Introductions

-- Valerie Ross Introductions set our readers expectations, secure their goodwill, and prepare them for the proposition. They must also, subtly or explicitly, cohere the entire essay. To do this, introductions must have integrity, which is to say, they need to form a seamless whole with the remainder of the piece. There should be no division between the purpose, style, and tone of the opening lines and those that follow. To achieve this, the introduction needs to be written last . We cannot introduce that which does not yet exist. Young writers are taught to make their introductions catchy: dramatic, striking, emphatic, bodacious, bold, arresting, commanding! Catchy openings are a good exercise for the novice writer, compelling them to give real thought to their readers. For critical writers, however, catchy is a dangerous opening act. The contents of critical texts are seldom dramatic in the same fashion as the typical catchy opening, and such disjuncture will destroy the integrity of the piece. Jugglers and fire-breathers are a circuitous way to prepare actuaries for the nuances of risk management in the insurance industry. Gruesome details of serial murder are a lurid but unlikely preparation for a reasoned analysis of the insanity plea and, while plastic plays a big role in our lives, such a broad premise is a poor opening for an engineering report on the design of plastic injection molding equipment. The critical reader is disciplined, purposive, realistic. When he turns to a piece of critical writing, he is not seeking entertainment. He is reading with an eye toward advancing knowledge and solving problems. Most likely he has gone to some trouble to find the article or book. He is, in short, a motivated reader who doesnt need to be caught like a fish. He does need to be engaged, however, and he does want to know whether the text he is about to read will address his purpose for reading it. Introductions have a series of tasks: engage the reader set the readers expectations secure the readers goodwill prepare the reader for the proposition introduce the proposition As with all parts of the text, the introduction must be written for the reader: what does the reader know, what is his attitude toward the topic, what is his purpose in reading this? In turn, the introduction must be conscious of the writers goals and the content of the essay. Audiences and purposes differ. Authors of textbooks, instruction manuals, and parking tickets, for example, do not have to work hard to engage their readers. They have captive audiences. Scholars and professionals do not have captive audiences, but they do have specialized audiences, so they are able to take certain things for granted, such as a relatively committed reader. Students have a peculiar position as authors, for their audience is captive and specialized. The teacher has assigned and must read their work. However, the teachers goals for reading a students paper are quite different from that of an ordinary critical reader. It is no surprise that students always want to know, What should

be in this paper? Despite that this question frustrates professors, the fact of the matter is that students are filling an order, not writing to an audience who expects to learn from an expert. If instructors wanted to learn about the topic, theyd spend their time reading work by experts. Students must thus negotiate a treacherous terrain in which they are meant to sound like experts in short order while of course being novices to the field, the topic, the conventions of writing, and the audience. But do not despair. Practice the rhetoric of reasoning you are being taught in this seminar, and follow the synthesis and research techniques you will be taught in the second half of the seminar, and your professors will be pleased with your work. Of course, we should try to engage our readers, even if they are captives. To the extent possible, use your title and opening lines to capture your readers attention and draw him into your world, where your aim is to fill his mind with your ideas and work to change his understanding or disposition. The million dollar question, as ever, is: What is your readers state of mind as he glances at your title and peruses your introduction? News stories provide a fine illustration of the challenges of attracting an audience given that their task is to deliver information, most of it hardly sensational. The newspaper reader is a generalist with limited time and no particular motive for reading the paper beyond perhaps catching up on a few points of interest and finding out whats new. She likely has many things on her mind as she opens her morning paper, which greets her with a cacophony of competing headlines. A recent New York Times story by Pamela Paul provides a good illustration. Her title, By Her Support, Does She Earn His Infidelity? is something of a teaser. Its topic isnt altogether clear, but it does strike the chords of a popular theme in American culture: money and betrayal. Paul opens with what is called a soft leadcolorful and dramatic: Heres a useful nugget for misogynists and man-haters alike: The more a man depends on his female partners paycheck, the better the chances he will cheat. Having multiple sex partners may be an attempt to compensate for feelings of inadequacy, suggests a paper presented at the 105th annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in August. The study looked at 18-to-28 year-old-married and co-habitating heterosexuals who had been in the same relationship for at least a year. Data was culled from the continuing National Longitudinal Survey of Youth begun in 1997. Despite the breezy tone and loaded languagemisogynists and man-hatersPauls opening paragraph offers a solid, substantive proposition, engaging the reader, preparing her for the contents, and honoring journalisms demanding inverted pyramid form by beginning with a story summary in 20 to 30 words. The second paragraph has a marked shift in style and tone. Pauls language is now straightforward, neutralin fact, scholarly--as she restates her lead, adding new details, in keeping with the journalistic form. Why did Paul choose to open with a soft, rather than conventional lead? Some argue that the more tabloid-like voice of the soft lead weakens the credibility of journalism, while others argue that

