Chapter 3: Mapping The Controversy
Chapter 3: Mapping the Controversy
In this chapter, you will learn:
- strategies for synthesizing a collection of sources
- stasis theory, and its uses in mapping a controversy
After finding and summarizing viewpoints, you’re ready to start mapping the controversy. In this chapter, we will discuss strategies for making sense of all the information that you’ve collected.
Before we get into specific strategies, we want to make a general point about mapping the controversy. As you can probably imagine, a series of summaries presented one after another can be confusing and also boring. To give your reader a clear view of the big picture and hold their interest, you must synthesize and apply the information. Explain what is most important. Demonstrate the key points in the controversy. Show your reader how everything fits together.
In this chapter, we offer a few strategies for synthesis. Each strategy works by selecting a specific piece of the controversy (re. “Introduction: Identifying Pieces of a Controversy”) and organizing (or framing) your controversy’s details around that piece. Each strategy we offer has its own affordances and limitations. We encourage you to choose the strategy—or strategies—that allow you to emphasize what you think is most important about your controversy. You should, of course, represent all viewpoints fairly. Don’t take a side in the controversy (yet). But do tell your readers what aspects of the controversy deserve their attention.
Focusing on Stakeholders
Since you have found viewpoint articles, the most obvious way to synthesize your material is by focusing on stakeholders. In your summaries of selected viewpoint articles, introduce one stakeholder, explain their interests, summarize their viewpoint, and relate that viewpoint to other sources. Not only is this the most obvious strategy, but it also may be the most effective for your topic. Maybe the controversy makes sense when seen as a series of arguments put forward by different people with different interests. And maybe focusing on the stakeholders shows your reader the connections between these people’s interests and their viewpoints. No other strategy, for example, will more clearly show us that petroleum-industry executives favor hydrofracking because their companies stand to make a lot of money from this drilling technique. Or that environmentalists oppose hydrofracking because they fear it will damage the local ecosystem, which they value deeply.
Nonetheless, focusing on the stakeholders may have a few drawbacks as well. To begin with, explaining each stakeholder and their viewpoint separately will make it difficult for you to relate the viewpoints to one another. Furthermore, focusing on the stakeholders may overlook the most interesting thing about a controversy. Often, stakeholders have different interests but arrive at the same position. If you focus on the stakeholders, then you may end up with a series of summaries that seem to say the same thing with subtle differences: Politicians who want to please their constituents favor tax reform; voters who want to lower taxes favor tax reform; corporate executives who want to simplify their accounting practices favor tax reform. We should note that politicians, voters, and corporate executives all favor tax reform. But in order to really understand this controversy, we need to focus on the viewpoints themselves. In this particular example, distinction between stakeholder viewpoints would arise from what specific kinds of tax reform they favor.
Focusing on Viewpoints
Maybe you don’t want to focus on the stakeholders. Maybe you’re more interested in discussing the places where they agree and disagree. If one viewpoint brings together several stakeholders—”everyone favors tax reform”—then you may want to begin your summary of a particular source by pointing out the common belief. Then you can summarize this source’s viewpoint. You can explain how this source is different from others:
- Example: “Many people oppose hydrofracking because they fear it will damage the environment. Environmentalists, for instance, worry about pollution, which could hurt local wildlife. Some environmentalists also worry about releasing methane gas, which, they argue, contributes to global warming. The environmentalist’s concerns are similar to those held by local residents. But, instead of worrying about widespread damage to wildlife and global climate, local residents worry that hydrofracking will cause earthquakes in their backyards and pollute their water supply.” Above we have a summary of the viewpoint held by environmentalists—one group of stakeholders. The summary opens by mentioning a belief that environmentalists share with other stakeholders. And the summary ends by comparing the environmentalists’ concerns with those of local residents. In this case, focusing on the viewpoints has allowed us to emphasize the different reasons behind a seemingly common position. Environmentalists have one set of reasons (damage to wildlife and global climate), while local residents have another set of reasons (harm to property and quality of life).
Focusing on the viewpoints also allows you to compare the points of agreement and disagreement in a controversy. If you want to explain how these viewpoints relate to one another, you can demonstrate that people share some beliefs, but they nonetheless disagree about a few key things. For example: Everyone agrees that hydrofracking deserves to be studied so that we can closely monitor its impact on the environment. Jim Jeffries, a petroleum engineer who works for OilCo, says, “We are learning new things every day, and we need to reevaluate this technology constantly to make sure we get the most out of our natural resources without harming the environment.” Jeffries agrees with others, such as Lana Eggerstrom of the Environmental Advocacy Organization. Eggerstrom explains, “Hydrofracking is no different from nuclear power—it has lots of potential but many dangers, so we need to be very careful and watchful, or we will hurt the planet and ourselves.” Unlike Eggerstrom, who believes that the government should regulate hydrofracking, Jeffries believes that the industry should monitor itself. In the above example, we focus on the viewpoints, so we can highlight key areas of agreement and disagreement in the debate. By highlighting the agreements and disagreements, we can show how these viewpoints fit together.
