SAMPLE PROMPTSynthesizing & Analyzing Arguments about Civil Discourse Online
Trolling, harassment and online bullying have raised important questions about digital citizenship and civil discourse. President Obama recently argued that in order for our democracy to remain “healthy” we must work to “maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate.”[1] He outlines the main reasons why he believes civility has declined, and what can be done to improve this. A number of scandals have erupted involving bullying, trolling and “doxing,” and they have raised issues about what causes this behavior, what can be done about it, when and if internet anonymity should be upheld.
In this assignment you will map major points of similarity, difference, contrast and connection between texts that address these questions. You will consider how major positions advanced in these texts relate to each other, and you will evaluate claims representative of these positions.
We will begin by reading a set of arguments about online civility. You will formulate your own question about some aspect of the issue, present your own definition of the problem. Using this question or problem to guide your inquiry, you will “map” out and synthesize three contrasting positions on inequality. (You can also use an “anchor text” as a framework for mapping out the positions of other texts). For each position, you will select a representative text, and discuss some of the main points of connection, disagreement, and contrast between these three texts[2]. For example, you could compare different claims made about the nature, definition, causes and solutions to online harassment/incivility. You will conclude by discussing some of the relative strengths and weaknesses of these positions.
Part 1. Introduction
1. Introduce the topic and make a case for its significance.
2. Describe the question or problem the paper will investigate (being careful to formulate one that can be addressed to the texts you choose, and which is thus neither overly broad nor too specific.)
3. State the direction your analysis will take and how you will get us there (“metadiscourse.”)
Part 2. The Body, in which you synthesize and analyze the texts
1. Define three positions that represent different approaches to understanding the issue (you can give each position a name). Make sure you present the positions in a way that clearly distinguishes them. (These three positions should also be relevant to your question or problem.)
2. Present three texts that illustrate these three positions. Show how each individual text is representative of the position you defined.
3. Describe the overall argument each text makes, and some of the main points of connection, contrast, agreement, similarity and difference.
Part 3: Your conclusion, in which you outline some relative strengths and weaknesses
1. In the concluding section you will present an outline of some relative strengths and weaknesses of these three positions.
OR
2. You will make a case for the position that seems most persuasive to you.
AN EXAMPLE OF WRITING THAT MODELS WHAT GOES INTO A SYNTHESIS PAPER: op-ed by Krugman on Energy Prices April 21, 2008, NYT, “Running Out of Planet to Exploit,” PAUL KRUGMAN
Nine years ago The Economist ran a big story on oil, which was then selling for $10 a barrel. The magazine warned that this might not last. Instead, it suggested, oil might well fall to $5 a barrel.
In any case, The Economist asserted, the world faced “the prospect of cheap, plentiful oil for the foreseeable future.” Last week, oil hit $117. It’s not just oil that has defied the complacency of a few years back. Food prices have also soared, as have the prices of basic metals. And the global surge in commodity prices is reviving a question we haven’t heard much since the 1970s: Will limited supplies of natural resources pose an obstacle to future world economic growth?
How you answer this question depends largely on what you believe is driving the rise in resource prices. Broadly speaking, there are three competing views.
The first is that it’s mainly speculation — that investors, looking for high returns at a time of low interest rates, have piled into commodity futures, driving up prices. On this view, someday soon the bubble will burst and high resource prices will go the way of Pets.com.
The second view is that soaring resource prices do, in fact, have a basis in fundamentals — especially rapidly growing demand from newly meat-eating, car-driving Chinese — but that given time we’ll drill more wells, plant more acres, and increased supply will push prices right back down again.
The third view is that the era of cheap resources is over for good — that we’re running out of oil, running out of land to expand food production and generally running out of planet to exploit. I find myself somewhere between the second and third views.
