Saturday, August 29, 2009
Edward Shorter's Manipulation
After reading and discussing Edward Shorter’s “Middle Class Anxiety in the German Revolution of 1848” I found it hard to ignore the devious and clever manipulation Shorter uses in proving one of his main theses. Shorter, “attempt[ing] to modify existing scholarship,” proposes that “the principle source of unrest [was] not the docile lower classes but the disaffected middle classes.” After discussing the role that student organizations and educated liberals played in the revolution, as well as the loyal sentiments of the more conservative lower classes, the thesis is likely valid. Shorter however, opting against painting a portrait of the role these groups played in the events leading up to the revolution, decides instead to base the entirety of his argument on one source, Bavarian King Maximillian’s “royal essay contest” of 1848. The question in its translated entirety reads, “Through what means can the material distress of the population of Germany and especially of Bavaria be most purposefully and lastingly alleviated?” Trying to manipulate the question in favor of his thesis, Shorter rewords this question one paragraph later as “what has caused the poverty of the lower classes?” Shorter then pretends to act surprised when the six-hundred and fifty-six essay responses hardly discuss the lower classes. Instead, the responses “bear on the problems of the writers themselves, rather than upon those of the lower classes alone.” Shorter acts as if this failure to address the lower classes is a problem. But why would the middle classes – generally the ones writing these responses – write about the lower classes when the essay prompt explicitly asks about the general “material distress of the population,” not the material distress of the lower classes? Obviously, if the question did explicitly ask for opinions concerning the problems of the lower classes, then the responses would likely reflect the prompt. To put it bluntly, Shorter acts surprised that the answers answered the question. With this clear manipulation, it is hard to justify the rest of his argument – that because the essays reflect only middle class problems, the middle class are the “principle source of unrest.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While I agree that Shorter's argument has several holes, one only needs to look at the title to see what Shorter's overarching goal is here. He is trying to articulate an argument about the anxieties of the middle class, those who, as he puts it, are independent, land-owners. 656 somewhat intelligent individuals, such as teachers and unemployed lawyers, responded to this essay contest. This article is not about the lower classes and what they were upset about, just like it is not about the elite, upper class and what percieved problems they were facing. So it stands to reason that Shorter would "cleverly manipulate" the information to prove his thesis concerning the issues and complaints of the middle class.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree that Shorter uses Maximilian's essay contest extensively, and as you pointed out exclusively, I have to say that there is a reason to his decision. Most of the essays were written by the middle class, correct? Then it would stand that he would use as many pieces of evidence as possible. In fact the argument could be made that he is using not one piece of evidence but 656 pieces of evidence. Does Shorter "cleverly manipulate" the information. Maybe. But isn't that what an idea is? A thesis with information that backs up what is being argued.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ruari. Perhaps the reason for this is because I am a literal person. When I see what the question for the essay contest states, it is clear that the manner in which Shorter proceeds with his argument is not in agreement with that question. I would have given Shorter more credit if had taken that variation and proved his thesis, but again I do not believe he did. As I wrote in my blog about Shorter, he uses multiple manipulations, word play, and arguable definitions of what constitutes middle-class to make his argument stronger. I usually read any definition in a history essay as a huge caution sign that an author is trying to fit critical information, to his argument, that does not belong.
ReplyDeleteI am intrigued by how people seem to be responding to Shorter's argument. Certainly, I think his claim for the universality of his sources is lacking (a weakness he himself acknowledges and tries to counter) but I'm not sure that I agree with Ryan's comment that Shorter is trying to fit things into his argument through his definition of the missle class. I would also ask if the fact that Shorter expresses 'surprise' at the responses invalidates how he uses the evidence. I see your point and I think it is perceptive that you not how he 'rewords' the essay question in a particular way but does that invalidate the points he wants to make using those essays?
ReplyDelete