the soft lead gives news stories a more literary, engaging voice. Perhaps Paul, or her editor, decided that the soft lead in this instance was preferable because her story is not conventionally newsworthy or urgent. Scholarly studies are not known for grabbing the attention of general audiences. In any event, such consideration shows how even in journalism, where grabbing the attention of a generalist reader is paramount, catchy openings are a subject of debate. In contrast to the news story, which grapples with the exigencies of such audiences, scholarly authorsincluding students writing academic papersaddress a specialized audience. Specialized audiences read titles and introductions to discover, as quickly as possible, whether the article is relevant to their needs and interests (or, in the case of professors, to see if the students paper addresses the assignment). Such readers are already psychologically disposed and intellectually prepared to read about the topic. The introduction, in these instances, should get immediately to the business of securing their goodwill and preparing them for whats ahead, filling them in on what they need to know to get oriented, rather like a colleague or friend might prepare us for an upcoming meeting, speech, or confrontation. Philosophers Peter Singer and Tom Regan provide a good example of a productive introduction with their article, All Animals Are Equal. Like Paul, these scholars have taken up a controversial topic and would probably like to reach a general audience. Unlike Paul, they do not have to bob in a sea of titles clamoring for their readers attention. Nobody is likely to read their article unless they already have an interest in the topic and have picked up the book that contains it. Singer and Paul opt for a title that clearly encapsulates their proposition: All animals are equal. This strategy sets the readers expectation about the topic, position, and style of presentation. The reader will continue not because she has been lured by a charming voice or an exciting story, but rather because she is interested in learning more about how and why Singer and Regan regard animals as equal: All Animals Are Equal In recent years a number of oppressed groups have campaigned vigorously for equality. The classic instance is the Black Liberation movement, which demands an end to the prejudice and discrimination that has made blacks second-class citizens. The immediate appeal of the black liberation movement and its initial, if limited, success made it a model for other oppressed groups to follow. We became familiar with liberation movements for Spanish-Americans, gay people, and a variety of other minorities. When a majority groupwomenbegan their campaign, some thought we had come to the end of the road. Discrimination on the basis of sex, it has been said, is the last universally accepted form of discrimination, practiced without secrecy or pretense even in those liberal circles that have long prided themselves on their freedom from prejudice against racial minorities. One should always be wary of talking of "the last remaining form of discrimination." If we have learnt anything from the liberation movements, we should have learnt how difficult it is to be aware of latent prejudice in our attitudes to particular groups until this prejudice is forcefully pointed out.

A liberation movement demands an expansion of our moral horizons and an extension or reinterpretation of the basic moral principle of equality. Practices that were previously regarded as natural and inevitable come to be seen as the result of an unjustifiable prejudice. Who can say with confidence that all his or her attitudes and practices are beyond criticism? If we wish to avoid being numbered amongst the oppressors, we must be prepared to re-think even our most fundamental attitudes. We need to consider them from the point of view of those most disadvantaged by our attitudes, and the practices that follow from these attitudes. If we can make this unaccustomed mental switch we may discover a pattern in our attitudes and practices that consistently operates so as to benefit one groupusually the one to which we ourselves belongat the expense of another. In this way we may come to see that there is a case for a new liberation movement. My aim is to advocate that we make this mental switch in respect of our attitudes and practices towards a very large group of beings: members of species other than our ownor, as we popularly though misleadingly call them, animals. In other words, I am urging that we extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species. Like the title, the opening line is plain and straightforward: In recent years a number of oppressed groups have campaigned vigorously for equality. The authors waste no time reaching for common ground. They state a fact (a universal premise) that is quite close to their proposition. Properly chosen, the opening premise will prepare the reader, logically and emotionally, to entertain the proposition. If their reader is indisposed to rights for marginalized people, she is likely to stop reading at this point, or she may continue but with the mindset of refutation, which means they have likely lost her, for the task of the critical writer is to engage the reader and fill her mind with reasons and explanations that lead her inexorably to agree with or grasp the proposition. Depending upon the writers ambition and intended audience, losing a few readers over the course of an argument is to be expected; picking up some readers who wish to refute what we have to say is generally welcome, if it is reasoned refutation, for it advances our understanding. Controversial topics have a complicated relationship to audience. Writers must accept that that they are unlikely to persuade everyone right out of the box. In fact, changing peoples views about a significant issue is wisely done in stages, moving audiences from one premise to the next and, more importantly, targeting individual audiences with particular concerns and interests. Obviously, owners of meat processing plants and scientists who engage in animal experimentation have different interests related to animal rights than do vegetarians or people engaged in animal rescue. A knowledgeable rhetor is going to aim, one at a time, at such audiences rather than attempt to reach them all, scattershot. It is worth noting, and a matter of concern, that with the internet now making such individualized arguments available to unintended global audiences, a fundamental means for building consensus has been lost. Along with establishing the premise and suggesting the type of audience being addressed, Singers opening sentence also anchors the reader temporally. The reader will anticipate a discussion of recent events and arguments, not an historical overview of animal rights. In addition, the opening statement forecasts the logical structure of the entire piece: an equivalence between animal and human rights. Thus in a title and a single sentence, Singer and Regan have already acquitted most of the

