Move on to Policy

Imagine looking at what’s playing at a movie theater with some friends. You have a friendly discussion about which movie is worth seeing, discussing the different styles of different directors and actors, maybe even deriding some of the movies and questioning whether or not some of the worst ones can really be called “movies”. Within this discussion, you and your friends will have hit on the first 3 levels of Stasis:

• Fact: Whether or not what’s playing at the theaters can really be called “movies.”
• Definition: Discussing actor and director style.
• Value: Which movie is the best or worth seeing.

And then none of you go see the movie.

This would mean the discussion never rose to Policy because no action was taken: the discussion ended at Value, merely deciding which is best. While there’s nothing wrong with having Fact, Definition, or Value level arguments, there’s only so much these arguments can do. Because they’re not Policy arguments, by definition, very little or nothing at all directly happens because of them.

Policy deals with what to do. Fact, Definition, and Value deal with what or how something is. It's fairly easy to argue these points because we can easily pick them up and leave them behind. Think about an art exhibition:

• Fact: Do I consider what is being exhibited art?
• Definition: What makes it art or not art? Just what is art?
• Value: Is it good art? Which pieces are better or more important?

And these are arguments you could easily have with anyone: friends, family, curators, artists, and even complete strangers. Some discussions may become heated or deeply philosophical, but if they never go beyond Value, it is very easy to just go on as if nothing has happened.

This is where Policy comes in. A Policy level argument focuses on action and change, which requires more attention to audience, implementation, and even considering the repercussions of your actions.

For example, at the art gallery, you have a friendly argument with someone you met and you convince them of the transcendence of a certain piece. Congratulations on your Value level argument. This person then turns to you and asks you to sell them the artwork. But you're in the same position they're in: an observer who came to see the exhibit. If you collect this person's money for this artwork, you'll be guilty of fraud. Instead, you'd have to find out who can sell the artwork (studio or artist) and then purchase it. There could even be a competition for it: a museum could be vying for it, but you want it for your private collection: you have to convince the owner, who may be the studio or the artist but likely not both, that their work is better suited in your collection than in a museum (a Value level argument) so they should sell it to you (Policy level).

Ultimately, this is about recognizing that our decisions, even if they are purely abstract or philosophical, like what constitutes “art” or what art is superior, will reflect itself in our actions and we need to consider the implementation and consequences of those actions. You may decide Artwork A is better than Artwork B, but how could you buy Artwork A? And from there, what happens when you buy Artwork A? Or if you buy Artwork B? How will it impact your life, your home, your social standing? What will happen because other places, like the museum and by extension the general public, won't have access to it?

Policy level arguments require more attention to audience, implementation and repercussions and, whether implicitly or explicitly, involve Fact, Definition and Value level arguments. This is all because Policy focuses on bringing about action. Fact, Definition, and Value level arguments are merely Policy Level arguments waiting to be acted on.

Make more than noise and smoke: Audience Specificity

“Specific Audience” is a term I throw around. This terminology came after I asked students about their audiences and they answered with things like “parents”,“doctors, “teachers”, and “the government.”

I've addressed this elsewhere (in “Write for a specific, powerful audience”), which I will quote here:

Picking an audience varies from genre to genre and purpose to purpose. Unfortunately, students frequently default to “parents,” “teachers,” and (this one makes me want to break things) anything that starts with “people who...” The problem with these audiences is it’s difficult, if not impossible, to address them as a whole because there will be so many different groups within the larger body. Writing for them can mean relying on logical fallacies and broad assumptions that reflect your own bias more than your understanding of the demographic you're trying to write to.

So broad, vague, audiences while trying to write argumentatively, is just spinning your wheels: you'll make some noise and some smoke, but in the end, it'll dissipate and you won't go anywhere.

