Read chapter 9 in your textbook. What follows is a summary of some of the most important things you need to know for this assignment; however, it is not a substitute for a through study of the chapter.

The Characteristics of Mediation

The purpose of arguing to inquire is to become well informed and to see all sides of an issue. The purpose of arguing to convince is to create a case structure that proves a thesis through logic and evidence. The purpose of arguing to persuade is not just to get an opponent to agree through logic and evidence, but also to gain support through appeals to character, emotion, and style. Finally, the purpose of arguing to mediate is "to move disputants beyond the polarized thinking that makes conflicts impossible to resolve" (267). In order to achieve this, "mediation requires the mediator to rise above a dispute, including his or her own preferences, to see what is reasonable and right in conflicting positions" (268). (Be sure to read the "Characteristics of Mediation" on page 268.)

Thus, the authors say that an essay that argues to mediate builds upon what you do in arguing to inquire, to convince, and to persuade. Writing such an essay involves the same process of inquiry, analysis, and development of a case, but at the same time employs these to achieve a different goal: the goal in mediation is not to just understand, or to gain intellectual assent, or even to gain the hearts of your audience, but rather to help find a common ground that opposing parties can both accept.

To write a successful mediation essay, the writer must first throughly understand the positions of the opposing factions. This means careful reading of all the primary sources to identify the theses, reasons, and evidence. (See pages 282-283 for an example.)

Locating the Areas of Agreement and Disagreement

Differences over Facts

The authors point out that "most conflicts result from interpreting facts differently rather than disagreement about the facts themselves" (284). Where the facts of the case are at issue, the job of the mediator is to make additional inquiry using credible sources to establish the true facts. If opponents are basing their arguments on insufficient evidence, then the job of the mediator is to make further inquiry to provide the needed facts.

Differences over Interests, Values, and Interpretations

But in attempting to mediate between two opposed and strongly held positions, facts alone are not enough. You must also "look into what causes people to hold the positions they do" (284).

Thus, in reading and analyzing the sources that espouse the positions of the contending parties, you have to consider these questions:

• Is the difference a matter of assumptions?
  
• Is the difference a matter of principle?
  
• Is the difference a matter of values or priorities?
  
• Is the difference a matter of ends or means?
  
• Is the difference a matter of implications or consequences?
  
• Is the difference a matte of interpretations?
  
• Is the difference a matter of personal background, basic human needs, or emotions?

To answer these questions, you must read and reread your sources carefully. The answers you give will be inferences you draw about the thinking and the emotions of the writers as they are revealed implicitly in their writing. What does this mean? Well, a writer may state his thesis explicitly as when he says "Greater restrictions should be placed on immigration to the United States." But you must infer why he holds this opinion. Why he holds this opinion is not just a matter of the reasons he gives in his case structure but how he thinks and views the world. These unspoken ideas and feelings are what the "Questions for Understanding Difference" are designed to reveal (284). You cannot successfully mediate unless you understand how the contending parties think and feel.

The Areas of Appeal in Arguing to Mediate

In arguing to mediate you are trying to prove to both sides that there is a middle way, a compromise that allows each to maintain its interests while giving to the other some of what it wants. In his Rhetoric, the Greek philosopher Aristotle said that there are three kinds of proofs that writers use in argument.

• Logos Logos is the proof that emphasizes rational evidence. It relies primarily on facts and figures and assumes that people act rationally most of the time. Therefore, if you give people the correct evidence, they will reach an appropriate conclusion. Logos is what you dealt with in writing to convince. However, as noted above, in arguing to mediate, you need other kinds of proof as well since in situations where the parties are intractable, it is not usually because there is disagreement over the facts of the case, but rather over their interpretation.

• Pathos "Proof by pathos assumes that people are moved by emotions" (Osborn and Osborn 380). Emotional involvement may be gained by using examples and narratives. These have the power to help opponents visualize the conditions of people affected by the dispute and to appreciate their hardships and disadvantages.

• Ethos "Proof by ethos assumes that people can be persuaded by the personal influence of the source of a message. In persuasion there are two types of ethos that you must be concerned with -- your personal credibility as a speaker and the credibility of the sources of information and testimony you use . . . . Both kinds become evidence for proof by ethos" (382). In order for you to move opponents from hardened positions, they must believe two things: (1) that you yourself are fair and unbiased and, (2) that the sources of your evidence (facts, figures, authorities,) are also unbiased. If either side thinks you are stacking the deck against them, they will not be moved.

• Mythos Modern rhetoric has added a fourth kind of proof to Aristotle's original three. This is proof by mythos. "Proof by mythos assumes that people value their membership in a society and share in its cultural heritage. Mythos is the sum total of stories, values, faith, feelings, and roles that make up the social character of a people. Proof by mythos often calls upon patriotism, cultural pride, and heroes or enemies as evidence" (383). Proof by mythos most often uses narrative as its evidence. However, a story need not be repeated in full. Clear references to a story that everyone is familiar with is sufficient to evoke the feelings of kinship and shared values. These stories may involve historical(George Washington at Valley Forge), economic (Bill Gates the great innovator), or religious values (The courage and self sacrifice of the Pilgrims). Proof by mythos urges opponents to see that as members of a society and citizens of a nation, they share a common history and common values and so are not so different after all. Everyone of good will wants the best for both themselves and their neighbors.

