"What effect has 'They Say' had on my students' writing? They are finally entering the Burkian Parlor of the university. This book uncovers the rhetorical conventions that transcend disciplinary boundaries, so that even freshmen, newcomers to the academy, are immediately able to join in the conversation."
—Margaret Weaver, Missouri State University
"It's the anti-composition text: Fun, creative, humorous, brilliant, effective."
—Perry Cumbie, Durham Technical Community College
"This book explains in clear detail what skilled writers take for granted." —John Hyman, American University
"The ability to engage with the thoughts of others is one of the most important skills taught in any college-level writing course, and this book does as good a job teaching that skill as any text I have ever encountered." —William Smith, Weatherford College
"Students find this book tremendously helpful—they report that it has 'demystified' academic writing for them."
—Karen Gocsik, University of California at San Diego
"I love 'They Say 11 Say,' and more importantly, so do my students,"
—Catherine Hayter, Saddleback College
'"They Say I I Say' reveals the language of academic writing in a way that students seem to understand and incorporate more easily than they do with other writing books. Instead of a list of don'ts, the book provides a catalog of do's, which is always more effective."
—Amy Lea Clemons, Francis M.arion University
"This book makes the implicit rules of academic writing explicit for students. It's the book 1 really wish I'd had when I was an undergraduate."
—Steven Bailey, Central Michigan University
FOURTH EDITION
I If
"THEY SAY/ I SAY
The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing
-—Mi—
GERALD GRAFF CATHY BIRKENSTEIN
both of the University of Illinois at Chicago
W- W- NORTON & COMPANY NEW YORK 1 LONDON
INTRODUCTION
for giving „p mea, Pc[haps the fet reasom ^
*ege,ar,an d,« as c„mparKi to a meat Ws diM wi([ sh 8
"THEY SAY"
Starting with What Others Are Saying
Not long ago we attended a talk at an academic conference where the speaker's central claim seemed to be that a certain sociologist—call him Dr. X—had done very good work in a number of areas of the discipline. The speaker proceeded to illustrate his thesis by referring extensively and in great detail to various books and articles by Dr. X and by quoting long passages from them. The speaker was obviously both learned and impassioned, but as we listened to his talk we found ourselves somewhat puzzled: the argument—that Dr. X's work was very important—was clear enough, but why did the speaker need to make it in the first place? Did anyone dispute it? Were there commentators in the field who had argued against X's work or challenged its value? Was the speaker's interpretation of what X had done somehow novel or revolutionary? Since the speaker gave no hint of an answer to any of these questions, we could only wonder why he was going on and on about X. It The hypo-was only after the speaker finished and took questions audience in from the audience that we got a clue: in response to   trie figure on
p. 5 reacts
one questioner, he referred to several critics who had similarly.
i 8
1 9
O i'i "THEY SAY"
vigorously questioned Dr. X's ideas and convinced many sociologists that Dr. X's work was unsound.
This story illustrates an important lesson: that to give writ' ing the most important thing of all—namely, a point—a writer needs to indicate clearly not only what his or her thesis is, but also what larger conversation chat thesis is responding to. Because our speaker failed to mention what others had said about Dr. X's work, he left his audience unsure about why he felt the need to say what he was saying. Perhaps the point was clear to other sociologists in the audience who were more familiar with the debates over Dr. X's work than we were. But even they, we bet, would have understood the speakers point better if he'd sketched in some of the larger conversation his own claims were a part of and reminded the audience about what "they say."
This story also illustrates an important lesson about the order in which things ate said: to keep an audience engaged, a writer needs to explain what he or she is responding to—either before offering that response or, at least, very early in the discussion. Delaying this explanation for more than one or two paragraphs in a very short essay or blog entry, three or four pages in a longer work, or more than ten or so pages in a book reverses the natural order in which readers process material—and in which writers think and develop ideas. After all, it seems very unlikely that our conference speaker first developed his defense of Dr. X and only later came across Dr. X's critics. As someone knowledgeable in his field, the speaker surely encountered the criticisms first and only then was compelled to respond and, as he saw it, set the record straight.
Therefore, when it comes to constructing an argument (whether orally or in writing), we offer you the following advice: remember that you are entering a conversation and therefore need to start with "what others are saying," as the
Starting with What Others Are Saying
title of this chapter recommends, and then introduce your own ideas as a response. Specifically, we suggest that you summarize what "they say" as soon as you can in your text, and remind readers of it at strategic points as your text unfolds. Though it's true that not all texts follow this practice, we think it's impottant for all writers to master it before they depart from it.
This is not to say that you must start with a detailed list of everyone who has written on your subject before you offer your own ideas. Had our conference speaker gone to the opposite extreme and spent most of his talk summarizing Dr. X's critics with no hint of what he himself had to say, the audience probably would have had the same frustrated uwhy-is-he~going-ondike-this?" reaction. What we suggest, then, is that as soon as possible you state your own position and the one it's responding to together, and that you think of the two as a unit. It is generally best to summarize the ideas you're responding to briefly, at the start of your text, and to delay detailed elaboration until later. The point is to give your readers a quick preview of what is motivating your argument, not to drown them in details right away.
Starting with a summary of others' views may seem to contradict the common advice that writers should lead with their own thesis or claim. Although we agree that you shouldn't keep readers in suspense too long about your central argument, we also believe that you need to present that argument as part of some larger conversation, indicating something about the arguments of others that you are supporting, opposing, amending, complicating, or qualifying. One added benefit of summarizing others' views as soon as you can: you let those others do some of the work of framing and clarifying the issue you're writing about.
Consider, for example, how George Orwell starts his famous essay "Politics and the English Language" with what others are saying.
2 1
O H £       "THEY SAY"
Most people who bother with the matter at ail would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language—so the argument runs—must inevitably share in the general collapse. . . .
[But] the process is reversible. Modem English ... is full of bad habits . . . which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouhle.
George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language"
Orwell is basically saying, "Most people assume that we cannot do anything about the bad state of the English language. But I say we can."
Of course, there are many other powerful ways to begin. Instead of opening with someone else's views, you could start with an illustrative quotation, a revealing fact or statistic, or— as we do in this chapter—a relevant anecdote. If you choose one of these formats, however, be sure that it in some way illustrates the view you're addressing or leads you to that view directly, with a minimum of steps.
In opening this chapter, for example, we devote the first paragraph to an anecdote about the conference speaker and then move quickly at the start of the second paragraph to the misconception about writing exemplified by the speaker. In the following opening, from an opinion piece in the New York Times Book Review, Christina Nehring also moves quickly from an anecdote illustrating something she dislikes to her own claim—that book lovers think too highly of themselves.
"I'm a reader!" announced the yellow button. "How about you?" 1 looked at its bearer, a strapping young guy stalking my town's Festival of Books. "I'll bet you're a reader," he volunteered, as though we were
Starting with What Others Are Saying
two geniuses well met. "No," I replied. "Absolutely not," I wanted to yell, and fling my Barnes & Noble bag at his feet. Instead, 1 mumbled something apologetic and melted into the crowd.
There's a new piety in the air: the self-congratulation of book
lovers.
