''AND Y E ^

Distinguishing What You Say

from What They Say

IF GOOD ACADEMIC WRITING involves putt ing yourself into dialogue w i t h others, i t is extremely important that readers be able to te l l 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.

D E T E R M I N E W H O IS S A Y I N G W H A T

I N T H E T E X T S Y O U R E A D

Before examining how to signal who is saying what i n your own wri t ing , let's look at how to recognize such signals when they appear i n the texts you read—an especially important ski l l when i t comes to the challenging works assigned i n school. Fre­quently, when students have trouble understanding diff icult texts, i t is not just because the texts contain unfamiliar ideas or words, but because the texts rely o n subtle clues to let read-

6 8

Distinguishing What You Say from What They Say

ers know w h e n a particular view should be attributed to the writer or to someone else. Especially w i t h texts that present a true dialogue of perspectives, readers need to be alert to the often subtle markers that indicate whose voice the writer is speaking i n .

Consider how the social crit ic and educator Gregory Mantsios uses these "voice markers," as they might be called, to distinguish the different perspectives i n his essay o n Amer­ica's class inequalities.

"We are all middle-class," or so it would seem. Our national con­sciousness, as shaped in large part by the media and our political leadership, provides us with a picture of ourselves as a nation of prosperity and opportunity with an ever expanding middle-class life-style. As a result, our class differences are muted and our col­lective character is homogenized.

Yet class divisions are real and arguably the most significant fac­tor in derermining both our very being in the world and the nature of the society we live in.

GREGORY MANTSIOS, "Rewards and Opportunities:

The Politics and Economics of Class in the U .S."

A l t h o u g h Mantsios makes i t look easy, he is actually making several sophisticated rhetorical moves here that help h i m dis­t inguish the common view he opposes from his own position.

I n the opening sentence, for instance, the phrase "or so it would seem" shows that Mantsios does not necessarily agree w i t h the view he is describing, since writers normally don't pre­sent views they themselves hold as ones that only "seem" to be true. Mantsios also places this opening view i n quotation marks to signal that i t is not his own. He then further distances

6 9

AND Y E T "

himself from the belief being summarized i n the opening para­graph by at tr ibutmg i t to "our national consciousness, as shaped i n large part by the media and our poli t ical leadership," and then further at tr ibut ing to this "consciousness" a negative, undesirable "result": one i n w h i c h "our class differences" get "muted" and "our collective character" gets "homogenized," stripped of its diversity and distinctness. Hence, even before Mantsios has declared his o w n position i n the second para­graph, readers can get a pretty solid sense of where he proba­bly stands.

Furthermore, the second paragraph opens w i t h the word "yet," indicating that Mantsios is now shift ing to his o w n view (as opposed to the common view he has thus far been describ­ing) . Even the parallelism he sets up between the first and sec­ond paragraphs—between the first paragraph's c laim that class differences do not exist and the second paragraph's c laim that they do—helps throw into sharp relief the differences between the two voices. Finally, Mantsios's use of a direct, authorita­tive, declarative tone i n the second paragraph also suggests a switch i n voice. A l t h o u g h he does not use the words " I say" or "1 argue," he clearly identifies the view he holds by pre­senting i t not as one that merely seems to be true or that oth­ers tell us is true, but as a view that is true or, as Mantsios puts i t , " teal ."

Paying at tent ion to these voice markers is an important aspect of reading comprehension. Readers who fail to notice these markers often take an author's summaries of what some­one else believes to be an expression of what the author h i m ­self or herself believes. Thus when we teach Mantsios's essay, some students invariably come away t h i n k i n g that the state­ment "we are all middle-class" is Mantsios's own position rathet than the perspective he is opposing, fail ing to see that i n wr i t -

7 o

Distinguishing What Y o u Say from What T h e y Say

ing these words Mantsios acts as a k i n d of ventriloquist, m i m ­icking what others say rather than directly expressing what he himself is t h i n k i n g .

T o see how important such voice markers are, consider what the Mantsios passage looks like if we remove them.

W e are all middle-class. . . . W e are a n a t i o n of prosperity and

opportuni ty w i t h an ever expanding middle-class life-style. . . .

Class divisions are real and arguably the most significant factor

i n determining both our very being i n the w o r l d and the nature of

the society we l ive i n .

