discursive essay about art

Verify originality of an essay

Get ideas for your paper

Find top study documents

How to write a discursive essay: step-by-step guideline

Updated 17 Apr 2024

Many students struggle with discursive writing as it can be tricky. It’s hard to manage different opinions and create a well-organized argument, leaving learners feeling unsure. In this article, we want to make creating discursive essays less confusing by giving helpful tips. If you grasp the essential information and follow our advice, you can tackle the challenges of this essay style and learn how to express convincing and well-thought-out ideas. Come with us as we explore the basic dos and don’ts for making successful writing.

What is a discursive essay? 

This type of academic writing explores and presents various perspectives on a particular topic or issue. Unlike an argumentative essay, where the author takes a clear stance on the subject, discursive writing aims to provide a balanced and nuanced discussion of different viewpoints. What is the discursive essay meaning? The first word implies a conversation or discussion. So, the text encourages an exploration of diverse opinions and arguments.

This homework, commonly assigned in higher academia, serves various purposes:

• Students analyze diverse perspectives, fostering critical thinking as they weigh different viewpoints before forming a conclusion.
• Such essays involve thorough research, requiring students to synthesize information from various sources and present a comprehensive understanding of the topic.
• When struggling with how to write my essay for me , students develop their communication skills as they should express complex ideas clearly and coherently, creating smooth transitions between arguments.
• While not demanding a fixed stance, discursive papers require persuasive writing skills. The authors present each perspective convincingly, regardless of personal endorsement.
• Encouraging an appreciation for the issue’s complexity, the essays promote tolerance for diverse opinions.

In summary, these papers contribute to developing analytical, research, and communication skills, preparing students for nuanced engagement with complex topics in academic and professional settings.

What is the difference between discursive and argumentative essays?

While these documents may exhibit certain similarities, it’s crucial to underscore the notable distinctions that characterize them, delineating their unique objectives and methodologies. 

Discursive essays

• Objective presentation: A five paragraph essay of this type aims to provide a comprehensive discussion on a particular topic without necessarily taking a clear stance.
• Multiple perspectives: Writers explore different viewpoints, neutrally presenting arguments and counterarguments.
• Complexity: These essays often deal with complex issues, encouraging a nuanced understanding of the subject.
• Balanced tone and language: Such writing allows for a more open expression of different ideas using objective and formal language. 
• Flexible structure: These texts allow for a free-flowing topic analysis and may express numerous ideas in separate sections. 
• Conclusion: While a discursive essay example may express the writer's opinion, it doesn’t necessarily require a firm conclusion or a call to action.

Argumentative essays

• Clear stance: This type involves taking a specific position and defending it with strong, persuasive arguments.
• Focused argumentation: The primary goal is to convince the reader of the writer's position, providing compelling evidence and logical reasoning.
• Counterarguments: While an argumentative essay acknowledges opposing views, the focus is on refuting them to strengthen the writer’s position.
• Assertive tone: This type aims to present ideas from the writer’s perspective and convict the reader using evidence and reasoning.
• Rigid structure: These texts come with a clear structure with a distinct introduction, thesis statement, body paragraphs with arguments and reasoning, and a conclusion that highlights the author’s stance.
• Call to action or conclusion: Such papers often conclude with a clear summary of the arguments and may include a call to action or a statement of the writer’s position.

The key distinction lies in the intent: discursive texts foster a broader understanding by presenting multiple perspectives. At the same time, argumentative papers aim to persuade the reader to adopt a specific viewpoint through strong, focused arguments.

Save your time! We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Discursive writing types

When delving into discursive essay format, exploring three primary forms of writing is essential.

1. Opinion essay.

• In an opinion essay , your viewpoint on the discussed problem is crucial.
• State your opinion in the introduction, supported by examples and reasons.
• Present the opposing argument before the conclusion, explaining why you find it unconvincing.
• Summarize your important points in the conclusion.