I think the issue stems from two sources. The first is how arbitrary the concept is in a lot of English education and the second is popular media. As much as teachers pound it in, audience rarely ascends beyond something to mention, especially when it is closely tied to genre in literature studies, with genres written to appeal to broad audiences for the sake of market appeal and sales. This leads me to popular media, which acts the same way. Basically, it's easy to say “people who've watched Star Wars” because, in American culture, if not worldwide, this demographic will be large.

Authors and directors thrive off of this appeal to a wider audience, but, in education, there's the underlying, frequently unstated, fact the teacher is the audience and whatever a student writes, they need to tailor it to their teacher.

As it turns out, paying careful attention to and even seriously researching your audience can help shape what you're writing and helps you to better understand your topic and its implications, which is why audience is especially important in argumentation and persuasion. In the same post as the above quoted paragraph, I also said:

[A] specific audience (one that has a formal name, whether it's an individual or an organizational body) is a far better option.

Sometimes I elaborate on this by asking whether or not the audience has a physical mailing address. If, for example, you were to write to “parents,” what address would you put on the envelope? It's one thing to write for parents saying they should do something, but it's another thing to write to, for example, a major publication that has a large audience consisting of parents who share your concerns and interests.

Allow me to elaborate:

Vague Audience	Specific Audience
Parents	Parenting magazines, websites, and blogs
Teachers	A specific school, a school district, a parent-teacher association, a state's board of education.
Doctors	A hospital or clinic, a medical association
Government	State legislature, a senator or congressperson, a state managed organization
Employers	The Better Business Burearu, a manager, supervisor, or owner of a business.

Note that saying something like “a school district” is still indistinct because every school district has different priorities and standards: your essay that may be gladly accepted by one would be vehemently rejected by another.

Basically, if your audience is vague, adjust it to a more specific audience that has direct influence over the issue you are concerned with. This may seem redundant but it is significantly more realistic because, outside of the classroom, this is how you would do it and because it forces you to evaluate your audience and tailor your writing to them.

So, in short, specify your audience.

Balanced Essays: Quantity, Quality, and Attention to Detail, Part 2

In my last post, I addressed the issue of Balance, how it is difficult to teach, but it is important to know because it promotes looking for the purpose. How then should you keep an eye out for it?

It’s ultimately a matter of purpose. Don’t ask yourself how long a paragraph needs to be and gauge that by an arbitrary standard; rather ask yourself how long the paragraph should be based on the kind of information it’s addressing and its purpose in the rest of the essay. For the Annotated Bibliography, the paragraphs summarize (or evaluate or assess). For the Five Paragraph Essay, each paragraph represents a different topic that needs just as much attention as the other ones. So it isn’t just balance in terms of words, but in terms of content and purpose.

There are no hard and fast rules for the purposes paragraphs have, so rather than providing guidelines, here are a few questions to ask yourself if you’re worried about balance:

What is this paragraph’s purpose in the essay? Take some time to understand the purpose the paragraph has in the essay as a whole, what information is says, and why it is important. If you can’t explain to yourself why you have a paragraph in your essay, then you need to do something about it. 

How much detail do I need here? The simple answer is however much you need to prove your point (the one in the topic sentence). However, because each paragraph will have a different purpose, the amount of detail and words can vary. There may be brief paragraphs amid longer ones so the author has time to stop and collect their ideas, summarize those complex ideas, or signal a shift in the essay.

Do I have other paragraphs with similar purposes? This is where the problem in Part 1 really comes up. You should be able to look at your essay and recognize when the different paragraphs have similar purposes (even if the material is different). If two paragraphs both address related and equally important topics, it doesn’t make sense for one to be significantly longer than others.

How do I approach each paragraph? This deals with style more than information. We adapt our writing styles to different purposes, so when reading for purpose, make sure you’re consistent in the style you use. There may be times to change styles in a piece of writing, but it, like the information it conveys, should reflect the purpose of the essay.

Balance is a matter of detail, information, style, and reading purposefully. Not length. And I’ll be honest: I like it that way. It may make it more difficult to teach it, but it requires closer attention to detail and critical thinking on the part of students.