New Rhetoric and the Dramatistic Perspective

Kenneth Burke

American scholar, 1897-1993

'Old' (classical) Rhetoric

-persuasion

-appeals, overt evidence, ethics

-works through clear reasoning

-power of hard facts

-deliberate & strategic

vs.

New Rhetoric

-identification

-motives, identity, morals

-works partially overtly, partially unconsciously

-power of naming, soft influence

-not only deliberate – the very language we speak is loaded with arguments

Does not replace 'old' rhetoric – merely adds new dimensions to it

Burke's approach:

-terministic screens

-identification

-division

-symbolic action

-motive

-drama (Pentad)

-transgression and absolution

Terministic screens

'Languages' and mindsets that we can approach reality through

Patterns of naming, identification, division, categorization, etc.

-e.g. compare ways in which you could describe the same argument in this course

-e.g. a gunfight described in a dramatization vs. described by police reports

-e.g. relating depression through a song vs. working through it with a psychiatrist

“We must use terministic screens since we can't say anything without the use of terms” (Burke)

-terms are not merely denotative meaning of words (dictionary definitions)

-any term comes with a screen (i.e. no term or name exists by itself)

-terms within screens are related by connotation, association, ideology

-any screen directs attention to one perspective or type of activity, rather than another

-rhetoric always focuses on some things at the expense of others

-a terministic screen can be an enabler (allows certain things to be thought/said)

-...or a deterrent (prevents certain things from being said

-a terministic screen is always a choice!

-terministic screens cluster terms together through frequency and intensity

-terministic screens cluster together around key words/terms reflecting values

-'God terms' vs. 'devil terms'

-teleology: study of terministic screens and their consequences

-even scientific facts are a choice

-Knowledge-making (science, philosophy) is fundamentally rhetorical

-conduct of science inherently identifies and categorizes: powerful rhetorical act

-science and philosophy are never free from values

-constructed in language

-reliant on values and history behind terms

The rhetor

-not only an agent in an argument (i.e. the maker of the argument)

-but also the agency for 'language already in circulation'

-in other words, we use language to make arguments, but language also uses us to continue its own arguments

-speakers define language and are defined by language

-dialectic (two-way relationship; not 'meeting of opposites' in this context)

Goal of New Rhetorical criticism:

-uncover the ways through which language defines and is defined by speakers, topic, media, culture

-while keeping in mind that this process never stops

-i.e. you can not define a particular type of language, speaker, topic, media and cultural patterns 'forever' – they will always change and transform each other

Dramatism

The Pentad

Identification rhetoric works through creating compelling, relateable human dramas

A way through which transgressions of values and violations of terministic screens are resolved

1. Act

Rule-breaking behaviour occuring in the dramatization

2. Agent(s)

The rule-breaker(s) committing the act

3. Agency

Tools, means, techniques, required to accomplish the act

4. Scene

Setting – location, situation

5. Purpose

Reason why the rule-breaking behaviour is taking place

Absolution of Guilt

Rule-breaking behaviours

Guilt = difference from norm

-difference makes us uncomfortable: alienates

-mystery: sense of alienation from characters/agents

-in order to resolve this difference, the agent must be absolved of guilt

Transcendence

-breaking rules due to following a higher calling or noble cause

-'necessary evil'

Mortification

-confession of guilt and asking for forgiveness

-dealing with guilt and its consequences

Victimage

-blaming someone/something else for the rule-breaking behaviour

-circumstances and suffering justifying need to break rules

Comic fool

-agent cannot be ultimately blamed because he/she has been manipulated by others

Tragic hero

-agent's blame is ultimately absolved because he/she paid dearly for it

Terministic Screens and Dramatization

Terministic screens are (necessarily) used in telling dramas

Terministic screens can be used to grant or deny means of absolution

-e.g. famous court cases (often famous because of media dramatization)

Terministic screens can defend social status quo...

-e.g. news media, political language, academia

...or challenge it with alternative perspectives

-e.g. subcultures, protest movements, social commentary in popular media

Journal 2 Assignment

Journal 2 Assignment

In lectures over the past week, we have talked about popular culture and the role it plays in reflecting wider beliefs, values, and assumptions. Culture is far from neutral, and can be a site for rhetorical action - making arguments, supporting beliefs, encouraging action and raising awareness.