Christina Nehring, "Books Make You a Boring Person"
Nehring's anecdote is really a kind of "they say": book lovers keep telling themselves how great they are.
TEMPLATES FOR INTRODUCING WHAT "THEY SAY"
There are lots of conventional ways to introduce what others are saying. Here are some standard templates that we would
conference speaker.
have recommended to our
► A number of sociologists have rec has several fjJr^£Ql^^t^TOM®IIls.
► It has become common today to dismiss
► In their recent work, Y and Z have
for________.
ently suggested that XVwork
offered harsh critiques of
TEMPLATES FOR INTRODUCING "STANDARD VIEWS"
The following templates can help you make what we call the "standard view" move, in which you introduce a view that has become so widely accepted that by now it is essentially the conventional way of thinking about a topic.
► Americans have always believed that indryjduaj..,effbrt_.can itiuiQQb. over circumstances.
► Conventional wisdom has it that____.....___.
► Common sense seems to dictate that___.
► The standard way of thinking about topic X has it that .._ »■ It is often said that_______________.
► My whole life I have heard it said that______.
*■ You would think that___________.
► Many people assume that.__._-
These templates ate popular because they provide a quick and efficient way to perform one of the most common moves that writers make: challenging widely accepted beliefs, placing them on the examining table, and analyzing their strengths-and weaknesses.
TEMPLATES FOR MAKING WHAT "THEY SAY" SOMETHING YOU SAY
Another way to introduce the views you're responding to is to present them as your own. That is, the "they say1' that you respond to need not be a view held by others; it can be one that you yourself once held or one that you are ambivalent about.
► I've always believed that museums are boring.
► When i was a child, ! used to think that_____.
>   Although I s that____________
Starting with What Others Are Saving houLd know better by now, I cannot help thinking
>   At the same time that I believe
t also believe
TEMPLATES FOR INTRODUCING SOMETHING IMPLIED OR ASSUMED
Another sophisticated move a writer can make is to summarize a point that is not directly stared in what "they say" but is implied or assumed.
► Although none of them have ever said so directly, my teachers have often given me the impression that education will open doors.
► One implication of X's treatment of__________is that_____________.
*   Although X does not say so directly, she apparently assumes
that_______________ .
► While they rarely admit as much, ______________... often take for
granted that___________.
These are templates that can help you think analytically—to took beyond what others say explicitly and to consider their unstated assumptions, as well as the implications of their views.
TEMPLATES FOR INTRODUCING AN ONGOING DEBATE
Sometimes you'll want to open by summarizing a debate that presents two or more views. This kind of opening
•THEY SAY'
Starting with What Others Are Saying
demonstrates your awareness that there are conflicting ways to look at your subject, the clear mark of someone who knows the subject and therefore is likely to be a reliable, trustworthy guide. Furthermore, opening with a summary of a debate can help you explore the issue you are writing about before declaring your own view. In this way, you can use the writing process itself to help you discover where you stand instead of having to commit to a position before you are ready to do so. Here is a basic template for opening with a debate.
►   In discussions of X, one controversial issue has been___
On the one hand,_______argues___On the other
hand,______contends________Others even maintain
____________. My own view is_____________
The cognitive scientist Mark Aronoff uses this kind of template in an essay on the workings of the human brain.
Theories of how the mind/brain works have been dominated for centuries by two opposing views. One, rationalism, sees the human mind as coming into this world more or less fully formed— preprogrammed, in modern terms. The other, empiricism, sees the mind of the newborn as largely unstructured, a blank slate.
Mark Aronoff, "Washington Sleeped Here"
A student writer, Michaela Cullington, uses a version of this template near the beginning of an essay to frame a debate over online writing abbreviations like "LOL" ("laughing out loud") and to indicate het own position in this debate.
Some people believe that using these abbreviations is hindering the writing abilities of students, and others argue that texting is
acrually having a positive effect on writing. In fact, it seems likely that texting has no significant effect on student writing.
Michaela Cullington, "Does Texting Affect Writing?"
Another way to open with a debate involves starting with a proposition many people agree with in order to highlight the point(s) on which they ultimately disagree.
►  When it comes to the topic of______, most of us will readily agree that ...____.______     Where this agreement usually ends,
however, is on the question of____________Whereas some are
convinced that_________, others maintain that_____„__
The political wtiter Thomas Frank uses a variation on this move.
That we are a nation divided is an almost universal lament of this bitter election year. However, the exact property that divides lis-—elemental though it is said to be—remains a matter of some controversy.
Thomas Frank, 'American Psyche"
KEEP WHAT "THEY SAY" IN VIEW
We can't urge you too strongly to keep in mind what "they say" as you move through the rest of your text. After summarizing the ideas you are responding to at the outset, it's very important to continue to keep those ideas in view. Readers won't be able to follow your unfolding response, much less any complications you may offet, unless you keep reminding them what claims you are responding to,
2 6
2 7
"THEY SAY
Starting with What Others Arc Say in,
In other words, even when presenting your own claims, you should keep returning to the motivating "they say." The longer and more complicated your text, the greater the chance that readers will forget what ideas originally motivated it—no matter how clearly you lay them out at the beginning. At strategic moments throughout your text, we recommend that you include what we call "return sentences." Here is an example.
►   In conclusion, then, as ! suggested earlier, defenders of
_____________ can't have it both ways. Their assertion that
______________is contradicted by their claim that_____________
We ourselves use such return sentences at every opportunity in this book to remind you of the view of writing that our book questions-—that good writing means making true or smart or logical statements about a given subject with little or no refer' ence to what others say about it.
By reminding readers of the ideas you're responding to, return sentences ensure that your text maintains a sense of mission and urgency from start to finish. In short, they help ensure that your argument is a genuine response to others' views rather than just a set of observations about a given subject. The difference is huge. To be responsive to others and the conversation you're entering, you need to start with what others are saying and continue keeping it in the reader's view.
Exercises
1. The following is a list of arguments that lack a "they say." Like the speaker in the cartoon on page 5 who declares that the film presents complex characters, these one-sided
arguments fail to explain what view they are responding to—what view, in effect, they are trying to correct, add to, qualify, complicate, and so forth. Your job in this exercise is to provide each argument with such a counterview. Feel free to use any of the templates in this chapter that you find helpful.
a. Our experiments suggest that there are dangerous levels of chemical X in the Ohio groundwater.
b. Material forces drive history.
c. Proponents of Freudian psychology question standard notions of "rationality."
d. Male students often dominate class discussions.
e. The film is about the problems of romantic relationships.
f. I'm afraid that templates like the ones in this book will stifle my creativity.
2. Below is a template that we derived from the opening of David Zinczenko's "Don't Blame the Eater" (p. 245). Use the template to structure a passage on a topic of your own choosing. Your first step here should be to find an idea that you support that others not only disagree with but actually find laughable (or, as Zinczenko puts it, worthy of a Jay Leno monologue). You might write about one of the topics listed in the previous exercise (the environment, gender relations, the meaning of a book or movie) or any other topic that interests you.
If ever there was an idea custom-made for a Jay Leno monologue, this was it:___________Isn't that like__________? Whatever happened to__......._.?
I happen to sympathize with __________________, though, perhaps
because_____________.