2. Essay providing a solution to a problem.

• Focus on discussing an issue and proposing solutions.
• Introduce the issue at the beginning of the text.
• Detail possible solutions in separate body paragraphs.
• Summarize your opinion in the conclusion.

3. For and against essay.

• Write it as a debate with opposing opinions.
• Describe each viewpoint objectively, presenting facts.
• Set the stage for the problem in your discursive essay intro.
• Explore reasons, examples, and facts in the main body.
• Conclude with your opinion on the matter.

If you need professional writers' support when working on your homework, you may always pay for essay writing . Our experts can explain how to create different types of papers and suggest techniques to make them well-thought-out and compelling.

Discursive essay structure

Discover a concise outline that will help structure your thoughts and arguments, allowing for a comprehensive and articulate presentation of your ideas.

The length of the discursive introduction example and the number of body paragraphs can vary based on the topic's complexity and the text's required length. Additionally, adjust the outline according to specific assignment guidelines or your personal preferences.

10 steps to create an essay

Many students wonder how to write a discursive essay. With the following guidelines, you can easily complete it as if you were one of the professional essay writers for hire . Look at these effective steps and create your outstanding text. 

1. Choose an appropriate topic:

• Select a topic that sparks interest and is debatable. Ensure it is suitable for discursive examples with multiple viewpoints.

2. Brainstorm your ideas:

• Gather information from various sources to understand different perspectives on the chosen topic.
• Take notes on key arguments, evidence, and counterarguments.

3. Develop a clear thesis:

• Formulate a thesis statement that outlines your main idea. This could include your stance on the topic or a commitment to exploring various viewpoints.

4. Create a discursive essay outline:

• Structure your text with an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion.
• Outline the main points you want to cover in each section.

5. Write the introduction:

• Begin with a hook to grab the reader's attention.
• Provide background information on the topic.
• Clearly state your thesis or the purpose of the essay.

6. Create body paragraphs:

• Start each paragraph with a clear topic sentence.
• Present different perspectives on the topic in separate paragraphs.
• Support each perspective with relevant evidence and examples.
• Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each viewpoint.
• Use smooth transitions between paragraphs.

7. Suggest counterarguments:

• Devote a section to acknowledging and addressing counterarguments.
• Refute or explain why you find certain counterarguments unconvincing.

8. Write the conclusion:

• Summarize the main points discussed in the body paragraphs.
• Restate your thesis or the overall purpose of the essay.
• Provide a concise discursive essay conclusion, highlighting the significance of the topic.

9. Proofread and revise:

• Review your work for clarity, coherence, and logical flow.
• Check for grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors.
• Ensure that your arguments are well-supported and effectively presented.

10. Finalize and submit:

• Make any necessary revisions based on feedback or additional insights.
• Ensure every discursive sentence in your paper meets specific requirements provided by your instructor.
• Submit your well-crafted document.

Following these steps will help you produce a well-organized and thought-provoking text that effectively explores and discusses the chosen topic.

Dos and don’ts when completing a discursive essay

If you want more useful writing tips, consider the dos and don’ts to create an impactful and compelling text.

• Thorough research: Do conduct extensive research on the topic to gather a diverse range of perspectives and solid evidence. It will strengthen your discursive thesis statement and demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the subject.
• Clear structure: Do organize your essay with a clear introduction, body paragraphs that present different viewpoints, and a concise conclusion. Use a separate paragraph to introduce every point. This structure helps readers follow your argument effectively.
• Neutral tone: Do maintain a balanced tone and impersonal style throughout the essay. Avoid being overly emotional or biased, as the goal is to present a fair discussion of various perspectives.
• Critical analysis: Do critically analyze each perspective, highlighting strengths and weaknesses. Build your discursive thesis on trustworthy sources and make appropriate references following the rules of the required citation style. This showcases your critical thinking ability and contributes to a more nuanced discussion.
• Smooth transitions: Do use smooth transitions between paragraphs and arguments to create a cohesive flow. The use of linking phrases and words enhances the readability of your text and makes it easier for the reader to follow your line of reasoning.