There are some very smart people — not least, George Soros — who believe that we’re in a commodities bubble (although Mr. Soros says that the bubble is still in its “growth phase”). My problem with this view, however, is this: Where are the inventories? Normally, speculation drives up commodity prices by promoting hoarding. Yet there’s no sign of resource hoarding in the data: inventories of food and metals are at or near historic lows, while oil inventories are only normal. The best argument for the second view, that the resource crunch is real but temporary, is the strong resemblance between what we’re seeing now and the resource crisis of the 1970s.
What Americans mostly remember about the 1970s are soaring oil prices and lines at gas stations. But there was also a severe global food crisis, which caused a lot of pain at the supermarket checkout line — I remember 1974 as the year of Hamburger Helper — and, much more important, helped cause devastating famines in poorer countries.
In retrospect, the commodity boom of 1972-75 was probably the result of rapid world economic growth that outpaced supplies, combined with the effects of bad weather and Middle Eastern conflict. Eventually, the bad luck came to an end, new land was placed under cultivation, new sources of oil were found in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea, and resources got cheap again. But this time may be different: concerns about what happens when an ever-growing world economy pushes up against the limits of a finite planet ring truer now than they did in the 1970s.
For one thing, I don’t expect growth in China to slow sharply anytime soon. That’s a big contrast with what happened in the 1970s, when growth in Japan and Europe, the emerging economies of the time, downshifted — and thereby took a lot of pressure off the world’s resources. Meanwhile, resources are getting harder to find. Big oil discoveries, in particular, have become few and far between, and in the last few years oil production from new sources has been barely enough to offset declining production from established sources.
And the bad weather hitting agricultural production this time is starting to look more fundamental and permanent than El Niño and La Niña, which disrupted crops 35 years ago. Australia, in particular, is now in the 10th year of a drought that looks more and more like a long-term manifestation of climate change. Suppose that we really are running up against global limits. What does it mean?
Even if it turns out that we’re really at or near peak world oil production, that doesn’t mean that one day we’ll say, “Oh my God! We just ran out of oil!” and watch civilization collapse into “Mad Max” anarchy.
But rich countries will face steady pressure on their economies from rising resource prices, making it harder to raise their standard of living. And some poor countries will find themselves living dangerously close to the edge — or over it.
Don’t look now, but the good times may have just stopped rolling.
Steps to Synthesis and Evaluation
STASES – WAYS OF FINDING PATTERNS IN THE DEBATE
Questions of fact: Does the problem exist?
Questions of definition: What is it?
Questions of interpretation: What does the problem mean and why does it matter?
Questions of value: Is it good or bad?
Questions of consequence: What are the causes of the problem and what are the effects?
Questions of policy: What should be and can be done about this problem?
This should give them a good map of each argument. We will also discuss claims and evidence, of course.
Steps to Synthesis and Evaluation
· Use the Stases (facts, definitions, causes, solutions, etc.) to establish points of intersection between the texts (may need to infer connections, and do this through role playing or “author interviews”.)
· Use problem definitions, claims and evidence, and “framing” to establish points of intersection
· Form clusters of points
· Use an anchor text (Noah, Edsall) to establish points of connection
· Use your work establishing points of intersection connection to create an “argument grid” that displays authors’ positions and helps see the “big picture.”
· Establish “maps” of author positions that reveal relationships
· Create a synthesis tree – use this to locate splits between positions and within shared approaches. Locate major and minor splits.
· In groups role play authors or do pretend “author interviews,” with group representing author.)
Sample Synthesis Tree
What is the problem?
Disproportionate failure of
Some groups
What causes this?
Factors Outside/Inside the School
Factors outside the schools Factors inside the school
Economics Discourses
Political Cultural Failure to ensure
Correctness Fragmentation traditional pedagogic
Economics inside school Conflict betw. (George Will) (Hirsch) practices - homework etc
& outside the school primary & 2ry (Applebee)
(Gee)
Economics Economics
Outside school inside school
(Ogbu) (Kozol)
Some Sample Positions from 2014 (Inequality)
1. Progressive – Prime Representatives are Krugman, Reich.
Paul Krugman, “Confronting Inequality.”
