IF GOOD ACADEMIC WRITING
Distinguishing What You Say from What They Say ers k n o w w h e n a particular view should be attributed t o t h e writer or t o someone else. Especially w i t h texts t h a t present a true dialogue of perspectives, readers need t o be alert t o the
''AND Y E ^ Distinguishing
What Y o u Say
from What They Say
often subtle markers that indicate whose voice the writer is speaking i n . Consider
h o w the social
critic a n d educator
Gregory
Mantsios uses these "voice markers," as they m i g h t be called, to distinguish the different perspectives i n his essay o n A m e r ica's class inequalities. "We are all middle-class," or so it would seem. Our national consciousness, as shaped in large part by the media and our political leadership, provides us with a picture of ourselves as a nation of
IF GOOD ACADEMIC WRITING
involves putting yourself into
prosperity and opportunity with an ever expanding middle-class
dialogue w i t h others, i t is extremely important that readers be
life-style. As a result, our class differences are muted and our col-
able to t e l l at every point w h e n you are expressing your o w n
lective character is homogenized.
view and w h e n you are stating someone else's. This chapter
Yet class divisions are real and arguably the most significant fac-
takes up the problem of m o v i n g from what they say to what you
tor in derermining both our very being in the world and the nature
say w i t h o u t confusing readers about who is saying what.
of the society we live in. GREGORY MANTSIOS, "Rewards and Opportunities:
The Politics and Economics of Class in the U.S." D E T E R M I N E W H O IS S A Y I N G W H A T IN T H E T E X T S Y O U R E A D
A l t h o u g h Mantsios makes i t look easy, he is actually making several sophisticated rhetorical moves here that help h i m dis-
Before examining how to signal who is saying what i n your o w n
tinguish t h e c o m m o n view he opposes f r o m his o w n position.
w r i t i n g , let's look at how t o recognize such signals w h e n they
I n the opening sentence, for instance, the phrase "or so it
appear i n the texts you read—an especially important skill
would seem" shows that Mantsios does n o t necessarily agree
w h e n i t comes to the challenging works assigned i n school. Fre-
w i t h the view he is describing, since writers normally don't pre-
quently, w h e n students have trouble understanding difficult
sent views they themselves h o l d as ones that only "seem" to be
texts, i t is n o t just because the texts contain unfamiliar ideas
true. Mantsios also places this opening view i n quotation marks
or words, but because the texts rely o n subtle clues to let read-
to signal that i t is n o t his o w n . H e t h e n further distances
6 8
6 9
AND Y E T "
Distinguishing
What
Y o u Say
from
What
They
Say
himself from the belief being summarized i n the opening para-
ing these words Mantsios acts as a k i n d of ventriloquist, m i m -
graph by a t t r i b u t m g i t to "our national consciousness, as shaped
icking what others say rather t h a n directly expressing what he
i n large part by the media and our political leadership," and
himself is t h i n k i n g .
then further attributing to this "consciousness" a negative, undesirable "result": one i n w h i c h "our class differences" get
T o see how important such voice markers are, consider what the Mantsios passage looks like if we remove t h e m .
" m u t e d " and "our collective character" gets "homogenized," stripped of its diversity and distinctness. Hence, even before Mantsios has declared his o w n position i n the second paragraph, readers can get a pretty solid sense of where he probably stands.
W e are all middle-class. . . .
W e are a n a t i o n of prosperity and
o p p o r t u n i t y w i t h an ever expanding middle-class life-style. . . . Class divisions are real and arguably the most significant factor i n d e t e r m i n i n g b o t h our very being i n the w o r l d and the nature of
Furthermore, the second paragraph opens w i t h the word
the society we live i n .
"yet," indicating that Mantsios is n o w shifting to his o w n view (as opposed to the c o m m o n view he has thus far been describing). Even the parallelism he sets up between the first and second paragraphs—between the first paragraph's c l a i m that class differences do n o t exist and the second paragraph's c l a i m that they do—helps throw i n t o sharp relief the differences between the t w o voices. Finally, Mantsios's use of a direct, authoritative, declarative tone i n the second paragraph also suggests a switch i n voice. A l t h o u g h he does n o t use the words " I say" or "1 argue," he clearly identifies the view he holds by presenting i t n o t as one that merely seems to be true or that others tell us is true, but as a view that is true or, as Mantsios puts
I n contrast
to the careful delineation between voices i n
Mantsios's original text, this unmarked version leaves i t hard to tell where his voice begins and the voices of others end. W i t h the markers removed, readers cannot t e l l that " W e are all middle-class" represents a view the author opposes, and that "Class divisions are real" represents what the author hiinself believes. Indeed, w i t h o u t the maikers, especially the "Yet," readers might well miss the fact that the second paragraph's claim that "Class divisions are real" contradicts the first paragraph's claim that " W e are a l l middle-class."
it, "teal." Paying a t t e n t i o n to these voice markers is an important aspect of reading comprehension. Readers who fail to notice these markers often take an author's summaries of what some-
TEMPLATES FOR S I G N A L I N G W H O IN Y O U R O W N
IS S A Y I N G W H A T
WRITING
one else believes to be an expression of what the author h i m self or herself believes. Thus w h e n we teach Mantsios's essay,
T o avoid confusion i n your o w n w r i t i n g , make sure that at every
some students invariably come away t h i n k i n g that the state-
point your readers can clearly tell w h o is saying what. T o do
ment "we are all middle-class" is Mantsios's o w n position rathet
so, you can use as voice-identifying devices many of the tem-
than the perspective he is opposing, failing to see that i n w r i t -
plates presented i n previous chapters.
7 o
7 1
"AND >
D i s t i n g u i s h i n g What
YET
My view,
however,
contrary
to
what
from
What
They
Say
Nevertheless, certain occasions may warrant avoiding the
A l t h o u g h X makes the best possible case for unjyersal, government-
first person and w r i t i n g , for example, that "she is correct" instead
funded health care, I am not persuaded. >
Y o u Say
X
has
argued,
is
that
of " I t h i n k that she is correct." Since i t can be monotonous to read an unvarying series of " I " statements ("I believe . . . 1 think . . . 1 argue"), it is a good idea to mix first-person assertions w i t h ones
>
A d d i n g t o X's argument, I w o u l d point out that
like the following.
t-
According to both X and Y,
f
"
Politicians, X argues, should
>
Most athletes will tell you that
X is right that certain c o m m o n patterns, can be found in the communities.
B U T I'VE B E E N T O L D IMOT T O U S E " 1 "
Notice that the first three templates above use the first-person " I " or " w e , " as do many of the templates i n this book, thereby contradicting the c o m m o n advice about avoiding the first person i n academic w r i t i n g . A l t h o u g h you may have been
>
The evidence shows that
>
X's assertion that
>
Anyone familiar with
does not fit the facts. should agree that
O n e m i g h t even follow Mantsios's lead, as i n the following template. >
Bui
are real, and are arguably the most
significant
factor in
told that the " I " word encourages subjective, self-indulgent
O n e the whole, however, academic w r i t i n g today, even
See pp.
opinions rather t h a n well-grounded arguments, we believe
i n the sciences and social sciences, makes use of the
we-isfoc an
that texts using " I " can be just as well supported—or just as
first person fairly liberally.
example of
self-indulgent—as those that don't. For us, well-supported argu-
how a physi-
ments are grounded i n persuasive reasons and evidence, not i n
cist uses the
the use or nonuse o f any particular pronouns.
A N O T H E R THICK FOR I D E N T I F Y I N G WHO
Furthermore, i f you consistently avoid the first person i n
first
person.