Don’ts:

• Avoid biased language: Don’t use biased language or favor one perspective over another. Maintain an objective tone and present each viewpoint with equal consideration.
• Don’t oversimplify: Avoid oversimplifying complex issues. Acknowledge the nuances of the topic and provide a nuanced discussion that reflects a deep understanding of the subject matter.
• Steer clear of generalizations: Don’t make broad generalizations without supporting evidence. Ensure that relevant and credible sources back your arguments to strengthen your position.
• Don’t neglect counterarguments: Avoid neglecting counterarguments. Acknowledge opposing views and address them within your discursive essays. It adds credibility to your work and thoroughly examines the topic.
• Don’t be too personal : Avoid expressing your personal opinion too persistently, and don’t use examples from your individual experience. 
• Refrain from unsupported claims: Don’t make claims without supporting them with evidence. Substantiate your arguments with reliable sources and statistics with proper referencing to enhance the credibility of your document.

By adhering to these dos and don’ts, you’ll be better equipped to navigate the complexities of writing a discursive text and present a well-rounded and convincing discussion.

Final thoughts 

Mastering the art of writing a discursive essay is a valuable skill that equips students with critical thinking, research, and communication abilities. If your essay-writing journey is challenging, consider seeking assistance from EduBirdie, a trusted companion that guides students through the intricacies of these papers and helps them answer the question, “What is discursive writing?”. With our support, you can navigate the challenges of crafting a compelling and well-rounded discourse, ensuring success in your academic endeavors. Embrace the assistance of EduBirdie and elevate your writing experience to new heights.

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback.

Written by Steven Robinson

Steven Robinson is an academic writing expert with a degree in English literature. His expertise, patient approach, and support empower students to express ideas clearly. On EduBirdie's blog, he provides valuable writing guides on essays, research papers, and other intriguing topics. Enjoys chess in free time.

Related Blog Posts

Diversity essay: effective tips for expressing ideas.

In today's interconnected and rapidly evolving world, the importance of diversity in all its forms cannot be overstated. From classrooms to workpla...

Learn how to write a deductive essay that makes you proud!

Learning how to write a deductive essay may sound like a challenging task. Yet, things become much easier when you master the definition and the ob...

Learn how to write an extended essay correctly

This helpful article will provide all the necessary information to show you how to write an extended essay without mistakes. You will learn about a...

Join our 150K of happy users

• Get original papers written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

• Business Intelligence Assignment Help
• Lab Report Writing Service
• Nursing Assignment Help
• Buy Response Essay
• CPM Homework Answers
• Do My Chemistry Homework
• Buy Argumentative Essay
• Do Your Homework
• Biology Essay Writers
• Business Development Assignment Help
• Best Macroeconomics Assignment Help
• Best Financial Accounting Assignment Help
• PHP Assignment Help
• Science Assignment Help
• Audit Assignment Help 
• Perdisco Accounting Assignment Help
• Humanities Assignment Help
• Computer Network Assignment Help
• Arts and Architecture Assignment Help
• How it works

How to Write a Discursive Essay: Tips, Examples, and Structure

Calculate the price of your order:.

Mastering the Art of Writing a Discursive Essay

Table of contents.

Introduction

Understanding Discursive Essays

Discursive essay writing tips, discursive essay structure, examples of discursive essays, picking the right discursive essay topics, discursive essay format, crafting a strong discursive essay outline, writing an effective discursive essay introduction, nailing the discursive essay conclusion.

Welcome to our comprehensive guide on how to write a discursive essay effectively. If you’re unfamiliar with this type of essay or want to improve your skills, you’ve come to the right place! This guide will cover How to Write a Discursive Essay , examples, and strategies to help you craft a compelling discursive essay.