2 8
2 9
The Art of Summarising
"HER POINT IS"
The Art of Summarizing
If it is true, as we claim in this book, that to argue persuasively you need to be in dialogue with others, then summarizing others' arguments is central to your arsenal of basic moves. Because writers who make strong claims need to map their claims relative to those of other people, it is important to know how to summarize effectively what those other people say. {We're using the word "summarizing" here to refer to any information from others that you present in your own words, including that which you paraphrase.)
Many writers shy away from summarizing—perhaps because they don't want to take the trouble to go back to the text in question and wrestle with what it says, or because they fear that devoting too much time to other people's ideas will take away from their own. When assigned to write a response to an article, such writers might offer their own views on the article's topic while hardly mentioning what the article itself argues or says. At the opposite extreme are those who do nothing but summarize. Lacking confidence, perhaps, in their own ideas, these writers so overload their texts with summaries of others' ideas that their own voice gets lost. And since these summaries are not animated
by the writers' own interests, they often read like mere lists of things that X thinks or Y says—with no clear focus.
As a general rule, a good summary requires balancing what the original author is saying with the writer's own focus. Generally speaking, a summary must at once be true to what the original author says while also emphasizing those aspects of what the author says that interest you, the writer. Striking this delicate balance can be tricky, since it means facing two ways at once: both outward (toward the author being summarized) and inward (toward yourself). Ultimately, it means being respectful of others but simultaneously structuring how you summarize them in light of your own text's central argument.
ON THE ONE HAND, PUT YOURSELF IN THEIR SHOES
To write a really good summary, you must be able to suspend your own beliefs for a time and put yourself in the shoes of someone else. This means playing what the writing theorist Peter Elbow calls the "believing game," in which you try to inhabit the world-view of those whose conversation you are joining—and whom you are perhaps even disagreeing with—and try to see their argument from their perspective. This ability to temporarily suspend one's own convictions is a hallmark of good actors, who must convincingly "become" characters whom in real life they may detest. As a writer, when you play the believing game well, readers should not be able to tell whether you agree or disagree with the ideas you are summarizing.
If, as a writer, you cannot or will not suspend your own beliefs in this way, you are likely to produce summaries that are
3 0
3 1
so obviously biased that they undermine your credibility with readers. Consider the following summary.
David Zinczenko s article "Don't Blame rhe Eater" is nothing more than an angry rant in which he accuses the fast-food companies of an evil conspiracy to make people fat. I disagree because these companies have to make money. ...
If you review what Zinczenko actually says (pp. 245-47), you should immediately see that this summary amounts to an unfair distortion. While Zinczenko does argue that the practices of the fast-food industry have the effect of making people fat, his tone is never "angry," and he never goes so far as to suggest that the fast-food industry conspires to make people fat with deliberately evil intent.
Another telltale sign of this writer's failure to give Zinczenko a fair hearing is the hasty way he abandons the summary after only one sentence and rushes on to his own response. So eager is this writer to disagree that he not only caricatures what Zinczenko says hut also gives the article a hasty, superficial reading. Granted, there are many writing situations in which, because of matters of proportion, a one- or two-sentence summary is precisely what you want. Indeed, as writing professor Karen Lunsford (whose own research focuses on argument theory) points out, it is standard in the natural and social sciences to summarize the work of others quickly, in one pithy sentence or phrase, as in the following example.
Several studies (Crackle, 2012; Pop, 2007; Snap, 2006) suggest that these policies are harmless; moreover, other studies (Dick, 2011; Harry. 2007; Tom, 2005) argue that they even have benefits.
The Art of Summarizing
But if your assignment is to respond in writing to a single author, like Zinczenko, you will need to tell your readers enough about his or her argument so they can assess its merits on their own, independent of you.
When a writer fails to provide enough summary or to engage in a rigorous or serious enough summary, he or she often falls prey to what, we call "the closest cliche syndrome," in which what gets summarized is not the view the author in question has actually expressed hut a familiar cliche that the writer vmtakes for the author's view (sometimes because the writer believes it and mistakenly assumes the author must. too). So, for example, Martin Luther King Jr.'s passionate defense of civil disobedience in "Letter from Birmingham Jail" might be summarized not as the defense of political protest that it actually is but as a plea for everyone to "just get along." Similarly, Zinczenko's critique of the fast-food industry might be summarized as a call for overweight people to take responsibility for their weight.
Whenever you enter into a conversation with others in your writing, then, it is extremely important that you go back to what those others have said, that you study it. very closely, and that you not confuse it with something you already believe. A writer who fails to do this ends up essentially conversing with imaginary others who are really only the products of his or her own biases and preconceptions.
ON THE OTHER HAND, KNOW WHERE YOU ARE GOING
Even as writing an effective summary requires you to temporarily adopt the worldview of another person, it does not mean
3 2
3 3
"HER POINT fS'
The Art of Summarizing
ignoring your own view altogether. Paradoxically, at the same time that summarizing another text requires you to represent fairly what it says, it also requires that your own response exert a quiet influence. A good summary, in other words, has a focus or spin that allows the summary to fit with your own agenda while still being true to the text you are summarizing.
Thus if you are writing in response to the essay by Zinczenko, you should be able to see that an essay on the fast-food industry in general will call for a very different summary than will an essay on parenting, corporate regulation, or warning labels. If you want your essay to encompass all three topics, you'll need to subordinate these three issues to one of Zinczenko's general claims and then make sure this general claim directly sets up your own argument.
For example, suppose you want to argue that it is parents, not last-food companies, who are to blame for children's obesity. To set up this argument, you will probably want to compose a summary that highlights what Zinczenko says about the fast-food industty and parents. Consider this sample.
In his article "Don'r Blame the Eater," David Zinczenko blames the fast-food industry for fueling today's so-called obesity epidemic, not only by failing to provide adequate warning labels on its high-calorie foods but also by filling the nutritional void in children's lives left by their overtaxed working parents. With many parenrs working long hours and unable to supervise whar their children ear, Zinczenko claims, children today are easily vicrimized by the low-cost, calorie-laden foods that the fast-food chains are all too eager to supply. When he was a young boy, for instance, and his single mother was away at work, he ate at Taco Bell, McDonald's, and other chains on a regular basis, and ended up overweight. Zinczenko's hope is that with the new spate of lawsuits against
the food industry, orher children wirh working parents will have healthier choices available to them, and that they will not, like him, become obese.
In my view, however, it is the parents, and not the food chains, who are responsible for their children's obesity. While it is true that many of today's parents work long hours, there are still several things that parents can do to guarantee that their children eat healthy foods. . . .
The summary in the first paragraph succeeds because it points in two directions at once—both toward Zinczenko's own text and toward the second paragraph, where the writer begins to establish her own argument, The opening sentence gives a sense of Zinczenko's general argument (that the fast-food chains ate to blame for obesity), including his two main supporting claims (about warning labels and parents), but it ends with an emphasis on the writer's main concern: parental responsibility. In this way, the summary does justice to Zinczenko's arguments while also setting up the ensuing critique.
This advice-—to summarize authors in light of your own agenda—may seem painfully obvious. But writers often summarize a given author on one issue even though their text actually focuses on anothet. To avoid this problem, you need to make sure that your "they say" and "1 say" are well matched. In fact, aligning what they say with what you say is a good thing to work on when revising what you've written.
