c. Data 

d. Warrants (implicit general assumptions on which explicit reasons and conclusions depend) 

III. The Refutation (of anticipated objections to the Claim) 

a. Anticipation of Objections 

b. Efforts to Rebut or Circumvent these Objections (Note: these are not YOUR objections to the argument, but the author's effort to respond to objections they anticipate.) 

I hope the Schema will be a useful guide to organize and clarify your precis. Good luck and remember to ask me any questions that might occur to you!

Thursday, January 14, 2021

Our Syllabus, Spring 2021

 

San Francisco Art Institute | Spring 2021 | CS-301AL-01

“Peace in Pieces”: Histories, Theories, and Practices of Violence and Nonviolent Resistance

Instructor: Dale Carrico; e-mail: dcarrico@sfai.edu; ndaleca@gmail.com

When/Where: Thursdays, 1-3.45pm: Online (ONL- CS1)

Course Blog: https://peaceinpiecessfai.blogspot.com/

Rough Basis for Grade: Attendance/Participation, 15%; In-Class Presentation, 15%; Reading Responses, 15%, Midterm Precis/Toulmin, 3-4pp., 15%; Symposium Presentation, 10%; Final Paper, 8-10pp., 30% (subject to contingencies)

Course Description:

The arc of the moral universe is a longing... and it bends from just us. In this course we will read canonical texts in the theory, history, and practice of nonviolent resistance and world-making. This course is provoked and inspired by stories and strategies of reconciliation connected to traditions of nonviolent politics. But is this "non-violence" simply an alternative, at hand, or is it instead another fraught artifact we are making together under duress? We will take seriously and look critically at the subtle and structural violences that ineradicably shape everyday life. We will also consider testimonies to violation, in a variety of textual forms, while simultaneously considering the cultural ideals of persuasion which often accompany definitions of violence and its limits. We will both take up and take on the many paradoxes of nonviolent activism and violent order that complicate the teaching of what passes for peace: The State as site of violence and alter-violence. Nonviolence, interfaith dialogue, and freethinking. Spontaneity and training. Democracy as assembly, resistance, occupation, and abolition. Prerequisite: Critical Studies A (CS-300) Satisfies: Critical Theory B, Critical Studies Elective, Global Cultures, Liberal Arts elective

Provisional Schedule of Meetings: 
 

Week One | Thursday, January 21 | Introductions 

 

Week Two | Thursday, January 28 | Consent of the Governed

The Declaration of Independence (US)

Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

Supplemental Texts:

Howard Zinn, Introduction to Thoreau on Civil Disobedience and Reform

Henry David Thoreau, A Plea for Captain John Brown

 

Week Three | Thursday, February 4 | Thoreau and Gandhi

Karuna Mantena, The Power of Nonviolence

Logan Rimel, My "Nonviolent" Stance Was Met With Heavily Armed Men

Correspondence of Count Leo Tolstoy with M. K. Gandhi

M. K. Gandhi, The Doctrine of the Sword

M.K. Gandhi, The Meaning and Practice of Ahimsa

 

Week Four | Thursday, February 11 | Suffragettes

Screen film, "Iron-Jawed Angels," dir. Katja von Garnier

Supplemental Texts:

Emily Thornberry, We Owe It To the Suffragettes To Keep Campaigning for Women

Nadine Bloch, 100 Years Later, Lessons from the Sufferin’Suffragettes

Ken Butigan, Alice Paul's Enduring Legacy of Nonviolent Action 

Jane Addams, New Ideals of Peace: Passing of the War Virtues

 

Week Five | Thursday, February 18 | King

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from the Birmingham City Jail

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Declaration of Independence from the War in Vietnam

Ella J. Baker, Bigger Than A Hamburger  

Supplemental Texts:

Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, II, A Third Reconstruction

William C. Anderson, A Call for Self Defense in the Face of White Supremacy

 

Week Six | Thursday, February 25 | War

Arundhati Roy, War Is Peace

Chris Hedges, Evidence of Things Not Seen

Gene Sharp, selections from How Non-Violent Struggle Works

Marcie Smith, Gene Sharp: The Cold War Intellectual Whose Ideas Seduced the Left

 

Week Seven | Thursday, March 4 | Argument

Karl Rogers and Rogerian Synthesis

The Toulmin Schema

William May, Rising to the Occasion of Our Death (handout)

Be Water: Seven Tactics in Hong Kong’s Democracy Revolution

 

Week Eight | Thursday, March 11 | Fanon and Arendt

Frantz Fanon, Concerning Violence

Hannah Arendt, Reflections On Violence and “Must Eichmann Hang?”
Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Case for Reparations

 

Week Nine | Thursday, March 18 | Spring Break


Week Ten | Thursday, March 25 | A History of Violence 

Screen film, “A History of Violence,” dir. David Cronenberg

 

Week Eleven | Thursday, April 1 | A History of Violence

Discuss film, and circle back to neglected texts.

 

Week Twelve | Thursday, April 8 | Octavia Butler

Octavia Butler, Kindred


Week Thirteen | Thursday, April 15 | Decarceration Unto Abolition

Angela Davis, selections from Are Prisons Obsolete?

Supplemental: Nick Estes, Fighting For Our Lives: #NoDAPL in Historical Context

 

Week Fourteen | Thursday, April 22 | Slow Violence and Animal Abuse

Rob Nixon, Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor
Carol Adams, An Animal Manifesto

Carol Adams, Beastliness and a Politics of Solidarity

 

Week Fifteen | Thursday, April 29 | Symposium (Office Hour Marathon)

Final Project Symposium

 

Week Sixteen | Thursday, May 6 | Conclusions

Judith Butler, selections from The Force of Nonviolence

 

Course Objectives:

Survey canonical texts in the history, theory, and practice of nonviolent resistance: Thoreau, Tolstoy, Gandhi, King, Sharp, Zinn, Davis and abolition democracy. Consider texts applying and criticizing this canonical history in contemporary contexts.

Address further questions of structural violence, marginalization, exploitation, and oppression. Consider the in/adequacy of their address within the terms of the canon of nonviolence.

Provide a basic toolkit of critical thinking, reading, and writing skills. Use this instruction as an occasion to elaborate but also pressure the traditional distinction of persuasion from violence.