Order now. HBZ Gateway. Oxford New York [u. Publication Type. More Filters. Belief in the afterlife was of central importance to slave converts, who ascribed double-meanings to heaven and hell, as places to which the dead would go, and as metaphors for freedom and slavery. Rudolf Otto and the Concept of the Numinous. The contemporary academic study of religion has its roots in conceptual and theoretical structures developed in the early to midth century. A particularly important example of such a structure is … Expand.
In the Nigerian context, and especially in the traditional Igbo setting, women have never featured prominently in the enterprise of politics and power play. 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? Perhaps had I studied the situation longer I could have come up with a similar argument. 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.
Is he for what this other person has said, against it, or what? 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.
I agree that , but I cannot agree that. In fact, there would be no reason to offer an interpretation of a work of literature or art unless you were responding to the interpre- tations 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.
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 particular view; you also have to offer persuasive reasons why you disagree. To move the conversation forward and, indeed, to justify your very act of writing , you need to demonstrate that you have something to contribute. Here is an example of such a move, used to open an essay on the state of American schools.
On the one hand, she argues. On the other hand, she also says. For example: X argues for stricter gun control legislation, saying that the crime rate is on the rise and that we need to restrict the circulation of guns. We need to own guns to protect ourselves against criminals. 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. Nevertheless, disagreements do not need to take the form of personal put-downs.
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. 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.
You may cite some corroborating personal experience, or a situation not mentioned by X that her views help readers understand. In other words, your text can usefully contribute to the conversation simply by pointing out unnoticed implications or explaining something that needs to be better understood. Some writers avoid the practice of agreeing almost as much as others avoid disagreeing.
It is hard to align yourself with one position without at least implicitly positioning yourself against others. 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.
Basically, what Gilligan says could be boiled down to a template. 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. Another aspect we like about this 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.
Conversely, if you want to stress your agreement more than your disagreement, you would use a template like this one. Other versions include the following. This move can be especially useful if you are responding to new or particularly challenging work and are as yet unsure where you stand.
But again, as we suggest earlier, whether you are agreeing, disagreeing, or both agreeing and disagreeing, you need to be as clear as pos- sible, and making a frank statement that you are ambivalent is one way to be clear. Nevertheless, writers often have as many concerns about expressing ambivalence as they do about expressing disagree- ment 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. 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 impos- sible 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.
Read one of the essays in the back of this book or on theysayiblog. Write an essay responding in some way to the essay that you worked with in the preceding exercise. This chapter takes up the problem of moving from what they say to what you say without confusing readers about who is saying what.
Especially with texts that pres- ent a true dialogue of perspectives, readers need to be alert to the often subtle markers that indicate whose voice the writer is speaking in. Our national con- sciousness, 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 col- lective character is homogenized. Yet class divisions are real and arguably the most significant factor in determining both our very being in the world and the nature of the society we live in. Mantsios also places this opening view in quotation marks to signal that it is not his own.
Hence, even before Mantsios has declared his own position in the second para- graph, readers can get a pretty solid sense of where he probably stands. To see how important such voice markers are, consider what the Mantsios passage looks like if we remove them. We are all middle-class. We are a nation of prosperity and opportunity with an ever expanding middle-class life-style.
Class divisions are real and arguably the most significant factor in determining both our very being in the world and the nature of the society we live in. To do so, you can use as voice-identifying devices many of the templates presented in previous chapters. For us, well-supported argu- ments are grounded in persuasive reasons and evidence, not in the use or nonuse of any particular pronouns. Furthermore, if you consistently avoid the first person in your writing, you will probably have trouble making the key move addressed in this chapter: differentiating your views from those of others, or even offering your own views in the first place.
See for yourself how freely the first person is used by the writers quoted in this book, and by the writers assigned in your courses. I think. On the whole, however, academic writing today, See pp. Hence, instead of writing: Liberals believe that cultural differences need to be respected. I have a problem with this view, however. There is a major problem with the liberal doctrine of so-called cultural differences.