The Appeal to Emotions

The authors say that academic discourse often eschews emotional appeals "because all fields of academic study claim to value reason, dispassionate inquiry, and critical analysis" (Crusius and Channell 251). Emotional appeals are associated with politicians, demagogues, and religious fanatics. Therefore, they must be used with caution in academic writing and only after making sure that the emotional appeal is legitimate. To determine the answer, the authors suggest that you pose the following questions:

• Do the emotional appeals substitute for knowledge and reason?
  
• Do they employ sterotypes and pit one group against another?
  
• Do they offer a simple, unthinking reaction to a complex situation?
  

Another important question to ask is "If I act on the basis of how I feel, who will benefit and who will suffer?" (251).

However, recognizing these cautions, the authors still maintain that emotional appeal can have a role in logical argument because it "supplements argument, drawing on knowledge and often first had experience" (251).

The Appeal through Style

The authors define style as "the choices a writer makes at the level of words, phrases, and sentences" (253). They say that style is not an add-on or a dressing up of what has been written, but is rather integral to thought itself (253). To write a different sentence is to say a different thing. It is important to the success of a persuasive argument because it "makes what we say memorable" (253). A common fault of student writers is to compose a first draft and then to think, "Well, I've finished that. What assignment shall I work on next?" But a first draft is the end of the beginning, not the end itself.

The first draft must be revised (which means looked at again with a fresh eye). Revision involves adding information (reasons or evidence), deleting what is off the subject, reorganizing what you have (this is where an outline helps), and restating what is incomplete or unclear. Revising for style means making choices from options and the options you use should be appropriate for your topic, your thesis, your audience, and the rhetorical context of the argument. So there is no formula to follow and no strict set of rules; instead, there are good practices that can be effectively applied when "you are in the groove," knowing what you want to say and understanding your audience and the rhetorical context.

Using King's essay as an example, the authors point out the following aspects of style that he uses effectively.

• Connotation and denotation of words
  
• Concrete language
  
• Metaphor and simile
  
• Factors affecting the sound of language
  
  • Sentence length and rhythm
    
  • Parallelism
    
  • Alliteration
    

These, of course, do not exhaust the stylistic options available to writers, and you may discover and use many others without even knowing their names. A successful style is achieved by working and reworking your sentences until they sound right and say what you mean. You are the first judge, and if a sentence does not sound right or make sense to you, a reader will not understand it either.

Some writers are handicapped because what sounds right to them is not correct according to the rules of grammar, which brings you to another step in the writing process, editing. When you edit, you make your writing conform to the grammatical rules of the language. This is where your handbook is a help. The correct way to write sentences can be learned, but it requires sharp attention and a willingness to do the work.

What was said in the assignment on writing to convince applies to this essay on writing to persuade. The principle difference is that in addition to creating a logical argument that your reader will accept as valid, you must also make a special effort to appeal to your audience through character, emotion, and style.

On pages 299-301, the authors give specific guidelines for writing mediatory essay. The basic job is to "argue for a compromise position, appealing to an audience of people on all sides" (299).

Prewriting

To be successful, you must first understand the issue and the conflicting positions. This means research, reading, and analysis. You can't write about what you do not understand.

After you know what you are writing about, the next step is to "describe the conflict in its full complexity, not just its polar opposites" (300). After doing this,"think of some solutions that would satisfy at least some of the interests on all sides" (300). And "finally write up a clear statement of your solution" (300).

Drafting

The authors point out that "there is no set form for the mediatory essay. In fact,it is an unusual, even somewhat experimental,form of writing. As with any argument,the important thing is to have a plan [emphasis added] for arranging your points and to provide clear signals to your readers. One logical way to organize a mediatory essay is in three parts:" (300).

• Overview of the conflict
  
• Discussion of the differences underlying the conflict
  
• Proposed solution
  

See your textbook for the explanations of these points.

Revising

Revising a mediatory essay requires that you look for the same problems and opportunities for improvement that were cited above. But in addition, you need to pay special attention to the way you have handled the persuasive appeals:

• The appeal to character
  
• The appeal to emotions
  
• The appeal through style
  

See your textbook for the explanations of these points.

Documenting your Essay

Research is an important part of this assignment. You cannot write a successful argumentative essay to convince someone to accept your thesis on a topic unless you have read extensively and know what you are writing about. So your essay must have both parenthetical documentation and a works cited that gives complete publication information for your sources. You will use the MLA style of documentation for this course. see pages 122-132 in your textbook for documentation models. My Links Page also has links to information on MLA documentation.

You may choose to use the topics and the source materials provided by your textbook. If you do so, you can use the publication information given in the credits section of the book.

The Length of your Essay

The completed essay must be at least 500 words. To do a good job on this assignment, your essay will need to be longer. There is no limit on length, but all essays should be concise, informative, and correct. Longer essays that multiply errors simply provide more justification for a poor grade. Microsoft Word will tell you how many words there are in a document.

Works Cited

This essay must have a works cited. A works cited is not the same thing as the annotated bibliography that you created in preparation for the essay. The works cited lists all the sources that you actually summarize, paraphrase, or quote in your argument. Give the complete bibliographic for each source following MLA guidelines. Arrange your sources alphabetically. Do not include any annotations for the sources on your works cited.

Osborn, Michael and Suzanne Osborn. Public Speaking. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1988.