I n contrast to the careful delineation between voices in Mantsios's original text, this unmarked version leaves i t hard to tel l where his voice begins and the voices of others end. W i t h the markers removed, readers cannot te l l that " W e are all middle-class" represents a view the author opposes, and that "Class divisions are real" represents what the author hiinself believes. Indeed, wi thout the maikers, especially the "Yet," readers might well miss the fact that the second paragraph's claim that "Class divisions are real" contradicts the first para­graph's claim that " W e are al l middle-class."

T E M P L A T E S F O R S I G N A L I N G W H O IS S A Y I N G W H A T

I N Y O U R O W N W R I T I N G

T o avoid confusion i n your own wr i t ing , make sure that at every point your readers can clearly tel l who is saying what. T o do so, you can use as voice-identifying devices many of the tem­plates presented i n previous chapters.

7 1

"AND YET

> Although X makes the best possible case for unjyersal, government-

funded health care, I am not persuaded.

> My view, however, contrary to what X has argued, is that

> Adding to X's argument, I would point out that

t- According to both X and Y,

" Politicians, X argues, should

> Most athletes will tell you that

B U T I 'VE B E E N T O L D IMOT T O U S E " 1 "

Notice that the first three templates above use the first-person " I " or "we," as do many of the templates i n this book, thereby contradicting the common advice about avoiding the first person i n academic wr i t ing . A l t h o u g h you may have been told that the " I " word encourages subjective, self-indulgent opinions rather than well-grounded arguments, we believe that texts using " I " can be just as well supported—or just as self-indulgent—as those that don't . For us, well-supported argu­ments are grounded i n persuasive reasons and evidence, not i n the use or nonuse of any particular pronouns.

Furthermore, i f you consistently avoid the first person i n your wr i t ing , you w i l l probably have trouble making the key move addressed i n this chapter: differentiating your views from those of others, or even offering your own views i n the first place. But don't just take our word for i t . See for yourself how freely the first person is used by the writers quoted i n this book, and by the writers assigned i n your courses.

7 2

Dist inguishing What Y o u Say from What T h e y Say

Nevertheless, certain occasions may warrant avoiding the first person and wri t ing , for example, that "she is correct" instead of " I th ink that she is correct." Since i t can be monotonous to read an unvarying series of " I " statements ("I believe . . . 1 think . . . 1 argue"), it is a good idea to mix first-person assertions wi th ones like the following.

f X is right that certain c o m m o n patterns, can be found in the com­

munities.

> The evidence shows that

> X's assertion that does not fit the facts.

> Anyone familiar with should agree that

One might even follow Mantsios's lead, as i n the fol lowing

template.

> Bui are real, and are arguably the most significant

factor in

One the whole, however, academic wr i t ing today, even See pp.

i n the sciences and social sciences, makes use of the we-isfoc first person fairly liberally. example of

how a physi­

cist uses the

A N O T H E R T H I C K F O R I D E N T I F Y I N G first person.

W H O IS S P E A K I N G

an

T o alert readers about whose perspective you are describing at any given moment, you don' t always have to use overt voice markers l ike "X argues" followed by a summary of the argument. Instead, you can alert readers about whose voice you're speak­ing i n by embedding a reference to X's argument in your own sentences. Hence, instead of wri t ing :

7 3

"AND Y E T "

Liberals believe that cultural differences need to be respected. I

have a problem w i t h this view, however.

you might write :

I have a problem w i t h what liberals call cultural differences.

There is a major problem w i t h the liberal doctr ine of so-called cul­

tural differences.

You can also embed references to something you yourself have previously said. So instead of w r i t i n g two cumbersome sen­tences like:

Earlier i n this chapter we coined the term "voice markers." W e

would argue that such markers are extremely important for read­

ing comprehension.

you might write :

W e would argue that "voice markers," as we identif ied t h e m ear­

lier, are extremely important for reading comprehension.

Embedded references like these allow you to economize your train of thought and refer to other perspectives wi thout any major interruption.

T E M P L A T E S F O R E M B E D D I N G V O I C E M A R K E R S

" X overlooks what I consider an important point about cultural differ­

ences.

