Skip to main content

The Feminist Approach


Chapter 3 provides examples of methods and lenses commonly utilized in establishing the conclusiveness of an argument. Whereas methods such as story telling and the scientific approach are more restricted in their guidelines and starting points (i.e. there is a beginning, middle and end typically in a narrative approach), feminist theories are far less unwavering and sedentary. The textbook notes the variants in feminist theories by choosing the plural “feminisms.”  Though obviously difficult to define the nebulousness of feminisms, a commonality within the theories is that the social landscape that the argument is happening within cannot be ignored or extracted from the argument itself; in this way the style of argumentation becomes increasingly ‘meta’ as it tries to zoom out and consider larger contexts unconsciously at play. This includes but is not limited to the person whom is giving the argument (what identities they occupy), as well as the historical timeline that has led to the argument’s fruition.  One point of contention is whether or not women should share personal anecdotes when addressing an argument, or if referencing the “private” life reestablishes gender roles and impairs the potential for women to be perceived as embodying a more holistic take on human nature. Personal anecdotes may also limit the scope of persons that the story is not applicable to.  For instance, women of color or with a disability may not be as kindled by the tale of a female orator as a woman who has had shared experiences or whom shares the same identity as the orator. “Feminist argumentation” is given as a solution or alternative to the patriarchal style that  promotes the change of the opponent's mind rather than the more inclusive conversational approach the former strategy defends. Nevertheless, such a dichotomy that places styles of argumentation in either the category of masculine or feminine ascribes and presumes that a person of a particular gender is naturally inclined to one form of argumentation (as if there is no woman who would like to engage in a more competitive style of argumentation.)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chap 5

Chapter five focuses primarily on identifying and developing propositions for problems that people think are relevant. It goes over 6 steps for choosing a valid proposition based on a perceived “feeling of doubt.” While all six steps may not be necessary, the collectively ensure a well thought out and firm proposition. The six steps include identifying the question, surveying implicated objectives (or understanding what is the goal accomplishment in regard to the question), searching for new information, considering alternative options, considering costs and risks of each potential proposition, and then finally choosing one of the propositions. The authors then go on to talk about analyzing and strengthening the proposition chosen. This includes identification and ranking of the issues that the proposition addresses as well as understanding how the decision makers will react to these issues and propositions. In general, with all these methods of critically analyzing the proposition, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Chapter 10

There were a couple of terms I found in this chapter that I wish were explained a little more. First, the concept of uncritical responses to refutation is only covered briefly. I think that this is one of the most fundamental barriers to effective public argumentation in the United States right now. I find this issue most concerning for the liberal party. Recalling the last election and the concept of 'incremental' argumentation, I feel that people demonstrated a massive failure of critical thinking by voting for third parties or not voting. People who were disappointed with Hillary Clinton's candidacy in place of Bernie Sanders decided to either continue voting for Bernie or not vote altogether. Neither of these strategies amounted to effective support of their cause, and they constitute the uncritical "knee-jerk" reaction described in this chapter. In this case, uncritical response to opposition worked directly against the interests of the decision-makers. A...
1 comment
Read more

Chaper 8

Chapter 8 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making continues down the route of talking about support for argumentation. This chapter specifically focuses on values as support for arguments, how to recognize them and the best ways to attack them. Values are defined as “ concepts of what is desirable that arguers use and decision makers understand” (121).  There are several types of values mentioned such as stated, implied, positive, negative, terminal, instrumental, abstract and concrete values.  Stated values are state directly what concepts they hold. For example, words such as “freedom” or “health” are stated values because they mean exactly what they're trying to portray. Not all values are as explicit. Some are more vague and called implied values. One of the examples that the book uses to show the contrast between the two is in the case of work equality. When talking about the subject saying, “ Equal pay for equal work” would be a stated value and “ Women deserve th...
Post a Comment
Read more