Are you ready to master this art of writing ? This article will explain a discursive essay and explore various aspects such as writing tips, structure, examples, and format. So, let’s dive right in and unveil the key elements of an impressive discursive essay.

Before we delve into the nitty-gritty of writing a discursive essay , let’s take a moment to understand its nature and purpose. A discursive essay presents a balanced argument on a particular topic by exploring different perspectives. It requires the writer to consider different viewpoints, present evidence, and critically analyze the subject matter.

Writing a discursive essay can be challenging, but you can excel in this art form with the right approach. Here are some valuable tips that will help you write a discursive essay effectively:

• Choose an Engaging Topic: Select a topic that is interesting and relevant to your audience. This will make the essay more engaging and enjoyable to read.
• Thorough Research: Gather extensive information from reliable sources to support your arguments and counterarguments.
• Plan and Outline: Take the time to plan and create an outline before diving into the writing process. This will help you organize your thoughts and arguments effectively.
• Clear Introduction: Start with a concise introduction that provides context and grabs the reader’s attention. Clearly state your thesis or main argument.
• Well-structured Paragraphs: Divide your essay into paragraphs that focus on specific points. Each paragraph should present a new idea or support a previous one.
• Logical Flow: Maintain a logical flow using transitional words and phrases that connect your ideas and paragraphs smoothly.
• Balance Your Arguments: Ensure a balance in presenting the pros and cons of each perspective. This will demonstrate your fairness and critical thinking skills.
• Support with Evidence: Provide evidence, facts, and examples to support your claims and make your arguments more persuasive.
• Use Clear Language: Avoid jargon and overly complex language. Opt for clear, concise, and precise language that is easy for readers to comprehend.
• Proofread and Edit: Always revise, proofread, and edit your essay to ensure clarity, coherence, and proper grammar usage.

Following these tips, you’ll be well-equipped to write an impressive discursive essay that effectively presents your arguments and engages your readers.

A well-structured discursive essay enhances readability and ensures that your arguments are coherent. Here’s a suggested structure that you can follow:

• Hook the reader with an attention-grabbing statement or anecdote.
• Introduce the topic and provide background information.
• Present your thesis statement or main argument.
• Start each paragraph with a topic sentence introducing a new argument or perspective.
• Provide evidence, examples, and supporting details to justify your claims.
• Address counterarguments and present rebuttals, showing your ability to consider different viewpoints.
• Use transitional words to maintain a smooth flow between paragraphs.
• Summarize the main points discussed in the essay.
• Restate your thesis statement while considering the arguments presented.
• End with a thought-provoking statement or call to action.

By adhering to this structure, your discursive essay will be well-organized and easy for readers to follow.

To gain a better understanding of how discursive essays are written, let’s explore a couple of examples:

Example 1: The Impact of Social Media

Introduction: The growing influence of social media in society.

Main Body: Discussing the positive and negative aspects of social media on communication, mental health, privacy, and relationships.

Conclusion: Weighing the overall impact of social media and proposing ways to harness its strengths and mitigate its drawbacks.

Example 2: The Pros and Cons of School Uniforms

Introduction: Introducing the debate on school uniforms.

Main Body: Exploring the arguments supporting school uniforms (such as fostering discipline and equality) and arguments against them (such as limiting self-expression).

Conclusion: Evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of school uniforms and suggesting potential compromises.

These examples illustrate how discursive essays analyze various perspectives on a topic while maintaining a balanced approach.

Choosing an engaging and relevant topic is crucial to capturing your readers’ attention. Here are some popular discursive essay topics to consider:

• Is social media beneficial or detrimental to society?
• Should the death penalty be abolished worldwide?
• Are genetically modified organisms (GMOs) safe for consumption?
• Should recreational marijuana use be legalized?
• Are video games responsible for the rise in violence among youth?

When selecting a topic, ensure it is captivating, allows for multiple viewpoints, and is backed by sufficient research material.

