Short Paper 4

Kairos/commonplaces

You have a choice between two options for this paper. Your goal is to realize how kairos or commonplaces work in making arguments or in persuading people to believe something. In other words, how do people capitalize on "timing" or on cultural assumptions in order to manipulate others' beliefs/understandings. 1.

The Kairos Option

Identify an issue that is a "timely" one. It might be a relatively new topic (should the U.S. give $87 billion to restore Iraq) or it might be an older topic that has new urgency (changing environmental protection laws). Of course, the idea with which you've been working on your first three papers would be a good topic-if it will "work." If not, choose a different topic.

Your goal is two analyze why and how this particular topic is being debated right now. How do current circumstances shape the debate?

Here's some elaboration. Locate one or more texts that pertinent to your issue. This paper will be most effective if you identify two or more different positions, so choosing contrasting texts may be helpful. Do some research, if you'd like. Then consider the 7 questions on pages 36 and 37 of Crowley and Hawhee. These questions provide a good way of generating ideas on this topic. You needn't answer all of them; in fact, trying to do so will likely raise some challenges for writing a coherent paper. Instead, you might focus on a few closely related questions that strike you as most productive.The example of "Internet Indecency," on pages 37-43, shows how you might use these questions to generate ideas.

2. The Commonplace Option

Analyze the commonplaces used by rhetors who take a certain position on a topic or issue. Choose at least one text you are analyzing to explore for examples. Look closely at that text, its target audience, and explain how the commonplaces work on the target audience (in subtle and obvious ways). For some examples of commonplaces that are effective among various American audiences, consider the ideologies listed by Hirsch and Zinn on pages 77-79 of Crowley and Hawhee.Following are some additional commonplaces in our society. Each of them is more persuasive to some groups of people than it may be to others. Bigger is better. To the victors belong the spoils. All is fair in love and war. Above all be fair. Politicians are inevitably untrustworthy. Self reliance is a virtue. This is the greatest country on earth. He who dies with the most toys, wins. We should be stewards of the earth's resources. Hard work and determination are ultimately rewarded. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Attractive people are more successful and happier. Money can't buy happiness. Money can.These are just examples, and none may fit the issue you have chosen. This option asks you to make explicit the commonplaces operating in a topic you've chosen and to explain how rhetors use them to persuade an audience. Generally, your paper will be more successful if you pursue depth rather than breadth; for example, it's better to explain one commonplace fully than to catalog a dozen of them but treat each shallowly.

Further Thoughts for Both Options

I'm asking you to explore the context of the issue you've chosen. This may include considering why this issue is contended now. Was it an issue in the past? If so, was it the same issue? If not, was it because the commonplaces operating then were different? Here's an example: currently there is some debate about whether or not juvenile offenders should be tried as adults. We have that debate now (kairos) because we believe (our commonplace about) children are innocents who are not able to reason like adults. But back around the 16th century, no one ever debated this issue because children were viewed as just smaller adults: childhood was said to end at age 5, and everyone else was treated and was held accountable like adults. Here's another example: domestic violence against women is by no means a new issue. We only became aware of it as a problem, it only ever occurred to us that it was an important issue to discuss (kairos), when we stopped viewing women as the property of their husbands and fathers (a commonplace that is, thankfully, no longer common in America). Domestic violence against women was not a big deal or any deal for that matter in "old" Afghanistan because women were sub-human, were property. It is our changing view (our changing commonplaces) of children and of women that has made these issues...issues. Here's a third example. During every American war of the 20th century, some groups opposed American involvement. This was true even of WWII. Is the opposition to the was in Iraq similar too or different from the nature of opposition to previous wars? Why? How? Most importantly, how do the circumstances at the time of each war affect the rhetorical strategies of those who opposed the war-and those who favored it?

Guidelines

This project should be word-processed in 12 pt. Times New Roman font, single-spaced. Please follow MLA conventions or, if you choose to follow APA style, include a brief note that states that you prefer APA.
If applicable, photocopy the page or two that you're using as an "example" from the text and staple it to the analysis. Highlight the sections you quote in your analysis.

Deadline

These three to five page papers are due at the beginning of class on November 4.

Please Note

Please be prepared to discuss your analysis with the class.