7 4

Distinguishirrg W h a t Y o u Say from What T h e y Say

> My own view is that what X insists is a is in fact a

> I wholeheartedly endorse what X calls

> These conclusions, which X discusses in , add weight

to the argument that

W h e n writers fail to use voice-marking devices like the ones discussed i n this chapter, their summaries of others' views tend to become confused w i t h their own ideas—and vice versa. W h e n readers cannot tell if you are summarizing your own views or endorsing a certain phrase or label, they have to stop and think: "Wait . 1 thought the author disagreed w i t h this claim. Has she actually been asserting this view all along?" or " H m m m , I thought she would have objected to this k ind of phrase. Is she actually endorsing it?" Getting i n the habit of using voice markers w i l l keep you from confusing your readers and help alert you to simi­lar markers i n the challenging texts you read.

Exercises

1. T o see how one writer signals when she is asserting her own views and when she is summarizing those of someone else, read the fo l lowing passage by the social historian Julie Char l ip . As you do so, identify those spots where Charl ip refers to the views of others and the signal phrases she uses to distinguish her views from theirs.

M a r x and Engels wrote : "Society as a whole is more and more split­

t i n g up i n t o t w o great hostile camps, i n t o t w o great classes directly

facing each o t h e r — t h e bourgeoisie and the proletariat" (10). I f

7 5

A N D Y E T "

only that were true, things might be more simple. But in late twen­tieth-century America, it seems that society is splitting more and more into a plethora of class factions—the working class, the work­ing poor, lower-middle class, upper-middle class, lower uppers, and upper uppers. I find myself not knowing what class I'm from.

In my days as a newspaper reporter, I once asked a sociology professor what he thought about the reported shrinking of the mid­dle class. Oh, it's not the middle class that's disappearing, he said, but the working class. His definition: if you earn thirty thousand dollars a year working in an assembly plant, come home from work, open a beer and watch the game, you are working class; if you earn twenty thousand dollars a year as a school teacher, come home fiom work to a glass of white wine and PBS, you are middle class.

How do we define class? Is it an issue of values, lifestyle, taste? Is it the kind of work you do, your relationship to the means of production? Is it a matter of how much money you earn? Are we allowed to choose? In this land of supposed classlessness, where we don't have the tradition of English society to keep us i n our places, how do we know where we really belong? The average American wil l tell you he or she is "middle class." I'm sure that's what my father would tell you. But I always felt that we were in some no man's land, suspended between classes, sharing simi­larities with some and recognizing sharp, exclusionary differences from others. What class do I come from? What class am 1 in now? As an historian, I seek the answers to these questions in the specificity of my past.

JULIE C H A R L I P , " A Real Class Act: Searching

for Identity in the Classless Society"

2. Study a piece of your o w n wri t ing to see how many per­spectives you account for and how wel l you distinguish your

7 6

Distinguishirrg WKat You Say from What They Say

own voice f rom those you are summarizing. Consider the

fol lowing questions:

a. H o w many perspectives do you engage? b. W h a t other perspectives might you include? c. H o w do you distinguish your views from the other views

you summarize? d. D o you use clear voice-signaling phrases?

e. W h a t options are available to you for clarifying who is

saying what?

f. W h i c h of these options are best suited for this particular

text?

I f you f i n d that you do not include mult iple views or clearly

distinguish between your views and others', revise your text

to do so.

7 7

"SKEPTICS MAY OBJECT''

Planting a Naysayer in Your Text

THE WRITER Jane Tompkins describes a pattern that repeats itself whenever she writes a book or an article. For the first cou­ple of weeks when she sits down to write, things go relatively well. But then i n the middle of the night, several weeks into the wri t ing process, she'll wake up i n a cold sweat, suddenly realiz­ing that she has overlooked some major criticism that readers w i l l surely make against her ideas. Her first thought, invariably, is that she w i l l have to give up on the project, or that she w i l l have to throw out what she's writ ten thus far and start over. T h e n she realizes that "this moment of doubt and panic is where my text really begins." She then revises what she's wri t ten i n a way that incorporates the criticisms she's anticipated, and her text becomes stronger and more interesting as a result.

