Week #2 Post

The first section of this week’s reading that caught my attention was the discussion on contrary arguments- good vs. bad. I was just talking about the concept of good vs. evil and about how it’s an underlying theme in a majority of the texts we read and movies we watch. We went through a number of Disney films and discussed how they are, in their most basic form, tales of good vs. evil. We then discussed the concept of good and evil in Beowulf and Anglo-Saxon culture. I showed the students a copy of John Gardner’s Grendel, and summarized the book. These two works support the argument from “Dissoi Logoi” that “good and bad are the same, depending on circumstances and point of view” (Crowley 73). I confess that the inversion of this concept lost me. I struggled to figure out how to invert this concept for the given example.

The next section on level of generalities syncs up with much of the tenth grade curriculum in our district. When we teach persuasive arguments, we spend a considerable amount of time discussing levels of generality and support. It’s an important argumentative (or should I say rhetorical) tool and skill for students to grasp, because I believe it helps them better understand the concept of audience. The textbook’s approach to the concept in “Putting These Distinctions To Work” provides a systematic approach to addressing the needs of an issue and its audience. While it may be too much to tackle for some HS students, I see value in the way the authors break it down for readers.

Stasis theory leaves me with a few questions. While I understand the importance or making sure that each rhetorician is arguing about the same issue, I don’t see how this is possible. It’s not a practical method. Certainly we could place such high expectations on “experts” (but then we’d have to agree on what defines an expert) and on individuals in an academic world, but it doesn’t seem fit for everyday life/people. Aside from being exhaustive, approaching an issue in such a systematic way seems to devalue instinct and they way people naturally respond to a particular issue. I do like the idea of moving through “The Four Questions” as a way of grasping the issue at hand. It’s an effective way of insuring that a discussion progresses and avoids becoming stagnant, but I still don’t know if it’s practical for a day-to-day setting.

The bottom line is I need more time to digest these definitions and I need an opportunity to hear this chapter being discussed. I feel I’m missing some of the essential points, or maybe I’m bogged down by the specificity of it all. Either way, I didn’t conclude this section with a strong grasp on Stasis theory. I see the big picture, and I understand its utility. As I mentioned above, it lacks practicality at this point, and I hope to clear my misunderstandings up in class tonight.