Sellnow has proposed a method for analyzing such arguments:
(1) Select a text
(2) Select a rhetorical perspective
(3) Examine text via description, interpretation, evaluation

This is exactly what I would like you to do for this week's journal!

(1) Select a text:

You have a choice of 4 texts to analyze, dealing with quite a variety of topics and rhetorical goals:
a) Luke Muehlhauser - Video Games as Art
b) Steven Wilson - Music and Mass Culture
c) Two Little Girls (Human trafficking awareness ad)
d) ID&T: Release (advertisement)
See further below for links to videos and additional information about these texts.

(2) Select a rhetorical perspective

We already have a couple of perspectives to start with, and another one will be added during the following week. Feel free to choose any one or any combination of them - but be sure to cover the key details!
a) Classical Rhetoric: Aristotle (3 Appeals, Structure/Style), Cicero (5 canons), Rhetorical Fallacies
b) Toulmin Model: Claim, Grounds, Warrant, Backing, Rebuttal, Qualifier
c) Narrative: Coherence/Fidelity, Events, Organization (causal, temporal), Setting, Characters, Narrator, Intended Audience, Conveyed Morals
d) Dramatism: the Pentad, Absolution of Guilt, Implications

(3) Examine text via description, interpretation, evaluation

Describe the structure of the argument you are analyzing, consider the implied and stated messages, and evaluate how effective it is (and why/why not). You are welcome to take a stance on the issue yourself and add your personal take on the argument - but only after you analyze it!

As always, you should aim for 500 words (or more if you wish). This is not a formal essay and you are welcome to write in first person, add your own commentary and not have formal organization if you wish, but I do encourage you to be serious and organized in this one.
Hint: this is, in a sense, practice for the type of writing you will have to do on your midterm.

------------------------------------------------

Artifacts (choose one):

(1) Videogames as Art

By Luke Muehlhauser, AI researcher and logician, Singularity Institute
http://lukeprog.com/

Luke is involved in developing “Friendly AI”, i.e. intelligent software to help humans

(2) Music and Mass Culture

By Steven Wilson, musician and producer, leading member in bands Porcupine Tree, Blackfield and No Man.
http://www.swhq.co.uk/

This clip comes from the documentary film “Insurgentes”. You can also see this interview excerpt where Steven expands on the same theme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys-ivbIRWu8

(3) Two Little Girls (human trafficking)
(caution - there is some rather emotionally-heavy and disturbing content in this video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udHSutTF4Us

Originally designed as part of the "not Natasha" exhibition, about the stories of Eastern European women trafficked abroad, at the Impressions Gallery in the UK. More info:
http://www.impressions-gallery.com/exhibitions/exhibition.php?id=30

(4) ID&T - Release

(caution - uncensored swearing in this video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4kvmIa4LU

ID&T is an event-organizing company in the Netherlands, specializing in hosting electronic dance parties and raves.

http://www.id-t.com/ (website in Dutch)

Narrative (Jan 20th Lecture)

Narrative Perspective

Fisher, Walter R. (1987). Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value, and Action. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

-Life as an ongoing series of narratives
-Rhetoric not merely supported arguments – stories in themselves are persuasive
-Even classical arguments themselves unfold within larger narratives
-Values, stereotypes, morals are all part of unfolding narratives

Traditional/Neoclassical World View:

People are essentially rational
We make decisions on the basis of arguments
The type of speaking situation determines the course of our argument
Rationality is determined by how much we know and how well we argue
The world is a set of logical puzzles that we can solve through rational analysis

Fisher's Narrative World View:

People are essentially storytellers
We make decisions on the basis of good reasons
History, biography, culture, and character determine what we consider good reasons
Narrative rationality is determined by the coherence and fidelity of our stories
The world is a set of stories from which we choose, and thus constantly re-create, our live

Narrative Rationality

The 'trueness' of stories

Coherence

How consistently and logically does the story come together?
How complete and unaltered is the story?

vs. Fidelity

How true is the story?

Response chord: ringing true – resonating with common sense & lived experience
Good reasons to accept the story's moral – ideals about how the world should be
What is acceptable, believable, appropriate in the story's moral universe?

Applying Narrative Analysis

Narratives are strings of events
Every narrative composed of at least two events

Active events
Action, a story with evolving plot, setting and characters

Stative events
An existing state or condition

Organization of Narratives:

Temporal
time

Causal
cause-and-effect

Coherence

Examining the text (cont'd)

Setting

Where does the action take place?
Is the setting coherent and believable?