This l i tt le story contains an important lesson for all writers, experienced and inexperienced alike. It suggests that even though most of us are upset at the idea of someone criticizing our work, such criticisms can actually work to our advantage. A l t h o u g h it's naturally tempting to ignore criticism of our ideas, doing so may i n fact be a big mistake, since our writ ing improves when we not only listen to these objections but give them an explicit hearing

7 8

Planting a Na^sa^er in Your Text

i n our wri t ing. Indeed, no single device more quickly improves a piece of wri t ing than planting a naysayer i n the text—saying, for example, that "although some readers may object" to something i n your argument, you "would reply that

A N T I C I P A T E O B J E C T I O N S

But wait , you say. Isn't the advice to incorporate crit ical views a recipe for destroying your credibility and undermining your argument? Here you are, t rying to say something that w i l l h o l d up, and we want you to te l l readers al l the negative things some­one might say against you?

Exactly. W e are urging you to te l l readers what others might say against you, but our point is that doing so w i l l actually enhance your credibility, not undermine i t . As we argue throughout this book, w r i t i n g wel l does not mean pi l ing up uncontroversial truths i n a vacuum; i t means engaging others i n a dialogue or debate—not only by opening your text w i t h a summary of what others have said, as we suggest i n Chapter 1, but also by imagining what others might say against your argu­ment as it unfolds. Once you see w r i t i n g as an act of entering a conversation, you should also see how opposing arguments can work for you rather than against you.

Paradoxically, the more you give voice to your critics' objec­tions, the more you tend to disarm those critics, especially if you go on to answer their objections i n convincing ways. W h e n you entertain a counterargument, you make a k i n d of preemp­tive strike, identifying problems w i t h your argument before o t h ­ers can point them out for you. Furthermore, by entertaining counterarguments, you show respect for your readers, treating them not as gullible dupes who w i l l believe anything you say

7 9

"SKEPTICS MAV OBJECT"

but as independent, crit ical thinkers who arc aware that your

view is not the only one i n town. I n addition, by imagining what

others might say against your claims, you come across as a gen­

erous, broad-minded person who is confident enough to open

himself or herself to debate—like the writer i n Figure 5.

Conversely, i f you don't entertain counterarguments, you

may very l ikely come across as closed-minded, as if you t h i n k

your beliefs are beyond dispute. You might also leave impor­

tant questions hanging and concerns about your arguments

unaddressed. Finally, if you fail to plant a naysayer i n your text,

you may f i n d that you have very l i t t le to say. Our o w n students

often say that entertaining counterarguments makes i t easier to

generate enough text to meet their assignment's page-length

requirements.

Planting a naysayer i n your rext is a relatively simple move,

as you can see by looking at the fol lowing passage from a book

by the writer K i m Chern in . Having spent some thir ty pages

complaining about the pressure on American women to lose

weight and be t h i n , C h e r n i n inserts a whole chapter entit led

"The Skeptic," opening i t as follows.

A t this point I would like to raise certain objections that have been

inspired by the skeptic in me. She feels chat I have been ignoring

some of the most common assumptions we all make about our bod­

ies and these she wishes to see addressed. For example: "You know

perfectly well," she says to me, "that you feel better when you lose

weight. You buy new clothes. You look at yourself more eagerly in

the mirror. When someone invites you to a party you don't stop

and ask yourself whether you want to go. You feel sexier. Admit

it. You like yourself better."

KiM C H E R N I N , The Obsession:

Reflections on the Tyranny of Slendemess

8 o

Planting a hiaysayer in Your Text

70U WILL PROBABLy ORJECT THftT I HAVE

MISREPRESENTED X'S WORK HERE AND I CONCEDE

THAT X NEVER SAYS IN SO MAN/ WORDS. NEVERTHaESS...."

FIGURE 5

8 1

"SKEPTICS MAY OBJECT"

The remainder of Chernin's chapter consists of her answers t o this inner skeptic. I n the face of the skeptic's challenge t o her book's central premise ( that the pressure to diet seriously harms women's lives), C h e r n i n responds neither by repressing the skeptic's cr i t ical voice nor by giving i n to i t and relinquishing her o w n posit ion. Instead, she embraces that voice and writes i t in to her text. Note too that instead of dispatching this naysaying voice quickly, as many of us would be tempted to do, C h e r n i n stays w i t h i t and devotes a f u l l paragraph t o i t . By borrowing some of Chernin's language, we can come up w i t h templates for entertaining virtual ly any objection.

T E M P L A T E S F O R E N T E R T A I N I N G O B J E C T I O N S

> At this point I would like to raise some objections that have been

inspired by the skeptic in me. She feels that I have been ignoring

the complexities o f the situation.