Reich, Inequality for All.
Peter Beinart, “The End of American Exceptionalism” (talks about implications for young people)
Timothy Noah’s “The Great Divergence.”
Jeff Madrick, “Problem Number One”
Opponents/respondents to this view:
Brink Lindsey, “Paul Krugman’s Nostalgianomics: Economic Policy, Social Norms and Income Inequality.”
Peter Wehner, Robert P. Beschel, “How to Think about Inequality”
2. “Holistic,” Internationalist Progressive
This position is most clearly represented by Wilkinson and Pickett, their book The Sprit Level, and “How economic inequality harms societies” (TED Talk) http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
Claims that high inequality leads to stress, ill health, violence and social dislocation that are harmful to everyone. Compares the effects across countries, and compares states within the U.S.
Possible illustration/connection: Monica Potts. “What's Killing Poor White Women?”
3. Conservative “Opportunity Not Inequality” position - Prime Representatives are Arthur Brooks, David Brooks. Some (not many) conservatives argue that inequality can never be a problem. Most others argue that it is only a problem if there is insufficient opportunity, but that there is opportunity.
Arthur Brooks “(In)Equality and Unhappiness in America.” Argues that inequality is a multi-faceted problem, but a relatively “benign” one since there is so much opportunity and social mobility. Suggests that both belief in and experience of mobility creates happiness and fulfillment, which are vital. Proposes we focus not on inequality but opportunity, and advance this through improving education, cultural impediments, labor market flexibility, entrepreneurship and investment.
Sendhil Mullainathan, “A Top-Heavy Focus on Income Inequality”
4. Cultural/Moral Explanations – Murray, Pennington, Chua
Charles Murray, “The New American Divide,” Wall Street Journal, January 21, 2012.
Amy Chua, “What Drives Success.” (provocative article by “Tiger Mom,” sure to get students talking.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/opinion/sunday/what-drives-success.html
Stephanie Coontz “Marriage is not an antidote to poverty”
Michelle Goldberg, “Is Conservative Christianity Bad for Marriage?”
5. Technology as Driver of Inequality – Representative is Jaron Lanier
Peter Wehner, Robert P. Beschel, “How to Think about Inequality.” The new technology-driven economy favors skilled over unskilled labor, and puts an unprecedented premium on "brain over brawn."
Jaron Lanier, “Fixing the Digital Economy.” “TWO big trends in the world appear to contradict each other.On the one hand, computer networks are said to be disrupting centralized power of all kinds and giving it to the individual…But then there’s the other trend. Inequality is soaring in rich countries around the world, not just the United States. Money from the top 1 percent has flooded our politics…”
Texts for Unit 3
Interesting/fun texts to get the ball rolling
· Jimmy Kimmel reading tweets in response to his PSA on vaccination. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2mdwmpLYLY. Could be used as bridge between some of the work we’ve been doing in unit 2 on unethical discourse. His original video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgpfNScEd3M
· Louis CK on Conanjoking about online bullying and why he won't buy his kids cellphones
· Kimmel and Celebrities read mean tweets
· “How to Kill a Troll,” Erin Kissane. Blog post discusses the attacks on Anita Sarkeesian (GamerGate), the issues raised and what should be done to address this. http://incisive.nu/2012/how-to-kill-a-troll/
· “How Anita Sarkeesian Wants Video Games To Change.” http://kotaku.com/how-anita-sarkeesian-wants-video-games-to-change-1688231729
· “The Troll Hunters.” MIT Technology Review. Adrian Chen, December 18.
http://www.technologyreview.com/photoessay/533426/the-troll-hunters/
· Why it matters. “More on rudeness, civility, and the care and feeding of online conversations.” Janet D. Stemwede, Scientific American blog. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/doing-good-science/2013/02/15/more-on-rudeness-civility-and-the-care-and-feeding-of-online-conversations/