Page 114 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 114
four critical essays on argumentation
to women, so that they could have the same education as the men on the
photo.’
The remaining 3 (11,5%) couldn’t decide.
Group 2
Two of the respondents (28,6%) saw the poster as a parody (one of them
as originating from students, the other as emphasizing the contradiction:
more and more women at universities, while most of the leading positions
are still in the hands of men).
One of the respondents (14,3%) saw the poster as sexist, one of them as
protest (against inequality), and another one as an effort to promote equal-
ity through contradiction.
One of the respondents saw the poster as failed advertisement for the
university (failed because it was, according to the respondent, conveying
the message that at UvA men work also for women).
Only one respondent saw the poster as calling more women to enrol,
but added, ‘especially in the fields where traditional patterns are dominant’.
Group 3
Out of only three answers, one of them 33,3) saw the poster as a joke, the
other one as pointing to the problems (in the society), and the third one
couldn’t tell.
The discussion
It is quite obvious from the answers that the poster does not present the
argument:
P
↓
C
where the premise P is the (visual) statement that ‘The University of
Amsterdam’s three chief administrators are all men’ and C is the conclu-
sion that ‘The University needs more women’ (Groarke 1996: 111). P and C
could have been, even should have been, formulated quite differently, in
many different ways and versions, and the possibilities of starting from dif-
ferent starting points should have been considered in interpretation (as rhi-
zome theory (Deleuze, Guattari 2005) and superdiversity theory (Vertovec
2007; Blommaert, Rampton 2011) convincingly show), while the arrow
114
to women, so that they could have the same education as the men on the
photo.’
The remaining 3 (11,5%) couldn’t decide.
Group 2
Two of the respondents (28,6%) saw the poster as a parody (one of them
as originating from students, the other as emphasizing the contradiction:
more and more women at universities, while most of the leading positions
are still in the hands of men).
One of the respondents (14,3%) saw the poster as sexist, one of them as
protest (against inequality), and another one as an effort to promote equal-
ity through contradiction.
One of the respondents saw the poster as failed advertisement for the
university (failed because it was, according to the respondent, conveying
the message that at UvA men work also for women).
Only one respondent saw the poster as calling more women to enrol,
but added, ‘especially in the fields where traditional patterns are dominant’.
Group 3
Out of only three answers, one of them 33,3) saw the poster as a joke, the
other one as pointing to the problems (in the society), and the third one
couldn’t tell.
The discussion
It is quite obvious from the answers that the poster does not present the
argument:
P
↓
C
where the premise P is the (visual) statement that ‘The University of
Amsterdam’s three chief administrators are all men’ and C is the conclu-
sion that ‘The University needs more women’ (Groarke 1996: 111). P and C
could have been, even should have been, formulated quite differently, in
many different ways and versions, and the possibilities of starting from dif-
ferent starting points should have been considered in interpretation (as rhi-
zome theory (Deleuze, Guattari 2005) and superdiversity theory (Vertovec
2007; Blommaert, Rampton 2011) convincingly show), while the arrow
114