> Yet some readers may challenge my view by insisting that

> O f course, many will probably disagree on the grounds that

Note that the objections i n the above templates are attr ibuted not to any specific person or group, but to "skep­tics," "readers," or "many." This k i n d of nameless, faceless naysayer is perfectly appropriate i n many cases. But the ideas that motivate arguments and objections often can—and, where possible, should—be ascribed to a specific ideology or school of thought (for example, liberals. Chr is t ian funda­mentalists, neopragmatists) rather than to anonymous any-

8 2

Plant ing a Naysayer in Your Text

bodies. I n other words, naysayers can be labeled, and you can add precision and impact to your w r i t i n g by ident i fy ing what those labels are.

T E M P L A T E S F O R N A M I N G Y O U R N A Y S A Y E R S

> Here many/emm/sfs would probably object that gender does influ­

ence language.

> But social Darwinists would certainly take issue wi th the argument

that

1̂ Biologists, of course, may want to question whether

Nevertheless, both/o//ow^ers and critics of Malcolm X will probably

suggest otherwise and argue that

T o be sure, some people dislike such labels and may even resent having labels applied to themselves. Some feel that labels put individuals i n boxes, stereotyping them and gloss­ing over what makes each of us unique. A n d it's true that labels can be used inappropriately, i n ways that ignore individual i ty and promote stereotypes. But since the life of ideas, including many of our most private thoughts, is conducted through groups and types rather than solitary individuals, intellectual exchange requires labels to give def in i t ion and serve as a con­venient shorthand. I f you categorically reject a l l labels, you give up an important resource and even mislead readers by presenting yourself and others as having no connect ion to anyone else. You also miss an opportunity to generalize the importance and relevance of your work to some larger con­versation. W h e n you attribute a posit ion you are summarizing to liberalism, say, or historical materialism, your argument is

8 3

"SKEPTICS MAY OBJECT"

no longer just about your own solitary views but about the intersection of broad ideas and habits of m i n d that many read­ers may already have a stake i n .

The way to minimize the problem of stereotyping, then, is not to categorically reject labels but to refine and qualify their use, as the fol lowing templates demonstrate.

> Although not all Christians think alike, some of them will probably

dispute my claim that , .

> Non-native Englisin speakers are so diverse in their views that it's

hard to generalize about them, but some are likely to object on the

grounds that

A n o t h e r way to avoid needless stereotyping is to qualify labels carefully, substituting "pro bono lawyers" for "lawyers" in gen­eral, for example, or "quantitative sociologists" for all "social scientists," and so on.

T E M P L A T E S F O R I N T R O D U C I N G O B J E C T I O N S I N F O R M A L L Y

Objections can also be introduced i n more informal ways. For instance, you can frame objections i n the form of questions.

> But is my proposal realistic? What are the chances of its actually

being adopted?

> Yet is it necessarily true that ? Is it always the case, as

I have been suggesting, that ?

> However, does the evidence I've cited prove conclusively that

8 4

Planting a Naysayer in Your Text

You can also let your naysayer speak directly.

> "Impossible," some will say. "You must be reading the research

selectively."

Moves like this allow you to cut directly to the skeptical voice itself, as the singer-songwriter joe Jackson does i n the fol ­lowing excerpt f rom a 2003 New York Times article complain­ing about the restrictions on public smoking i n New York Ci ty bars and restaurants.

1 like a couple of cigarettes or a cigar with a drink, and like many other people, 1 only smoke in bars or nightclubs. Now I can't go to any of my old haunrs. Bartenders who were friends have turned into cops, forcing me outside to shiver in the cold and curse under my breath. . . . It's no fun. Smokers are being demonized and vic­timized all out of proportion.

"Get over i t , " say the anti-smokers. "You're the minority." I thought a great city was a place where all kinds of minorities could thrive. . . . "Smoking kills," they say. As an occasional smoker with otherwise healthy habits, I ' l l take my chances. Health consciousness is important, but so are pleasure and free­dom of choice.

