1

BUILDING AN ARGUMENT

How to write analytically

2

What are the overall characteristics of a good essay?

What does a paragraph need?

How do you support your argument?

How do you convince your reader?

Class Activity: What makes a good argumentative essay?

3

Outline1. Structure

2. Description vs. Argumentation & Analysis

3. Fact & Evidence vs. Opinion

4. Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research

5. Nuance and Persuasion

4

1. Structure

How does Mahmood Mamdani explain mass participation in the 1994 Rwandan genocide? Do you find his arguments convincing? If

so, why?

5

1. Structure- Overall structure is important!

- Introductions provide an initial roadmap to your argument - Introductions should contain:

- 1-2 lead-in sentences- A clear thesis statement- A brief outline of your argument

6

When one is asked to give an example of genocide, they are likely to give the holocaust during World War II as their example. While the holocaust is recognized as one of the most inhumane events in history, it should be known that Rwanda genocide in 1994 was more efficient than the holocaust. The Rwandan genocide took place between April 6th and July 1994 and lasted a mere 100 days, but during those 100 days the death toll rose to an estimated 800,000 (BBC). In mathematical terms, the Rwanda genocide was three times more effective then the Holocaust in terms of deaths during its length of time. This genocide was lead by Hutu Power, a group of Hutu extremists, against the Tutsi. One of the most interesting facts about the Rwandan genocide is the mass participation that the Hutu Power was able to attract in the genocide. In the novel, When Victims becomes Killers, author Mahmood Mamdani argues that the mass participation of the genocide was caused because of politics. Mahmood Mamdani states that the conflict in politics in the past between the Hutu and Tutsi was a continual problem between the ethnic groups, which eventually lead to the Rwandan genocide.

Introductions – Exhibit A

7

Popular mass participation during the 1994 Rwandan genocide has been a topic of great academic debate since the genocide ended. Several theorists have attempted to establish why so many Hutus, who had never killed before, engaged in the mass murder of nearly one million Tutsis. This essay will critically analyse Mahmood Mamdani’s argument that the genocide was mainly a result of the political manipulation of Hutu fears of a return to servitude under the Tutsi. Both the strengths and the weaknesses will be highlighted. Furthermore, alternatives to Mamdani’s argument, which Mamdani downplays, will be discussed in order to support the critiques. The alternatives which will be explored in this essay are: the effects of the 1970s economic crisis, cultural factors, and finally, the role of Hutu-on-Hutu violence. This essay ultimately concludes that while Mamdani provides a strong explanation for mass participation, his downplaying of several other important factors weakens his argument significantly.

Introductions – Exhibit B

8

- Have a look at Exhibit B and make a brief outline of the student’s essay. What is she going to argue, and what part of her argument is she going to make in each paragraph?

- Thesis Statement:- Paragraph 1:- Paragraph 2:- Paragraph 3:- Paragraph 4:- Paragraph 5:- Conclusion

Class Activity – Introductions and Outlines

9

1. Structure An ‘Analytical’ Essay would look like this:

Introduction. 1. Brief summary of main author’s argument. 2. Main author’s strong points – analyse and support

with other authors and context/background. 3. Point of weakness 1 – criticise using other authors,

background and context. 4. Point of weakness 2 – criticise using other authors,

background and context 5. Point of weakness 3 – criticise using other authors,

background and context Conclusion

10

1. Structure Avoid descriptive essays! A prime example

of a descriptive structure would be something like this: Intro 1. The history of the conflict 2. Summary of Main Author argument 3. Summary of Supplementary Author X 4. Summary of Supplementary Author Y 5. Analysis Conclusion

11

1. Structure Every argument is made up of sub-

arguments, e.g. in order to argue that Mamdani has downplayed certain factors, the previous student has to convincingly argue that these factors are important

Sub-arguments come in two types: A. Supporting your main argument with logic and

evidence giving credibility to your position B. Supporting your main argument by

discrediting someone else’s opposing/alternative argument with logic and evidence

12

What was the main cause of the RUF insurgency in Sierra Leone?

Thesis statement: pick one cause

Sub-arguments A: Make points supported by evidence in favour of your cause

Sub-arguments B: Make points supported by evidence that discredit alternative causal explanations

Thesis Statement:

Paragraph 1:Paragraph 2:Paragraph 3:Paragraph 4:

Class Activity – Make an Outline

13

2. Description vs. Argumentation & Analysis

You need to support every single claim you make in your argument with:- Factual evidence- Other author’s arguments

In any case, you need to make explicitly clear why any point you make is relevant to your argument. Each point should close off with a magical “So What?”-Sentence.

NEVER ASSUME YOUR AUDIENCE KNOWS WHY SOMETHING YOU BRING UP IS IMPORTANT – MAKE YOUR TRAIN OF THOUGHT, AND EVERY POINT’S RELEVANCE EXPLICIT!