IS S P E A K I N G
your w r i t i n g , you w i l l probably have trouble making the key
T o alert readers about whose perspective you are describing at
move addressed i n this chapter: differentiating your views from
any given moment, you d o n ' t always have to use overt voice
those of others, or even offering your o w n views i n the first
markers like " X argues" followed by a summary of the argument.
place. But don't just take our word for i t . See for yourself how
Instead, you can alert readers about whose voice you're speak-
freely the first person is used by the writers quoted i n this book,
ing i n by embedding
and by the writers assigned i n your courses.
sentences. Hence, instead of w r i t i n g :
7 2
a reference to X's argument i n your o w n
7 3
"AND
Distinguishirrg W h a t Y o u Say from
YET"
Liberals believe t h a t cultural differences need to be respected. I
>
My o w n view is that what X insists is a
>
I wholeheartedly endorse what X calls
>
These conclusions, which X discusses in
What
They
Say is in fact a
have a p r o b l e m w i t h this view, however.
you might write:
I have a p r o b l e m w i t h what liberals call cultural
tural
to the argument that
differences.
T h e r e is a major p r o b l e m w i t h t h e liberal d o c t r i n e o f so-called
, add weight
cul-
differences.
W h e n writers fail to use voice-marking devices like the ones discussed i n this chapter, their summaries of others' views tend to
You can also embed references to something you yourself have previously said. So instead of w r i t i n g t w o cumbersome sentences like:
become confused w i t h their o w n ideas—and vice versa. W h e n readers cannot tell if you are summarizing your o w n views or endorsing a certain phrase or label, they have to stop and think: " W a i t . 1 thought the author disagreed w i t h this claim. Has she actually been asserting this view all along?" or " H m m m , I thought
Earlier i n this chapter we c o i n e d t h e t e r m "voice markers." W e w o u l d argue t h a t such markers are extremely i m p o r t a n t for reading comprehension.
she would have objected to this k i n d of phrase. Is she actually endorsing it?" Getting i n the habit of using voice markers w i l l keep you from confusing your readers and help alert you to similar markers i n the challenging texts you read.
you might write:
W e w o u l d argue t h a t " v o i c e markers," as we identified t h e m ear-
Exercises
lier, are extremely i m p o r t a n t for reading comprehension.
1. T o see h o w one writer signals w h e n she is asserting her o w n Embedded references like these allow you to economize your train of thought and refer to other perspectives w i t h o u t any major interruption.
views and w h e n she is summarizing those of someone else, read the f o l l o w i n g passage by the social historian Julie C h a r l i p . A s you do so, identify those spots where C h a r l i p refers t o the views of others and the signal phrases she uses to distinguish her views from theirs.
TEMPLATES FOR E M B E D D I N G V O I C E MARKERS M a r x and Engels w r o t e : "Society as a w h o l e is more a n d more split"
X overlooks what I consider an important point about cultural differ-
t i n g up i n t o t w o great hostile camps, i n t o t w o great classes d i r e c t l y
ences.
facing each o t h e r — t h e bourgeoisie and t h e p r o l e t a r i a t " (10).
7 4
7 5
If
AND Y E T "
Distinguishirrg WKat You Say from What They Say
only that were true, things might be more simple. But in late twen-
o w n voice f r o m those you are summarizing. Consider the
tieth-century America, it seems that society is splitting more and
f o l l o w i n g questions:
more into a plethora of class factions—the working class, the working poor, lower-middle class, upper-middle class, lower uppers, and upper uppers. I find myself not knowing what class I'm from. In my days as a newspaper reporter, I once asked a sociology professor what he thought about the reported shrinking of the middle class. Oh, it's not the middle class that's disappearing, he said, but the working class. His definition: if you earn thirty thousand dollars a year working in an assembly plant, come home from work, open a beer and watch the game, you are working class; if you earn twenty thousand dollars a year as a school teacher, come home
a. H o w many perspectives do you engage? b. W h a t other perspectives m i g h t you include? c. H o w do you distinguish your views f r o m the other views you summarize? d. D o you use clear voice-signaling phrases? e. W h a t options are available t o you for clarifying who is saying what? f. W h i c h of these options are best suited for this particular text?
fiom work to a glass of white wine and PBS, you are middle class.
If you f i n d that you do not include m u l t i p l e views or clearly
How do we define class? Is it an issue of values, lifestyle, taste?
distinguish between your views and others', revise your text
Is i t the kind of work you do, your relationship to the means of production? Is i t a matter of how much money you earn? Are we
to do so.
allowed to choose? I n this land of supposed classlessness, where we don't have the tradition of English society to keep us i n our places, how do we know where we really belong? The average American will tell you he or she is "middle class." I'm sure that's what my father would tell you. But I always felt that we were in some no man's land, suspended between classes, sharing similarities with some and recognizing sharp, exclusionary differences from others. What class do I come from? What class am 1 in now? As an historian, I seek the answers to these questions i n the specificity of my past. JULIE C H A R L I P , " A Real Class A c t : Searching
for Identity in the Classless Society"
2. Study a piece o f your o w n w r i t i n g t o see how many perspectives you account for and how well you distinguish your
7 6
7 7
Planting a Na^sa^er in Your Text i n our writing. Indeed, n o single device more quickly improves a piece of writing t h a n planting a naysayer i n the text—saying, for example, that "although some readers may object" to something
"SKEPTICS MAY Planting
a Naysayer
OBJECT'' in Your
i n your argument, you "would reply that
Text ANTICIPATE
OBJECTIONS
But wait, you say. Isn't the advice to incorporate critical views a recipe for destroying your credibility and u n d e r m i n i n g your argument? Here you are, trying to say something t h a t w i l l h o l d up, and we want you to tell readers all the negative things some-
THE WRITER Jane
T o m p k i n s describes a pattern that repeats
one might say against you?
itself whenever she writes a book or an article. For the first cou-
Exactly. W e are urging you to t e l l readers what others might
ple of weeks when she sits down to write, things go relatively
say against you, but our p o i n t is that doing so w i l l actually
well. But then i n the middle of the night, several weeks into the
enhance
writing process, she'll wake up i n a cold sweat, suddenly realiz-
throughout this book, w r i t i n g well does n o t mean piling up
ing that she has overlooked some major criticism that readers
uncontroversial truths i n a vacuum; i t means engaging others
your credibility, not undermine i t . A s we
argue
w i l l surely make against her ideas. Her first thought, invariably,
i n a dialogue or debate—not o n l y by opening your text w i t h a
is that she w i l l have to give up o n the project, or that she w i l l
summary of what others have said, as we suggest i n Chapter 1,
have to throw out what she's written thus far and start over.
but also by imagining what others might say against your argu-
T h e n she realizes that "this moment of doubt and panic is where
ment as it unfolds. Once you see w r i t i n g as an act of entering
my text really begins." She then revises what she's written i n a
a conversation, you should also see how opposing arguments
way that incorporates the criticisms she's anticipated, and her
can work for you rather t h a n against you.
text becomes stronger and more interesting as a result.
Paradoxically, the more you give voice to your critics' objec-
This little story contains an important lesson for all writers,
tions, the more you tend to disarm those critics, especially if
experienced and inexperienced alike. It suggests that even though
you go o n to answer their objections i n c o n v i n c i n g ways. W h e n
most of us are upset at the idea of someone criticizing our work,
you entertain a counterargument, you make a k i n d of preemp-
such criticisms can actually work to our advantage. A l t h o u g h it's
tive strike, identifying problems w i t h your argument before o t h -
naturally tempting to ignore criticism of our ideas, doing so may
ers can p o i n t t h e m out for you. Furthermore, by entertaining
i n fact be a big mistake, since our writing improves when we not
counterarguments, you show respect for your readers, treating
only listen to these objections but give them an explicit hearing
them not as gullible dupes who w i l l believe a n y t h i n g you say
7 8
7
9
Planting
"SKEPTICS MAV OBJECT"
a hiaysayer
in Your
Text
but as independent, critical thinkers who arc aware that your view is not the only one i n t o w n . I n addition, by imagining what others might say against your claims, you come across as a generous, broad-minded person who is confident enough to open himself or herself t o debate—like the writer i n Figure 5. Conversely, i f you d o n ' t entertain counterarguments, you may very likely come across as closed-minded, as if you t h i n k your beliefs are beyond dispute. You m i g h t also leave important questions hanging and concerns about your arguments unaddressed. Finally, if you fail t o plant a naysayer i n your text, you may f i n d that you have very little to say. O u r o w n students often say that entertaining counterarguments makes i t easier to generate enough text t o meet their assignment's page-length requirements. Planting a naysayer i n your rext is a relatively simple move, as you can see by l o o k i n g at the following passage from a book by the writer K i m C h e r n i n . H a v i n g spent some t h i r t y pages complaining about the pressure o n A m e r i c a n women to lose weight and be t h i n , C h e r n i n inserts a whole chapter entitled " T h e Skeptic," opening i t as follows. A t this point I would like to raise certain objections that have been
70 U WILL PROBABLy ORJECT THftT I HAVE
MISREPRESENTED X'S WORK HERE AND I CONCEDE THAT X NEVER SAYS IN SO MAN/ WORDS. NEVERTHaESS...."