JOE JACKSON, "Want to Smoke? Go to Hamburg"

Jackson could have begun his second paragraph, i n w h i c h he shifts f rom his o w n voice to that of his imagined nay­sayer, more formally, as follows: " O f course anti-smokers w i l l object that since we smokers are i n the minor i ty , we should simply stop complaining and quietly make the sacrifices we are being called o n to make for the larger social good." Or

8 5

"SKEPTICS MAY OB|ECT"

"Anti -smokers might insist, however, that the smoking minor­ity should submit to the non-smoking major i ty . " We t h i n k , though, that Jackson gets the job done i n a far more l ively way w i t h the more col loquial form he chooses. Borrowing a standard move of playwrights and novelists, Jackson cuts directly to the objectors' view and then to his o w n retort, then back to the objectors' view and then to his o w n retort

See Chapter again, thereby creating a k i n d of dialogue or minia -5 for more t^re play w i t h i n his o w n text. This move works wel l advice on Jackson, but only because he uses quotat ion marks

using voice other voice markers to make clear at every point markers.

whose voice he is i n .

R E P R E S E N T O B J E C T I O N S F A I R L Y

Once you've decided to introduce a differing or opposing view into your wr i t ing , your work has only just begun, since you sti l l need to represent and explain that view w i t h fairness and gen­erosity. A l t h o u g h it is tempting to give opposing views short shrift, to hurry past them, or even to mock them, doing so is usually counterproductive. W h e n writers make the best case

See pp. 31-32 they can for their critics (playing Peter Elbow's "believ-formoreon i^g game"), they actually bolster their credibility w i t h

the believing pgajg^s rather than undermine i t . They make readers th i n k , "This is a writer 1 can trust."

We recommend, then, that whenever you entertain objec­tions i n your wri t ing , you stay w i t h them for several sentences or even paragraphs and take them as seriously as possible. We also recommend that you read your summary of opposing views w i t h an outsider's eye: put yourself i n the shoes of someone who disagrees w i t h you and ask if such a reader would recognize h i m -

8 6

Planting a Naysayer in Your Text

self i n your summary. W o u l d that reader t h i n k you have taken his views seriously, as beliefs that reasonable people might hold? Or would he detect a mocking tone or an oversimplification of his views?

There w i l l always be certain objections, to be sure, that you believe do not deserve to be represented, just as there w i l l be objections that seem so unworthy of respect that they inspire ridicule. Remember, however, that if you do choose to mock a view that you oppose, you are likely to alienate those readers who don't already agree w i t h you—likely the very readers you want to reach. Also be aware that i n mocking another's view you may contribute to a hostile argument culture i n which someone may ridicule you i n return.

A N S W E R O B J E C T I O N S

Do be aware that when you represent objections successfully, you st i l l need to be able to answer those objections persuasively. Af ter al l , when you write objections into a text, you take the risk that readers w i l l f ind those objections more convincing than the argument you yourself are advancing. I n the editorial quoted above, for example, Joe Jackson takes the risk that read­ers w i l l identify more w i t h the anti-smoking view he summa­rizes than w i t h the pro-smoking position he endorses.

This is precisely what Benjamin Frankl in describes hap­pening to himself i n The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin

(1793), when he recalls being converted to Deism (a religion that exalts reason over spirituali ty) by reading anti-Deist books. W h e n he encountered the views of Deists being negatively summarized by authors who opposed them. Frankl in explains, he ended up f inding the Deist position more persuasive. T o

8 7

"SKEPTICS MAY OBJECT"

avoid having this k i n d i f unintent ional reverse effect on read­ers, you need to do your best to make sure rhat any counter­arguments you address are no t more convincing than your own claims. I t is good to address objections i n your wr i t ing , but only i f you are able to overcome them.

One surefire way to fail to overcome an objection is to dis­miss i t out of hand—saying, for example, "That's just wrong." The difference between such a response ( w h i c h offers no sup­porting reasons whatsoever) and the types of nuanced responses we're promoting i n this book is the difference between bully­ing your readers and genuinely persuading them.

Of ten the best way to overcome an objection is not to try to refute it completely but to agree w i t h part of i t while challeng­ing only the part you dispute. I n other words, i n answering coun­terarguments, i t is often best to say "yes, but" or "yes and no, "

See pp. 61-66 treating the counterview as an opportunity to revise and for more on refine your o w n position. Rather than build your argu-

agreeing, with ment into an impenetrable fortress, i t is often best to a difference, ^^iae concessions while stil l standing your ground, as

K i m Chern in does i n the fol lowing response to the counter­argument quoted above. W h i l e i n the voice of the "skeptic," Chernin writes: " A d m i t i t . You like yourself better when you've lost weight." I n response, Chernin replies as follows.