While there is flexibility in formatting a discursive essay, adhering to a standard format enhances clarity and readability. Consider following this general format:

• Font type and size: Times New Roman, Arial, or Calibri with a 12-point font size.
• Line spacing: Double-spaced throughout the essay.
• Page margins: 1-inch margins on all sides.
• Title page: Include the essay title, your name, course name, instructor’s name, and submission date (if applicable).
• Header: Insert a header with your last name and page number (top-right corner).

A consistent format will make your essay more professional and easier to navigate.

Before writing your discursive essay, creating an outline that organizes your thoughts and arguments effectively is essential. Here’s a sample outline to help you get started:

I. Introduction

B. Background information

C. Thesis statement

II. Main Body

A. Argument 1

1. Supporting evidence

2. Examples

B. Argument 2

C. Argument 3

1 . Supporting evidence

2 . Examples

III. Counterarguments and Rebuttals

A. Counterargument 1

1 . Rebuttal evidence

B. Counterargument 2

C . Counterargument 3

IV. Conclusion

A. Summary of main points

B . Restating the thesis statement

C. Call to action or thought-provoking statement

By structuring your ideas in an outline, you’ll have a clear roadmap for your essay, ensuring that your arguments flow logically.

The introduction of your discursive essay plays a vital role in capturing your reader’s attention and setting the tone for the essay. Here’s how you can make your introduction compelling:

Start With an Engaging Hook: Begin with a captivating opening sentence, such as a surprising statistic, an intriguing question, or a compelling anecdote related to your topic.

Provide Necessary Background Information: Briefly explain the topic and its relevance to the reader.

Present Your Thesis Statement: Clearly state your main argument or thesis, which will guide your essay’s direction and focus.

You’ll establish a strong foundation for your discursive essay by crafting an engaging and informative introduction.

The conclusion of your discursive essay should effectively summarize your main points and leave a lasting impression on your readers. Here’s how you can achieve this:

Summarize the Main Points: Briefly recap the key arguments and perspectives discussed in the essay.

Restate Your Thesis Statement: Reiterate your main argument while considering the various perspectives.

Call to Action or Thought-Provoking Statement: End your essay with a compelling statement or encourage readers to explore the topic further, sparking discussion and reflection.

By crafting a powerful conclusion, you’ll leave a lasting impact on your readers, ensuring they walk away with a clear understanding of your essay’s message.

Congratulations! You’ve now comprehensively understood how to write a discursive essay effectively. Remember to choose an engaging topic, conduct thorough research, create a clear structure, and present balanced arguments while considering different perspectives. Following these guidelines and incorporating our tips, you’ll be well-equipped to craft a compelling discursive essay.

So, start writing your discursive essay following our comprehensive guide. Unlock your writing potential and captivate your readers with an impressive discursive essay that showcases your analytical skills and ability to present compelling arguments. Happy writing!

Frequently Asked Questions About “How to Write a Discursive Essay Effectively”

What is a discursive essay, and how does it differ from other types of essays.

A discursive essay explores a particular topic by presenting different perspectives and arguments. It differs from other essays, emphasizing balanced, unbiased discussion rather than a single, strong stance.

How should I choose a topic for my discursive essay?

Select a topic that allows for multiple viewpoints and has room for discussion. Controversial issues or topics with various opinions work well, providing ample material for exploration.

What is the typical structure of a discursive essay?

A discursive essay typically has an introduction, several body paragraphs, and a conclusion. The introduction sets the stage, the body paragraphs present different viewpoints, and the conclusion summarizes the key points and your stance.

Is it necessary to choose a side in a discursive essay?

While you don’t have to take a definite side, you should present a balanced view. However, some essay prompts may ask you to argue for or against a particular position.

How do I start the introduction of a discursive essay?

Begin with a hook to capture the reader’s attention, provide background information, and clearly state the issue you will discuss. End the introduction with a thesis statement that outlines your approach.

