Writing Analytically, 6th Edition - Rosenwasser, David & Stephen, Jill [106]
COMPARISON/CONTRAST
Although comparison/contrast is meant to invite analysis, it is too often treated as an end in itself. The fundamental reason for comparing and contrasting is that you can usually discover ideas about a subject much more easily when you are not viewing it in isolation. When executed mechanically, however, without the writer pressing to understand the significance of a similarity or difference, comparison/contrast can suffer from pointlessness. The telltale sign of this problem is the formulaic sentence beginning, “Thus we see there are many similarities and differences between X and Y”—as “chaos” and “cream cheese” might fit that formula (both begin with the letter “c”).
Comparison/contrast topics produce pointless essays if you allow them to turn into matching exercises—that is, if you match common features of two subjects but don’t get beyond the equation stage (a, b, c = x, y, z). Writers fall into this trap when they have no larger question or issue to explore and perhaps resolve by making the comparison. If, for example, you were to pursue the comparison of the representations of the Boston Tea Party in British and American history textbooks, you would begin by identifying similarities and differences. But simply presenting these and concluding that the two versions resemble and differ from each other in some ways would be pointless. You would need to press your comparisons with the So what? question (see Chapter 2) in order to give them some interpretive weight.
Strategies for Making Comparison/Contrast More Analytical
Strategy 1: Argue for the significance of a key comparison. Rather than simply covering a range of comparisons, focus on a key comparison. Although narrowing the focus might seem to eliminate other important areas of consideration, it usually allows you to incorporate at least some of these other areas in a more tightly connected, less list-like fashion. So, for example, a comparison of the burial rites of two cultures will probably reveal more about them than a much broader but more superficial list of cultural similarities and differences. In the majority of cases, covering less is covering more.
You can determine which comparison is key by ranking—designating one part of your topic as especially important or revealing. Suppose you are asked to compare General David Petraeus’s strategy in the current Afghanistan conflict with General Douglas MacArthur’s strategy in World War II. As a first move, you could limit the comparison to some revealing parallel, such as the way each man dealt with the media, and then argue for its significance above other similarities or differences. You might, for instance, claim that in their treatment of the media, we get an especially clear or telling vantage point on the two generals’ strategies. At this point, you are on your way to an analytical point—for example, that because MacArthur was more effectively shielded from the media at a time when the media was a virtual instrument of propaganda, he could make choices that Petraeus might have wanted to make but could not.
Strategy 2: Use one side of the comparison to illuminate the other. Usually, it is not necessary to treat each part of the comparison equally. It’s a common misconception that each side must be given equal space. In fact, the purpose of your comparison governs the amount of space you’ll need to give to each part. Often, you will use one side of the comparison primarily to illuminate the other. For example, in a course on contemporary military policy, the ratio between the two parts would probably be roughly 70 percent on Petraeus to 30 percent on MacArthur rather than 50 percent on each.
Strategy 3: Imagine how one side of your comparison might respond to the other. This strategy, a variant of the preceding one, is a particularly useful way of helping you to respond to comparison/contrast topics more purposefully. This strategy can be adapted