ENGAGEMENT
WHY ENGAGE?
The purpose of engagement is to use ideas from a nonfiction essay in your own argument. Your
argument should not repeat the argument of the nonfiction essay but build off or diverge from it.
Think of it as participating in a give-and-take conversation with the author about a similar topic.
The conversation doesn’t go anywhere if you both have the same thing to say. If you’re simply
going to repeat another author, that only shows you understand her ideas; it doesn’t show your
own thinking and it doesn’t further the discussion on the topic. (Obviously you can still further the
discussion and agree with another author: here agreement is not the same thing as repetition.)
CONSIDER YOUR READER
With engagement, you assume that your reader has a rudimentary understanding of the critical
conversation that you will enter. For instance, it's not necessary to give an exhaustive history of a
theory or retrace a critical trend. But don’t assume that your reader is familiar with the specific
nonfiction essay you’re engaging with. That means that you need to start out with an introduction
to and restatement of that essay before you can build off or diverge from it. Restatement also
helps your audience see exactly how you differ from another author, even if you by and large
agree.
BUILDING OFF & DIVERGING FROM INDIVIDUAL POINTS
Engagement, like close reading, relies on working with a portion of a text. We can think of the
essays we’ve been reading as arguments. Although there may be an overall argument for the
essay, that overall argument is built and substantiated by smaller sub-arguments. Though it’s
important to have a general sense of the essay’s overall argument and be able to describe it in
your restatement, you actually build off or diverge from individual points in the essay. These
individual points need to be specific enough so that you can locate them in the text and
paraphrase them. They should be sub-arguments that could be readily detected by any reader of
the argument. If you use generalities you run the risk of neglecting the specificity of the essayist’s
points. “This essay is about realism” or “he doesn’t like low art” doesn’t clue the reader in to the
actual argument in its particulars. In addition, with generalities your engagement also becomes
less specific. Your audience will have a harder time seeing your stance and why it’s original and
significant. Finally, don’t “bait and switch”: when you engage you work with someone’s idea not
just present it and move on to a different idea that you would rather discuss.
AGREEING & DISAGREEING
In “They Say/I Say”: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing, Graff and Birkenstein have a
fine model for building and diverging: disagree—and explain why; agree—but with a difference;
and agree and disagree simultaneously. It should be clear that you’re not simply agreeing or
disagreeing for the sake of it. By explaining why you agree or disagree, you’re essentially
showing how you’re extending the conversation about a topic. The production of new knowledge
begins with acknowledging what has been said before and recognizing that another author—
you—has a different but meaningful take on the same topic. You have to be careful when you
disagree, though, because you don’t want to completely discredit your source because then it can
no longer serve as a starting point.
VALIDITY
What makes the points in the essay valid regardless of your belief? You can disagree without
invalidating an argument just as you can agree without simply repeating an argument. Invalidating
an argument implies destroying the argument’s grounds, and I’d rather you scrutinize those very
grounds and see their limitations—and every argument is by nature limited. Language is often
one limitation. An author may use terms to describe something, terms that perhaps you don’t
agree with. But you need to think about why you disagree for this to serve as a point for
engagement because there’s more to an argument than just its terms. Further, recognizing the
validity of arguments keeps you mindful of the author’s overall argument, which in turn helps you
to consider individual points as parts of a larger whole. Like close reading, you don’t want to lose
sight of the larger text when concentrating on only a portion.
USING YOUR ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE
Engagement results in an original critical perspective that can then be used as a vantage point for
close readings of literary texts. Or, the original critical perspective can serve as a starting point for
an original argument about a literary topic or text(s).