Devil's Advocate and the Social Aspect of Writing
Whenever I see a poignant written statement in the writing center, my first reaction is “says who?” Almost instinctually, I tend to discredit a student writer’s assertion if her statement does not have supporting evidence from credible sources. A thesis just does not seem as important if it does not fall into some bigger discussion. Why is this the case? Are my thoughts only valid in relation to others?
In “Entering the Conversation” Graff introduces the “they say/I say” approach to writing, which prompts the writer to frame her argument in the context of those of other thinkers (4). He says that this template allows the writer to “enter a conversation” by utilizing others’ ideas “as a launching pad or sounding board” to provoke original thought (3). But do we really need a launching pad? It seems almost disenfranchising to accept the concept that one’s ideas can only be relevant or important in the context of others’. Are my thoughts so weak on their own that they need a crutch to support them?
Graff’s response is that “we all enter the world of ideas not as isolated individuals, but as social beings deeply connected to others who have a stake in what we say” (13). This is a key point because when there is a writer, there is by necessity an audience. Therefore, writing is almost always a social activity. By citing others’ ideas, the writer recognizes this social aspect of writing and thereby invites the reader, or audience, as a member of society, to participate in the discussion. The writer is then more effectively able to communicate her ideas with the audience. Therefore, using others’ thoughts and opinions is not disenfranchising nor stifling of creativity; rather, it is empowering.
Contextualizing original ideas in response to credible sources allows the writer to strengthen her argument. Growing up, my family always had a “debate of the day” at family dinners, and my dad always played Devil’s Advocate. No matter how compelling my point was, he always had to fight it with a satisfied smirk on his face. Just like my dad, others’ ideas and thoughts can act as Devil’s Advocate. A writer might have some very persuasive ideas on his own, but those ideas might be more deeply explored and substantiated when argued from an offensive or defensive stance.
Using the “they say/I say” template is definitely an effective tool for students at the writing center. It will foster the social aspect of writing, allowing the writer to better convey her argument to the audience by creating a common ground. It will also provide a Devil’s advocate backdrop in which the writer must evaluate his claims and support them in the context of others’ arguments. This template forces creative thought in order to substantiate a point. When defending a claim against another thinker’s attack, the writer is forced to rely on original thought or interpretation of others’ thoughts in order to combat the offensive.
In theory, Graff’s template seems to make a lot of sense. However, what does it look like in practice? In the writing center, a student came in with an essay that argued the government should fund stem cell research. She explained all of the societal benefits that stem cell research would provide if it had more funding and approval from the government. Then she began to make some very strong moral claims, such as “The government has an obligation to protect society.” This view, as I read it, seemed almost philosophical. I think few people would disagree with this claim; however, the statement would be more convincing and relevant if it were supported with evidence or a voice of authority. I recommended that the writer find a governmental source that suggested it had an obligation to protect society in the context that she described. This reference would enter her argument into a bigger discussion with the government. If she wanted to persuade the audience that the government should decide on the plan of action she suggested, it would be compelling to suggest that the government would be fulfilling its own stated duties, rather than those stated by the writer.
It might seem that integrating one’s writing and arguments into a larger conversation with relevant sources could limit the voice of the individual on its own. However, as my tutoring session reflects, entering into a larger conversation more effectively relates the argument to the audience in a socially relevant context.
In “Entering the Conversation” Graff introduces the “they say/I say” approach to writing, which prompts the writer to frame her argument in the context of those of other thinkers (4). He says that this template allows the writer to “enter a conversation” by utilizing others’ ideas “as a launching pad or sounding board” to provoke original thought (3). But do we really need a launching pad? It seems almost disenfranchising to accept the concept that one’s ideas can only be relevant or important in the context of others’. Are my thoughts so weak on their own that they need a crutch to support them?
Graff’s response is that “we all enter the world of ideas not as isolated individuals, but as social beings deeply connected to others who have a stake in what we say” (13). This is a key point because when there is a writer, there is by necessity an audience. Therefore, writing is almost always a social activity. By citing others’ ideas, the writer recognizes this social aspect of writing and thereby invites the reader, or audience, as a member of society, to participate in the discussion. The writer is then more effectively able to communicate her ideas with the audience. Therefore, using others’ thoughts and opinions is not disenfranchising nor stifling of creativity; rather, it is empowering.
Contextualizing original ideas in response to credible sources allows the writer to strengthen her argument. Growing up, my family always had a “debate of the day” at family dinners, and my dad always played Devil’s Advocate. No matter how compelling my point was, he always had to fight it with a satisfied smirk on his face. Just like my dad, others’ ideas and thoughts can act as Devil’s Advocate. A writer might have some very persuasive ideas on his own, but those ideas might be more deeply explored and substantiated when argued from an offensive or defensive stance.
Using the “they say/I say” template is definitely an effective tool for students at the writing center. It will foster the social aspect of writing, allowing the writer to better convey her argument to the audience by creating a common ground. It will also provide a Devil’s advocate backdrop in which the writer must evaluate his claims and support them in the context of others’ arguments. This template forces creative thought in order to substantiate a point. When defending a claim against another thinker’s attack, the writer is forced to rely on original thought or interpretation of others’ thoughts in order to combat the offensive.
In theory, Graff’s template seems to make a lot of sense. However, what does it look like in practice? In the writing center, a student came in with an essay that argued the government should fund stem cell research. She explained all of the societal benefits that stem cell research would provide if it had more funding and approval from the government. Then she began to make some very strong moral claims, such as “The government has an obligation to protect society.” This view, as I read it, seemed almost philosophical. I think few people would disagree with this claim; however, the statement would be more convincing and relevant if it were supported with evidence or a voice of authority. I recommended that the writer find a governmental source that suggested it had an obligation to protect society in the context that she described. This reference would enter her argument into a bigger discussion with the government. If she wanted to persuade the audience that the government should decide on the plan of action she suggested, it would be compelling to suggest that the government would be fulfilling its own stated duties, rather than those stated by the writer.
It might seem that integrating one’s writing and arguments into a larger conversation with relevant sources could limit the voice of the individual on its own. However, as my tutoring session reflects, entering into a larger conversation more effectively relates the argument to the audience in a socially relevant context.