FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2141202485> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2141202485 endingPage "46" @default.
• W2141202485 startingPage "29" @default.
• W2141202485 abstract "Feminist Challenges to “Academic Writing” Writ Large:Changing the Argumentative Metaphor from War to Perception to Address the Problem of Argument Culture Keith Lloyd (bio) A significant cohort of feminists in the eighties and nineties questioned the genderidentified/ patriarchal notion of academic argument as impersonal and disembodied contest/combat.1 Yet little has changed. In academia and beyond, many continue to identify “good” arguments within logical, abstract, and agonistic (from the Greek agon, “struggle”) terminologies. As Richard Fulkerson admits, even as he defended argumentation as being an alternative to violence,“[w]hen asked how they think of argument, students usually come up with the idea of two sides in a verbal battle, each seeking victory” (11). While argumentation that is conversational and directed at common goals is not uncommon in informal contexts, public rhetorical praxis continues to focus on “winning” the contest of ideas, exemplified by the either/or extremes of what Deborah Tannen calls our “Argument Culture” with its no-middle-ground positioning and agonistic posturing—a type of argument too often reflected in our students’ onesided and antagonistic essays. Agonistic argument is effective, but mostly in swaying the nearly converted, establishing coalitions among the already converted, or entrenching and inspiring the opposition (Foss and Griffin 17–19). This is more than evident in television news and in US politics. As Susan Jarratt lamented in 2003, “we live now in a media wasteland so far as argumentation is concerned” and, perhaps, this “is all the more reason to keep making the case for conflict, informed by feminist pedagogical principles and strong rhetorical theory” (“Reflections” 343). Ironically, Jarratt and others who came to the defense of confrontational traditional rhetoric may have effectively closed the doors to any viable feminist alternatives. To date, only one composition rhetoric—Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz’s Everything’s an Argument—addresses any conception of feminist rhetoric, Jarratt’s or otherwise. Most people do not know alternate feminist approaches to rhetoric exist, and references to it are thin after 2004. One interesting reason is, as Robin Lakoff noted in 1990, that in academia, “women, once the quintessential outsiders, have been taken into the inner circle. Feminism, once a stance of radical external critique, can only be compromised by admission to insider status” (209). That is exactly how feminist resistors were perceived, as biting the hand that feeds them because many used academic arguments to attack academic argument. Though, as Elizabeth Flynn admits in her later reflection on “Composing as a Woman” (an earlier challenge to academic writing-as-is), feminists needed to use the dominant mode or risk not being heard (“Contextualizing” 340), repercussions resulted in a movement that virtually disappeared, with traces mostly in feminist anthologies [End Page 29] like the one in which Flynn’s reflection occurs. In 1992, when Terry Meyers Zawacki suggested to a colleague that a freshman writing class might be just the place to “present alternatives to traditional academic discourse,” her colleague responded, “with surprise and some annoyance, ‘What alternatives are out there?’ ”(315). Unfortunately, this conversation could have occurred yesterday. The raison d’être for this essay is threefold. First, academia is in a unique position to address the imbalances of Jarratt’s “media wasteland” that remains the most prolific model of public argumentation. Though there is a time and place for agonistic argument, the feminist critiques outlined above suggest positive alternatives that open less confrontational, more conversational argumentation, a goal many aspire to and teach, but may have trouble conveying because they lack a clear alternate model. Second, academic discourses, though theoretically egalitarian spaces, in the case of this feminist critique, functioned dismissively, though many of their observations remain valid. Third, although some of these feminist solutions may have been flawed, it turns out that this feminist critique of academic argument was not only accurate, but also prophetic. The “media wasteland” of 2003 is now even worse. A recent Gallup poll indicated that while in 2003, 35% of Americans had little or no confidence that the legislative branch would “do the right thing,” in 2012 that figure had risen to 65 % (“Trust in Government”). Gallup ran a similar article on the media, reporting that “Americans’ distrust in the media..." @default.
• W2141202485 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2141202485 creator A5036775118 @default.
• W2141202485 date "2014-01-01" @default.
• W2141202485 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2141202485 title "Feminist Challenges to “Academic Writing” Writ Large: Changing the Argumentative Metaphor from War to Perception to Address the Problem of Argument Culture" @default.
• W2141202485 cites W120902544 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W138047100 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W1488505771 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W1507453575 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W1558697010 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W180552255 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W189034026 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W1968799472 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W1970001009 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W1970366393 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W1971321256 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W1997210479 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W203236975 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W2032623749 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W2052417512 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W2068092328 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W2088484267 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W2156834068 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W2318430170 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W2337002970 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W242886550 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W2796333112 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W2797562856 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W2916734844 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W308331667 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W3146606661 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W3147278707 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W345561487 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W411235045 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W585714478 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W613388854 @default.
• W2141202485 cites W649986202 @default.
• W2141202485 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/itx.2014.0004" @default.
• W2141202485 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2141202485 type Work @default.
• W2141202485 sameAs 2141202485 @default.
• W2141202485 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2141202485 countsByYear W21412024852022 @default.
• W2141202485 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2141202485 hasAuthorship W2141202485A5036775118 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConcept C192562157 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConcept C2776205810 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConcept C2777582232 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConcept C2778311575 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConcept C2781306805 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConcept C65059942 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConcept C98184364 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConceptScore W2141202485C111472728 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConceptScore W2141202485C124952713 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConceptScore W2141202485C138885662 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConceptScore W2141202485C142362112 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConceptScore W2141202485C144024400 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConceptScore W2141202485C17744445 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConceptScore W2141202485C185592680 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConceptScore W2141202485C192562157 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConceptScore W2141202485C199539241 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConceptScore W2141202485C2776205810 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConceptScore W2141202485C2777582232 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConceptScore W2141202485C2778311575 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConceptScore W2141202485C2781306805 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConceptScore W2141202485C41895202 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConceptScore W2141202485C55493867 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConceptScore W2141202485C65059942 @default.
• W2141202485 hasConceptScore W2141202485C98184364 @default.
• W2141202485 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2141202485 hasLocation W21412024851 @default.
• W2141202485 hasOpenAccess W2141202485 @default.
• W2141202485 hasPrimaryLocation W21412024851 @default.
• W2141202485 hasRelatedWork W1816537332 @default.
• W2141202485 hasRelatedWork W2019992301 @default.
• W2141202485 hasRelatedWork W2029187705 @default.
• W2141202485 hasRelatedWork W2037998902 @default.
• W2141202485 hasRelatedWork W2136637821 @default.
• W2141202485 hasRelatedWork W2141202485 @default.
• W2141202485 hasRelatedWork W221909232 @default.
• W2141202485 hasRelatedWork W3098068076 @default.
• W2141202485 hasRelatedWork W3124241551 @default.
• W2141202485 hasRelatedWork W4321509371 @default.
• W2141202485 hasVolume "18" @default.
• W2141202485 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2141202485 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2141202485 magId "2141202485" @default.

• next