Understanding The Meaning Of A Cultural Value In Persuasion

Understanding the Meaning of a Cultural Value in Persuasive Writing

The first major assignment in COMM 100W involved writing a paper consisting entirely of statements of fact. The second major assignment expands this focus to include statements of fact but emphasizes establishing the meaning of a word that cannot be empirically verified, particularly a cultural value or key term. This task requires defending a specific interpretation of a word such as "freedom," "happiness," or "security," contrasting it with other possible meanings. The purpose is to persuade the reader of your credible, well-researched definition and demonstrate why this meaning is significant for social or decision-making purposes.

The assignment aims to improve persuasive writing skills by defining cultural values in ways that resonate with readers and influence social discourse. To do this effectively, you must identify an instance in a document, broadcast, or conversation where the meaning of a word is debatable and where your interpretation differs from that used by others. This should not be a misuse of terminology but rather a disagreement about the evaluative meaning or application of a particular term. Your thesis should articulate why disputing this meaning matters—what implications it holds for understanding or action.

Following your introduction, you will present research to support your preferred interpretation. This involves consulting authoritative sources such as dictionaries, etymologies, and usage examples from diverse contexts, including academic, legal, medical, linguistic, or cultural sources. You may also show how the term is used by different groups, its translation into other languages, or define related concepts to clarify your interpretation. The goal is to establish a clear precedent for your meaning, illustrating its appropriateness and utility compared to other interpretations.

Finally, your paper should conclude by summarizing your main argument, restating your thesis, and emphasizing the impact of adopting your definition of the word. You should include at least seven references from credible sources, properly citing them in APA or MLA style, and ensure your paper is approximately 1500 words, double-spaced, with one-inch margins, Times New Roman 12-point font, and no title page, only your name, semester, and assignment at the top of the first page.

Paper For Above instruction

In contemporary society, the meaning of "freedom" remains a subject of intense debate, reflecting varying cultural, political, and personal perspectives. A common discourse presents "freedom" as an individual's unrestricted ability to act without interference. However, this narrow interpretation often neglects the social responsibilities and contextual limitations that shape true freedom. I argue that "freedom" should be defined as a balance between individual autonomy and social responsibility, where personal liberty is exercised within the bounds of societal well-being.

This reinterpretation is essential because the prevalent definition fosters a misunderstanding of rights and duties, often leading to social discord. For instance, the emphasis on absolute freedom in political discourse can undermine social cohesion, as it neglects the collective interests critical for community stability. By redefining "freedom" as encompassing social responsibility, society can foster a more nuanced understanding that encourages both individual rights and civic duties. Historical and legal precedents support this balanced view; laws limiting certain freedoms are justified to protect others, such as regulations against violence or fraud (Dworkin, 1986; Rawls, 1971).

The etymology of "freedom" traces back to Old English "freodom," meaning a state of free will and absence of bondage. Over time, the concept evolved to embody not just personal liberation but also a social construct influenced by cultural values. Many societies, particularly in Western traditions, have conflated freedom with independence, emphasizing self-reliance and minimal state intervention. But this perspective overlooks the importance of social interdependence. For example, in collectivist cultures, "freedom" emphasizes social harmony and the ability to participate meaningfully in community life (Taylor, 1994).

Research indicates that defining "freedom" within a social responsibility framework aligns better with democratic principles and human rights. According to Sen (1999), freedom entails the capacity to pursue valued goals within a social context, recognizing constraints such as poverty, discrimination, and social obligations. Furthermore, defining "freedom" as a balanced concept can influence policy-making, encouraging laws and regulations that protect individual rights while ensuring societal stability (Nussbaum, 2000).

Adopting this balanced interpretation can reshape social action and decision-making, encouraging citizens to practice mutual respect and cooperation. For instance, debates over free speech often oscillate between absolute discretion and restrictions aimed at preventing harm. Recognizing "freedom" as a shared social value helps guide more ethical policies that safeguard individual expression without compromising societal safety (Baxi, 2002). In this way, a broader understanding of "freedom" promotes more inclusive and sustainable social systems.

In conclusion, redefining "freedom" as a dynamic interplay between individual liberty and social responsibility offers a more comprehensive and constructive framework for understanding this vital cultural value. This interpretation underscores that true freedom entails responsibilities that safeguard collective interests, fostering social cohesion and justice. Emphasizing this balanced view can lead to more effective policies, societal harmony, and a deeper appreciation of our interconnected lived experiences.

References

• Baxi, U. (2002). The Future of Justice: Social and Political Perspectives. Oxford University Press.
• Dworkin, R. (1986). Law’s Empire. Belknap Press.
• Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge University Press.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Alfred A. Knopf.
• Taylor, C. (1994). Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton University Press.