You can also embed references to something you yourself have previously said. Embedded references like these allow you to economize your train of thought and refer to other perspectives without any major interruption. I thought the author disagreed with this claim.
Has she actually been asserting this view all along? Is she actually endorsing it? To see how one writer signals when she is asserting her own views and when she is summarizing those of someone else, read the following passage by the social historian Julie Charlip.
As you do so, identify those spots where Charlip refers to the views of others and the signal phrases she uses to distinguish her views from theirs. If 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.
In my days as a newspaper reporter, I once asked a sociology pro- fessor what he thought about the reported shrinking of the middle 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 from 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? What class do I come from? What class am I in now?
As an historian, I seek the answers to these questions in the specificity of my past. Study a piece of your own writing to see how many perspec- tives you account for and how well you distinguish your own voice from those you are summarizing.
Consider the following questions: a. How many perspectives do you engage? What other perspectives might you include? How do you distinguish your views from the other views you summarize?
Do you use clear voice-signaling phrases? What options are available to you for clarifying who is saying what? Which of these options are best suited for this particular text? For the first couple of weeks when she sits down to write, things go relatively well. This little 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. Here you are, trying to say something that will hold up, and we want you to tell readers all the negative things someone might say against you? We are urging you to tell readers what others might say against you, but our point is that doing so will actu- ally enhance your credibility, not undermine it.
As we argue throughout this book, writing well does not mean piling up uncontroversial truths in a vacuum; it means engaging others in a dialogue or debate—not only by opening your text with a summary of what others have said, as we suggest in Chapter 1, but also by imagining what others might say against your argu- ment as it unfolds.
Once you see writing as an act of entering a conversation, you should also see how opposing arguments can work for you rather than against you. When you entertain a counterargument, you make a kind of preemptive strike, identifying problems with your argument before oth- ers can point them out for you. In addition, by imagining what others might say against your claims, you come across as a generous, broad-minded person who is confident enough to open himself or herself to debate—like the writer in the figure on the following page.
You might also leave important ques- tions hanging and concerns about your arguments unaddressed. Finally, if you fail to plant a naysayer in your text, you may find that you have very little to say. Planting a naysayer in your text is a relatively simple move, as you can see by looking at the following passage from a book by the writer Kim Chernin. At this point I would like to raise certain objections that have been inspired by the skeptic in me.
She feels that I have been ignoring some of the most common assumptions we all make about our bod- ies and these she wishes to see addressed.
You buy new clothes. You look at yourself more eagerly in the mirror. You feel sexier. Admit it. You like yourself better. Instead, she embraces that voice and writes it into her text. Note too that instead of dispatching this naysaying voice quickly, as many of us would be tempted to do, Chernin stays with it and devotes a full paragraph to it. She feels that I have been ignoring the complexities of the situation. 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, Christian fundamentalists, neopragmatists rather than to anonymous anybodies.
To be sure, some people dislike such labels and may even resent having labels applied to themselves. Some feel that labels put individuals in boxes, stereotyping them and glossing over what makes each of us unique.
But since the life of ideas, includ- ing many of our most private thoughts, is conducted through groups and types rather than solitary individuals, intellectual exchange requires labels to give definition and serve as a convenient shorthand.
If you categorically reject all labels, you give up an important resource and even mislead readers by presenting yourself and others as having no connection to anyone else. You also miss an opportunity to generalize the importance and relevance of your work to some larger con- versation. The way to minimize the problem of stereotyping, then, is not to categorically reject labels but to refine and qualify their use, as the following templates demonstrate.
For instance, you can frame objections in the form of questions. What are the chances of its actually being adopted? Is it always the case, as I have been suggesting, that? I like a couple of cigarettes or a cigar with a drink, and like many other people, I only smoke in bars or nightclubs.