Often writers who summarize without regard to their own agenda fall prey to what might be called "list summaries," summaries that simply inventory the original author's various points but fail to focus those points around any iarger overall claim. If you've ever heard a talk in which the points were connected only by words like "and then," "also," and "in addition," you
3 4
3 5
HER  POINT IS"
The Art of Summarizing
AND THEN HE SAYS... THEN ALSO HE POINTS OUT... ... AND THEN ANOTHER THING HE SAYS IS... AND THEN...
THE EFFECT OF A TYPICAL LIST SUMMARY
know how such lists can put listeners to sleep—as shown in the figure above. A typical list, summary sounds like this.
The author says many different things about his subject. First he says. . . . Then he makes the point that. . . . In addition he says. . . . And then he writes. . . . Also he shows that. ... And then he says. ...
It may be boring list summaries like this that give summaries in general a had name and even prompt some instructors to discourage their students from summarizing at all.
Not all lists are bad, however. A list can be an excellent way to organize material—but only if, instead of being a miscellaneous grab bag, it is organized around a larger argument that informs each item listed. Many well-written summaries, for instance, list various points made by an author, sometimes itemizing those points ("First, she argues . . . ," "Second, she
argues . . . ," "Third . . ."), and sometimes even itemizing those points in bullet form.
Many well-written arguments are organized in a list format as well. In "The New Liberal Arts," Sanford J. Ungar lists what he sees as seven common misperceptions that discourage college students from majoring in the liberal arts, the first three of which begin:
Misperception No. 1: A liberal-arts degree is a luxury that most families can no longer afford. . . .
Misperception No. 2: College graduates are finding it harder to get good jobs with liberal-arts degrees. . . .
Misperception No. .3: The liberal arts are particularly irrelevant for low-income and first-generation college students. They, more than their more-affluent peers, must focus on something more practical and marketable.
Sanford J. Ungar, "The New Liberal Arts"
What makes Ungar's list so effective, and makes it stand out in contrast to the type of disorganized lists our cartoon parodies, is that it has a clear, overarching goal: to defend the liberal arts. Had Ungar's article lacked such a unifying agenda and instead been a miscellaneous grab bag, it almost assuredly would have lost its readers, who wouldn't have known what to focus on or what the final message or takeaway should be.
In conclusion, writing a good summary means not just representing an author's view accurately, but doing so in a way that fits what you want to say, the larger point you want to make. On the one hand, it means playing Peter Elbow's believing game and doing justice to the source; if the summary ignores or misrepresents the source, its bias and unfairness will show. On the other hand, even as it does justice to the source,
3 6
3 7
HER POINT IS"
The Art of Summartimg
a summary has to have a slant or spin that prepares the way for your own claims. Once a summary enters your text, you should think of it as joint property—reflecting not just the source you are summarizing, but your own perspective or take on it.
SUMMARIZING SATIRICALLY
Thus far in this chapter we have argued that, as a general rule, good summaries require a balance between what someone else has said and your own interests as a writer. Now, however, we want to address one exception to this rule: the satiric summary, in which a writer deliberately gives his or her own spin to someone else's argument in order to reveal a glaring shortcoming in it. Despite our previous comments that well-crafted summaries generally strike a balance between heeding what someone else has said and your own independent interests, the satiric mode can at times be a very effective form of critique because it lets the summarized argument condemn itself without overt editorializing by you, the writer.
One such satiric summary can be found in Sanford J. Ungar's essay "The New Liberal Arts," which we just mentioned. In his discussion of the "misperception," as he sees it, that a liberal arts education is "particularly irrelevant for low-income and first-generation college students," who "must focus on something more practical and marketable," Ungar restates this view as "another way of saying, really, that the rich folks will do the important thinking, and the lower classes will simply carry out their ideas." Few who would dissuade disadvantaged students from the liberal arts would actually state their position
in this insulting way. But in taking their position to its logical conclusion, Ungar's satire suggests that this is precisely what their position amounts to.
USE SIGNAL VERBS THAT FIT THE ACTION
In introducing summaries, try to avoid bland formulas like "she says" or "they believe." Though language like this is sometimes serviceable enough, it often fails to reflect accurately what's been said. In some cases, "he says" may even drain the passion out of the ideas you're summaming.
We suspect that the habit of ignoring the action when summarizing stems from the mistaken belief we mentioned earlier that writing is about playing it safe and not making waves, a matter of piling up truths and bits of knowledge rather than a dynamic process of doing things to and with other people. People who wouldn't hesitate to say "X totally misrepresented," "attacked," or "loved" something when chatting with friends will in their writing often opt fot far tamer and even less accurate phrases tike "X said."
But the authors you summarize at the college level seldom simply "say" or "discuss" things; they "urge," "emphasize," and "complain about" them. David Zinczenko, for example, doesn't just say that fast-food companies contribute to obesity; he complains or protests that they do; he challenges, chastises, and indicts those companies. The Declatation of Independence doesn't just taííc about the treatment of the colonies by the British; it protests against it. To do justice to the authors you cite, we recommend that when summarising— or when introducing a quotation—you use vivid and precise
3 8
3 9
"HER POINT IS
The Art of Summarizing
signal verbs as often as possible. Though "he says" or "she believes" will sometimes be the most appropriate language for the occasion, your text will often be more accurate and lively if you tailor your verbs to suit the precise actions you're describing.
TEMPLATES FOR INTRODUCING SUMMARIES AND QUOTATIONS
► She advocates o radical revision of the juvenile justice system.
► They celebrate the fact that.________________.
► ___________, he admits.
VERBS FOR INTRODUCING SUMMARIES AND QUOTATIONS
VERBS FOR MAKING A CLAIM
argue insist
assert observe
beiieve remind us
claim report
emphasize suggest '■
VERBS FOR EXPRESSING AGREEMENT
acknowledge
admire
agree
endorse
extol
praise
VERBS FOR EXPRESSING AGREEMENT
reaffirm support verify
celebrate the fact that corroborate do not deny
VERBS FOR QUESTIONING OR DISAGREEING
qualify question refute reject renounce
complain complicate contend contradict deny
deplore the tendency to
repudiate
VERBS FOR MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS
implore
advocate call for demand encourage exhort
Exercises
plead
recommend
urge
warn
1. To get a feel for Peter Elbow's "believing game," write a summary of some belief that you strongly disagree with. Then write a summary of the position that you actually hold on this topic. Give both summaries to a classmate or two, and see if they can tell which position you endorse. If you've succeeded, they won't be able to tell.
4 o
4 1
TWO       "HER POINT IS"
2. Write two different summaries of David Zinczenko's "Don't Blame the Eater" (pp. 245-47). Write the first one for an essay arguing that, contrary to what Zinczenko claims, there are inexpensive and convenient alternatives to fast-food restaurants. Write the second for an essay that questions whether being overweight is a genuine medical problem rather than a problem of cultural stereotypes. Compare your two summaries: though they are about the same article, they should look very different.