14

Background is required to understand the Rwandan genocide. The social structure that was present prior to the genocide is a by-product of the Belgian colonial system that had been handed down the native people. That of ethnic separation (Mamdani 2001 : 190). Before colonisation, it was a unified community, whereby neither religion nor politics sought to divide Hutu from Tutsi. Economically, they both indulged in pastoral agricultural activities. The emergence of the colonial system was the introduction of a religious and scientifically based domination of the Hutu under the politically powerful Tutsi. Biblical tales sought to justify the divide and rule tactic that was implemented by the Belgians (Mamdani 2001: 191). Moreover, the kingship of Rwabugiri institutionalized ethnicity when prior to that all Rwandans were categorised under the term Badusi. It was also a period of Tutsi power and Hutu oppression. It was believed that the Tutsi were an alien race to the Rwandan topography and not a minority ethnicity. [moves on to next point]

Using factual information – Exhibit A

15

According to Mamdani the Civil War played a pivotal role in not only entrenching colonial ideas of race groups but also creating opposing political identities. “The Habyarimana regime entered the war pledged to a policy of ethnic reconciliation and came out of it pledged to a policy of Hutu Power” (Mamdani, 2001:185). The Hutu Power radicals in the Rwandan government used the RPF attack in 1990 to reinforce these political identities and it is this foundation which made mass participation possible (Mamdani, 2001:185).

Using factual information – Exhibit B

16

2. Description vs. Argumentation & AnalysisA crude example:

NOT a good point: “Mamdani underplays the cultural dynamics of the genocide, because Fuji (2008) says so.”

A good point: “Fuji (2008) has shown the importance of cultural factors in the genocide. For example … [case xyz]. Without this dynamic, mass participation would have been a lot more unlikely, because it appears to have been a major factor that pressured people to take part. Mamdani does not give this enough credit.”

The good point…… demonstrates the author’s argument with an example/evidence, i.e. it SHOWS that it is valid, rather than just CLAIMING that it is.… it explains why it is relevant to the student’s own argument – the magical “So What?!”-Sentence

17

3. Fact & Evidence vs. Opinion

“With defeat looming on the horizon, the Hutu Power tendency differentiated even further: the genocidal tendency was born

of the crisis of Hutu Power” (Mamdani, 2001: 185).

18

3. Fact & Evidence vs. OpinionWhen things go terribly wrong…… students present other authors’ opinions as facts… subscribe uncritically to someone else’s weak arguments… misrepresent an authors’ argument and twist it out of shape to support their own viewpoint

Sometimes, this is done inadvertently – be careful how you phrase things!

19

“At the core of the ideology of Hutu Power was the conviction that the Tutsi were a race alien to Rwanda, and not an indigenous ethnic group. The shift in political vocabulary was a return to the vision of the colonial period. That the Tutsi were a race not indigenous to Rwanda was both central to colonial ideology and a key idea that had propelled forward the 1959 Revolution.” (Mamdani, 2001: 190).

- What is Mamdani reiterating here? A fact or an opinion?

Class Activity – Fact vs. Opinion

20

Student A: “Moreover, the kingship of Rwabugiri institutionalized ethnicity when prior to that all Rwandans were catergorised under the term Badusi. It was also a period of Tutsi power and Hutu oppression. It was believed that the Tutsi were an alien race to the Rwandan topography and not a minority ethnicity (Mamdani, 2001: 190).”

Student B: “The Tutsi were an alien group in Rwanda, so the Hutu felt threatened and oppressed in their own country, which worked as a catalyst leading up to the genocide (Mamdani, 2001: 190).”

Reiterating Mamdani’s point

21

4. Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research

Some Common Assumptions

Quantitative Research is…

Qualitative Research is…

More scientific

More objective

More methodologically rigorous

Less scientific

More subjective

Less methodologically rigorous

22

4. Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research

When looking at Quantitative Research, ask yourself…- What are the assumptions behind the approach to

the issue?- What sorts of questions are asked, and why?

- How are real-world phenomena turned into variables that can be quantified?- That a variable is the best approximation possible or

that the data is the best that could be obtained does not mean that the research is without problems!

- How is the data interpreted? What claims are made based on the data?- Numbers never just speak for themselves!

23

4. Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research

When looking at Qualitative Research, ask yourself…- Who are the participants, and what are their

potential alterior motives?- How does the researcher relate to the

participants?- How is the data interpreted? What claims are

made based on the data? How transparent is the author about the process

of interpretation? Are generalisations supported by the data?

24

4. Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research

Whether quantitative or qualitative, good research that produced good evidence…- Is open about its assumptions, theoretical

background and limitations- Is transparent about and rigorous in its

methodology- Makes clear how data was interpreted in

order to arrive at its conclusions- Does not make claims it cannot really

substantiate

25

5. Nuance & Persuasion Stronger claims do not necessarily make your

argument stronger! This applies to the body of your essay as well as your final conclusion. It is way easier to criticise a claim that is phrased too

strongly than it is to dispute a cautious statement. In the social sciences there is never just one

answer, explanation or interpretation – to claim that yours is the absolute best, one and only answer is asking to be criticised! For example, consider the question, “What caused

the Rwandan genocide?”

26

How can you make these phrases “safer”?

- This proves…- This example shows…- Mamdani’s argument is convincing- The main cause was…- He completely ignores that fact that…- One can definitely see that…- The truth is that…

Class Activity – Safer Statements

27

Wrapping upA good argumentative essay…… is logically structured… has a clear introduction… makes explicit, why certain points/pieces of information and evidence are relevant… does not misrepresent other authors’ arguments just to “prove” a point… engages critically with the literature… makes cautious conclusions rather than stark statements