Bartenders who were friends have turned into cops, forcing me outside to shiver in the cold and curse under my breath.
Smokers are being demonized and victim- ized all out of proportion. Health con- sciousness is important, but so are pleasure and freedom of choice. This move works well for Jackson, but See Chapter 5 for more only because he uses quotation marks and other voice advice on markers to make clear at every point whose voice using voice markers. Although it is tempting to give opposing views short shrift, to hurry past them, or even to mock them, doing so is usually counterproductive.
They make readers game. Or would he detect a mocking tone or an oversimplifica- tion of his views? There will always be certain objections, to be sure, that you believe do not deserve to be represented, just as there will be objections that seem so unworthy of respect that they inspire ridicule. After all, when you write objections into a text, you take the risk that readers will find those objections more convincing than the argument you yourself are advancing.
In the edito- rial quoted above, for example, Joe Jackson takes the risk that readers will identify more with the anti-smoking view he sum- marizes than with the pro-smoking position he endorses.
This is precisely what Benjamin Franklin describes hap- pening to himself in The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin , when he recalls being converted to Deism a religion that exalts reason over spirituality by reading anti-Deist books. When he encountered the views of Deists being negatively summarized by authors who opposed them, Franklin explains, he ended up finding the Deist position more persuasive.
It is good to address objections in your writing, but only if you are able to overcome them. Often the best way to overcome an objection is not to try to refute it completely but to agree with part of it while chal- lenging only the part you dispute. Rather than build a difference. 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. Then, of course, we can no longer bear to look at ourselves in the mirror. Even as she concedes that losing weight feels good in the short run, she argues that in the long run the weight always returns, making the dieter far more miserable. But they exaggerate when they claim that. But on the other hand, I still insist that.
Often the most productive engagements among differing views end with a combined vision that incorporates elements of each one. After all, the goal of writing is not to keep proving that what- ever you initially said is right, but to stretch the limits of your thinking. Some would argue that that is what the academic world is all about. Read the following passage by the cultural critic Eric Schlosser. Do it for him. Insert a brief paragraph stating an objection to his argument and then responding to the objection as he might.
The United States must declare an end to the war on drugs. It has created a multibillion-dollar 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 decriminal- ize the cultivation and possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use. We must shift our entire approach to drug abuse from the criminal justice system to the public health system. Congress should appoint an independent commission to study the harm-reduction policies that have been adopted in Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands.
The commission should recommend policies for the United States based on one important criterion: what works. Like the rest of American society, our drug policy would greatly benefit from less punishment and more compassion.
If not, revise your text to do so. If so, have you anticipated all the likely objections? Who if anyone have you attributed the objections to? Have you represented the objections fairly? Have you answered them well enough, or do you think you now need to qualify your own argu- ment?
Could you use any of the language suggested in this chapter? Does the introduction of a naysayer strengthen your argument? Why, or why not? Bernini was the best sculptor of the baroque period.
All writing is conversational. So what? Why does any of this matter? How many times have you had reason to ask these ques- tions? Regardless of how interesting a topic may be to you as a writer, readers always need to know what is at stake in a text and why they should care.
Home Nine Theories Of Religion. Nine Theories of Religion. Nine Theories of Religion by Daniel Pals. Eight Theories of Religion by Daniel L. Introducing Religion by Daniel L. Contemporary Theories of Religion by Michael Stausberg. Religion in Human Evolution by Robert N. Ten Theories of Religion by Daniel Pals. Understanding Theories of Religion by Ivan Strenski. Bloesch,Meredith Minister. Download options PhilArchive copy. Google Books no proxy Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server Configure custom proxy use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy.
Configure custom resolver. Chapters BETA. The Social as Sacred. Emile Durkheim. Religion as Response to the Sacred. Mircea Eliade. Primitive Religion and Modern Theories. Magic and the Rise of Religion. James Frazer. Religion as Neurosis. Sigmund Freud. Religion as World-View and Ethic.
0コメント