inspired by the skeptic in me. She feels chat I have been ignoring some of the most common assumptions we all make about our bodies and these she wishes to see addressed. For example: "You know perfectly well," she says to me, "that you feel better when you lose weight. You buy new clothes. You look at yourself more eagerly in the mirror. When someone invites you to a party you don't stop and ask yourself whether you want to go. You feel sexier. Admit it. You like yourself better." KiM C H E R N I N , The Obsession: Reflections on the Tyranny 8 o
of
Slendemess
FIGURE
8 1
5
P l a n t i n g a Naysayer
"SKEPTICS MAY OBJECT"
in Your
Text
T h e remainder of Cher nin's chapter consists of her answers t o
bodies. I n other words, naysayers can be labeled, and you can
this inner skeptic. I n the face of the skeptic's challenge t o her
add precision and impact t o your w r i t i n g by i d e n t i f y i n g w h a t
book's central premise ( t h a t the pressure to diet seriously harms
those labels are.
women's lives), C h e r n i n responds neither by repressing the skeptic's c r i t i c a l voice nor by giving i n to i t and relinquishing TEMPLATES FOR N A M I N G Y O U R NAYSAYERS
her o w n p o s i t i o n . Instead, she embraces that voice and writes it i n t o her text. N o t e too that instead of dispatching this naysaying voice quickly, as many of us would be tempted t o
>
do, C h e r n i n stays w i t h i t and devotes a f u l l paragraph t o i t . By borrowing some of Chernin's language, we can come up w i t h
Here many/emm/sfs w o u l d probably object that gender does influence language.
>
templates for entertaining virtually any objection.
But social Darwinists
w o u l d certainly take issue w i t h the argument
that 1^
TEMPLATES FOR ENTERTAINING OBJECTIONS
Biologists,
o f course, may want to question whether
Nevertheless, both/o//ow^ers and critics of Malcolm
X will probably
suggest otherwise and argue that >
At this point I would like to raise some objections that have been inspired by the skeptic in me. She feels that I have been ignoring
>
Yet
some
readers
may
challenge
T o be sure, some people dislike such labels and may even resent h a v i n g labels applied t o themselves. Some feel that
the complexities o f the situation. my view by
insisting
that
labels put individuals i n boxes, stereotyping t h e m and glossing over w h a t makes each of us unique. A n d it's true that labels can be used inappropriately, i n ways that ignore individuality
>
O f course,
many will
probably disagree on
the grounds
that
and promote stereotypes. But since the life o f ideas, including many of our most private thoughts, is conducted through groups and types rather t h a n solitary individuals, intellectual
are
exchange requires labels t o give d e f i n i t i o n and serve as a con-
attributed n o t to any specific person or group, but t o "skep-
venient shorthand. I f you categorically reject a l l labels, you
tics," "readers," or " m a n y . " T h i s k i n d of nameless, faceless
give up an i m p o r t a n t resource and even mislead readers by
naysayer is perfectly appropriate i n many cases. But the ideas
presenting yourself and others as h a v i n g n o c o n n e c t i o n t o
that m o t i v a t e arguments and objections
anyone else. You also miss an o p p o r t u n i t y t o generalize the
Note
that
the
objections
i n the
above
templates
often can—and,
where possible, should—be ascribed to a specific ideology or
importance and relevance of your work to some larger con-
school of t h o u g h t (for example, liberals. C h r i s t i a n funda-
versation. W h e n you attribute a position you are summarizing
mentalists, neopragmatists) rather t h a n to anonymous any-
to liberalism, say, or historical materialism, your argument is
8
2
8 3
"SKEPTICS
MAY OBJECT"
Planting
no longer just about your o w n solitary views but about the
a Naysayer
in Your
Text
You can also let your naysayer speak directly.
intersection o f broad ideas and habits of m i n d that many readers may already have a stake i n .
>
T h e way to minimize the problem of stereotyping, then, is
"Impossible," some will say. "You must be reading the research selectively."
not to categorically reject labels but to refine and qualify their use, as the following templates demonstrate.
Moves like this allow you to cut directly to the skeptical voice itself, as the singer-songwriter joe Jackson does i n the fol-
>
A l t h o u g h not all Christians
think alike, some of them will probably
dispute my claim that >
Non-native
Englisin speakers
lowing excerpt f r o m a 2003 New York Times article complaining about the restrictions o n public smoking i n N e w York C i t y
, . are so diverse in their views that it's
hard to generalize about t h e m , but some are likely to object on the grounds that
bars and restaurants. 1 like a couple of cigarettes or a cigar with a drink, and like many other people, 1 only smoke in bars or nightclubs. Now I can't go
A n o t h e r way to avoid needless stereotyping is to qualify labels
to any of my old haunrs. Bartenders who were friends have turned
carefully, substituting "pro bono lawyers" for "lawyers" i n gen-
into cops, forcing me outside to shiver in the cold and curse under
eral, for example, or "quantitative sociologists" for all "social
my breath. . . . It's no fun. Smokers are being demonized and vic-
scientists," and so o n .
timized all out of proportion. "Get over i t , " say the anti-smokers. "You're the minority." I thought a great city was a place where all kinds of minorities
TEMPLATES FOR I N T R O D U C I N G O B J E C T I O N S
INFORMALLY
could thrive. . . . "Smoking kills," they say. As an occasional smoker with otherwise healthy habits, I ' l l take my chances.
Objections can also be introduced i n more informal ways. For
Health consciousness is important, but so are pleasure and free-
instance, you can frame objections i n the f o r m of questions.
dom of choice. JOE JACKSON, "Want to Smoke? Go to Hamburg"
> But is my proposal realistic? What are the chances of its actually
Jackson could have begun his second paragraph, i n w h i c h
being adopted? >
>
Yet is it necessarily true that
? Is it always the case, as
I have been suggesting, that
?
However, does the evidence I've cited prove conclusively
he shifts f r o m his o w n voice to that o f his imagined naysayer, more formally, as follows: " O f course anti-smokers w i l l object that since we smokers are i n the m i n o r i t y , we should
that
simply stop c o m p l a i n i n g and quietly make the sacrifices we are being called o n to make for the larger social good." O r
8
4
8 5
"SKEPTICS MAY OB|ECT"
Planting
a Naysayer
in Your
Text
" A n t i - s m o k e r s m i g h t insist, however, that the smoking m i n o r -
self i n your summary. W o u l d that reader t h i n k you have taken
ity should submit to the n o n - s m o k i n g m a j o r i t y . " W e t h i n k ,
his views seriously, as beliefs that reasonable people might hold?
though, that Jackson gets the job done i n a far more lively
O r would he detect a mocking tone or an oversimplification of
way w i t h the more colloquial f o r m he chooses. Borrowing a
his views?
standard move of playwrights and novelists, Jackson cuts
There w i l l always be certain objections, to be sure, that you
directly to the objectors' view and t h e n to his o w n retort,
believe do not deserve to be represented, just as there w i l l be
t h e n back to the objectors' view and t h e n to his o w n retort
objections that seem so u n w o r t h y of respect that they inspire
See Chapter
again, thereby creating a k i n d of dialogue or m i n i a -
ridicule. Remember, however, that if you do choose to mock a
5 for more
t^re play w i t h i n his o w n text. T h i s move works well
view that you oppose, you are likely to alienate those readers
advice on
Jackson, but only because he uses q u o t a t i o n marks
who don't already agree w i t h y o u — l i k e l y the very readers you
using voice
other voice markers to make clear at every p o i n t
want to reach. A l s o be aware that i n mocking another's view
markers.
