Journal #8:

For Journal #8:  To illustrate the three moves of countering, Harris analyzed three writers’ rhetorical moves: Berger on Arguing the other Side, Millar on Uncovering Values, and Nehemas on Dissenting. For Wednesday’s work, I’d like you to do two things: 1) Choose one of the sources you’re using for your revision project and isolate a passage in the way Harris does. This passage should be one in which your source is working with his/her/their own source(s) and creating that critical distance Harris talks about in Chapter 3. Quote that passage and follow it with your own paragraph of rhetorical analysis that describes and explains how your source is doing it. 2) Your second job is to think about how you’re positioning yourself in relation to your sources. We’ll use Harris’s “Skepticism and Civility” (72-73). No doubt you’re forwarding some ideas, but for this exercise, you want to record your thinking about the limits of the arguments or approaches you’re engaging with.

 1) Choose one of the sources you’re using for your revision project and isolate a passage in the way Harris does. This passage should be one in which your source is working with his/her/their own source(s) and creating that critical distance Harris talks about in Chapter 3. Quote that passage and follow it with your own paragraph of rhetorical analysis that describes and explains how your source is doing it. 

Quoted Passage From Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge:

“Rachel Carson believed that protecting coastal habitats was essential not only for endangered species but also for the long-term well-being of local communities. Building on her early warnings about ecological imbalance, today the refuge continues her vision by managing salt marshes, restoring dune systems, and reducing human impact through carefully controlled public access.”

My analysis of this passage: 

In this passage Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge website sets itself up in a way that is similar to the way that Harris does in chapter three. This passage reflects the critical distance between Carson’s original environmental warnings and the work that the refuge is currently doing. This move mirrors what Harris calls “revising” where the writer takes up a source’s main idea and reworks it into a present-day context. In doing so, the website both honors Carson’s legacy and expands on it, translating her abstract warning into concrete policy decisions. 

 2) Your second job is to think about how you’re positioning yourself in relation to your sources. We’ll use Harris’s “Skepticism and Civility” (72-73). No doubt you’re forwarding some ideas, but for this exercise, you want to record your thinking about the limits of the arguments or approaches you’re engaging with.

Looking at my own project I am noticing that I tend to highlight many of the values that are presented by my sources all of these sources are reliable, conservation focused and grounded in scientific understanding so it is easy for me to bring these ideas to light but  A more skeptical and civil stance would involve me to appreciate the work that these organizations offer, while also asking harder questions about what is not being said or what’s not allowed to be said. I should be analyzing questions like: How does coastal protection impact local economies? What challenges does the refuge face that are not allowed to be publicly emphasized? Where do conservation values clash with human desires or political pressures? Recognizing these limits helps me avoid echoing the Refuges narratives and instead respond with a new and independent thought that goes deeper and gives a new perspective on important issues that the RCNWR is facing today.