Having the Right Tools for the Job

As I stated in my last post, the next series of posts will elaborate on the approach and tools presented in each of the chapters of Reading. Accordingly, this post provides some perspective on Chapter 1 and, because of the introductory nature of and method employed in Chapter 1, on the entire approach of the book.

There are many ways to analyze an argumentative text.  It would be foolish for anyone to claim that one of these methods is the “right” one and that all of the others are more or less incorrect.  Each method is more or less easy to use, reveals more or less of the meaning of a text, and, perhaps, uncovers different kinds of meaning in a text. 

The method that Reading advocates¸ which I believe is the most efficient and productive method, is one in which you are continuously asking questions directly of the text to extract its meaning.  These questions include, for example: 

• Does the author really say X (where X may be any statement, e.g., that the Civil War was fought to end slavery, or that human activity is driving species to extinction at an unprecedented rate)?
• If so, where?
• If he doesn’t expressly say X, is X implied by what the author does write?
• If X is not expressly stated in the text and not implied by anything in the text, did the author mean to communicate X?
• What does the author mean by Y (where Y may be any statement, e.g., that liberty and equality are incompatible, or that paying a person to make an organ donation is immoral)?
• Is my interpretation of Y consistent with other statements the author expressly makes?
• And so on.

Those sorts of questions allow you to understand the meaning the author is attempting to convey – what the author’s argument is and is not, whether that argument is valid or invalid, how the statements in the argument relate to the nonargumentative statements in the text, and so on. 

When you are engaged with an argumentative text in this direct fashion, it is helpful to have tools to guide and assist your efforts. Having the right tools for the job will make your reading more efficient, productive, and enjoyable.  So, what are those “right tools for the job”?    

Some college rhetoric, reading, and writing textbooks ask you to pigeon-hole a part of a sentence, a complete sentence, or a text as a whole into a theoretical model more or less directly related the actual words and meaning of the text.  Consider, for example, the following:

• Some writing textbooks and online sources on writing college papers make Stephen Toulmin’s theory of argumentation a centerpiece of their pedagogy. Following Toulmin, they instruct you to write and analyze texts by asking whether sentences or parts of sentences in the text fall into one of these six categories:  claim, grounds (or evidence), warrant, backing, qualifier (or modality), and rebuttal. 
• One textbook employs a theory of signs and instructs readers to analyze texts in terms of a sign, signals, and signification, where only the sign is “overt” (metaphorically, the part of the iceberg that is above the surface of the water) and signals and signification are “covert” (metaphorically, the part of the iceberg that is below the surface of the water) causes or reasons for the sign. 
• Finally, rhetorical analyses traditionally have begun by asking whether the text is deliberative (political) and focused on future action, or forensic (judicial) and focused on past actions and events, or epideictic (ceremonial) and focused on praising or blaming in the present.  And such analyses also traditionally have focused on three means of persuasion, namely, appeals to the character of the speaker (ethos), to the emotions of the audience (pathos), or to evidence and reasoning (logos).

I need not belabor the point with additional examples.

Each of these theory-ladened methods can be useful in analyzing texts and determining what an author means.  When any one of them is productive for your understanding a text, or a particular type of text, then by all means employ it. 

Bear in mind, however, that for every goal you have, for every task you set out to accomplish, some tools are better suited than others.  You can’t win a football game with a baseball and you can’t cook a delicious dinner with motor oil.  The analytic tools I present in Reading are designed to guide your direct engagement with argumentative texts by focusing on the principal sources of meaning of such texts with no unnecessary theoretical distractions or obstacles between you and the text. 

If you have read, or are reading, Reading, you may be asking yourself, “well, the book spends a fair amount of time on arguments – what an argument is; the relation of premises and conclusion; the four principal types of arguments; enthymemes; fallacies; and so on – and isn’t all of that just a theoretical sideshow that the reader has to slog through to get to the meaning of a text?”  In brief, “isn’t Reading just as “theory-ladened” as any other rhetoric, writing, or critical reading textbook?” 

The discussion of arguments in Reading is intended to provide you with the appropriate conceptual tools you need to successfully understand the meaning of an argumentative text.  You can think of these tools as constituting a “theory” – a coherent conceptual framework.  Or you can simply view them as a bundle of tools that will help you overcome some of the traditional challenges to understanding the meaning of texts.  In either case, these tools are relatively simple to use and understand and don’t come with unnecessary and distracting theoretical baggage.  They are time-honored, going back to at least Aristotle’s works from 2300 years ago.  And they are essential – you may miss much of the meaning an author is trying to communicate without them. 

Suppose you want to plant a large tree.  You need to dig a hole.  What are the most suitable tools for the job?  You probably can dig a big enough hole with your hands, but it will take you weeks, be very frustrating, and will be some of the hardest work you’ve ever done, if you finish the job at all.  You can bring in a bulldozer, front-loader, and lots of heavy equipment, but unless your tree is massive, that’s overkill.  Having a shovel, pick, and other hand tools fit to the task will allow you to get the job done efficiently and with satisfaction, without broken fingernails and cuts on your hands and without torn up grass and rental fees from the heavy equipment.    

The analytic tools in Reading are like that shovel, pick, and the rest of the hand tools you need to dig the hole and plant the tree.  Without them, your reading of texts may be shallow, unenlightening, and more work than fun. With them, you can dig into an argumentative text in a productive fashion so you can understand more of what the author is trying to communicate.  They assist and guide your intellect in directly engaging with the words and meaning of a text without the overkill of unnecessary theory. They lead to improved understanding, which is good in itself and good because it is empowering.