you may contribute to a hostile argument culture i n w h i c h
whose voice he is i n .
someone may ridicule you i n return. REPRESENT OBJECTIONS
FAIRLY ANSWER
OBJECTIONS
Once you've decided to introduce a differing or opposing view into your w r i t i n g , your w o r k has only just begun, since you still
Do be aware that w h e n you represent objections successfully,
need to represent and explain that view w i t h fairness and gen-
you still need to be able to answer those objections persuasively.
erosity. A l t h o u g h it is tempting to give opposing views short
A f t e r all, w h e n you write objections i n t o a text, you take the
shrift, to hurry past them, or even to mock them, doing so is
risk that readers w i l l f i n d those objections more convincing
usually counterproductive. W h e n writers make the best case
than the argument you yourself are advancing. I n the editorial
they can for their critics (playing Peter Elbow's "believ-
quoted above, for example, Joe Jackson takes the risk that read-
formoreon
i^g game"), they actually bolster their credibility w i t h
ers w i l l identify more w i t h the anti-smoking view he summa-
the believing
pgajg^s rather t h a n undermine i t . They make readers
rizes t h a n w i t h the pro-smoking position he endorses.
See pp. 31-32
t h i n k , "This is a writer 1 can trust." W e recommend, then, that whenever you entertain objections i n your w r i t i n g , you stay w i t h them for several sentences
This is precisely what Benjamin F r a n k l i n describes happ e n i n g to h i m s e l f i n The
Autobiography
of
Benjamin
Franklin
(1793), w h e n he recalls being converted to Deism (a religion
or even paragraphs and take them as seriously as possible. W e
that exalts reason over spirituality) by reading anti-Deist books.
also recommend that you read your summary of opposing views
W h e n he encountered the views of Deists being negatively
w i t h an outsider's eye: put yourself i n the shoes of someone w h o
summarized by authors w h o opposed t h e m . F r a n k l i n explains,
disagrees w i t h you and ask if such a reader would recognize h i m -
he ended up finding the Deist position more persuasive.
8
6
8 7
To
"SKEPTICS MAY OBJECT"
P l a n t i n g a Naysayer
in Your
Text
avoid h a v i n g this k i n d i f u n i n t e n t i o n a l reverse effect o n read-
I n this way, C h e r n i n shows h o w you can use a counterview to
ers, you need to do your best to make sure rhat any counter-
improve and refine your overall argument by making a con-
arguments you address are n o t more c o n v i n c i n g t h a n your o w n
cession. Even as she concedes that losing weight feels good i n
claims. I t is good to address objections i n your w r i t i n g , but
the short r u n , she argues that i n the long r u n the weight always
only i f you are able to overcome t h e m .
returns, making the dieter far more miserable.
O n e surefire way to fail to overcome an objection is to dismiss i t out of hand—saying, for example, "That's just w r o n g . " T h e difference between such a response ( w h i c h offers n o sup-
TEMPLATES FOR M A K I N G C O N C E S S I O N S
porting reasons whatsoever) and the types of nuanced responses
W H I L E STILL STANDING YOUR
GROUND
we're p r o m o t i n g i n this book is the difference between bullying your readers and genuinely persuading them. O f t e n the best way to overcome an objection is not to try to
>
that It raises an i m p o r t a n t issue.
refute it completely but to agree w i t h part of i t while challenging only the part you dispute. I n other words, i n answering coun-
>
terarguments, i t is often best to say "yes, b u t " or "yes and n o , " See pp. 61-66
treating the counterview as an opportunity to revise and
for more on
refine your o w n position. Rather t h a n build your argu-
agreeing, with a difference,
A l t h o u g h I grant that the book is poorly organized, I still maintain
Proponents of X are nght to argue that
. But they exag-
gerate when they claim that >
While it is true that
, it does not necessarily follow that
ment into an impenetrable fortress, i t is often best to ^^iae
concessions while still standing your ground, as
K i m C h e r n i n does i n the following response to the counter-
>
O n the one hand, I agree with X that
. But on the other
hand, I still insist that
argument quoted above. W h i l e i n the voice of the "skeptic," C h e r n i n writes: " A d m i t i t . Y o u like yourself better when you've lost weight." I n response, C h e r n i n replies as follows.
Templates like these show that answering naysayers' objections does n o t have to be an all-or-nothing affair i n w h i c h you either definitively refute your critics or they definitively refute yoti.
Can I deny these things? No woman who has managed to lose
Often
weight would wish to argue with this. Most people feel better about
views end w i t h a combined vision that incorporates elements
themselves when they become slender. A n d yet, upon reflection,
of each one.
the
most productive engagements among
differing
it seems to me that there is something precarious about this well-
But what if you've tried out all the possible answers you can
being. After all, 98 percent of people who lose weight gain it back.
t h i n k of to an objection you've anticipated and you still have
Indeed, 90 percent of those who have dieted "successfully" gain
a nagging feeling that the objection is more c o n v i n c i n g than
back more than they ever lost. Then, of course, we can no longer
your argument itself? I n that case, the best remedy is to go back
bear to look at ourselves in the mirror.
and make some fundamental revisions to your argument, even 8
9
"SKEPTICS MAY
Planting a Naysayer
OBJECT"
in Your
Text
reversing your position complerely if need be. A l t h o u g b find-
icine should no longer face criminal sanctions. We must shift our
ing out late i n the game that you aren't fully convinced by your
entire approach to drug abuse from the criminal jusrice system to
o w n argument can be painful, i t can actually make your final
the public health system. Congress should appoint an independ-
text more inteiiectuaiiy honest, challenging,
and senous. After
ent comm.ission to study the barm-reduction policies that have
that wfiatever
been adopted i n Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands.
you initially said is right, but to stretch the limits o f your t h i n k -
The commission should recommend policies for the United States
ing. So i f p l a n t i n g a strong naysayer i n your text forces you to
based on one important criterion; what works.
all, the goal of writing
is not
to keep proving
change your m i n d , that's n o t a bad t h i n g . Some would argue that that is what the academic world is all about.
In a nation where pharmaceutical companies advertise powerful antidepressants on billboards and where alcohol companies run amusing beet ads during the Super Bowl, the idea of a "dmg-ftee society" is absurd. Like the rest of American society, our dmg policy would
Exercises
greatly benefit from less punishment and more compassion. ERIC SCHLOSSER, " A People's Democratic Platform"
1. Read the following passage by the cultural critic
Eric
Schlosser. As you'll see, he hasn't planted any naysayers i n
2. L o o k over something you've w r i t t e n that makes an argu-
this text. D o i t for h i m . Insert a brief paragraph stating an
ment. Check to see if you've anticipated and responded to
objection to his argument and t h e n responding to the objec-
any objections. I f n o t , revise your t e x t to do so. I f so, have
t i o n as he might.
you anticipated all the likely objections? W h o if anyone have you attributed the objections to? Have y o u represented
The United States must declare an end to the war on drugs. This
the objections fairly? Have you answered t h e m well enough,
war has filled the nation's prisons with poor drug addicts and small-
or do you t h i n k you now need to qualify your o w n argu-
time drug dealers. It has created a multibillion-doUar black mar-
ment? C o u l d you use any of the language suggested i n this
ket, enriched organized crime groups and promoted the corruption
chapter? Does the i n t r o d u c t i o n of a naysayer strengthen your
of government officials throughout the world. And it has not
argument? W h y , or why not?
