Citizen Criticism

In “Reading and Writing for Civic Literacy: A Critical Citizen’s Guide,” Donald Lazere introduces and illustrates many terms regarding citizen criticism, some of which align with Corbett and Eberly's discussion of citizen criticism in The Elements of Reasoning. These concepts can be applied to Nat Nakasa’s “Writing in South Africa” in order to analyze the rhetorical strategies that Nakasa employs to appeal to his audience.

Lazere discusses viewpoint, bias and fairness of a citizen critic. Corbett and Eberly highlight the different diversions of reasoning. Both pieces discuss “false dilemma” and how it affects becoming a citizen critic. Corbett and Eberly defines false dilemma as something that “forces a range of choices into an either/or structure” (128). As I was reading “Writings in South Africa,” I noticed that Nakasa does a good job avoiding false dilemma, at least in dichotomy, and instead presents a wide variety of issues and possible causes. His argument is spherical in that sense.

Reading and Writing for Civic Literacy and The Elements of Reasoning both discuss a similar concept that Corbert and Eberly call the “straw man” and Lazere calls relativism. Corbet and Eberly define the “straw man” as a tactic that “involves exaggerating opponent’s position and then representing that exaggeration as his position” (130).  Nakasa’s writing style could make a reader question if he uses the straw man as a strategy. Nakasa’s writing is dramatic and playfully wordy, while it does provide an entertaining read, it is difficult for a reader to establish what is factual and what is a dramatic representation.

The author’s ideas also overlap regarding logical fallacies (errors in reasoning that invalidate an argument) such as “stacking the deck” and “begging the question.” According to Corbett and Eberly, begging the question “occurs when a reasoned makes a statement that assumes the very thing he wants to persuade a reasoning partner or audience of in his reasoning” (125). There is an instance of this in Nakasa’s writing when he is discussing the prevalence of the English language and assumes Africans would take interest in it, in which he jumps to a conclusion that is not logically supported by the factors he outlines. Nakasa does, however, do an excellent job avoiding stacking the deck, the concept of rejecting or ignoring evidence that supports an opposing argument, by incorporating multiple exceptions and varying viewpoints into his argument.

Lazere points out that stacking the deck is often counterproductive because it dissuades an opponent from considering the viewpoint. If the opposing side of the argument is never even mentioned, the opponent will lose interest and the will argument lack credibility. Similarly, in “I Agree, But…” McDonald supports the idea of valuing an opponent’s opinion but later introducing its flaws (206).

In Jones’s “Finding the Good Argument,” readers learn that “What is often missing from these discussions is research, consideration of multiple vantage points, and, quite often, basic logic” (157,158). Jones introduces the common mistakes of citizen criticism while Corbett and Eberly take his ideas further and categorize how these issues often integrate in writing and argumentation.