"AS HE HIMSELF PUTS IT'
The Art of Quoting
J A key premise of this book is that to launch an effective
t argument you need to write the arguments of others into your
I text. One of the best ways to do so is by not only summarizing
\I what "they say," as suggested in Chapter 2, but by quoting their
i exact wrords. Quoting someone else's words gives a tremendous
| amount of credibility to your summary and helps ensure that
| it is fair and accurate. In a sense, then, quotations function as
| a kind of proof of evidence, saying to readers: "Look, I'm not
| just making this up. She makes this claim, and here it is in
I her exact words,"
1 Yet many writers make a host of mistakes when it comes to
Iquoting, not the least of which is the failure to quote enough in the first place, if at all. Some writers quote too little— perhaps because they don't want to bother going back to the original text and looking up the author's exact words, or because they think they can reconstruct the author's ideas from memory. At the opposite extreme are writers who so overquote that they end up with texts that are short on commentary of their own—maybe because they lack confidence in their ability to comment on the quotations, or because they don't fully
1 H R ~ f       "AS HE HIMSELF PUTS ST"
understand what they've quoted and therefore have trouble explaining what the quotations mean.
But the main problem with quoting arises when writers assume that quotations speak for themselves. Because the meaning of a quotation is obvious to than, many writers assume that this meaning will also be obvious to their readers, when often it is not. Writers who make this mistake think that their job is done when they've chosen a qtiotation and inserted it into their text. They draft an essay, slap in a few quotations, and vvhammo, they're done.
Such writers fail to see that qtioting means more than simply enclosing what "they say" in quotation marks. In a way, quotations are orphans: words that have been taken from their original contexts and that need to be integrated into their new textual surroundings, This chapter offers two key ways to produce this sort of integration: (1) by choosing quotations wisely, with an eye to how well they support a particular part of your text, and (2) by surrounding every major quotation with a frame explaining whose words they are, what the quotation means, and how the quotation relates to your own text. The point we want to emphasize is that, quoting what "they say" must always be connected with what you say.
QUOTE RELEVANT PASSAGES
Before you can select appropriate quotations, you need to have a sense of what you want to do with them—that is, how they will support your text at the particular point where you insert them. Be careful not to select quotations just for the sake of demonstrating that you've read the author's work; you need to make sure they support yotir own argument.
The Art of Quoting
However, finding relevant quotations is not always easy. In fact, sometimes quotations that were initially relevant to your argument, or to a key point in it, become less so as your text changes during the process of writing and revising. Given the evolving and messy nature of writing, you may sometimes think that you've found the perfect quotation to support your argument, only to discover later on, as your text develops, that your focus has changed and the quotation no longer works. It can be somewhat misleading, then, to speak of finding your thesis and finding relevant quotations as two separate steps, one coming after the other. When you're deeply engaged in the writing and revising process, there is usually a great deal of back-and-forth between your argument and any quotations you select.
FRAME EVERY QUOTATION
Finding relevant quotations is only part of your job; you also need to present them in a way that makes their relevance and meaning clear to your readers. Since quotations do not speak for themselves, you need to build a frame around them in which you do that speaking for them.
Quotations that are inserted into a text without such a frame are sometimes called "dangling" quotations for the way they're left dangling without any explanation. One teacher we've worked with, Steve Benton, calls these "hit-and-run" quotations, likening them to car accidents in which the driver speeds away and avoids taking responsibility for the dent in your fender or the smashed taillights, as in the figure that follows.
4 4
4 5
•AS HE HIMSELF PUTS IT'
DON'T &E A HIT-AND-RUN QUOTER.
What follows is a typical hit-and-run quotation by a student responding to an essay by Deborah Tannen, a linguistics professor and author, who complains that academics value opposition over agreement.
Deborah Tannen writes about academia. Academics believe "that intellectual inquiry is a metaphorical battle. Following from that is a second assumption that the best way to demonstrate intellectual prowess is to criticize, find fault, and attack."
I agree with Tannen. Another point Tannen makes is that. . .
Since this student fails to introduce the quotation adequately or explain why he finds it worth quoting, readers will have a hard time reconstructing what Tannen argued. First, the student simply gives us the quotation from Tannen without telling us who Tannen is or even indicating that the quoted words are hers. In addition, the student does not explain what he takes Tannen to be saying or how her claims connect with his own. Instead, he simply abandons the quotation in his haste to zoom on to another point.
The Art of Quoting
To adequately frame a quotation, you need to insert it into what we like to call a "quotation sandwich," with the statement introducing it serving as the top slice of bread and the explanation following it serving as the bottom slice. The introductory or lead-in claims should explain who is speaking and set up what the quotation says; the follow-up statements should explain why you consider the quotation to be important and what you take it to say.
TEMPLATES FOR INTRODUCING QUOTATIONS
► X states, "Not alt steroids should be banned from sports."
► As the prominent philosopher X puts it, "
► According to X, "_.___."
► X himself writes, "___.."
► in her book,_._, X maintains that __."
► Writing in the journal Commentary, X complains that"____."
► In X's view, "_______."
► X agrees when she writes, "__.__."
► X disagrees when he writes, "____."
*   X complicates matters further when she writes,
TEMPLATES FOR EXPLAINING QUOTATIONS
The one piece of advice about quoting that our students say they find most helpful is to get in the habit of following every
4 6
47
IWfiiU       "AS HE HIMSELF PUTS IT"
major quotation by explaining what it means, using a template like one of the ones below.
► Basically, X is warning that the proposed solution will ontg make trie problem worse.
► In other words, X believes________.
►   In making this comment, X urges us to
► X is corroborating the age-old adage that
► X's point is that_____________.
► The essence of X's argument Is that_
When offering such explanations, it is important to use language that accurately reflects the spirit of the quoted passage. It is often serviceable enough in introducing a quotation to write "X states" or "X asserts," but in most cases you can add precision to your writing by introducing the quotation in more vivid seepp 40-41 terms. Since, in the example above, Tannen is clearly for a list of   alarmed by the culture of "attack" that she describes,
action verbs for
summarizing    it would be more accurate to use language that reflects
what other say.       i i , i   i      n ttT- • 1.
that alarm: 1 annen is alarmed that, 1 annen is disturbed by," "Tannen deplores," or {in our own formulation here) "Tannen complains."
Consider, for example, how the earlier passage on Tannen might be revised using some of these moves.
Deborah Tannen, a prominent linguistics professor, complains that academia is too combative. Rather than really listening to others, Tannen insists, academics habitually try to prove one another wrong. As Tannen herself purs it, "We are all driven by our ideological
Tfie Art of Quoting
assumption that intellectual inquiry is a metaphorical battle," that "the best way to demonstrate intellectual prowess is to criticize, find fault, and attack." In short, Tannen objects that academic communication tends to be a competition for supremacy in which loftier values like truth and consensus get lost.
Tannen\s observations ring true to me because I have often felt that the academic pieces 1 read for class are negative and focus on proving another theorist wrong rather than stating a truth . . .