stemmed the widespread use of illegal drugs. By any rational measure, this war has been a total failure. We must develop public policies on substance abuse that are guided not by moral righteousness or political expediency but by common sense. The United States should immediately decriminalize the cultivation and possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Marijuana should no longer be classified as a Schedule I narcotic, and those who seek to use marijuana as med9 o
9 1
''AND Y E ^ Distinguishing
What Y o u Say
from What They Say
often subtle markers that indicate whose voice the writer is speaking i n . Consider
h o w the social
critic a n d educator
Gregory
Mantsios uses these "voice markers," as they m i g h t be called, to distinguish the different perspectives i n his essay o n A m e r ica's class inequalities. "We are all middle-class," or so it would seem. Our national consciousness, as shaped in large part by the media and our political leadership, provides us with a picture of ourselves as a nation of
IF GOOD ACADEMIC WRITING
involves putting yourself into
prosperity and opportunity with an ever expanding middle-class
dialogue w i t h others, i t is extremely important that readers be
life-style. As a result, our class differences are muted and our col-
able to t e l l at every point w h e n you are expressing your o w n
lective character is homogenized.
view and w h e n you are stating someone else's. This chapter
Yet class divisions are real and arguably the most significant fac-
takes up the problem of m o v i n g from what they say to what you
tor in derermining both our very being in the world and the nature
say w i t h o u t confusing readers about who is saying what.
of the society we live in. GREGORY MANTSIOS, "Rewards and Opportunities:
The Politics and Economics of Class in the U.S." D E T E R M I N E W H O IS S A Y I N G W H A T IN T H E T E X T S Y O U R E A D
A l t h o u g h Mantsios makes i t look easy, he is actually making several sophisticated rhetorical moves here that help h i m dis-
Before examining how to signal who is saying what i n your o w n
tinguish t h e c o m m o n view he opposes f r o m his o w n position.
w r i t i n g , let's look at how t o recognize such signals w h e n they
I n the opening sentence, for instance, the phrase "or so it
appear i n the texts you read—an especially important skill
would seem" shows that Mantsios does n o t necessarily agree
w h e n i t comes to the challenging works assigned i n school. Fre-
w i t h the view he is describing, since writers normally don't pre-
quently, w h e n students have trouble understanding difficult
sent views they themselves h o l d as ones that only "seem" to be
texts, i t is n o t just because the texts contain unfamiliar ideas
true. Mantsios also places this opening view i n quotation marks
or words, but because the texts rely o n subtle clues to let read-
to signal that i t is n o t his o w n . H e t h e n further distances
6 8
6 9
AND Y E T "
Distinguishing
What
Y o u Say
from
What
They
Say
himself from the belief being summarized i n the opening para-
ing these words Mantsios acts as a k i n d of ventriloquist, m i m -
graph by a t t r i b u t m g i t to "our national consciousness, as shaped
icking what others say rather t h a n directly expressing what he
i n large part by the media and our political leadership," and
himself is t h i n k i n g .
then further attributing to this "consciousness" a negative, undesirable "result": one i n w h i c h "our class differences" get
T o see how important such voice markers are, consider what the Mantsios passage looks like if we remove t h e m .
" m u t e d " and "our collective character" gets "homogenized," stripped of its diversity and distinctness. Hence, even before Mantsios has declared his o w n position i n the second paragraph, readers can get a pretty solid sense of where he probably stands.
W e are all middle-class. . . .
W e are a n a t i o n of prosperity and
o p p o r t u n i t y w i t h an ever expanding middle-class life-style. . . . Class divisions are real and arguably the most significant factor i n d e t e r m i n i n g b o t h our very being i n the w o r l d and the nature of
Furthermore, the second paragraph opens w i t h the word
the society we live i n .
"yet," indicating that Mantsios is n o w shifting to his o w n view (as opposed to the c o m m o n view he has thus far been describing). Even the parallelism he sets up between the first and second paragraphs—between the first paragraph's c l a i m that class differences do n o t exist and the second paragraph's c l a i m that they do—helps throw i n t o sharp relief the differences between the t w o voices. Finally, Mantsios's use of a direct, authoritative, declarative tone i n the second paragraph also suggests a switch i n voice. A l t h o u g h he does n o t use the words " I say" or "1 argue," he clearly identifies the view he holds by presenting i t n o t as one that merely seems to be true or that others tell us is true, but as a view that is true or, as Mantsios puts
I n contrast
to the careful delineation between voices i n
Mantsios's original text, this unmarked version leaves i t hard to tell where his voice begins and the voices of others end. W i t h the markers removed, readers cannot t e l l that " W e are all middle-class" represents a view the author opposes, and that "Class divisions are real" represents what the author hiinself believes. Indeed, w i t h o u t the maikers, especially the "Yet," readers might well miss the fact that the second paragraph's claim that "Class divisions are real" contradicts the first paragraph's claim that " W e are a l l middle-class."
it, "teal." Paying a t t e n t i o n to these voice markers is an important aspect of reading comprehension. Readers who fail to notice these markers often take an author's summaries of what some-
TEMPLATES FOR S I G N A L I N G W H O IN Y O U R O W N
IS S A Y I N G W H A T
WRITING
one else believes to be an expression of what the author h i m self or herself believes. Thus w h e n we teach Mantsios's essay,
T o avoid confusion i n your o w n w r i t i n g , make sure that at every
some students invariably come away t h i n k i n g that the state-
point your readers can clearly tell w h o is saying what. T o do
ment "we are all middle-class" is Mantsios's o w n position rathet
so, you can use as voice-identifying devices many of the tem-
than the perspective he is opposing, failing to see that i n w r i t -
plates presented i n previous chapters.
7 o
7 1
"AND >
D i s t i n g u i s h i n g What
YET
My view,
however,
contrary
to
what
from
What
They
Say
Nevertheless, certain occasions may warrant avoiding the
A l t h o u g h X makes the best possible case for unjyersal, government-
first person and w r i t i n g , for example, that "she is correct" instead
funded health care, I am not persuaded. >
Y o u Say
X
has
argued,
is
that
of " I t h i n k that she is correct." Since i t can be monotonous to read an unvarying series of " I " statements ("I believe . . . 1 think . . . 1 argue"), it is a good idea to mix first-person assertions w i t h ones
>
A d d i n g t o X's argument, I w o u l d point out that
like the following.
t-
According to both X and Y,
f
"
Politicians, X argues, should
>
Most athletes will tell you that
X is right that certain c o m m o n patterns, can be found in the communities.
B U T I'VE B E E N T O L D IMOT T O U S E " 1 "
Notice that the first three templates above use the first-person " I " or " w e , " as do many of the templates i n this book, thereby contradicting the c o m m o n advice about avoiding the first person i n academic w r i t i n g . A l t h o u g h you may have been
>
The evidence shows that
>
X's assertion that
>
Anyone familiar with
does not fit the facts. should agree that
O n e m i g h t even follow Mantsios's lead, as i n the following template. >
Bui
are real, and are arguably the most
significant
factor in
told that the " I " word encourages subjective, self-indulgent
O n e the whole, however, academic w r i t i n g today, even
See pp.
opinions rather t h a n well-grounded arguments, we believe
i n the sciences and social sciences, makes use of the
we-isfoc an
that texts using " I " can be just as well supported—or just as
first person fairly liberally.
example of
self-indulgent—as those that don't. For us, well-supported argu-
how a physi-
ments are grounded i n persuasive reasons and evidence, not i n
cist uses the
the use or nonuse o f any particular pronouns.
A N O T H E R THICK FOR I D E N T I F Y I N G WHO
Furthermore, i f you consistently avoid the first person i n
first
person.
IS S P E A K I N G
your w r i t i n g , you w i l l probably have trouble making the key
T o alert readers about whose perspective you are describing at
move addressed i n this chapter: differentiating your views from
any given moment, you d o n ' t always have to use overt voice
those of others, or even offering your o w n views i n the first
markers like " X argues" followed by a summary of the argument.
place. But don't just take our word for i t . See for yourself how
Instead, you can alert readers about whose voice you're speak-
freely the first person is used by the writers quoted i n this book,
ing i n by embedding
and by the writers assigned i n your courses.
sentences. Hence, instead of w r i t i n g :
7 2
a reference to X's argument i n your o w n
7 3
"AND
Distinguishirrg W h a t Y o u Say from
YET"
Liberals believe t h a t cultural differences need to be respected. I
>
My o w n view is that what X insists is a
>
I wholeheartedly endorse what X calls
>
These conclusions, which X discusses in
What
They
Say is in fact a
have a p r o b l e m w i t h this view, however.
you might write:
I have a p r o b l e m w i t h what liberals call cultural
tural
to the argument that
differences.
