Answer to a Question

Someone asked why there was a need to write a thesis statement for an argument. After acknowledging that "the thesis statement will form the fundamentals of (an) argument", he goes on to argue that "this is still not a strong argument,... there must be other reasons that will make us write our own thesis statements instead of just writing a response towards the author's thesis statement."

In closing he hopes to be enlightended "on the meaning behind writing ... thesis statements," so that he will be "able to appreciate it." The person goes on to belittle what he learnt. In his own words, "What I am doing now is like following the 'rulebook' that you gave me which I believe I won't be able to learn (sic) beyond the semester. I hope you can help me appreciate writing my own thesis statements."

If this person wishes to impress me by showing that he is a thinking student, then I cannot be more disappointed. To denigrate the importance of the thesis statement to an argument is akin to saying that the foundation of a skyscraper plays no role in holding the building up.

Sure, writing a thesis statement is difficult. Trust me - Singaporeans do not dare to articulate anything that requires them to take a stand. Fence-sitting is our secret past time. That's why human kebabs are what we have. With the big wooden fence stake up their ass, many Singaporeans are stuffed anally. They bitch and complain about the pain but if we tell them to tell me what is exactly they are unhappy about so as to relieve themselves of the stake up their asses, they clam up and say nothing or they literally say "nothing". After growing up in an environment where taking a stand is all frowned upon - trust me, for argumentative compositions in secondary school, teachers still insist on making an ambivalent statement and argue on "both sides of the question" - there finally comes a time when taking a stand is necessary. The first thing many writing teachers have to fight is to teach students to take a stand, and not argue for both sides. (After they can write theses, we take the fight to making them write topic sentences. That'll be another entry, if another question erupts.)

I reproduce my full email reply below:

If I want a summary, I can write my own. If you want to criticise the author, you need to state your boundary and tell me the yardstick against which you are measuring the author before you can criticise him/her. Even then, you still need to explain to me what exactly is wrong with the author's argument, based on your main claim/thesis. For example, I can't possibly throw you out of class for long hair if the university does not have a policy that says "male students with long hair may be barred from class." If the uni has such a policy, you can certainly then test the university's policy (main claim and thesis) and see if they back up their thesis with evidence (i.e. throw you out of class and ban you from returning until your hair is cut). But there is no way the university can do anything to you if they do *not* state upfront their stand/thesis on long hair. One typically can't fight with one's shadow or argue with one's echo.

When there is one reading, it may not seem important that you come up with a thesis to guide your analysis of the article. But if you do not have a new position/view/argument to present on the reading you have done, you will be doing a mere article review. For instance, I can read Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and write a review, telling you what the story is about. Then that review is a mere summary retelling me the story.

But if I argue that Snow White is about the triumph of good (White) over evil (Black), then this is a new perspective that I derive from my reading and I need to defend it. For instance, apart from the fact that SW is fair, there are the seven dwarfs working in the deep dark woods - they are expectedly doing work there and one can argue that they are therefore "reducing the dark parts" of the woods. Extending, these little unsung heroes are slowly chipping away at "evil" and such work is likely to be hard and slow, especially given their small stature. By extension, I would argue that evil is slowly chipped away in a slow and protracted process. Of course, the white knight on the white horse can be another piece of evidence I quote for my argument. Now, can you see the difference between a mere review and an analytical read?

Now, if you read 2 or more readings, then what can you do after reading them? Surely, your readings must lead you to some kind of new insight and perspective. Having the ability to form a point of view separates us from primates, and we develop points of view not just for reading, but for most intellectual activities. For instance, after watching two movies, you may want to compare the underlying themes and make a fresh argument about them. What argument can you come up with after you watch, say, "Iron Man" and "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"? You can't possibly write me a piece about the two movies where you just give me their plot summaries. Surely, you must have a new perspective. For one, I would argue that "an irony that movie entertainment seems to promote today is the use of violence as an answer to violence." That would be my TS. Someone may argue that "the act of vanquishing evil usually requires the good to resort to the same means as their opponents, thereby making good and evil largely undistinguishable" and have a different TS. Each different perspective adds to the overall picture for anyone interested to know what separates the two movies and how some viewers analyse the same shows.

In any academic pursuit, the thesis statement forms the basis of the argument. In math and sciences, you have laws and theorems that you prove (a form of argumentation) either by theoretical construction (e.g. in Math and some sciences) or experiments and trials (physics, chemistry). Thesis statements therefore can come in many guises but they essentially say the same thing. Yet, they are and can be proven differently, each proof being as good as the other. The Pythagoras' theorem, for instance, has more than 100 proofs (arguments), and all are valid. In this regard, there is no such thing as a "fixed" thesis in science and math, nor are there unique proofs/arguments.

The same observation may be said of theses and proofs in the non-science disciplines, there are many ways of making a case, mostly by alluding to evidence which are in the written or spoken form. Such arguments require interpretation and are considered indirect arguments. Even if you were to let everyone watch Ironman and Transformers and then give everyone the same TS to work on for their essay, you will get as many different essays as there are people. But if well taken, each and every argument is valid.

The thesis statement undergirds the job that you want to do and projects your intended outcome. For example, you cannot make a presentation on a business plan without telling people what your plan will achieve. No one is interested to know what you propose to do unless you tell them first what you can achieve; what your business plan intends achieves is your business thesis statement aka business proposition (yet another fancy name for the same concept). e.g. "Adopting double sided printing for notes to be given out to students will save an office up to 30% in printing costs, mostly accrued from saving extra paper."

Writing basic responses to a reading without making any constructive arguments on how to improve the reading is more similar to the work done in primary schools. That's when basic book reviews were taught. At university level, many basic skills you learn may not seem useful (to you) beyond the course; if it were indeed the case, the course where the skill is taught would have long been withdrawn.