A Response to “A Magnanimous Proposal” by James

I was rather surprised by the reaction that I immediately felt after reading “A Magnanimous Proposal” by James.  I found myself quickly and actively searching for the latest and greatest in politically driven proposal arguments to analyze while reading many times the Webster’s definition of the Rogerian argument technique.  I know that mine isn’t a typical response to a simple post assignment like this one but I am anything but typical in my response to nearly any issue regarding politics or the political scene in the United States and my new-found love for argument analysis.  That aside, I love the description and active analysis that James provides of the key components of proposal argument and their application to honing and refining the writing skills of the brilliant untrained writer.  The further I read and review James’s post it forces me to, just as in the last reading assignment, return to the textbook and review what I thought I perceived as a true and good proposal argument.

Clearly James has a better general understanding of argument that I have but I respond to that challenge by forcing myself to know and understand rhetoric and proposal arguments better than the author who simply writes well and has a linguistic capability that easily trumps my own.  James is correct in the use of the Rogerian argument technique which does provide a common denominator that is typically lacking in formal debate and I appreciate and applaud James for employing his understanding of it.  I have a lot to learn and learn a lot each and every time I read a post from a great writer.  Reading “A Magnanimous Proposal” by James motivates me to look past some of my rhetorical shortcomings and pushes me to analyze my own writing with the same scrutiny that I use when analyzing the writing of others.

The Great Proposal Argument

I have been very fortunate to follow many great leaders throughout their time in a growing business-management driven economy.  Throughout this time I have reviewed, written, proposed, and defended thousands of arguments that have shaped my view of the management process without even realizing it.  One argument stays fresh in my mind because it comes up nearly everywhere that I visit.  The proposal and argument to work an eight hour workday instead of a ten hour workday has been on the proverbial table more often than it has been off of it.  The results of the proposal and argument always remain the same.  Eight is better than ten or twelve.

The proposal to work an eight hour workday contains the root structure that embraces the rhetorical triangle and is therefore highly effective in many different situations.  The claim is always the same; “We should work eight hours each day.”  The supporting reason undoubtedly boils down to the argument presenter’s stance on the topic.  Either the presenter is a steward of the company and cites a specific productivity reason for an eight hour workday or the presenter is a steward of the family and cites a reason to have a better quality of life incentive for the employee.  The grounds to support the claim and reason are always specifically employee oriented, productivity oriented, and climate oriented to paint a picture of stress and strain that plagues productivity after the eighth hour.  The rebuttal is always a sea of stress related to the summertime heat or wintertime cold that highlights the need to work a ten or twelve hour day.  The proposal and rebuttal is always loaded with facts, figures, and images that are typically researched and weighted toward the desired outcome just as is the same with any good argument.

The argument to work an eight hour workday not only has a direct effect on my personal quality of life but also has a direct effect on the level of participation and productivity that I see and measure from shop-floor level associates every day. It cannot be said that this or any other proposal argument has a resulting outcome that works in 100% of cases.  I think that is a very important aspect to note because some factories and work-plans simply cannot be in support of an eight hour workday due to unforeseen logistical and work-condition issues.  In the end my ultimate response to the proposal for an eight hour workday remains the same everywhere I go no matter how well the argument is presented.  I see eye-to-eye with the rebuttal arguments and consider the facts just as I am expected to do with any argument.  The proposal changes slightly in every situation but my response remains the same.  I do and will always support the eight hour workday.        

Reading Summary - Unit Three

From the beginning of the chapter fifteen “Proposal Arguments” overview it is very easy to see that proposal arguments are widely used everywhere in society today.  The overview clearly explains and defines the two types of proposal arguments; practical proposals and policy proposals.  Practical proposals are very common to me as a manager.  I find myself building and proposing practical arguments several times each day for the rest of my life.  Practical proposals, in my translation of the chapter’s text, are very detailed and minute-to-minute types of issue proposal arguments.  In this type of argument I can see having a clear and logical structure being of the utmost importance. The rhetorical triangle is obviously equally important with this and every argument type.  Policy proposals, in my translation of the chapter’s text, are broad and long-term types of issue proposal arguments that, though common, are extensively researched and developed over a long period of time.  I also can see the importance of clear structure and rhetorical writing knowledge with policy proposal reading and writing.  The bottom line of the overview is value; the value of learning to identify and write proposal arguments. (Ramage 311)

The body of the chapter has a familiar focus on logos, the structure portion of argumentative writing.  The structures of proposal arguments, just as with ethical and globalization arguments, use the Toulmin Analysis framework when structure is important to the writer.  This structure begins with an enthymeme, or claim and supporting reason for the claim.  Following the claim and supporting reason is the grounds, or supporting evidence for the claim and reason.  Following the enthymeme claim and supporting reasons is the warrant and warrant backing.  The ultimate focus of the logos in proposal arguments, as I understand it through the reading of the chapter, is to minimize the rebuttal possibility by covering all of the “special concerns” that proposal arguments can entail. (Ramage 312-14)

The closing of the chapter on proposal arguments outlines in detail the importance of convincing the audience that a real problem exists through calling the audience’s attention to the specific problem and importance of action early on in the argument.  Also in the closing of the chapter is an explanation of the need to justify the proposal to the audience.  It is also noted that, depending on the specific rhetorical context of the argument, a different level justification may be necessary for arguments that could be taken harder by the audience versus the level of justification necessary for simple and less complex issues.  Ending the chapter is a brief summary of proposal arguments as advertisements.  This, I assume, is brief because of the previous chapter that is dedicated fully to visual arguments and the strong rhetorical presence that advocacy posters and argumentative advertisements have in today’s society. (Ramage 316-22)

Throughout the chapter, in my opinion, is a very eye-opening reminder of the huge role that rhetoric plays in everyday life.  I assume that this feeling is shared by many but the knowledge of rhetorical analysis and argumentative writing seems to be shared by only a limited few.  I know that the use of proposal argument in the workplace is more than common for me and the management teams that I work with on a daily basis than it is for the general public.  I am very surprised and slightly disappointed that I haven’t been previously educated on the development and analysis of proposal argument reading and writing.  With that said, I am also very thankful that I am learning this now and will have it to use and teach at home and at work.