T h e r e is a major p r o b l e m w i t h t h e liberal d o c t r i n e o f so-called
, add weight
cul-
differences.
W h e n writers fail to use voice-marking devices like the ones discussed i n this chapter, their summaries of others' views tend to
You can also embed references to something you yourself have previously said. So instead of w r i t i n g t w o cumbersome sentences like:
become confused w i t h their o w n ideas—and vice versa. W h e n readers cannot tell if you are summarizing your o w n views or endorsing a certain phrase or label, they have to stop and think: " W a i t . 1 thought the author disagreed w i t h this claim. Has she actually been asserting this view all along?" or " H m m m , I thought
Earlier i n this chapter we c o i n e d t h e t e r m "voice markers." W e w o u l d argue t h a t such markers are extremely i m p o r t a n t for reading comprehension.
she would have objected to this k i n d of phrase. Is she actually endorsing it?" Getting i n the habit of using voice markers w i l l keep you from confusing your readers and help alert you to similar markers i n the challenging texts you read.
you might write:
W e w o u l d argue t h a t " v o i c e markers," as we identified t h e m ear-
Exercises
lier, are extremely i m p o r t a n t for reading comprehension.
1. T o see h o w one writer signals w h e n she is asserting her o w n Embedded references like these allow you to economize your train of thought and refer to other perspectives w i t h o u t any major interruption.
views and w h e n she is summarizing those of someone else, read the f o l l o w i n g passage by the social historian Julie C h a r l i p . A s you do so, identify those spots where C h a r l i p refers t o the views of others and the signal phrases she uses to distinguish her views from theirs.
TEMPLATES FOR E M B E D D I N G V O I C E MARKERS M a r x and Engels w r o t e : "Society as a w h o l e is more a n d more split"
X overlooks what I consider an important point about cultural differ-
t i n g up i n t o t w o great hostile camps, i n t o t w o great classes d i r e c t l y
ences.
facing each o t h e r — t h e bourgeoisie and t h e p r o l e t a r i a t " (10).
7 4
7 5
If
AND Y E T "
Distinguishirrg WKat You Say from What They Say
only that were true, things might be more simple. But in late twen-
o w n voice f r o m those you are summarizing. Consider the
tieth-century America, it seems that society is splitting more and
f o l l o w i n g questions:
more into a plethora of class factions—the working class, the working poor, lower-middle class, upper-middle class, lower uppers, and upper uppers. I find myself not knowing what class I'm from. In my days as a newspaper reporter, I once asked a sociology professor what he thought about the reported shrinking of the middle class. Oh, it's not the middle class that's disappearing, he said, but the working class. His definition: if you earn thirty thousand dollars a year working in an assembly plant, come home from work, open a beer and watch the game, you are working class; if you earn twenty thousand dollars a year as a school teacher, come home
a. H o w many perspectives do you engage? b. W h a t other perspectives m i g h t you include? c. H o w do you distinguish your views f r o m the other views you summarize? d. D o you use clear voice-signaling phrases? e. W h a t options are available t o you for clarifying who is saying what? f. W h i c h of these options are best suited for this particular text?
fiom work to a glass of white wine and PBS, you are middle class.
If you f i n d that you do not include m u l t i p l e views or clearly
How do we define class? Is it an issue of values, lifestyle, taste?
distinguish between your views and others', revise your text
Is i t the kind of work you do, your relationship to the means of production? Is i t a matter of how much money you earn? Are we
to do so.
allowed to choose? I n this land of supposed classlessness, where we don't have the tradition of English society to keep us i n our places, how do we know where we really belong? The average American will tell you he or she is "middle class." I'm sure that's what my father would tell you. But I always felt that we were in some no man's land, suspended between classes, sharing similarities with some and recognizing sharp, exclusionary differences from others. What class do I come from? What class am 1 in now? As an historian, I seek the answers to these questions i n the specificity of my past. JULIE C H A R L I P , " A Real Class A c t : Searching
for Identity in the Classless Society"
2. Study a piece o f your o w n w r i t i n g t o see how many perspectives you account for and how well you distinguish your
7 6
7 7
Planting a Na^sa^er in Your Text i n our writing. Indeed, n o single device more quickly improves a piece of writing t h a n planting a naysayer i n the text—saying, for example, that "although some readers may object" to something
"SKEPTICS MAY Planting
a Naysayer
OBJECT'' in Your
i n your argument, you "would reply that
Text ANTICIPATE
OBJECTIONS
But wait, you say. Isn't the advice to incorporate critical views a recipe for destroying your credibility and u n d e r m i n i n g your argument? Here you are, trying to say something t h a t w i l l h o l d up, and we want you to tell readers all the negative things some-
THE WRITER Jane
T o m p k i n s describes a pattern that repeats
one might say against you?
itself whenever she writes a book or an article. For the first cou-
Exactly. W e are urging you to t e l l readers what others might
ple of weeks when she sits down to write, things go relatively
say against you, but our p o i n t is that doing so w i l l actually
well. But then i n the middle of the night, several weeks into the
enhance
writing process, she'll wake up i n a cold sweat, suddenly realiz-
throughout this book, w r i t i n g well does n o t mean piling up
ing that she has overlooked some major criticism that readers
uncontroversial truths i n a vacuum; i t means engaging others
your credibility, not undermine i t . A s we
argue
w i l l surely make against her ideas. Her first thought, invariably,
i n a dialogue or debate—not o n l y by opening your text w i t h a
is that she w i l l have to give up o n the project, or that she w i l l
summary of what others have said, as we suggest i n Chapter 1,
have to throw out what she's written thus far and start over.
but also by imagining what others might say against your argu-
T h e n she realizes that "this moment of doubt and panic is where
ment as it unfolds. Once you see w r i t i n g as an act of entering
my text really begins." She then revises what she's written i n a
a conversation, you should also see how opposing arguments
way that incorporates the criticisms she's anticipated, and her
can work for you rather t h a n against you.
text becomes stronger and more interesting as a result.
Paradoxically, the more you give voice to your critics' objec-
This little story contains an important lesson for all writers,
tions, the more you tend to disarm those critics, especially if
experienced and inexperienced alike. It suggests that even though
you go o n to answer their objections i n c o n v i n c i n g ways. W h e n
most of us are upset at the idea of someone criticizing our work,
you entertain a counterargument, you make a k i n d of preemp-
such criticisms can actually work to our advantage. A l t h o u g h it's
tive strike, identifying problems w i t h your argument before o t h -
naturally tempting to ignore criticism of our ideas, doing so may
ers can p o i n t t h e m out for you. Furthermore, by entertaining
i n fact be a big mistake, since our writing improves when we not
counterarguments, you show respect for your readers, treating
only listen to these objections but give them an explicit hearing
them not as gullible dupes who w i l l believe a n y t h i n g you say
7 8
7
9
Planting
"SKEPTICS MAV OBJECT"
a hiaysayer
in Your
Text
but as independent, critical thinkers who arc aware that your view is not the only one i n t o w n . I n addition, by imagining what others might say against your claims, you come across as a generous, broad-minded person who is confident enough to open himself or herself t o debate—like the writer i n Figure 5. Conversely, i f you d o n ' t entertain counterarguments, you may very likely come across as closed-minded, as if you t h i n k your beliefs are beyond dispute. You m i g h t also leave important questions hanging and concerns about your arguments unaddressed. Finally, if you fail t o plant a naysayer i n your text, you may f i n d that you have very little to say. O u r o w n students often say that entertaining counterarguments makes i t easier to generate enough text t o meet their assignment's page-length requirements. Planting a naysayer i n your rext is a relatively simple move, as you can see by l o o k i n g at the following passage from a book by the writer K i m C h e r n i n . H a v i n g spent some t h i r t y pages complaining about the pressure o n A m e r i c a n women to lose weight and be t h i n , C h e r n i n inserts a whole chapter entitled " T h e Skeptic," opening i t as follows. A t this point I would like to raise certain objections that have been
70 U WILL PROBABLy ORJECT THftT I HAVE
MISREPRESENTED X'S WORK HERE AND I CONCEDE THAT X NEVER SAYS IN SO MAN/ WORDS. NEVERTHaESS...."