Can I deny these things? No woman who has managed to lose weight would wish to argue with this. Most people feel better about themselves when they become slender. And yet, upon reflection, it seems to me that there is something precarious about this well-being. After all, 98 percent of people who lose weight gain it back. Indeed, 90 percent of those who have dieted "successfully" gain back more than they ever lost. Then, of course, we can no longer bear to look at ourselves in the mirror.

Plant ing a Naysayer in Your Text

I n this way, Chern in shows how you can use a counterview to improve and refine your overall argument by making a con­cession. Even as she concedes that losing weight feels good in the short run , she argues that i n the long r u n the weight always returns, making the dieter far more miserable.

T E M P L A T E S F O R M A K I N G C O N C E S S I O N S

W H I L E S T I L L S T A N D I N G Y O U R G R O U N D

> Although I grant that the book is poorly organized, I still maintain

that It raises an important issue.

> Proponents of X are nght to argue that . But they exag­

gerate when they claim that

> While it is true that , it does not necessarily follow that

> On the one hand, I agree with X that . But on the other

hand, I still insist that

Templates l ike these show that answering naysayers' objections does not have to be an al l -or-nothing affair i n whic h you either definit ively refute your critics or they definit ively refute yoti . Of ten the most productive engagements among differing views end w i t h a combined vision that incorporates elements of each one.

But what if you've tried out all the possible answers you can t h i n k of to an objection you've anticipated and you still have a nagging feeling that the objection is more convincing than your argument itself? I n that case, the best remedy is to go back and make some fundamental revisions to your argument, even

8 9

"SKEPTICS MAY OBJECT"

reversing your position complerely if need be. Al thougb find­ing out late i n the game that you aren't fully convinced by your own argument can be painful , i t can actually make your final text more inteiiectuaiiy honest, challenging, and senous. After

all, the goal of writing is not to keep proving that wfiatever you ini t ia l ly said is right, but to stretch the l imits o f your think­ing. So i f p lant ing a strong naysayer i n your text forces you to change your m i n d , that's not a bad thing. Some would argue that that is what the academic world is all about.

Exercises

1. Read the fol lowing passage by the cultural critic Eric Schlosser. As you'l l see, he hasn't planted any naysayers i n this text. Do i t for h i m . Insert a brief paragraph stating an objection to his argument and then responding to the objec­t ion as he might.

The United States must declare an end to the war on drugs. This war has filled the nation's prisons with poor drug addicts and small­time drug dealers. It has created a multibillion-doUar black mar­ket, enriched organized crime groups and promoted the corruption of government officials throughout the world. And it has not stemmed the widespread use of illegal drugs. By any rational mea­sure, this war has been a total failure.

We must develop public policies on substance abuse that are guided not by moral righteousness or political expediency but by common sense. The United States should immediately decrimi­nalize the cultivation and possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Marijuana should no longer be classified as a Schedule I narcotic, and those who seek to use marijuana as med-

9 o

Planting a Naysayer in Your Text

icine should no longer face criminal sanctions. We must shift our entire approach to drug abuse from the criminal jusrice system to the public health system. Congress should appoint an independ­ent comm.ission to study the barm-reduction policies that have been adopted i n Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands. The commission should recommend policies for the United States based on one important criterion; what works.

In a nation where pharmaceutical companies advertise powerful antidepressants on billboards and where alcohol companies run amus­ing beet ads during the Super Bowl, the idea of a "dmg-ftee society" is absurd. Like the rest of American society, our dmg policy would greatly benefit from less punishment and more compassion.

ERIC SCHLOSSER, " A People's Democratic Platform"

2. Look over something you've wr i t t en that makes an argu­ment. Check to see if you've anticipated and responded to any objections. I f not , revise your text to do so. I f so, have you anticipated al l the likely objections? W h o if anyone have you attributed the objections to? Have you represented the objections fairly? Have you answered them wel l enough, or do you t h i n k you now need to qualify your o w n argu­ment? Could you use any of the language suggested in this chapter? Does the introduct ion of a naysayer strengthen your argument? W h y , or why not?

9 1