Should I use formal language in a discursive essay?

Yes, maintain a formal and objective tone. Avoid using first-person pronouns and aim for clarity and precision in your language.

How many viewpoints should I include in the body paragraphs?

Include at least two or three well-developed viewpoints. Ensure that each paragraph focuses on a specific aspect or argument related to the topic.

How do I transition between paragraphs in a discursive essay?

Use transitional phrases to move smoothly from one idea to the next. This helps maintain a logical flow and coherence in your essay.

Can I include personal opinions in a discursive essay?

While you can present your opinions, remaining objective and supporting your views with evidence is crucial. The emphasis should be on presenting a well-rounded discussion rather than expressing personal bias.

How do I conclude a discursive essay effectively?

Summarize the main points discussed in the body paragraphs, restate your thesis nuancedly, and offer a closing thought or call to action. Avoid introducing new information in the conclusion.

Basic features

• Free title page and bibliography
• Unlimited revisions
• Plagiarism-free guarantee
• Money-back guarantee
• 24/7 support

On-demand options

• Writer's samples
• Part-by-part delivery
• Overnight delivery
• Copies of used sources
• Expert Proofreading

Paper format

• 275 words per page
• 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
• Double line spacing
• Any citation style (APA, MLA, CHicago/Turabian, Havard)

Guaranteed originality

We guarantee 0% plagiarism! Our orders are custom made from scratch. Our team is dedicated to providing you academic papers with zero traces of plagiarism.

Affordable prices

We know how hard it is to pay the bills while being in college, which is why our rates are extremely affordable and within your budget. You will not find any other company that provides the same quality of work for such affordable prices.

Best experts

Our writer are the crème de la crème of the essay writing industry. They are highly qualified in their field of expertise and have extensive experience when it comes to research papers, term essays or any other academic assignment that you may be given!

Calculate the price of your order

Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away

Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.

How to Write a Discursive Essay: Awesome Guide and Template

Interesting fact: Did you know that the term "discursive" is derived from the Latin word "discursus," which means to run about or to traverse? This reflects the nature of a discursive essay, as it involves exploring various perspectives, moving through different points of view, and presenting a comprehensive discussion on a given topic.

In this article, you will find out about a discursive essay definition, learn the difference between a discourse and an argumentative essay, gain practical how-to tips, and check out a discursive essay example.  

What Is a Discursive Essay

A discursive essay definition is a type of formal writing that presents a balanced analysis of a particular topic. Unlike an argumentative essay, which takes a firm stance on a single perspective and seeks to persuade the reader to adopt that viewpoint, a discursive essay explores multiple sides of an issue. 

The goal of a discursive essay is to provide a comprehensive overview of the subject, presenting different arguments, counterarguments, and perspectives in a structured and organized manner.

This type of essay encourages critical thinking and reasoned discourse. It typically includes an introduction that outlines the topic and sets the stage for the discussion, followed by a series of body paragraphs that delve into various aspects of the issue. The essay may also address counterarguments and opposing viewpoints. 

Finally, a discursive essay concludes by summarizing the key points and often leaves room for the reader to form their own informed opinion on the matter. This form of writing is commonly assigned in academic settings, allowing students to demonstrate their ability to analyze complex topics and present a well-reasoned exploration of diverse viewpoints. In case you find this type of composition too difficult, just say, ‘ write my paper ,’ and professional writers will take care of it. 

Ready to Transform Your Essays? 

From discursive writing to academic triumphs, let your words soar with our essay writing service!

Difference Between a Discursive Essay and an Argumentative

The main difference between discursive essays and argumentative lies in their overall purpose and approach to presenting information.