inspired by the skeptic in me. She feels chat I have been ignoring some of the most common assumptions we all make about our bodies and these she wishes to see addressed. For example: "You know perfectly well," she says to me, "that you feel better when you lose weight. You buy new clothes. You look at yourself more eagerly in the mirror. When someone invites you to a party you don't stop and ask yourself whether you want to go. You feel sexier. Admit it. You like yourself better." KiM C H E R N I N , The Obsession: Reflections on the Tyranny 8 o
of
Slendemess
FIGURE
8 1
5
P l a n t i n g a Naysayer
"SKEPTICS MAY OBJECT"
in Your
Text
T h e remainder of Cher nin's chapter consists of her answers t o
bodies. I n other words, naysayers can be labeled, and you can
this inner skeptic. I n the face of the skeptic's challenge t o her
add precision and impact t o your w r i t i n g by i d e n t i f y i n g w h a t
book's central premise ( t h a t the pressure to diet seriously harms
those labels are.
women's lives), C h e r n i n responds neither by repressing the skeptic's c r i t i c a l voice nor by giving i n to i t and relinquishing TEMPLATES FOR N A M I N G Y O U R NAYSAYERS
her o w n p o s i t i o n . Instead, she embraces that voice and writes it i n t o her text. N o t e too that instead of dispatching this naysaying voice quickly, as many of us would be tempted t o
>
do, C h e r n i n stays w i t h i t and devotes a f u l l paragraph t o i t . By borrowing some of Chernin's language, we can come up w i t h
Here many/emm/sfs w o u l d probably object that gender does influence language.
>
templates for entertaining virtually any objection.
But social Darwinists
w o u l d certainly take issue w i t h the argument
that 1^
TEMPLATES FOR ENTERTAINING OBJECTIONS
Biologists,
o f course, may want to question whether
Nevertheless, both/o//ow^ers and critics of Malcolm
X will probably
suggest otherwise and argue that >
At this point I would like to raise some objections that have been inspired by the skeptic in me. She feels that I have been ignoring
>
Yet
some
readers
may
challenge
T o be sure, some people dislike such labels and may even resent h a v i n g labels applied t o themselves. Some feel that
the complexities o f the situation. my view by
insisting
that
labels put individuals i n boxes, stereotyping t h e m and glossing over w h a t makes each of us unique. A n d it's true that labels can be used inappropriately, i n ways that ignore individuality
>
O f course,
many will
probably disagree on
the grounds
that
and promote stereotypes. But since the life o f ideas, including many of our most private thoughts, is conducted through groups and types rather t h a n solitary individuals, intellectual
are
exchange requires labels t o give d e f i n i t i o n and serve as a con-
attributed n o t to any specific person or group, but t o "skep-
venient shorthand. I f you categorically reject a l l labels, you
tics," "readers," or " m a n y . " T h i s k i n d of nameless, faceless
give up an i m p o r t a n t resource and even mislead readers by
naysayer is perfectly appropriate i n many cases. But the ideas
presenting yourself and others as h a v i n g n o c o n n e c t i o n t o
that m o t i v a t e arguments and objections
anyone else. You also miss an o p p o r t u n i t y t o generalize the
Note
that
the
objections
i n the
above
templates
often can—and,
where possible, should—be ascribed to a specific ideology or
importance and relevance of your work to some larger con-
school of t h o u g h t (for example, liberals. C h r i s t i a n funda-
versation. W h e n you attribute a position you are summarizing
mentalists, neopragmatists) rather t h a n to anonymous any-
to liberalism, say, or historical materialism, your argument is
8
2
8 3
"SKEPTICS
MAY OBJECT"
Planting
no longer just about your o w n solitary views but about the
a Naysayer
in Your
Text
You can also let your naysayer speak directly.
intersection o f broad ideas and habits of m i n d that many readers may already have a stake i n .
>
T h e way to minimize the problem of stereotyping, then, is
"Impossible," some will say. "You must be reading the research selectively."
not to categorically reject labels but to refine and qualify their use, as the following templates demonstrate.
Moves like this allow you to cut directly to the skeptical voice itself, as the singer-songwriter joe Jackson does i n the fol-
>
A l t h o u g h not all Christians
think alike, some of them will probably
dispute my claim that >
Non-native
Englisin speakers
lowing excerpt f r o m a 2003 New York Times article complaining about the restrictions o n public smoking i n N e w York C i t y
, . are so diverse in their views that it's
hard to generalize about t h e m , but some are likely to object on the grounds that
bars and restaurants. 1 like a couple of cigarettes or a cigar with a drink, and like many other people, 1 only smoke in bars or nightclubs. Now I can't go
A n o t h e r way to avoid needless stereotyping is to qualify labels
to any of my old haunrs. Bartenders who were friends have turned
carefully, substituting "pro bono lawyers" for "lawyers" i n gen-
into cops, forcing me outside to shiver in the cold and curse under
eral, for example, or "quantitative sociologists" for all "social
my breath. . . . It's no fun. Smokers are being demonized and vic-
scientists," and so o n .
timized all out of proportion. "Get over i t , " say the anti-smokers. "You're the minority." I thought a great city was a place where all kinds of minorities
TEMPLATES FOR I N T R O D U C I N G O B J E C T I O N S
INFORMALLY
could thrive. . . . "Smoking kills," they say. As an occasional smoker with otherwise healthy habits, I ' l l take my chances.
Objections can also be introduced i n more informal ways. For
Health consciousness is important, but so are pleasure and free-
instance, you can frame objections i n the f o r m of questions.
dom of choice. JOE JACKSON, "Want to Smoke? Go to Hamburg"
> But is my proposal realistic? What are the chances of its actually
Jackson could have begun his second paragraph, i n w h i c h
being adopted? >
>
Yet is it necessarily true that
? Is it always the case, as
I have been suggesting, that
?
However, does the evidence I've cited prove conclusively
he shifts f r o m his o w n voice to that o f his imagined naysayer, more formally, as follows: " O f course anti-smokers w i l l object that since we smokers are i n the m i n o r i t y , we should
that
simply stop c o m p l a i n i n g and quietly make the sacrifices we are being called o n to make for the larger social good." O r
8
4
8 5
"SKEPTICS MAY OB|ECT"
Planting
a Naysayer
in Your
Text
" A n t i - s m o k e r s m i g h t insist, however, that the smoking m i n o r -
self i n your summary. W o u l d that reader t h i n k you have taken
ity should submit to the n o n - s m o k i n g m a j o r i t y . " W e t h i n k ,
his views seriously, as beliefs that reasonable people might hold?
though, that Jackson gets the job done i n a far more lively
O r would he detect a mocking tone or an oversimplification of
way w i t h the more colloquial f o r m he chooses. Borrowing a
his views?
standard move of playwrights and novelists, Jackson cuts
There w i l l always be certain objections, to be sure, that you
directly to the objectors' view and t h e n to his o w n retort,
believe do not deserve to be represented, just as there w i l l be
t h e n back to the objectors' view and t h e n to his o w n retort
objections that seem so u n w o r t h y of respect that they inspire
See Chapter
again, thereby creating a k i n d of dialogue or m i n i a -
ridicule. Remember, however, that if you do choose to mock a
5 for more
t^re play w i t h i n his o w n text. T h i s move works well
view that you oppose, you are likely to alienate those readers
advice on
Jackson, but only because he uses q u o t a t i o n marks
who don't already agree w i t h y o u — l i k e l y the very readers you
using voice
other voice markers to make clear at every p o i n t
want to reach. A l s o be aware that i n mocking another's view
markers.