Before moving on to the next strategy for synthesis, we want to emphasize that you don’t have to choose one strategy or another for your entire map. You may decide, initially, to focus on one particularly important stakeholder. Afterwards, you may focus the remainder of your summary on the viewpoint to show that there are many other perspectives relating to this viewpoint in different ways. For example:
In the debate about what to do with the vacant shopping mall near Interstate 12, one stakeholder strongly favors replacing the property with high-rise luxury apartments. Developer and real-estate mogul Henry Kastings claims that, if he were allowed to build apartments, then the city would benefit while he profits. Many oppose Kastings but for different reasons. They all agree that a high-rise apartment complex would not benefit the city, though it might enrich Mr. Kastings. They suggest alternate uses for the property. Some community residents suggest that the city convert the space into a public amphitheater. Some advocates for the poor want to replace the vacant mall with low-income housing. Kastings takes these differing viewpoints into account by explaining that the city cannot afford to build a public amphitheater. But, he notes, the city could increase revenue by collecting property taxes from luxury-apartment residents. Kastings further explains that the I-12 shopping mall is in a poor location for low-income housing because it is far from public transportation. Luxury apartment residents, he explains, do not rely on the bus system. Since they tend to drive their own cars, such wealthy residents may prefer to be near the Interstate because they would have ready access to a major roadway.
The sample paragraphs that we provide in this section suggest strategies for synthesis, but the work remains incomplete. A fuller controversy map would include numerous summaries that present the relevant viewpoints, while drawing connections among these viewpoints. Below, we offer one more strategy for synthesizing the information about a controversy.
Focusing on Questions
Each of the strategies presented in this chapter has advantages and disadvantages. And each strategy is appropriate to certain circumstances. Before getting into the final strategy, let’s review:
| Strategy | Advantages | Disadvantages | When the Strategy is Appropriate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Focusing on Stakeholders | Emphasizes the connections among people’s interests, knowledge, values, and viewpoints | Makes comparisons amongst viewpoints difficult | When the stakeholders do not share claims or reasons |
| Focusing on Viewpoints | Allows comparison of agreements and disagreements among stakeholders | De-emphasizes stakeholders | When some stakeholders share common ground (a common viewpoint or common reasons) but disagree nonetheless |
| Focusing on Questions | Allows emphasis on the key questions that people are debating | De-emphasizes stakeholders and makes comparison amongst viewpoints difficult | When one or two key questions dominate the debate or when people seem to be talking past one another |
As the above table demonstrates, focusing on the questions has notable advantages and disadvantages. This strategy is appropriate in certain circumstances. Before learning about the strategy itself, let’s take a moment to think about the circumstances in which it is appropriate to focus on the questions.
One or Two Questions Dominate the Debate: When we argue, we frequently return to one or two (often related) questions. Our argument will confuse an uninformed eavesdropper, unless someone can clearly explain what central questions we are debating. Such questions are often important, though they remain unstated. Consider the debate about capital punishment. People argue about a central question: Should the United States execute criminals? This very simple question has produced a very complicated discussion. That’s because this simple question relates to three other questions, which typically remain unstated: (1) Does capital punishment deter crime? (2) Is capital punishment justly administered? (3) Is the death penalty a form of cruel and unusual punishment? If you answer “yes” to questions 1 and 2 and “no” to question 3—“Capital punishment deters crime, is justly administered, and is neither cruel nor unusual”—then you likely support capital punishment. And, conversely, if you answer “no” to questions 1 and 2 but “yes” to question 3—“Capital punishment does not deter crime, is not justly administered, and is both cruel and unusual”—then you likely oppose the death penalty.
But, what if you think the death penalty is a just punishment that deters crime, but you also worry that too many innocent people get executed because of flaws in our criminal justice system? Or you think that capital punishment is justly administered, and you think it deters crime, but you believe that the current manner of executing people (lethal injection) is cruel and unusual? In either case, you won’t support or oppose capital punishment. You will favor reform—keeping but improving capital punishment. In this case—and in many others—if you want to understand the controversy, you really need to understand the questions. If you fail to understand the questions, you may end up believing that there are two sides: for and against the death penalty. But if you understand the questions, then you can see that there are many sides. There are some who support and some who oppose capital punishment. But there are many others. Some want to have a moratorium (a period when we don’t execute criminals) so that we can fix the justice system. Some want to find a more humane way to administer the punishment. When you have such a complicated debate, often the best way to make sense of things is to state explicitly the main questions and their relations to one another.
