Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP - Archives
Practice Module on This File

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Soka University Japan - Transcend Art and Peace
Created: August 31, 2002
Latest Update: September 22, 2002
jeannecurran@habermas.org
takata@uwp.edu

Powerfully Imaginative Speech
and Evidence of Learning It

Site Copyright: Jeanne Curran and Susan R. Takata and Individual Authors, August 2002.
"Fair use" encouraged.

jeanne's comments in royal blue

On Saturday, August 31, Donna M. Woods wrote:

Subject: Moral Textures Please let me know if I am misinterpreting the writing.

Pia Lara, pg., 2 - Cultural Interpretation of Speech Act. "To attain such a mutual understanding, I claim, one must first address the other with a powerfully imaginative speech, not only to attract attention of ‘alter’, but also to open up possibilities for creating different kinds of recognition…"

When psychologists began investigating the murder rate among women who had been battered, they brought it to the attention of the legal system, which was leveling extremely harsh sentences on these women, blithely ignorant of the fact that these women were tortured individuals acting in self-defense. Thus, psychological investigation provided discourse, which brought recognition and understanding to a condition of mistreatment that was long . . .

I think we somehow lost the tail end of your conclusion, Donna. And no, you're not misinterpreting the writing. I think you came up with a very good example: that of battered women and how long it took us to get people to see the injustice.

On what Donna's comment tells us about evidence of learning:

• Your comment can be short. Should be short, unless the topic is really important to you and you need to say more to satisfy your needs.

  Donna's comment is very short. No more than a healthy paragraph.

• Quote from the file or text you're using, or at least give the page number.

  Donna did both. I could just turn to p. 2 of Moral Textures and see what she was commenting on. That's good communication. It guarantees that we're both on the same page, so what we're saying to each other makes sense.

• Relate the theory and/or discussion to life experiences that you've had or that make sense to your own lifeworld.

  Donna did this succinctly and with adequate detail so that I could see that she understood the need for recognition of harm if we are to eradicate social injustice.

• Attend to the arguments developed in the theory we study.

  For example:

  1. Harsh sentences were being given to battered women who killed the batterer.
  2. Those who knew the narrative of domestic violence knew the real stories (Donna just implied this by saying that psychologists, who would have sought the narratives, investigated the issue.)
  3. Be sure you fill the reader in on the facts. Donna does this by telling us that the stories of recognition of harm tell of torture and of self-defense.
  4. Identify the problem. Donna did. The courts were not aware of the stories of recognition. I added "blithely ignorant" to suggest that without the aid of those who studies domestic violence the courts weren't going to change any time soon.
  5. Draw a conclusion, so your reader is sure of what you mean to say. Donna does that in the last sentence.
  6. "Thus" introduces her conclusion. Then she says the psychologists' study of the domestic violence syndrome led to the stories of recognition being told, and that led to discourse that (after a long while) led to transformation of the legal system and a great reduction in its injustice in domestic violence cases.

  Such a paragraph will earn you an A for that submission of evidence of learning. At least in one of my classes, for these are the kinds of learning I'm looking for. Go back to the course objectives in Women in Society:

  • Through writing this brief essay response to evidence her learning, Donna is participating in an experiential forum for civil discourse. It's even an illocutionary discussion, drawn from the same sources we've used in class: Maria Pia Lara's introductory chapter.
  • The issue of how abused women are treated by the legal system when they kill their abusers, is a major question we have and will address in Women in Society.
  • Donna shows how sexism was embedded in the law of murder over domestic violence prior to the reforms brought about by recognition of the harm of domestic violence.
  • Donna bases her brief essay response on the text of a woman professor of philosophy at a Mexican University, helping to illustrate women's contributions to these issues.

  Now, for a really outstanding brief essay, argue that the battered women's syndrome is misused by people who simply want to get away with murder, and do it while adhering to the course objectives. Maybe we'll find the time to do this in class. This would be great practice in moot court.

---

---