you may contribute to a hostile argument culture i n w h i c h
whose voice he is i n .
someone may ridicule you i n return. REPRESENT OBJECTIONS
FAIRLY ANSWER
OBJECTIONS
Once you've decided to introduce a differing or opposing view into your w r i t i n g , your w o r k has only just begun, since you still
Do be aware that w h e n you represent objections successfully,
need to represent and explain that view w i t h fairness and gen-
you still need to be able to answer those objections persuasively.
erosity. A l t h o u g h it is tempting to give opposing views short
A f t e r all, w h e n you write objections i n t o a text, you take the
shrift, to hurry past them, or even to mock them, doing so is
risk that readers w i l l f i n d those objections more convincing
usually counterproductive. W h e n writers make the best case
than the argument you yourself are advancing. I n the editorial
they can for their critics (playing Peter Elbow's "believ-
quoted above, for example, Joe Jackson takes the risk that read-
formoreon
i^g game"), they actually bolster their credibility w i t h
ers w i l l identify more w i t h the anti-smoking view he summa-
the believing
pgajg^s rather t h a n undermine i t . They make readers
rizes t h a n w i t h the pro-smoking position he endorses.
See pp. 31-32
t h i n k , "This is a writer 1 can trust." W e recommend, then, that whenever you entertain objections i n your w r i t i n g , you stay w i t h them for several sentences
This is precisely what Benjamin F r a n k l i n describes happ e n i n g to h i m s e l f i n The
Autobiography
of
Benjamin
Franklin
(1793), w h e n he recalls being converted to Deism (a religion
or even paragraphs and take them as seriously as possible. W e
that exalts reason over spirituality) by reading anti-Deist books.
also recommend that you read your summary of opposing views
W h e n he encountered the views of Deists being negatively
w i t h an outsider's eye: put yourself i n the shoes of someone w h o
summarized by authors w h o opposed t h e m . F r a n k l i n explains,
disagrees w i t h you and ask if such a reader would recognize h i m -
he ended up finding the Deist position more persuasive.
8
6
8 7
To
"SKEPTICS MAY OBJECT"
P l a n t i n g a Naysayer
in Your
Text
avoid h a v i n g this k i n d i f u n i n t e n t i o n a l reverse effect o n read-
I n this way, C h e r n i n shows h o w you can use a counterview to
ers, you need to do your best to make sure rhat any counter-
improve and refine your overall argument by making a con-
arguments you address are n o t more c o n v i n c i n g t h a n your o w n
cession. Even as she concedes that losing weight feels good i n
claims. I t is good to address objections i n your w r i t i n g , but
the short r u n , she argues that i n the long r u n the weight always
only i f you are able to overcome t h e m .
returns, making the dieter far more miserable.
O n e surefire way to fail to overcome an objection is to dismiss i t out of hand—saying, for example, "That's just w r o n g . " T h e difference between such a response ( w h i c h offers n o sup-
TEMPLATES FOR M A K I N G C O N C E S S I O N S
porting reasons whatsoever) and the types of nuanced responses
W H I L E STILL STANDING YOUR
GROUND
we're p r o m o t i n g i n this book is the difference between bullying your readers and genuinely persuading them. O f t e n the best way to overcome an objection is not to try to
>
that It raises an i m p o r t a n t issue.
refute it completely but to agree w i t h part of i t while challenging only the part you dispute. I n other words, i n answering coun-
>
terarguments, i t is often best to say "yes, b u t " or "yes and n o , " See pp. 61-66
treating the counterview as an opportunity to revise and
for more on
refine your o w n position. Rather t h a n build your argu-
agreeing, with a difference,
A l t h o u g h I grant that the book is poorly organized, I still maintain
Proponents of X are nght to argue that
. But they exag-
gerate when they claim that >
While it is true that
, it does not necessarily follow that
ment into an impenetrable fortress, i t is often best to ^^iae
concessions while still standing your ground, as
K i m C h e r n i n does i n the following response to the counter-
>
O n the one hand, I agree with X that
. But on the other
hand, I still insist that
argument quoted above. W h i l e i n the voice of the "skeptic," C h e r n i n writes: " A d m i t i t . Y o u like yourself better when you've lost weight." I n response, C h e r n i n replies as follows.
Templates like these show that answering naysayers' objections does n o t have to be an all-or-nothing affair i n w h i c h you either definitively refute your critics or they definitively refute yoti.
Can I deny these things? No woman who has managed to lose
Often
weight would wish to argue with this. Most people feel better about
views end w i t h a combined vision that incorporates elements
themselves when they become slender. A n d yet, upon reflection,
of each one.
the
most productive engagements among
differing
it seems to me that there is something precarious about this well-
But what if you've tried out all the possible answers you can
being. After all, 98 percent of people who lose weight gain it back.
t h i n k of to an objection you've anticipated and you still have
Indeed, 90 percent of those who have dieted "successfully" gain
a nagging feeling that the objection is more c o n v i n c i n g than
back more than they ever lost. Then, of course, we can no longer
your argument itself? I n that case, the best remedy is to go back
bear to look at ourselves in the mirror.
and make some fundamental revisions to your argument, even 8
9
"SKEPTICS MAY
Planting a Naysayer
OBJECT"
in Your
Text
reversing your position complerely if need be. A l t h o u g b find-
icine should no longer face criminal sanctions. We must shift our
ing out late i n the game that you aren't fully convinced by your
entire approach to drug abuse from the criminal jusrice system to
o w n argument can be painful, i t can actually make your final
the public health system. Congress should appoint an independ-
text more inteiiectuaiiy honest, challenging,
and senous. After
ent comm.ission to study the barm-reduction policies that have
that wfiatever
been adopted i n Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands.
you initially said is right, but to stretch the limits o f your t h i n k -
The commission should recommend policies for the United States
ing. So i f p l a n t i n g a strong naysayer i n your text forces you to
based on one important criterion; what works.
all, the goal of writing
is not
to keep proving
change your m i n d , that's n o t a bad t h i n g . Some would argue that that is what the academic world is all about.
In a nation where pharmaceutical companies advertise powerful antidepressants on billboards and where alcohol companies run amusing beet ads during the Super Bowl, the idea of a "dmg-ftee society" is absurd. Like the rest of American society, our dmg policy would
Exercises
greatly benefit from less punishment and more compassion. ERIC SCHLOSSER, " A People's Democratic Platform"
1. Read the following passage by the cultural critic
Eric
Schlosser. As you'll see, he hasn't planted any naysayers i n
2. L o o k over something you've w r i t t e n that makes an argu-
this text. D o i t for h i m . Insert a brief paragraph stating an
ment. Check to see if you've anticipated and responded to
objection to his argument and t h e n responding to the objec-
any objections. I f n o t , revise your t e x t to do so. I f so, have
t i o n as he might.
you anticipated all the likely objections? W h o if anyone have you attributed the objections to? Have y o u represented
The United States must declare an end to the war on drugs. This
the objections fairly? Have you answered t h e m well enough,
war has filled the nation's prisons with poor drug addicts and small-
or do you t h i n k you now need to qualify your o w n argu-
time drug dealers. It has created a multibillion-doUar black mar-
ment? C o u l d you use any of the language suggested i n this
ket, enriched organized crime groups and promoted the corruption
chapter? Does the i n t r o d u c t i o n of a naysayer strengthen your
of government officials throughout the world. And it has not
argument? W h y , or why not?
stemmed the widespread use of illegal drugs. By any rational measure, this war has been a total failure. We must develop public policies on substance abuse that are guided not by moral righteousness or political expediency but by common sense. The United States should immediately decriminalize the cultivation and possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Marijuana should no longer be classified as a Schedule I narcotic, and those who seek to use marijuana as med9 o
9 1