• Discursive: The primary purpose of a discursive essay is to explore and discuss various perspectives on a given topic. How to write a discursive essay is about providing a comprehensive overview of the subject matter by presenting different arguments, opinions, and viewpoints without necessarily advocating for a specific stance.
• Argumentative: In contrast, an argumentative essay is designed to persuade the reader to adopt a particular viewpoint or take a specific action. It presents a clear and focused argument in favor of the writer's position, often addressing and refuting opposing views.

Tone and Language:

• Discursive: The tone of a discursive essay is generally more balanced and objective. It allows for a more open exploration of ideas, and the language used is often neutral and formal.
• Argumentative: An argumentative essay tends to have a more assertive tone. The language is focused on presenting a compelling case from the writer's perspective, and there may be a sense of conviction in the presentation of evidence and reasoning.
• Discursive Essay: A discursive essay typically follows a more flexible structure. It may present multiple points of view in separate sections, allowing for a free-flowing exploration of the topic.
• Argumentative Essay: When learning how to write an argumentative essay, students usually follow a more rigid structure, with a clear introduction, thesis statement, body paragraphs that present evidence and arguments, and a conclusion that reinforces the writer's stance.

Conclusion:

• Discursive Essay: The conclusion of a discursive essay often summarizes the main points discussed and may leave room for the reader to form their own opinion on the matter.
• Argumentative Essay: The conclusion of an argumentative essay reinforces the writer's position and may include a call to action or a clear statement of the desired outcome.

While both types of essays involve critical thinking and analysis, the key distinction lies in their ultimate goals and how they approach the presentation of information. 

Types of Discursive Essay

Before writing a discursive essay, keep in mind that they can be categorized into different types based on their specific purposes and structures. Here are some common types of discursive essays:

Opinion Essays:

• Purpose: Expressing and supporting personal opinions on a given topic.
• Structure: The essay presents the writer's viewpoint and provides supporting evidence, examples, and arguments. It may also address counterarguments to strengthen the overall discussion.

Problem-Solution Essays:

• Purpose: Identifying a specific problem and proposing effective solutions.
• Structure: The essay introduces the problem, discusses its causes and effects, and presents possible solutions. It often concludes with a recommendation or call to action.

Compare and Contrast Essays:

• Purpose: Analyzing similarities and differences between two or more perspectives, ideas, or approaches.
• Structure: The essay outlines the key points of each perspective, highlighting similarities and differences. A balanced analysis is provided to give the reader a comprehensive understanding.

Cause and Effect Essays:

• Purpose: Exploring the causes and effects of a particular phenomenon or issue.
• Structure: The essay identifies the primary causes and examines their effects or vice versa. It may delve into the chain of events and their implications.

Argumentative Essays:

• Purpose: Presenting a strong argument in favor of a specific viewpoint.
• Structure: The essay establishes a clear thesis statement, provides evidence and reasoning to support the argument, and addresses opposing views. It aims to persuade the reader to adopt the writer's perspective.

Pro-Con Essays:

• Purpose: Evaluating the pros and cons of a given issue.
• Structure: The essay presents the positive aspects (pros) and negative aspects (cons) of the topic. It aims to provide a balanced assessment and may conclude with a recommendation or a summary of the most compelling points.

Exploratory Essays:

• Purpose: Investigating and discussing a topic without necessarily advocating for a specific position.
• Structure: The essay explores various aspects of the topic, presenting different perspectives and allowing the reader to form their own conclusions. It often reflects a process of inquiry and discovery.

These types of discursive essays offer different approaches to presenting information, and the choice of type depends on the specific goals of the essay and the preferences of the writer.

How to Write a Discursive Essay

Unlike other forms of essay writing, a discursive essay demands a unique set of skills, inviting writers to navigate through diverse perspectives, present contrasting viewpoints, and weave a tapestry of balanced arguments. 

You can order custom essay right now to save time to get ready to delve into the art of crafting a compelling discursive essay, unraveling the intricacies of structure, language, and critical analysis. Whether you're a seasoned essayist or a novice in the realm of formal writing, this exploration promises to equip you with the tools needed to articulate your thoughts effectively and engage your audience in thoughtful discourse. 