This revision works, we think, because it frames or nests Tannen's words, integrating them and offering guidance about how they should be read. Instead of launching directly into the quoted words, as the previous draft had done, this revised version identifies Tannen {"a prominent linguistics professor") and clearly indicates that the quoted words are hers ("as Tannen herself puts it"). And instead of being presented without explanation as it was before, the quotation is now presented as an illustration of Tannen's point that, as the student helpfully puts it, "academics habitually try to prove one another wrong" and compete "for supremacy." In this way, the student explains the quotation while restating it in his own words, thereby making it clear that the quotation is being used purposefully instead of having been stuck in simply to pad the essay or the works-cited list.
BLEND THE AUTHOR'S WORDS WITH YOUR OWN
This new framing material also works well because it accurately represents Tannen's words while giving those words the student's own spin. Instead of simply repeating Tannen word tor word, the follow-up sentences echo just enough of her language
4 8
4 9
T H ?i 8 ?•       "AS HE HIMSELF PUTS IT"
while still moving the discussion in the student's own direction. Tannen's "battle," "criticize," "find fault," and "attack," for instance, get translated by the student into claims about how "combative" Tannen thinks academics are and how she thinks they "habitually try to ptove one anothet wrong." In this way, the framing creates a kind of hybrid mix of Tannen's words and those of the writer.
CAN YOU OVER ANALYZE A QUOTATION?
But is it possible to overexplain a quotation? And how do you know when you've explained a quotation thoroughly enough? After all, not all quotations require the same amount of explanatory framing, and there are no hard-and-fast rules for knowing how much explanation any quotation needs. As a general rule, the most explanatory framing is needed for quotations that may be hard for readers to process: quotations that are long and complex, that are filled with details or jargon, or that contain hidden complexities.
And yet, though the particular situation usually dictates when and how much to explain a quotation, we will still offer one piece of advice: when in doubt, go for it. It is better to risk being overly explicit about what you take a quotation to mean than to leave the quotation dangling and your readers in doubt. Indeed, we encourage you to provide such explanatory framing even when writing to an audience that you know to be familiar with the author being quoted and able to interpret your quotations on their own. Even in such cases, readers need to see how you interpret the quotation, since words—especially those of controversial figures—can be interpreted in various ways and used to support different, sometimes opposing, agendas.
The Art of Quoting
Your readers need to see what you make of the material you've quoted, if only to be sure that your reading of the material and theirs are on the same page.
HOW WOT TO INTRODUCE QUOTATIONS
We want to conclude this chapter by surveying some ways not to introduce quotations. Although some writers do so, you should not introduce quotations by saying something like "Orwell asserts an idea that" or "A quote by Shakespeare says." Introductory phrases like these are both redundant and misleading. In the first example, you could write either "Orwell asserts that" or "Orwell's assertion is that," rather than redundantly combining the two. The second example misleads readers, since it is the writer who is doing the quoting, not Shakespeare (as "a quote by Shakespeare" implies).
The templates in this book will help you avoid such mistakes. Once you have mastered templates like "as X puts it" or "in X's own words," you probably won't even have to think about them—and will be free to focus on the challenging ideas that templates help you frame.
Exercises
1. Find a published piece of writing that quotes something that "they say." How has the writer integrated the quotation into his or her own text? How has he or she introduced the quotation, and what, if anything, has the writer said to explain it and tie it to his or her own text? Based on what you've read in this chaptet, are there any changes you would suggest?
5 o
5 i
H R i; "AS HE HIMSELF PUTS IT"
2. Look at something you have written for one of your classes. Have you quoted any sources? If so, how have you integrated the quotation into your own text? How have you introduced it? explained what it means? indicated how it relates to your text? If you haven't done all these things, revise your text to do so, perhaps using the Templates for Introducing Quotations (p. 47) and Explaining Quotations (pp. 47-48). It you've not written anything with quotations, try revising some academic text you've written to do so.
"YES / NO / OKAY, BUT"
Three Ways to Respond
—a—
The first three chapters of this book discuss the "they say" stage of writing, in which you devote your attention to the views of some other person or group. In this chapter we move to the "1 say" stage, in which you offer your own argument as a response to what "they" have said.
Moving to the "I say" stage can be daunting in academia, where it often may seem that you need to be an expert in a field to have an argument at all. Many students have told us that they have trouble entering some of the high-powered conversations that take place in college or graduate school because they do not know enough about the topic at hand or because, they say, they simply are not "smart enough." Yet often these same students, when given a chance to study in depth the contribution that some scholar has made in a given field, will turn around and say things tike "I can see where she is coming from, how she makes her case by building on what other scholars have said. Perhaps had I studied the situation longer I could have come up with a similar argument." What these students come to realize is that good arguments are based not on knowledge that only a special class of experts has access to, but on everyday habits
5 2
5 3
i-OK>i-:       "YES / NO / OKAY, BUT"
of mi ad that can be isolated, identified, and used by almost anyone. Though there's certainly no substitute for expertise and for knowing as much as possible about one's topic, the arguments that finally win the day are built, as the title of this chapter suggests, on some very basic rhetorical patterns that most of us use on a daily basis.
There are a great many ways to respond to others' ideas, but this chapter concentrates on the three most common and recognizable ways: agreeing, disagreeing, or some combination of both. Although each way of responding is open to endless variation, we focus on these three because readers come to any text needing to learn fairly quickly where the writer stands, and they do this by placing the writer on a mental map consisting of a few familiar options: the writer agrees with those he or she is responding to, disagrees with them, or presents some combination of both agreeing and disagreeing.
When writers take too long to declare their position relative to views they've summarized or quoted, readers get frustrated, wondering, "Is this guy agreeing or disagreeing? Is he for what this other person has said, against it, or what?" For this reason, this chapter's advice applies to reading as well as to writing. Especially with difficult texts, you need not only to find the position the writer is responding to—the "they say"—but also to determine whether the writer is agreeing with it, challenging it, or some mixture of the two.
ONLY THREE WAYS TO RESPOND?
Perhaps you'll worry that fitting your own response into one of these three categories will force you to oversimplify your argument or lessen its complexity, subtlety, or originality. This is
Three Ways to Respond
certainly a serious concern for academics who are rightly skeptical of writing that is simplistic and reductive. We would argue, however, that the more complex and subtle your argument is, and the more it departs from the conventional ways people think, the more your readers will need to be able to place it on their mental map in order to process the complex details you present. That is, the complexity, subtlety, and originality of your response are more likely to stand out and be noticed if readers have a baseline sense of where you stand relative to any ideas you've cited. As you move through this chapter, we hope you'll agree that the forms of agreeing, disagreeing, and both agreeing and disagreeing that we discuss, far from being simplistic or one-dimensional, are able to accommodate a high degree of creative, complex thought.
It is always a good tactic to begin your response not by launching directly into a mass of details but by stating clearly whether you agree, disagree, or both, using a direct, no-nonsense formula such as: "1 agree," "1 disagree," or "I am
of two minds. 1 agree that________., but I cannot agree
that_._____." Once you have offered one of these straightforward statements (or one of the many variations dis-   See  21 for cussed below), readers will have a strong grasp of your suggestions
on previewing
position and then be able to appreciate the complica-    where you tions you go on to offer as your response unfolds. sta!1
Still, you may object that these three basic ways of responding don't cover all the options—that they ignore interpretive or analytical responses, for example. In other words, you might think that when you interpret a literary work you don't necessarily agree or disagree with anything but simply explain the work's meaning, style, or structure. Many essays about literature and the arts, it might be said, take this fotm—they interpret a work's meaning, thus rendering matters of agreeing or disagreeing irrelevant.
