Blog Entry #3 - Argument

Introduction

Hi readers, today I want to talk about how the author of my book, Marc Aronson develops an argument in his writing. To date, I have read up to page 201, and I think I have a pretty clear idea of how he likes to structure and defend his arguments at this point. I touched a bit on argumentative style in my last blog post, but I'll go more in-depth into his viewpoint development in this post.

-----

For the most part, Aronson is very clear with what his big arguments and viewpoints are. At the start of the book, he lays out exactly how he thinks the idea of race is defined. His four "pillars" of race are laid out early on: "Physical differences matter", "These differences in our bodies cannot change", "That is because they are inherited", and "Each group has a distinct level of brain power and moral refinement, thus they are naturally and unchangeably ranked."(2,3) By saying his points so early on in the book, Aronson can go into depth later on about these topics, backing them up without introducing them at separate times. The reader will already have at least a general basis on which to relate the information they gather from later chapters. This first section of the book provides a strong structure for all that follows.

This book is very factually and historically driven, so it would make sense that he says his points at the start as a kind of table of contents. While I do not fully agree with all four of his "pillars", I do appreciate the confidence with which he states them. It could have been very easy to write out some very general, very basic descriptions of races and call it a day, but instead, Aronson puts forth ideas that he clearly believes in. Some of his views, especially the last one about races being "unchangeably ranked" are almost jarring in how clearly stated they are. 

With topics like this, It can be really hard to nail down strict definitions, because you don't want to offend people. Aronson, instead of tip-toeing around saying what he feels, decides to cut all confusion out of the picture. Personally, I really appreciate this approach, because it shows what he's thinking so we know what to expect from him in the rest of the book.

The Arguments

As for the arguments themselves, I've discussed them in a previous post, but I'll go over them now as well. The way Aronson crafts his arguments is through storytelling and historical knowledge. Using events from history related to his argument, he has all the information he needs to make his point. It really seems to be an odd way to go about making an argument in a non-fiction book. I believe what allows him to take this uncommon approach is the baseline of viewpoints he expresses early in the book.

-----

What do you think about this style of writing? Do you think that this is the most effective way to make an argument or not? Also, if you aren't reading the same book that I am, I'd be interested in hearing how the authors of your books make their arguments. 

Thanks for reading!