Characters

Flat – predictable/unchanging/one-sided characters
Round – unpredictable/evolving/multi-sided characters

Narrator

Who is the narrator? How does the narrator communicate?
Does the narrator show bias in interpretation of events?

Events

Active vs. Stative
Major vs. minor – primary/secondary, or portrayed/implied

Causal Relations

What causes the events? Who/what initiates action?
Subjects/objects – volition, intention

Temporal relations

Syntagmatic: one thing logically leads to another; linear story
Paradigmatic: non-linear story; flashbacks and episodic action

Intended audience

Who is the target audience?
What morals or values are they presumed to have?
Do they play a part in the story? Are they invited to enter the story, or just observe?

Conveyed morals

What is the moral of the story?
What does the story say about what we should believe? How we should behave?
What reasons does the story provide to support this?

Evaluating Implications

What do the conveyed morals logically lead to?
If we adopt the narrative as 'ours', what beliefs or behaviours will we have to adopt?
“So what?”

Cultivation effect

Persuasion by recurring narrative
Similar types of narratives encountered often change beliefs and behaviours
Causality of beliefs: in the narrative perspective, beliefs originate and spread through narratives.

Without narratives, there can be no beliefs!

Modern Rhetoric & Popular Culture (Jan. 18th Lecture)

What is rhetoric? (again)

Rhetoric (1)

Art and study of persuasion

Rhetoric (2)

Persuasive communication

Accomplished through signs

Sign

-a token of meaning; something that makes you think of something else

-things we can perceive with senses but see a different meaning behind them

-not only audio-visual – but in our culture tend to be predominantly a/v

Properties of signs:

(1) Resemblance

role of signs as stand-ins for the real thing

can displace reality of objects (Baudrillard)

(2) Signs become icons

a recognizable symbol of the thing it represents; summarizes it in an instantly-understandable fashion (for a particular cultural group, at least)

(3) Association

we often cannot simply associate a sign with one thing (e.g. Madonna; ethnic stereotypes, etc.)

=> Semiotics

The study of signs and sign systems

Culture

Encompassing set of identity-forming beliefs and practices

Mediated through signs and sign systems (and rhetoric)

Elitist notions – culture as a vertical construct

“cultured”

Class, refinement, taste, exclusion

vs. Diversity notions – culture as horizontal

“culture(s)”

Ethnic, national, religious, regional identity

Both dimensions shape cultural artifacts and preferences

Ethics and Aesthetics:

Ethics

Social and personal principles of right and wrong

Morals, values, virtues

vs. Aesthetics

Artistic and judgments of merit, appearance, balance

Taste, beauty, greatness

Ethics and aesthetics are culturally determined

How we judge ethics and aesthetics depends heavily on our background and position in life (Bourdieu)

Ethics and aesthetics are also culturally constitutive

Sets of preferences we possess IS our cultural identity

Popular Culture

Neither status nor demographics (Sellnow)

Everyday objects that influence people’s ordinary behaviours and beliefs

Works through subtle messages about what is (in)appropriate, (un)desirable, (ab)normal, good/bad, etc.

Mediated popular culture

Popular culture as we experience it through media

e.g. TV, music, comic books, etc.

A medium itself is culturally determined and comes with values, perceptions and traditions attached

An artifact is a token of mediated popular culture

-a sign or a series of signs that is socially grounded

-its meaning shared by an identifiable community or cultural group

Through popular culture, we identify with a variety of groups along the lines of both ethics and aesthetics

Everybody identifies with more than one cultural group simultaneously

Groups we identify with share beliefs/value systems/opinions – that sometimes conflict

We identify with traits in any particular group

Communities can be identified by their ideology

Ideology:

-a cultural group’s perceptions about the way things are, and assumptions about things ought to be

-can be both loose and highly formalized (e.g. codes of behaviour),

-apply to narrow topics (i.e. determine only certain behaviours we engage in, e.g. music we listen to) or all-encompassing (determine everything about our life)

Popular Culture Text

-something comprised of an interrelated set of signs and artifacts that contribute to the same argument/discussion

-not necessarily ‘text’ in the narrow sense – nothing to do with it being written word

-think of it as an intentional arrangement of any given set of elements to deliver some sort of message, with some sort of purpose (or a number of messages or purposes simultaneously)

