Response Questions

Hey guys, sorry I didn't get this up earlier. I thought I hit the publish button, but I guess I just hit save, so this wasn't posted last night like I had intended. But here are my 3 response questions. Enjoy!

Question 1

One argument I had with a friend I can directly attribute to Kaufer’s level 1 disagreement, misunderstanding the sense or reference of certain statements. In this case, I was talking with some friends and made a sarcastic comment that I thought very little of at the time. What I did not know was that it was a comment on a very sensitive issue for the friend I directed it to, and she took the comment much more seriously than I had meant it. Out of respect for her feelings, I won’t include the comment, but she clearly misunderstood the sense of my statement, because I said it in a lighthearted, joking manner. Nonetheless, she became very upset with me and started listing off faults of my own, looking for ways to insult me as much as I had clearly insulted her. Seeing that I had accidentally struck a nerve, I decided to just leave and talk to her later when she had calmed down. When I finally did, I realized that she had not taken my comment as sarcastic at all, but as a statement of what I truly believed about her. Once we calmly talked about it, I understood the problem and apologized for the miscommunication that had occurred between us. We came to an understanding that she does not respond well to sarcasm, and that I need to be more careful with what I say around her

Question 2

Mario Savio’s argument in the opening paragraph of An End to History claims that the student rights movement at Berkeley is akin to the civil rights struggle in Mississippi. He also juxtaposes his argument to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. This is a rather strong allusion for Savio to make, because for anyone who knows the story of Brave New World, they know that Huxley portrays a society in which people have no control of their lives. At birth, their personalities, moral codes, physical capabilities, and mental capacities are decided for them. They cannot determine any aspect of their lives and the government in charge has removed all human rights. By comparing the control the school’s bureaucracy has over the students to such a startling dystopian image heightens the reader’s opinion of the abuse of power by the bureaucracy. Savio equates the ridiculousness of Brave New World to the injustices caused by the “privileged minority” controlling student expression. The two connections that Savio makes with the civil rights movement and Brave New World makes the traditional, bureaucratic set-up of Berkeley’s administration a violation of the human rights of the students. Therefore, his argument becomes one of defending the rights of American citizens from the tyranny of a system designed to manipulate and suppress them. This becomes an argument, then, of conflicting local values because the agenda of the administration is opposing the freedoms given to each citizen by the Constitution. The administration has the purpose of pleasing wealthy financial supporters, and often, as Savio claims, they end up denying individual student rights in the process.

Question 4

I think that Dr. Bullard’s interview about the Federal Government’s response to hurricane Katrina would have been much more effective if he argued in the stasis of cause a bit more thoroughly. The argument that he gives relies on the emotional response of the listener. While this can be a very effective technique, it relies heavily on Bullard’s capability to predict how the audience will react to what he says. If an audience member reacts in a way that is different from what he predicts, then his comments could have the opposite effect he intends. If, however, he focused on the cause of the government’s delay in responding to Katrina, and argued issue with why they were physically late to respond, then his argument would be independent from audience opinion and emotion. This would also change the appearance of his motives away from making the clichéd claim that the government is racist and possibly towards a claim that not enough resources are put towards disaster response and relief. By changing his argument from a racial affront to a lack of preparation, or even simply relying less on the audience agreeing that the government is racist, he vastly expands the acceptance of his listeners. Savio could also benefit by utilizing the stasis of cause more effectively because his argument relies on the audience automatically accepting the notion that school administrations purposely delegate student issues in order to suppress their rights of expression. If he was less dependent on the emotional appeal, and focused more on cause, then his audience could not only see the problem (and reasons that created the problem), but also find their way to move towards a solution.