When People Seem To Be Talking Past One Another: Certainly you’ve participated in or witnessed disagreements when people did not seem to acknowledge or even understand each other. They seem to be talking to someone else but not to the person in the room. This often happens because people argue about completely different questions. In order for a debate to go anywhere—in order for people to work toward any kind of agreement—participants must first agree to argue about the same thing. If we disagree about the question, we will never agree about the answer to the question. Take two classic debates in American culture today, abortion and gun control. In both cases, many of the disputants do not agree about the basic question at issue. For the pro-lifer the question at issue is, “Does life begin at conception?” For the pro-choicer the question is, “Does a woman’s right to privacy include her right to an abortion?” For the gun-control advocate the question is, “Do guns, made readily available to the public, endanger people’s safety and security?” For the gun-rights advocate the question is, “Do gun-control laws violate the Second Constitutional Amendment?” If you can show these differing questions to your reader, then you can explain why the debates have lasted so long and why it’s so hard to get people to find any points of agreement.
Some Terms to Help You Identify Questions: Needless to say, people argue over an endless variety of questions. We can never classify them all. But we can use stasis theory, a simple guide that’s been around in one form or another since the Ancient Greeks. The basic idea behind stasis theory is that people tend to argue about certain kinds of questions.
- Questions of fact: What exists? What has existed? What is likely to exist?
- Questions of cause and effect: What causes lead to what effects? What effects tend to come from what causes?
- Questions of definition: What do we call something? In what category does something belong?
- Questions of value: Is something good or bad? Just or unjust? Beautiful or ugly?
- Questions of procedure: What should we do?
According to classical stasis theory, people tend to disagree first about questions of fact, next about cause and effect, then definition, value, and finally procedure. This is often illustrated with a murder trial:
First, we disagree about the facts of the matter: Did John stab Edward? If we can finally agree about the facts (yes, John did stab Edward), then we may still disagree about the cause: Did John stab Edward because Edward was attacking John or because John was angry with Edward? If we agree about the cause (John stabbed Edward because he was angry with Edward), we may disagree about what to call the act: Is this premeditated murder, or is it an accidental killing? And if we agree about what to call it—this is premeditated murder—we may still disagree about the value: Is this an unforgivable crime or a terrible but nonetheless understandable offense? Lastly, even if we agree to call this an unforgivable crime, we may still disagree about what to do: Should we put John in jail for 30 years or 10 years?
The murder trial is a helpful example, but it doesn’t seem to apply to public arguments. So let’s apply stasis theory to a current public controversy, climate change:
- Questions of Fact: Is the earth getting warmer? Are global climate patterns changing?
- Questions of Cause and Effect: Is human activity the main cause behind these changes to global climate patterns? Do greenhouse gases principally resulting from human activity lead to global warming?
- Questions of Definition: Is this “global warming”? Is it “global climate change”? Is it “global weirding”? Is it a “media hoax”?
- Questions of Value: Is global warming, even if caused by humans, all that bad? Is economic growth more important than protecting the environment?
- Questions of Procedure: Should developing nations have to reduce their carbon emissions as much as industrialized nations? Would a “cap-and-trade” system work better or worse than strict limits on carbon emissions?
At the moment, we are debating all of these questions. But some questions are more important than others, so they get more attention in a debate about “global climate change.” If you were mapping this controversy, your job would be to show your reader which questions—fact, cause and effect, definition, value, or procedure—are most important. Which receive the most attention in the debate?
You can use stasis theory to highlight the most important question(s) in a controversy. For instance, you might argue: “Though people are debating many questions in the controversy about global climate change, the biggest and most important question is about fact: Is the earth getting warmer?” Or you might say:
Among those who accept that the earth is getting warmer due to human activity, there is still a debate about procedure: How can we stop or at least slow down global climate change? Suresh Swaminathan, an economist for the RAND Corporation, believes that radical proposals to dramatically reduce global carbon emissions will have dire economic consequences. Since he values economic growth, Swaminathan recommends that governments invest in technological development to promote alternatives to coal and oil in transportation and power.
Regardless of the strategy you choose, your goal is to give your reader a sense of the overall debate. To do that, you will have to synthesize the information. Summarize the viewpoints. While summarizing these viewpoints, also map the controversy. Show how the viewpoints relate to one another, and how they fit together into a larger debate.