In order for you to help your students complete their Issue Analysis work, it is important to understand the fundamental definitions upon which this unit is built. In short, a "position" is held by a single person/author. In Portfolio 1, we defined the positions of individual authors through summary. An "approach" is a perspective that is comprised of more than one person/writer; what holds the approach together is a common thread of values, beliefs, concerns, purposes, etc. An approach also helps us figure out how to make sense of a complex issue. Rather than trying to remember 30-40 unique positions on an issue (and to make distinctions among them), we can define three or four shared perspectives or approaches to the issue. The goal here is not to dilute the richness of the issue but is to preserve it by organizing sources clearly and accessibly.
See the example below for an application of these terms.
In high school most of us
learned to simplify approaches into two categories, "pro"
and "con," in order to examine a debate. However, shared approaches
typically run much deeper than "pro" and "con" since
every person's views are complicated by various social and cultural
factors. Here's an example: Let's say we reduced the issue of legalizing
drugs to "pro" and "con"--then it could be said
that both government officials and members of religious groups take
the same shared approach toward legalizing drugs, since both groups
oppose making these substances legal. A closer examination of the arguments
made by members of each group indicates, however, that they do not share
the same views. Government representatives are likely to oppose legalization
because they claim that drugs are harmful to society as a whole. In
contrast, authors who oppose legalization because of their religious
beliefs might do so largely because it goes against the teaching of
their faiths.
Let’s consider another group--parents. Some of these individuals
may oppose drug legalization because their children have become victims
of drug abuse. These individual positions would differ from those advanced
by members of the previous groups due to different experiences that
have shaped parents’ lives. However, depending on the specific
argument they make, a parent who writes a text protesting the legalization
of drugs might share the approach taken by a government official or
member of a religious group. Thus, although a parent will have his or
her own individual position on this issue, he or she would take the
same shared approach as that taken by certain government officials and
members of particular religious groups.
Yet another group weighing in on the issue of legalization is civil
libertarians–who believe that individuals should be free to make
decisions about drug use free of regulation by the government. These
authors argue that drug use is an individual choice and, even if it
harms the individual, is nonetheless something that the individual should
be free to do. This argument is similar in many ways to arguments about
mandatory use of helmets on motorcycles and even to some arguments that
“risky” sports such as skiing should not be regulated by
the government.
Two additional groups interested in this issue adopt economic approaches.
One group argues that the amount of money the government is spending
attempting to combat drug use has largely been wasted. Since drug use
has declined only somewhat since the government began fighting the drug
war, the government should reconsider its tactics and, as it did when
it lifted the prohibition on alcohol, legalize drug use. The core of
this argument is that the money now spent on the drug ware would be
better spent on societal needs. The other group taking an economic approach
– albeit a very different approach – are companies that
would view the legalization of drugs such as marijuana as a threat to
their viability might include representatives of alcohol and tobacco
companies. It's fair to say that alcohol and tobacco companies don't
oppose drug use solely because drugs are harmful to people (after all,
the consumption of both results in many deaths per year). It’s
also fair to say that these authors would be unlikely to come out and
say, “Don’t legalize drugs because it will cost us money.”
As a result, while representatives of tobacco and alcohol companies
might oppose legalization of drugs for economic reasons, they would
probably avoid couching their arguments in those terms.
Given these examples, clearly it would be inaccurate to clump these
very different arguments into "pro" and "con". If
we did, much of the meaning or truth behind the issue would be lost.
The goal for a "good" writer of public discourse should always
be to produce texts that seek to fairly represent the issues (for the
betterment of society). Thus, it can be viewed as dishonest for writers
to reduce the complexity of an issue unnecessarily. In part, this is
why you (student writers) are being asked to think critically about
these different individual positions and shared approaches.
After you've read and summarized your sources, look for common threads
that cut across sources as a way to group them into different shared
approaches. Here's what it might look like for the example above.
Topic: Legalization of Drugs
Shared Approach 1: Oppose legalization
because it is harmful to society as a whole
Shared Approach 2: Oppose legalization
for moral reasons because it is against religious teachings
Shared Approach 3: Favor legalization
for individual rights reasons
Shared Approach 4: Favor legalization for economic reasons because
the war against drugs has been ineffective
Shared Approach 5: Oppose legalization for economic reasons
Of course, you could argue that the government is also economically
motivated and that representatives of alcohol and tobacco companies
may legitimately believe that drugs are harmful to society. If the support
for these claims outweighs the others, you'd need to group the positions
of authors arguing about differently. Keep in mind that grouping positions
into approaches is far from an exact science; you'll need to read various
arguments before generalizing views into approaches in order to represent
each group fairly.