responsibilities of introduction. They have set expectations, secured adherence, and provided a coherent framework for what will follow. At this point, the job of the journalist and the scholar converges. Both will seek to orient and condition the readers mind as quickly as possible. No meandering, no tangents, no tarrying in the field of overgeneralizations: everything in the opening directly illuminates and moves the reader toward a better grasp of the proposition. In contrast, the novice writer typically opens with such a looselyrelated anecdote or broad premise that the reader, instead of moving seamlessly from opening lines to proposition, feels as if she has fallen off a cliff and been caught, midway through her downward plunge, by a jutting branch, where she will dangle for the duration. Pauls job as a news journalist is explanatory: she is not going to persuade her readers that women should earn less than men, or men should learn how to be faithful to women who earn more than they. Her task is to engage a general audiences interest and present them with the findings of a scholarly study. She makes good quick work of it. Singer and Regan have a bigger row to hoe. Their task is justificatory. Their goal is to change their readers understanding and indeed way of life, and they have chosen to do this through the rhetoric of reasoning. Had they chosen to open with a heart-rending story of animal abuse, they would have immediately created a significant disjuncture between opening and essay in terms of style and approach. Such disjunctions can have calamitous effects. Along with being a clumsy guide to ones own work, the incoherent introduction may actually contradict the arguments later made, rendering your argument illogical and easy to refute. More important, any argument worth having must begin in agreement and with goodwill. If you open with stories or statements that put off your readers or raise objections or questions, you have squandered the goodwill of your reader, and jeopardized your credibility. In this instance of animals rights, what might seem like a catchy story would actually have been, for most readers, a clich. For the most part, our first stabs at an introduction are the worst; they are generally the most obvious and uninventive. Nearly everybody these days has encountered hair-raising tales of animal abuse. If these stories havent already moved us, there is no reason to think that another one will do so now. Once a rhetorical strategy becomes this clich, the writer needs to put on his thinking cap and come up with something new. Writers who seriously seek change must attend carefully to the overly familiar, and continuously adapt their strategies to the knowledge and state of mind of their audiences. Singer and Regan have chosen a superb premise with which to launch their argument. Few readers will contest the validity of human rights. The first paragraph thus creates solidarity between the writers and most readers, who join in in opposition to the oppression of human beings. The second paragraph builds upon this premise by adding another, this one steeped in the concrete of social relations values, as well: the importance of being open and sensitive to future instances of injustice: again, who could argue with that? The third paragraphs premise now builds upon the last and seeks yet another modest agreement that we should continue to improve that which we agree needs improvement. This sequence of linked premises, aimed at an audience likely to accept all of them, joins the reader with the authors in a series of logical moves. We are now psychologically and intellectually prepared to entertain their proposition, which they restate and refine:

In other words, I am urging that we extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species. Each discipline and profession has its own way of introducing its propositions, though all are charged with the same basic tasks. Some disciplines and professions, such as the sciences and engineering, have highly formalized rules for introducing, including a relatively uniform notion of length, content, and voice and a subject header that plainly states: Introduction. Others, such as history, literature, and anthropology, may be rather free-wheeling. All fulfill the same function, however. Once you understand this, your best way to get a handle on the conventions of the discipline or publication for which you intend to write is to study a few published examples, just as a professional writer would do, and just as we are doing here and you are likely doing in your seminar. Rough out a quick says/does outlinein fact, just a does outline will do the trick--of two or three examples and synthesize these into a general pattern. For example: The introductions in this field always open with a playful title and then a serious subtitle separated by a colon; the title announces the proposition. The first paragraph is typically a story of personal experience that links to the proposition implicitly. The second paragraph states the main premise and quotes two or three experts in the field supporting the premise. Doing this will create your very own blueprint tailored to your assignment, whether you have graduated from college and are now working for a company that has asked you to write a business report, or a student in an unfamiliar discipline (theyre all unfamiliar at first!). If you note variations across the samples, all the better. These are additional tools to add to your writing toolbox, variations on the patterns. Here are some strategies critical writers may use in their introductions: Provide a premise, or series of premises, to establish common ground with your readers and prepare them for the proposition Summarize the text you will be discussing Describe the problem you are setting out to address Introduce an argument against your proposition Define a key term that will help readers grasp your proposition Provide some historical background leading up to the proposition Tell a story or describe a person, place, thing, event, or situation that will prepare the reader for the proposition. Provide a brief overview of other points of view or writings on the topic Quote an authority on the topic who supports, or refutes, your proposition

Its important, however, not to simply grab a strategy and run with it. The best strategy is to know who your reader is, what your proposition is and how you have presented it. Study the conventions in your field and imagine your readers state of mind, knowledge, attitude and purpose as she turns to your text. Consider how to bring her into your world, how to capture her imagination and goodwill, how to meet her at the premise nearest to your proposition. Ask yourself a few questions: How is she going to feel about your proposition? What does she already know and believe about it? Why has she

chosen to read your work? What is she going to be encountering ahead? Of course, these are mostly questions that you have been addressing with each chunk of reasoning, each building block, you have been creating. But now, in the introduction, it is time to renew your acquaintance and consider the reader who has yet to meet you and your reasoning. With such sturdy, thoughtful construction, your reader cant help but take you seriously.