FOUř       "YES / NO / OKAY, BUT"
We^ would argue, however, that the most interesting interpretations in fact tend to be those that agree, disagree, or both—that instead of being offered solo, the best interpretations take strong stands relative to other interpretations. In fact, there would be no reason to offer an interpretation of a wotk of literature or art unless you were responding to rhe interpretations or possible interpretations of others. Even when you point out features or qualities of an artistic work that others have not noticed, you are implicitly disagreeing with what those interpreters have said by pointing out that they missed or overlooked something that, in your view, is important. In any effective interpretation, then, you need not. only to state what you yourself take the work of art to mean but to do so relative to the interpretations of other readers—be they professional scholars, teachers, classmates, or even hypothetical readers {as in, "Although some readers might think that this poem is about______________, it is in fact about__________").
DISAGREE—AND EXPLAIN WHY
Disagreeing may seem like one of the simpler moves a writer can make, and it is often the first thing people associate with critical thinking. Disagreeing can also be the easiest way to generate an essay: find something you can disagree with in what has been said or might be said about your topic, summarize it, and argue with it. But disagreement in fact poses hidden challenges. You need to do more than simply assert that you disagree with a patticular view; you also have to offer persuasive reasons why you disagree. After all, disagreeing means more than adding "not" to what someone else has said, more than just saying, "Although they say women's rights are improving,
Three Ways to Respond
I say women's rights are not improving." Such a response merely contradicts the view it responds to and fails to add anything interesting or new. To turn it into an argument, you need to give reasons to support what you say: because another's argument fails to take relevant factors into account; because it is based on faulty or incomplete evidence; because it rests on questionable assumptions; or because it uses flawed logic, is contradictory, or overlooks what you take to be the teal issue. To move the conversation forward (and, indeed, to justify your very act of writing), you need to demonstrate that you have something to contribute.
You can even disagree by making what we call the "duh" move, in which you disagree not with the position itself but with the assumption that it is a new or stunning revelation. Here is an example of such a move, used to open an essay cm the state of American schools.
According to a recent report by some researchers at Stanford University, high school students with college aspirations "often lack crucial information on applying to college and on succeeding academically once they get there."
Well, duh. ... It shouldn't take a Stanford research team to tell us that when it conies to "succeeding academically," many students don't have a clue.
Gerald Graff, "Trickle-Down Obfuscation"
Like all of the other moves discussed in this book, the "duh" move can be tailored to meet the needs of almost any writing situation. If you find the expression "duh" too brash to use with your intended audience, you can always dispense with the term
itself and write something like "It is true that___.______________; but
we already knew that."
'YES / NO / OKAY, BUT'
TEMPLATES FOR DISAGREEING, WITH REASONS
►   X is mistaken because she overtook* re^njjossjl discoveries in theSouth.
*■   X's claim that_____
that_____
*■   I disagree with X's view that_
research has shown, _
rests upon the questionable assumption ----_ because, as recent
>  X contradicts herself/can', have it both ways. On the one hand, she arques ^
y -----------• °n the other hand, she also
says______
*■   By focusing on of
X overlooks the deeper problem
You can also disagree by making what we call the "twist it" move, in which you agree with the evidence that someone else has presented but show through a twist of logic that this evidence actually supports your own, contrary position. For example:
X argues for stricter gun control legislation, saying that the crime rate is on the rise and that we need to resrriet the circulation of guns. 1 agree that the crime rate is on the rise, but that's precisely why 1 oppose stricter gun control legislation. We need to own guns to protect ourselves against criminals.
In this example of the "twist it" move, the writer agrees with X's claim that the crime rate is on the rise but then atgues that this increasing crime rate is in fact a valid reason for opposing gun control legislation.
Three Ways to Respond
At times you might be reluctant to express disagreement, for any number of reasons—not wanting to be unpleasant, to hurt someone's feelings, or to make yourself vulnerable to being disagreed with in return. One of these reasons may in fact explain why the conference speaker we described at the start of Chapter 1 avoided mentioning the disagreement he had with other scholars until he was provoked to do so in the discussion that followed his talk.
As much as we understand such fears of conflict and have experienced them ourselves, we nevertheless believe it is better to state our disagreements in frank yet considerate ways than to deny them. After all, suppressing disagreements doesn't make them go away; it only pushes them underground, where they can fester in private unchecked. Nevertheless, disagreements do not need to take the form of personal put-downs. Furthermore, there is usually no reason to take issue with every aspect of someone else's views, You can single out for criticism only those aspects of what someone else has said that are troubling, and then agree with the rest—although such an approach, as we will see later in this chapter, leads to the somewhat more complicated terrain of both agreeing and disagreeing at the same time.
AGREE—BUT WITH A DIFFERENCE
Like disagreeing, agreeing is less simple than it may appear. Just as you need to avoid simply contradicting views you disagree with, you also need to do more than simply echo views you agree with. Even as you're agreeing, it's important to bring something new and fresh to the table, adding something that makes you a valuable participant in the conversation.
5 8
59
?OU«       "YES / NO / OKAY, BUT"
There are many moves that enable you to contribute something of your own to a conversation even as you agree with what someone else has said. You may point, out some unnoticed evidence or line of reasoning that supports X's claims that X herself hadn't mentioned. You may cite some corroborating personal experience, or a situation not mentioned by X that her views help readers understand. If X's views are particularly challenging or esoteric, what you bring to the table could be an accessible translation—an explanation for readers not already in the know. In othet words, your text can usefully contribute to the conversation simply by pointing out unnoticed implications or explaining something that needs to be better understood.
Whatever mode of agreement you choose, the important thing is to open up some difference or contrast between your position and the one you're agreeing with rather than simply parroting what it says.
TEMPLATES FOR AGREEING
► I agree that diversitu in the student body is educationalUi valuable because my experience at Central University confirms it.
► X is surely right about.......___......______ because, as she may not be
aware, recent studies have shown that _
►   X's theory of___
light on the difficult problem of
is extremely useful because it sheds
*•   Those unfamiliar with this school of thought may be interested to know that it basically boils down to________.
Some writers avoid the practice of agreeing almost as much as others avoid disagreeing. In a culture like America's that prizes
Three Ways to Respond
originality, independence, and competitive individualism, writers sometimes don't like to admit that anyone else has made the same point, seemingly beating them to the punch. In our view, however, as long as you can support a view taken by someone else without merely restating what he or she has said, there is no reason to worry about being "unoriginal." Indeed, there is good reason to rejoice when you agree with others since those others can lend credibility to your argument. While you don't want to present yourself as a mere copycat of someone else's views, you also need to avoid sounding like a lone voice in the wilderness.
But do be aware that whenever you agree with one person's view, you are likely disagreeing with someone else's. It is hard to align yourself with one position without at least implicitly positioning yourself against others. The psychologist Carol Gilligan does just that in an essay in which she agrees with scientists who argue that the human brain is "hard-wired" for cooperation, but in so doing aligns herself against anyone who believes that the brain is wired for selfishness and competition.