Mediated popular culture text is what we will be examining in this course as a project

Popular culture often takes beliefs and assumptions for granted

Examining it fully requires a critical method that takes no assumptions as given or natural

Works covertly, on multiple levels, and often with conflicting messages

Multi-dimensional approach required

Conducting rhetorical analysis:

-revealing covert messages in mediated texts and uncovering taken-for-granted beliefs

Method:

(1) Select a text, formulate a research question

(2) Select a rhetorical perspective

(3) Examine text via description, interpretation, evaluation

(1) Selecting a text, formulating a research question

-you can start either with a text (that you consider interesting)

-or with a question (e.g. assumptions you know you want to examine in culture)

-but in the end the goal is the same in both cases:

-you need to have a text to work with and you need a specific question to answer

-what you aim for is not merely a surface question about the features of text – you have to dig deeper into what stands behind text (values, goals, ideology)

(2) Rhetorical Perspective

aka. the sections/weeks/chapters of this course

-Neo-Aristotelian

-Narrative

-Dramatistic

-Marxist

-Feminist

-Illusion of Life

-Visual Pleasure

-Media effects

(3) Examining the Text

Interpreting text, drawing implications -> answering the research question(s)

Different approaches come with different methods

You already have at least two systematic approaches that have been discussed

-(Neo-)Aristotelian

-Toulmin Model

More to come as we move through the course!

Rhetorical Fallacies (Workshop Jan. 16th)

Rhetorical Fallacies

-Rhetorical ‘do-nots’: poor, misleading arguments

-Errors in Logos + Ethos + Pathos x Toulmin Model

(1) Logical fallacies

- Faulty logic

- Poor or deceptive use of factual information

(2) Emotional (Pathetic) fallacies

- Unreasonable, overdramatized or presumptious appeals to emotion

(3) Ethical fallacies

- Unrealistic or misleading representations of the author’s credibility or authority

***

Logical Fallacies:

(1) Hasty Generalization

Drawing broad conclusions from limited evidence.

Insufficient grounds/backing for a claim.

e.g.: One simply needs to turn on MTV to see that rap music is a degenerate style which only promotes violence and sexism.

(2) Faulty Causality (or Post Hoc)

Confusing chronology with causality: suggesting that one event caused another because it preceded it.

Faulty warrant.

e.g.: In the year after the release of Marilyn Manson’s previous albums, school violence rose 30% - surely not a coincidence.

(3) Non Sequitur (Latin for “It doesn’t follow”)

A leap of logic – an important step in the line of thought is omitted, making the claim difficult to follow or justify.

Missing warrant.

e.g.: If you actually had a good taste in music, you wouldn’t be listening to punk.

(4) Equivocation

Half-truth: saying something that is partially true, or true only with a particular caveat or definition.

Convoluted warrant or partially inaccurate grounds/backing.

e.g.: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” – President Bill Clinton

(5) Begging the Question

Repeating the same claim in a different way, circling around an argument without adding support.

Repeating claim without adding grounds/warrant.

e.g.: The reason there's such a big demand for this product is because everyone wants to get it.

(6) Faulty Analogy

Misleading, inaccurate or inappropriate comparison.

Illogical or convoluted warrant; excessive qualification.

e.g.: Music piracy is no different from car theft or mugging, as it takes away something that rightfully belongs to others.

(7) Stacked Evidence

Distortion through representing only one side of an issue.

Ignored rebuttal; Claims supported by biased evidence.

e.g.: Women write better novels because they are more sensitive, more interested in romance and create more believable characters.

Pathetic Fallacies

(1) Sentimental Appeal

Distracting the audience from facts using dramatic emotion.

Grounds based on selectively-emotional content rather than broad scope of facts.

e.g.: Conservative energy policies kill thousands of baby seals every year.

(2) Red Herring

Distracting the audience through irrelevant information.

Unrelated or marginally related grounds used to support a claim.

e.g.: This movie is terrible because Samuel L. Jackson is not in it.

(3) Scare Tactics

Frightening an audience with exaggerated dangers stemming from a cause or action.

Threatening descriptions as warrant.

e.g.: The union is led by communists, who will only be happy when our free market society is destroyed forever.

(4) Bandwagon Appeals

Encouraging an audience to agree with a claim because someone else does.

Popularity of a claim (rather than strength of grounds) as warrant.

e.g.: One million iPhone 4S customers can’t be wrong.

