Assignment Requirements
Okay: with assignment three, we’re going to try something a little different. There are essentially two steps to this essay, although what you write will blend them into one discussion.
This assignment includes a quote which you are going to read, paraphrase, and then decide whether or not you agree with it. This is a great training for many different types of writing that comes up in college, and it also helps you to lear to explain your own responses. After all, it’s one thing to decide we agree or disagree with something; it’s another thing to be able to explain why.
The subject you will write on is an excerpt from a psychologist named Thomas Szasz. You really don’t need to do any research or background on him or his theory, just work with what we have here and center your attention on its ideas. First, read this blurb carefully; then, step back from it to digest. See if you can track the main points he’s trying to make. Also note that in the middle of it, he’s using a metaphor-a comparison of unlike things, in this case definition and a western gun fight, to make his case.
You might go to your groups, then, and post a short summary of what you think this thing is trying to say. Feel free to discuss the quote as much as you want-this will not compromise your essay at all.
I’d like you to write an essay that briefly explains the ideas you think Szasz is presenting. This will be a short summary, perhaps a third of the essay you’ll write, so a paragraph, maybe two, after your introduction. With the rest of your essay, I’d like you to to discuss what you think about this guy’s claims–whether you agree, disagree, or find yourself somewhere in the middle.
Here’s the quote:
The struggle for definition is veritably the struggle for life itself. In the typical Western two men fight desperately for the possession of a gun that has been thrown to the ground: whoever reaches the weapon first shoots and lives; his adversary is shot and dies. In ordinary life, the struggle is not for guns but for words; whoever first defines the situation is the victor; his adversary, the victim. For example, in the family, husband and wife, mother and child do not get along: who defines who as troublesome or mentally sick?…[the one] who first seizes the word imposes reality on the other: [the one] who defines thus dominates and lives; and [the one] who is defined is subjugated and may be killed.
What a crack-up, that Szasz…!
So what is he up to? What is it that this writer believes, and what does he offer to persuade us to take his position?
You might do some prewriting on a thorough paraphrase of what you believe he’s trying to say. (paraphrase, by the way, puts someone else’s ideas totally into your own words, and may be as long or longer than the original. A summary puts someone else’s ideas totally into your own words, but is much shorter than the original. Direct quote is word for work the same as the original, and is in quotation marks. ) This may or may not be the background that makes it into your essay, it can just be what helps you to center your own thought.
Your essay should assume that your reader is familiar with this quote, but doen’t have it right in front of them at this moment. Therefore, you will remind the reader of the author’s name, you will summarize or paraphrase the quote’s ideas, but your thesis will present your own claim about what position you take on Szasz’s ideas.
As you mull over the author’s position, consider whether you’ve seen or heard or read about other examples of what he’s proposing, whether you can identify believe this sort of world exists. You may want to look up some of the words he uses, to make sure you’re clear on what he’s suggesting. Is defining other people really as heavy as he claims it is? Can you think of other examples that apply to what he says, or do you find holes in his logic? How well do you think he covers his bases? You do not have to be 100% for or against him-you might find a mid-ground, or even find that you’re simply not sure. Do the best that you can to explain what you think, and why, based mostly on what he says and how you respond to it. Do you think he has good evidence to support his claim?
Evidence is what gives an argument logical credibility: it’s what appeals to our sense of reasoning, our intellect, our mathematical/practical sides. Evidence can come in the form of facts, testimony from expert sources, examples and observations, as well as logical reasoning in inductive and deductive constructions (sounds pretty impressive, yes?) However, arguments are also won through elements of persuasion, and logical evidence is only one flavor of that. Aristotle also pointed to ethical appeals–that is, appeals to our sense of decency and right and wrong, shared values, as well as emotional appeals, which stir our hearts, our pulses, gets us in the throat or the stomach or the nervous system. Thorough writers will often mix all three forms of appeal (Martin Luther King was a great one for this), although it’s quite possible to try to zing something to an audience solely on the last one or two appeals and not provide much, if any logic and evidence (think of advertising, for instance.)
Your essay does not have to mention any of these devices and terms, I offer them only as a general overview of what makes something an argument (which must have logical evidence) versus persuasion (which can use any of the appeals, but need not have logic involved.)
So do you agree with our friend’s stand? Write an essay, wrangle it out on paper. Whatever you come up with, explain it as thoroughly as you can for an audience who may have read the Szasz quote, but doesn’t have it right there next to your paper. Be clear and specific-and allow yourself whatever tone or approach you think will keep your ideas sharp and interesting.
What fun!
Order Now