“Strong reading”
“Strong reading” is defined as an ability to read in
both, “With the grain” and “Against the grain.” This basically means as a
reader we have to use a combination of both to fully understand what the text
might be stating, which is supposed to be used as a tool for finding knowledge and
creating arguments.
“With the grain”
Reading with the grain means that as a reader you
see everything from the author’s perspective by supporting their main viewpoint’s
and arguments.
I read “with the grain” when it comes to articles
that talk about politics. Since I find myself to be biased on some issues I usually
go for articles that reinforce my reasoning. I connect the author’s ideas through my own argument
and by doing so I usually find myself listening to the authors reasoning without
identifying anything he/she may say that maybe inaccurate. I guess I just go
along reading and accept what the authors have to say because I’ve done this
for so long. It’s very difficult to change
when I have certain biases that cause me to be somewhat blinded, but I’m
gradually trying to develop into a good reader that reads “with the grain” and “against
the grain”.
“Against the grain”
Reading “against the grain” is the total opposite
from reading “with the grain” because it entails questioning the author’s
ideas. Instead of withholding judgment, reading against the grain means the
reader is more critical towards the author by pointing out what is wrong with the
authors reasoning.
Its easier to read "against the grain" when something goes against your personal beliefs. What's a lot of fun as well as useful as a thinker is to try and read with the grain when someone goes against your own personal beliefs and--even harder--is to read against the grain when they argue for them.
ReplyDeleteWhen you read political articles and do not challenge the article's argument or mode of presentation because you agree with them, you allow yourself to get wrapped up in your own point of view. Don't get me wrong, I read articles that side with my own point of view (such as the Jason Fitzgerald one on 'Occupy'), but I also think it is necessary to try and challenge my own prejudices. This is the beauty of critical thinking.
PS: Interestingly enough, Malcolm X began to rescind his emphasis on violence later in his life, leaving the Nation of Islam (the kind of militant group) and converting to Islam.
It's also useful to remember that the book was called Malcolm X's autobiography, so when could argue that his opinions on violence and segregation were more a "reporting" than of arguing. And, once again, as I said above, X himself must have become disillusioned with his own misguided views on violence and segregation.
Great examples!