           

           

           

Work Cited

Ramage, John D., John C. Bean and June Johnson. Writing Arguments:  A Rhetoric with Readings.  8^th Edition.  New York:  Longman, 2010. Print.

Response to Sherry Lee’s “Unit 2 Reading Summary”

            I love to keep up with current events including the blog feeds to which I subscribe.  Prior to posting my summary to the reading request I just happened to read Sherry Lee’s “Unit 2 Reading Summary.”  This isn’t typically a post that I would choose to write a response about but I was and still am in need of any insight concerning argument and rhetoric that I can get my hands upon.  I am very glad that I was compelled to read Sherry’s post because it helped me to absorb some aspects of the reading better, realize that I didn’t absorb some aspects at all, and also caused me to adjust my understanding of arguments a bit.

            I take for granted at times that others’ might understand and summarize reading in very different ways.  My summary follows the book and summarizes the pertinent aspects of the “look” of rhetoric.  Sherry’s summary also follows the book but, through a different lens, describes some of the other very pertinent aspects of rhetoric and rhetorical analysis.  The “dialogic strategies” analysis and summary is just a single example of how Sherry and I view the concepts differently with regard to importance.  I didn’t even mention the description of the “dialogic strategies” or “analogy” rhetorical strategy. 

            I do not feel that reading for logic is a natural strength of mine, as the previous paragraph clearly describes, though I do love to read when the subject of the reading takes my interest.  I feel that Sherry’s summary moves me to take another look at the reading and make a few more notes.  Thanks to Sherry, I will apply this mini-lesson throughout my college career and day-based career.  There isn’t a doubt in my mind that I have a lot to learn about rhetoric, reading, and responses.

The Rhetorical Triangle

          I love to have a hand in anything that is management-related.  I am constantly challenged to build something from nothing and I love it.  The simple word “triangle” evokes in me a similar fire, a passion deep down that sparks patterns of thought and ideas that can be tied to nearly anything I put my work-stained hands upon.  I, unlike most, enjoy writing because of the power that words hold.  A well-worded e-mail can provoke change in a process that is unthinkable over the phone.  With logos that e-mail will have a unique structure.  With ethos that e-mail will have the power of documentation through evidence.  With pathos the e-mail will have strength of supporting words that will keep the needed change in-focus.  The e-mail will ultimately have the positive effect it needs to become and remain a top-priority because of the rhetorical triangle and the power it has.

            The logos of an argument, as I understand it, is the structure.  The brick and mortar of a house will not stand without a firm foundation supporting it.  The pictures hanging neatly on the wall of that house will fall if not for the brick and mortar.   The roof of the house will collapse if the four walls are not correctly set in-place.  Just like a house, an entire argument will collapse if the structure it has isn’t stable.  For instance, if the claim of the argument has weak grounds then the grounds of the claim will be attacked through rebuttal and the argument will fail.  The warrant of the argument must have backing, or walls.  If the walls are weak or have holes then they will collapse and ultimately fail.  The logos, or structure of an argument, must be solid just like a house.  Each part of the structure depends on another for support.  All of the parts together form the strength and integrity of the structure.

            The pathos of an argument, as I understand it, is the emotional appeal and connection of an argument.  The emotional elements of an argument are, in my opinion, a huge key part of the arguments’ persuasive nature.  I use pathos often in speech to persuade people to do things that may be above their skill set.  Pathos also helps me to apply the same detail to writing that would otherwise be bland and tasteless.  Pathos, simply put, is like the five senses.   The eyes allow us to see the vivid colors.  The ears allow us to hear the sweet music.  The nose allows us to smell the fresh rain.  Touch allows us to feel the soft grass.  The tongue allows us to taste the cool mint.  The senses tie to our feelings and emotions deep-down.  In writing, I can use pathos to clearly connect to the senses with carefully selected words, phrases, images, and narratives.  Pathos clearly ties the argument to the structure and provides understanding that will bring a reader to open up to the claim.

            The ethos of an argument, as I understand it, is the credibility and evidence that supports the claim.  Ethos can, in my opinion, speak volumes about trust.  If I read or see an argument that I feel I cannot trust then that argument, in my mind, fails.  An argument ultimately has to be based on fact in my opinion.  The writer of an argument has to have some level of interest in the argument and be knowledgeable of the issues.  I suppose I can go back to the logos house comparison.  If the foundation of the house is built upon sand, then the foundation will crumble and the house will collapse, no matter how well the foundation, walls, and roof are built.  Ethos is the sand, the evidence, and the research that the entire claim is based upon.  Anyone can argue and anyone can question an argument but the facts and evidence are what separate the two.  The evidence must be selected and placed very carefully to be valid in the mind of the audience.  An argument depends on ethos to carry it through rebuttal.  Without the facts, truth, and evidence an argument will ultimately fail.

            The logos, pathos, and ethos of an argument are keys to success in the ever-more persuasive world.  These elements have to be present and strong to persuade an audience to see a desired view.  The rhetorical triangle is a tool that has a lot of value and function.  This tool is extremely useful in the management and leadership of people and processes.  It can be compared to the elements of a house but, when used correctly, can be far more valuable.