(5) Slippery Slope

Suggesting that one action will lead to a chain of events which will have disastrous results in the end.

Faulty warrant , exaggerated qualifier – taking logical connections far beyond the original claim.

e.g.: Reducing our military budget will force us to rely on the US more than we already do, spelling the end for Canadian independence.

(6) Either/Or Choices

Reducing complicated issues to only two possible solutions.

Faulty warrant or false rebuttal.

e.g.: You can either buy this great product on sale right now, or forever miss a great offer.

(7) False Need

Presenting something as a necessity (even when it is not).

Faulty grounds, exaggerated warrant.

e.g.: If you don’t join the club, you’re a nobody.

Ethical Fallacies

(1) False Authority

Appeal to an authority that may not be qualified to make a particular judgment.

Faulty grounds+warrant.

e.g.: My dad says capitalism is terrible, therefore it must be true.

(2) Authority Instead of Evidence

Using personal authority as grounds for a claim.

Faulty grounds+backing.

e.g.: Trust me – my dad wouldn’t lie.

(3) Guilt by Association

Attacking someone’s character based on people they associate with.

Faulty grounds/backing.

e.g.: Your brother is a drug dealer, so you can’t be class president.

(4) Dogmatism

Shutting down discussion by claiming that only the writer’s/speaker’s position matters.

Faulty everything – precludes further discussion.

e.g.: I know it’s true because we learned that in class, and obviously that’s a better source than anything you can offer.

(5) Moral Equivalence

Equating minor problems to serious crimes or faults.

Faulty warrant.

e.g.: This professor grades like a Nazi.

(6) Ad Hominem Attack

Arguments aimed at an opponent’s character rather than his/her reasoning.

Misleading grounds/backing – not directly relevant to claim.

e.g.: Why should we believe this candidate when he is a French-speaking cultural elitist who can’t relate to the common man?

(7) Strawperson Attack

Deliberately setting up arguments that can be easily attacked and dismantled to misrepresent an opponent’s position.

Inappropriately extending an opponent’s claim.

e.g.: My opponent believes that we should legalize marijuana, giving everyone open access to drugs and endangering our children’s future. Unlike my opponent, I believe in our children and want them to grow up without drugs.

The Toulmin Model (Jan 13 Lecture)

Toulmin Model

Stephen Toulmin
British philosopher, 1922-2009

-Studied the logic and origins of human ethics/morality

-Rejected both moral absolutism (as advocated by Plato – absolute truth and unalterable virtues, though Plato suggested that these cannot be known by humans) and relativism (post-modern idea that there can be no truth and all morals are just false constructs – ironically one could argue that this was Socrates' true position)

-Promoted reason, compromise, humanism – argued that we need to be practical and realistic about the way we live, think, argue

-Developed a model of practical argumentation (or rhetoric) to suit this purpose

Six parts to any argument:

- Claim, Grounds, Warrant, Backing, Rebuttal, Qualifier

Useful to both producing and critically-analyzing arguments

1. Claim

The conclusion to be proven, aka the thesis

The “what” of an argument – what are you trying to say?

– e.g. “We don't know what Socrates really thought.”

2. Grounds

Evidence, data, or primary argument supporting this claim

Facts – not always 100% reliable, but can be argued logically (logos!) to defend a claim as sufficiently convincing or scientifically supportable

The “how” of an argument – how do you know that your claim is true?

– e.g. “...because we only know about Socrates from others' writing, primarily Plato's”

3. Warrant

The link between a claim and its grounds – should be made clearly, whether explicitly or implicitly

Can be provided using ethos, pathos or logos, but ideally should incorporate all three – cover all fronts!

The “why” of an argument – why do your grounds prove/support your claim?

– e.g. “...because memory is not perfect and everyone – including Plato – has their own bias and philosophy”

4. Backing

Additional information and credentials which extends your grounds and warrant

Should enhance your claim's credibility (ethos!), provide an alternative but also sensible logic (logos!), and serve to back up your warrant

Any claim, grounds or warrant has more than one possible angle to it – backing is a reminder to explore some of the other ones that can help your argument

The “also” of an argument

– e.g. “...also because Socrates was distrustful of writing and did not like others speaking on his behalf, which is why he refused to write down anything he said”

