Untitled Document

Position Statement Patterns

Springboard. The springboard essay begins with a summary of someone else's ideas and then transitions into your own essay in response. The summary may be of a single person's position or something selected from the person's position. The summary may also be literature review that surveys the field of opinion represented by several texts. After the summary of other(s) opinion(s), you then transition into your own position.

The paragraph that follows the summary is transition paragraph that sets up your own position within the field of opinion. The transition paragraph has the following characteristics: it signals that the writer is shifting to his/her own ideas with a phrase like, "In my view, however, . . ." or, "My own position within this range of opinion is this: . . . ." Your position disagree with, agree with, or modify existing positions, but you have to state explicitly what your position is, both on the overarching issue and on the subpoints of it. Finally the transition paragraph previews the structure of the paper, telling the reader what you will discuss first, second, third, and so on. So, then, a transition paragraph in a springboard essay (1) signals a change in voice, (2) states the writer's thesis (position), and (3) previews the rest of the writer's essay.

After the transition paragraph, you write your own fully developed position statement following a simple analysis pattern or one of the patterns listed below.

Traditonal Polemic Argument Pattern. The traditional polemic argument is one in which rhetors argue for their own side and try to defeat their opponents. They are not trying to change the opponent's mind; rather, they are appealing to onlookers, judges, the public, trying to get the third party to join their side and reject the opponents. It is called polemic because such arguments drive opponents further and further away from a common solution, created stringent and fixed positions. The traditional pattern was as follows:

Introduction: the speaker tries to win the trust of the audience. This section is primarily concerned with building the speaker's ethos.
Narration: telling the view of the case from the speaker's perspective. You might say it is a story or overall summary of the way the speaker sees things.
Confirmation: arguments supporting the narration; evidence that supports the speaker's view of the case. Often the arguments were arranged in a 2, 3, 1 pattern. The second strongest arguments goes first, then the weakest, finally the strongest. The contrast betwee the 3 and th 1 magnifies the strength of the final argument and makes it stick in the audience's memory. This section is primarily logos oriented.
Refutation: arguments against anticipated counter view of the opponent. The refutation can use logic (logos) emotion (pathos) or character assassination (a reverse ethos argument), or even humor.
Conclusion: rhetor tries to put the audience in the right state of mind to take action or to resist the opponent's argument. This section is primarily pathos oriented.

Rogerian Approach. The Rogerian approach is one in which the rhetor inhabits one side of the dissoi logoi in adebate, but instead of trying to win the argument by influencing a third party, she tries to create common ground between the competing views. This pattern, as our reading of Young, Becker, and Pike indicated, is premised on the notion that people don't change if they feel threatened; if any thing, they become even more set in their position. So the rhetor tries to remove threat by (1) using using provisional instead of dogmatic language, and (2) byshowing her opponent that she can inhabit his perspective and validate his judgment from that perspective. This fully display of empathy and common vision invites the opponent to reciprocate, thereby creating open and unthreatening communication that may lead to a compromise that works for both parties.

Although the Rogerian approach is more attitude than format, it has been reduced to a pattern that works for written documents.

An introduction to the problem that shows the opponent's position is understood
A statement of the contexts in which opponent's position may be valid
A statement of the writer's positon, including contexts in which it may be valid
A statement of how the opponent's position might be enhanced by adopting elements of the writer's position and an explanation of how positions complement each other.

Value, Threat, Solution. In this pattern, you begin by referring to a value that you and your readers hold in common. Then you describe a situation as a problem or as a threat to that value. After decribing the threat, you then describe your proposed solution to the threat. This pattern should be elaborated with references to sources that document the threat and that lend support or help establish to your solution.