PREPARATION FOR 3/21 (CORBETT/EBERLY, LAZERE, FINE)

Hello, Everyone:

We may spend a few minutes during Thursday's class blogging in groups to prepare for our discussion of Corbett and Eberly's "Becoming A Citizen Critic," Lazere's "Avoiding Oversimplification and Recognizing Complexity," and Fine's "You Can't Just Say ..." (if you decide to read the third piece). As usual, here are some questions to help you read:

1. After studying Fine's descriptions of the "Facing History and Ourselves" class at the Medgar Evers School, and after considering some of the challenges she witnesses in getting students to "talk together," consider a similar experience you have had, personally, or witnessed in print. (You can locate an article in one of the "Blogs and Online Journals of Opinion" on our <"Course Resources"> page, select one of the op-ed pieces from our Texts for Editing folder on Blackboard, or find something else that is explicitly biased.) Unpack and analyze the experience for assumptions, tensions, miscommunications, dis/empowerments, fixations on words, and value terms -- these are the things that Fine's analysis helps us to notice. What seems most difficult (if not irresolvable) about the conversation?  What do you notice about it through the analysis?
2. Is open and productive discussion of controversial issues really possible, for Fine? Based on the last few pages of her article (646-649), what do you think she thinks is possible as a result of argumentative discourse? What conclusions can she draw and/or what observations do you think she is left with?
3. Related to 1. above, if you had to represent -- in an informative way -- this same experience or conversation, how would you do so? In other words, assuming you were not analyzing it for sources of disagreement but were writing about it for a more informative project, what would you focus on and what would you leave out? In what other genre forms might you represent the argument, and why?
4. As you read Lazere's chapter on oversimplification, you may realize that his tone is -- in fact -- quite biased, which leads me to assume that "bias" may be a more complex concept than we think. If Lazere is not necessarily advocating for a removal of bias in writing good arguments, what is he advocating for? What do you think is his method of arguing well, and what in this chapter makes you think that? (Hint: you might begin with Aldous Huxley's epigraph that Lazere quotes at the start of the chapter.)
5. Of all the terms that Lazere introduces -- both the boldfaced terms and the terms in his subheaders -- which 3 or 4 align most closely with Fine's story? Or with Corbett and Eberly's discussion of citizen criticism? Explain the connections.
6. According to Corbett and Eberly, what do spectator culture (or consumer culture) have to do with our ability to argue well in the public sphere, or to not argue well? What are the most compelling reasons that Corbett and Eberly give for why it is important for students to be citizen critics? What does it mean to be a "citizen critic" in their theory? 
7. Do any of these characteristics or aspects of "citizen criticism" reflect readings from earlier in the semester -- especially Miller/Shepherd, Fahnestock/Secor, Grant-Davie, Jones, Kaufer, Killingsworth/Palmer?
8. Of all the "Diversions of Reason" that Corbett and Eberly define, it is highly likely that Williams/Colomb would be interested in "overgeneralization" (Corbett/Eberly 125), "false analogy" (126), and "Equivocation" (128), which may be one reason why their longest chapter in Style has to do with ethical violations of clarity. Can you quickly skim their chapter on "Ethics of Style" and find a statement or passage in their discussion that reflects what Corbett and Eberly have to say about being clear, fair, and transparent with language?

Enjoy the readings!

-Prof. Graban