ASSIGNMENT III
Defining Wrongness in a Scholarly Conversation
Writing/Reading Skills: Defining and exemplifying a concept within a scholarly
conversation, Using anecdotes in an academic essay
Sources: Kathryn Schulz (“Two Models” and TED talk transcript), Atul Gawande, and
Stanley Fish (optional)
Predrafts: Posted on the wiki
Draft: (4/5 pp., double spaced) due Friday, November 20th in class [1 printed
copy + 1 copy emailed to Brian.Meredith@umb.edu ]
Revision: (5/6 pp., dbl. spaced) due Monday, December 7th in class [1 copy + draft
with my comments]
In your first essay you gained experience reading a single source very
closely in order to say something—in response to Stanley Fish—about
how readers find and make meaning. In your second essay, you
explored the connection between an iconic image and what that image
says about the culture that creates and celebrates it. You used John
Updike and Helmers & Hill as models for analysis, and Susan Sontag
offered insights into the powers and dangers of these iconic images.
Now, in your third essay, you'll respond to the ways in which other
writers try to define a concept. To do this, you’ll examine your own
detailed example of that concept and explicate how your own
experiences helped shape and define this concept for you. To begin, you
must see yourself as a writer and a scholar.
Scholars often spend a good deal of time explaining and exemplifying
complex concepts. Some scholars may disagree about the meaning of a
term because they feel it overlooks some important feature of an issue,
or leads to a distorted view of that issue, or doesn’t fully explain some
example of that issue. In doing so, they are contributing to a
conversation (or argument) in which others have not only staked out
their own ideas about the given concept but have also attempted to
define the terminology that designates the concept. To be heard,
scholars need to take into consideration what they see as the strengths
and limitations in the work of other scholars, so that they can make a
place alongside other scholars, a place in which they can speak
persuasively and with credibility as part of a larger, ongoing
conversation or debate.
That is your goal: to speak in that conversation.
The concept you'll examine is wrongness. You will write an essay in
which you argue for a definition of how we see ourselves when we make
an error, an experience we will call “wrongness.” In defining this term,
you will specify what you think are important features of wrongness,
specifically how we see being wrong. You'll read about wrongness from
various perspectives (medical, historical, psychological, sociological,
practical, and philosophical) in order to gain a working understanding
of this concept. Your source materials consider wrongness in medicine,
religion, politics, and other arenas. They account for what wrongness
might mean and they also challenge dominant notions of wrongness. In
response to the conversation in these sources, you'll offer and analyze
your own rich, detailed example of wrongness. You will also explain
how your experience exemplifies the two models of wrongness that
Schulz introduces and defines in her essay. In crafting your essay, you
will thus be citing some of the features that Schulz names in her essay,
discussing both the advantages and disadvantages of seeing wrongness
this way. You will also be drawing from Atul Gawande’s experiences to
question some of the moral and ethical issues of wrongness.
In short, your goal is to synthesize the conversation about wrongness so
that you can articulate your own notion of the concept by examining
your own experiences with it. You will not want to say the obvious, i.e.,
the familiar and accepted idea about being wrong; rather, find an
interesting aspect of wrongness that might surprise or educate your
readers.
Due: Friday, November 20th—in class. Please bring one printed
copy to class. Email a second copy to Brian.Meredith@umb.edu.