Perspective: An Analysis of Argument

Hello reader! So glad you could join me again! As I near the end of the book, I figured it would be fitting to summarize Aronson's argument, and what it is exactly that makes his writing so effective. Some of the points I have already delved into in my second blog post on rhetorical analysis and style, however I will still briefly touch on them. 

Above: African American art, from Harlem Renaissance painter
Jacob Lawrence, Street to Mbari, 1964

Clearly Planned Out:

If you know me at all, you know that I like things to be very organized and well planned out, you could say a Type-A Personality.  I'm a big planner, list-maker, and organizer. So for me, Aronson's process of formulating his argument is extremely effective and accessible. 

Read the following excerpt from pages 2-3: 

"Race" is a way of explaining human difference and organizing people into categories. It rests on four assumptions -- what I call "pillar": 

1.) Physical differences matter. The color of our skin, the curl of our hair, the size of our nose or lips -- these are important. How we look is not just a personal matter; it identifies us as part of a larger group.

2.) These differences in our bodies cannot change. They are given to us at birth and remain fixed. 

3.) That is because they are inherited. Our personal features are actually characteristics of our group, which are passed down from one generation to the next. 

4.) Each group has a distinct level of brain power and moral refinement, thus they are naturally and unchangeably ranked.  Groups can be rated from more primitive to more advanced, more animal to more thoughtful, more savage to more civilized.  (Aronson, pgs 2-3).

--- 

I was pleasantly surprised when greeted with this at the beginning of the book. This clear layout acted as a sort of roadmap for the rest of the book, and prepared me for what I was going to read. I found this very effective for the development of his argument because, as we will talk about soon, Aronson doesn't make very many opinionated claims. The majority of the book is factual, a historical summary of the evolution of 'race' as we know it. By placing this clear statement at the forefront of his book, he gives the reader a heads-up for what's to come, and a lens through which to view the rest of the book.

Discreet Persuasion:

One of the most powerful ways Aronson develops his argument is by not providing an argument at all. This may sound weird at first, let me explain. Instead of the common agenda of most argumentative books of persuading the reader with appeals of ethos, logos, and pathos throughout the book, Aronson simply places the facts on the table. He provides a chronological approach to explain the origins of 'race.' Instead of telling the reader what to think, he sets the stage for the reader to form their own opinions and come to a conclusion, while still leading the reader towards a general understanding of the development of race, and the atrocities that we have justified. Aronson provides historical example after example of the development of race, and the persecution that followed the concept. While some of the stories/events the reader may recognize, he provides insight into things that aren't commonly mentioned, sometimes shocking the reader. I've found this method of persuasion, almost the opposite of persuasion, highly effective. Of course, he isn't going to write about stories that disprove his point, but the lack of argument allows the reader to come to their own conclusions which is highly effective. It is very easy to tell a reader what they should think, but to influence the reader ever so slightly, as Aronson does, is a powerful skill that pays off in the end. 

Historical 'Shoes':

"America was changing, and Grant tapped a disquiet many established Americans felt as they read news stories about razor-wielding Italians, or streets crammed fill of Jews who spoke no English. Weak, feeble, a helpless America lay open to aliens who were certain to infect politics with foreign ideas and fill the schools with inferior children." (Aronson, 199).

 

Often history is hard to grasp. Students tend to dislike history classes because they find it's too abstract, or too hard to relate to because it's from so long ago. Being a good storyteller, I've found, is what makes a good history teacher. The ability to understand the perspectives and social landscape of the time greatly adds to the weight of a topic. 

For example, in the passage I quoted above, Aronson writes from the perspective of the typical American at the time. Instead of just describing the prejudice that Americans felt towards the incoming immigrants, Aronson writes in a way that makes the reader understand and almost empathize with the Americans at the time. I have found this a really powerful aspect of his argumentative writing style; it allows me to put myself in a set of historical 'shoes' so to speak, and feel more connected to the events in the text. 

Thank you again for reading! I hope this was some good insight into what makes a strong argument, and maybe an alternative way to the typical argumentative style. I have definitely enjoyed this writing style, and found the argument much more persuasive. Let me know what you think in the comments!

 

Image: Lawrence, Jacob. Street to Mbari. 1964. National Gallery of Art, www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.79459.html. Accessed 24 Mar. 2021.