These findings join a growing convergence of evidence across the human sciences leading to a revolutionary shift in consciousness. ... If cooperation, typically associated with altruism and self-sacrifice, sets off the same signals of delight as pleasures commonly associated with hedonism and self-indulgence; if the opposition between selfish and selfless, self vs. relationship biologically makes no sense, then a new paradigm is necessary to reframe the very
terms of the conversation.
Carol Gilligan, "Sisterhood Is Pleasurable: A Quiet Revolution in Psychology"
6 0
6 t
fOOS       "YES / NO / OKAY, BUT"
In agreeing with some scientists that "the opposition between selfish and selfless . . . makes no sense," Gilfigan implicitly disagrees with anyone who thinks the opposition does make sense. Basically, what Gilligan says could be boiled down to a template.
►  f agree that_______, a point that needs emphasizing since
so many people still believe________.
ff group X is right that
as I think they are, then we
need to reassess the popular assumption that
What such templates allow you to do, then, is to agree with one view while challenging another—a move that leads into the domain of agreeing and disagreeing simultaneously.
AGREE AND DISAGREE SIMULTANEOUSLY
This last option is often our favorite way of responding. One thing we particularly like about agreeing and disagreeing simultaneously is that it helps us get beyond the kind of "is too" / "is not" exchanges that often characterize the disputes of young children and the more polarized shouting matches of talk radio and TV.
Sanford J. Ungar makes precisely this move in his essay "The New Liberal Arts" when, in critiquing seven common "misperceptions" of liberal arts education, he concedes that several contain a grain of truth. For example, after summarizing "Misperception No. 2," that "college graduates are finding it harder to get good jobs with liberal-arts degrees," that few employers want to hite those with an "irrelevant major like philosophy or French," Ungar writes: "Yes, recent graduates have had difficulty in the job market. . . ." But then, after
6 2
Three Ways to Respond
making this concession, Ungar insists that this difficulty affects graduates in all fields, not just those from the liberal arts. In this way, we think, Ungar paradoxically strengthens his case. By admitting that the opposing argument has a point, Ungar bolsters his credibility, presenting himself as a writer willing to acknowledge facts as they present themselves rather than one determined only to cheerlead for his own side.
TEMPLATES FOR AGREEING AND DISAGREEING SIMULTANEOUSLY
"Yes and no." "Yes, but. . ." "Although I agree up to a point, I still insist . . ." These are just some of the ways you can make your argument complicated and nuanced while maintaining a clear, reader-friendly framework. The parallel structure—"yes and no"; "on the one hand I agree, on the other I disagree"— enables readers to place your argument on that map of positions we spoke of earlier in this chapter while still keeping your argument sufficiently complex.
Charles Murray's essay "Are Too Many People Going to College?" contains a good example of the "yes and no" move when, at the outset of his essay, Murray responds to what he sees as the prevailing wisdom about the liberal arts and college:
We should not restrict the availability of a liberal education to a rarefied intellectual elite, More people should be going to college, not fewer.
Yes and no. More people should be getting the basics of a liberal education. But for most students, the places to provide those basics are elementary and middle school.
Charles Murray, "Are Too Many People Going to College?"
6 3
"YES / NO / OKAY, BUT
In other words, Murray is saying yes to more liberal arts, but not to more college.
Another aspect we like about this "yes and no," "agree and disagree" option is that it can be tipped subtly toward agreement or disagreement, depending on where you lay your stress. If you want to stress the disagreement end of the spectrum, you would use a template like the one below.
► Although I agree with X up to o point, I cannot accept his overriding assumption that religion is no longer o major force today.
Conversely, if you want to stress your agreemenr more than your disagreement, you would use a template like this one.
► Although I disagree with much that X says, I fully endorse his final conclusion that_________________.
The first template above might be called a "yes, but..." move, the second a "no, but. .." move. Other versions include the following.
Though I concede that
., I stilt insist that
►   X is right that------------------but she seems on more dubious ground
when she claims that
-   While X is probably wrong when she claims that is right that__________
she
Y and
►   Whereas X provides ample evidence that__
Z's research on nnri .___■
-------------- .... ana --------------- convinces me that
-----------------instead.
Another classic way to agree and disagree at the same time is to make what we call an "I'm of two minds" or a "mixed feelings" move.
Three Ways to Respond
> I'm of two minds about X's claim that_________________. On the one
hand, J agree that______________On the other hand, I'm not sure
if______________...
► My feelings on the issue are mixed. I do support X's position
that__________________, but I find Y's argument about_____________and
Z's research on_________________to be equally persuasive.
This move can be especially useful if you are responding to new or particularly challenging work and are as yet unsure where you stand. It also lends itself well to the kind of speculative investigation in which you weigh a position's pros and cons rather than come out decisively either for or against. But again, as we suggest earlier, whether you are agreeing, disagreeing, or both agreeing and disagreeing, you need to be as clear as possible, and making a frank statement that you are ambivalent is one way to be clear.
IS BEING UNDECIDED OKAY?
Nevertheless, writers often have as many concerns about expressing ambivalence as they do about expressing disagreement or agreement. Some worry that by expressing ambivalence they will come across as evasive, wishy-washy, or unsure of themselves. Others worry that their ambivalence will end up confusing readers who require decisive, clear-cut conclusions.
The truth is that in some cases these worries are legitimate. At. times ambivalence can frustrate readers, leaving them with the feeling that you failed in your obligation to offer the guidance they expect from writers. At other times, however, acknowledging that a clear-cut resolution of an issue is
6 4
6 5
"YES / NO / OKAY, BUT"
impossible can demonstrate your sophistication as a writer. In an academic culture that values complex thought, forthrightly declaring that you have mixed feelings can be impressive, especially after having ruled out the one-dimensional positions on your issue taken by others in the conversation. Ultimately, then, how ambivalent you end up being comes down to a judgment call based on different readers' responses to your drafts, on your knowledge of your audience, and on the challenges of your particular argument and situation.
"AND YET"
Distinguishing What You Say from What They Say
—@r-
Exercises
1. Read one of the essays in the back of this book or on theysayibIog.com, identifying those places where the author agrees with others, disagrees, or both.
2. Write an essay responding in some way to the essay that you worked with in the preceding exercise. You'll want to summarize and/or quote some of the author's ideas and make clear whether you're agreeing, disagreeing, or both agreeing and disagreeing with what he or she says. Remember that there are templates in this book that can help you get started; see Chaptets 1-3 for templates that will help you represent othet people's ideas and Chapter 4 for templates that will get you started with your response.
6 6
If good academic writing involves putting yourself into dialogue with others, it is extremely important that readers be able to tell at every point, when you are expressing your own view and when you are stating someone else's. This chapter takes up the problem of moving from what they say to what you say without confusing readers about who is saying what.
DETERMINE WHO IS SAYING WHAT IN THE TEXTS YOU READ
Before examining how to signal who is saying what in your own writing, let's look at how to recognize such signals when they appear in the texts you read—an especially important skill when it comes to the challenging works assigned in school. Frequently, when students have trouble understanding difficult texts, it is not just because the texts contain unfamiliar ideas or words, but because the texts rely on subtle clues to let
6 7