5. Rebuttal

The opposite or antithesis that needs to be recognized

Restrictions or limits of an argument need to be acknowledged

Talking about views that oppose yours does not necessarily weaken your argument, and if you do it effectively, in fact strengthens it significantly (by building your ethos as someone who is ethical and informed enough to know all sides of an issue, and confident enough to tackle opposition effectively and respectfully)

Any claim comes with alternatives – there are always other angles, and a rebuttal is a reminder to address these

The “negative” of an argument

– e.g. “...however what Plato tells about Socrates is largely consistent with what is told by other contemporaries, and shows great respect for Socrates, suggesting that there is at least a great overlap between Plato's and Socrates' thinking”

6. Qualifier

The degree of certainty or force with which a claim is argued

The strength of the rebuttal will often naturally lead here

Restate or conclude your claims, starting with words ranging from “perhaps” or “possibly” to “likely” or “certainly”

Should be determined logically by the strength of grounds, warrants, backing, and rebuttals

Be careful not to claim more than you can justify!

The “degree” of an argument

– e.g. “...therefore we will certainly never know what Socrates really thought, but it is likely that Plato's portrayal of his philosophy is at least partially accurate.”

Inventio(n) Strategies (Jan 11-13 Workshop)

INVENTION STRATEGIES

Targeted brainstorming

Good persuasive ideas rarely come out of nowhere – usually you have to start by thinking about something, with even a vague goal in mind

Best taken slowly and strategically

Best ideas don’t appear instantly or at random – usually you have to work for them

Sometimes sitting on an idea really is the best thing you can do

But make sure that meets requirements of your work

Better to be organized to avoid lapsing into procrastination

Thinking about your audience

demographics (what group(s) does your audience fit into? What do you know about these groups?)

expectations (What does the audience want to hear? What does the audience not want to hear? How is the audience likely to take you seriously?)

how do you establish common ground with the audience? (you do not want to turn your arguments into an uphill battle)

What kind of supporting materials can you bring to bear on your arguments?

-Facts, statistics - research
-Narratives, expert testimony
-Humor, emotionally-engaging content

Different audiences respond differently to different supporting materials/evidence

-better to cover more than one approach,
-but remember to be strategic and emphasize the kinds of materials that will be most effective

(e.g. in an academic essay, facts and quotes from peer-reviewed academic journals will always be the best way to convince your prof!)

Appeals: Ethos/Logos/Pathos

again, different audiences respond differently and may prefer one type of appeal over the other

a good idea is to address all three at least to some extent

but at the same time be strategic about the appeals that you will believe will be most effective

don’t put your eggs in one basket!

Kairos

Think about the right time to pitch an argument

logos is the one area that you will need to cover in most academic and professional situations – you cannot move far without clear, rational logic

ethos is important at least insofar as you establish yourself as credible

pathos is the trickiest one – in any setting, it can be both extremely effective (if you strike an effective emotional note) and extremely damaging to your ethos (if you appear overly-emotional, irrational, or disingenuous). Use with caution in serious settings.

Now for some practical suggestions…

4 PRACTICAL APPROACHES TO INVENTION

LISTING

List the ideas, arguments, facts, questions, key words, goals you want to cover

Point form only – avoids getting stuck on wording or style

Good for generating initial thoughts, not necessarily most useful for structuring

Don’t sort until you run out of ideas

Use another strategy to organize (e.g. mapping)

FREEWRITING

Useful for generating unsorted ideas if you think better in ‘stream of consciousness’

Start writing down whatever comes to mind (preferably with a goal in mind) and don’t stop until you reach a limit you set (e.g. 500 words or 15 minutes)

Again, useful for generating initial thoughts and often results in surprising ideas that you didn’t have in mind before

Also not very useful if you need organization – use another strategy to organize thoughts after you freewrite

MAPPING

Like listing, but with text bubbles instead of bullet points

Use lines/arrows or clusters to connect bubbles of related ideas together

The result is often a bit complex, but also gives more cues on future organization of your arguments

Especially helpful if your project requires finding connections between ideas

CUBING

Approach an idea from 6 different sides, thus putting it inside a discrete ‘cube’

Describe (‘What is it?’)

Compare (‘What is it like/not like?’)

Associate (‘What other ideas does it belong with?’)

Analyze (‘What parts is it made up of?’)

Apply (‘How can you use this idea?’)

Argue (‘How can you support or oppose it?’)

Useful for developing coherent theses for academic essays – helps avoid one-sided thinking