Discursive Essay Format

The format of a discursive essay plays a crucial role in ensuring a clear, well-organized, and persuasive presentation of multiple perspectives on a given topic. Here is a typical discursive essay structure:

1. Introduction:

• Hook: Begin with a captivating hook or attention-grabbing statement to engage the reader's interest.
• Contextualization: Provide a brief overview of the topic and its relevance, setting the stage for the discussion.
• Thesis Statement: Clearly state the main argument or the purpose of the essay. In a discursive essay, the thesis often reflects the idea that the essay will explore multiple viewpoints without necessarily taking a firm stance.

2. Body Paragraphs:

• Topic Sentences: Start each body paragraph with a clear topic sentence that introduces the main point or argument.
• Presentation of Arguments: Devote individual paragraphs to different aspects of the topic, presenting various arguments, perspectives, or evidence. Ensure a logical flow between paragraphs.
• Address Counterarguments: Acknowledge and address opposing viewpoints to strengthen the overall credibility of your essay.
• Supporting Evidence: Provide examples, statistics, quotations, or other forms of evidence to bolster each argument.

3. Transitions:

• Logical Transitions: Use transitional phrases and words to ensure a smooth and logical flow between paragraphs and ideas. This helps readers follow your line of reasoning.

4. Conclusion:

• Restate Thesis: Summarize the main argument or purpose of the essay without introducing new information.
• Brief Recap: Provide a concise recap of the key points discussed in the body paragraphs.
• Closing Thoughts: Offer some closing thoughts or reflections on the significance of the topic. You may also leave room for the reader to consider their own stance.

5. Language and Style:

• Formal Tone: Maintain a formal and objective tone throughout the essay.
• Clarity and Coherence: Ensure that your ideas are presented clearly and that there is coherence in your argumentation.
• Varied Sentence Structure: Use a variety of sentence structures to enhance readability and engagement.

6. References (if applicable):

• Citations: If you use external sources, cite them appropriately according to the citation style required (e.g., APA, MLA).

Remember, flexibility exists within this format, and the specifics may vary based on the assignment requirements or personal writing preferences. Tailor the structure to suit the demands of your discourse and the expectations of your audience.

Introduction

A discursive essay introduction serves as the gateway to a thought-provoking exploration of diverse perspectives on a given topic. Here's how to structure an effective discursive essay introduction:

• Begin with a compelling hook that captures the reader's attention. This could be a striking statistic, a thought-provoking quote, a relevant anecdote, or a rhetorical question. 
• Offer a brief context or background information about the topic. This helps orient the reader and sets the stage for the discussion to follow. 
• Clearly state the purpose of the essay. This often involves indicating that the essay will explore various perspectives on the topic without necessarily advocating for a specific stance. 
• Provide a brief overview of the different aspects or arguments that will be explored in the essay. 
• Conclude the introduction with a clear and concise thesis statement. 

Remember that besides writing compositions, you still have to do math homework , which is something we can help you with right now!

Writing a discursive essay involves crafting the body of your discursive essay. The number of paragraphs in the body should correspond to the arguments presented, with an additional paragraph dedicated to the opposing viewpoint if you choose to disclose both sides of the argument. If you opt for this approach, alternate the order of the body paragraphs—supporting arguments followed by counterarguments.

Each body paragraph in your discursive essay should focus on a distinct idea. Begin the paragraph with the main idea, provide a concise summary of the argument, and incorporate supporting evidence from reputable sources.

In the concluding paragraph of the body, present potential opposing arguments and counter them. Approach this section as if engaging in a debate, strategically dismantling opposing viewpoints.

While composing the body of a discursive essay, maintain a cohesive narrative. Although individual paragraphs address different arguments, refrain from titling each paragraph—aim for a seamless flow throughout the essay. Express your personal opinions exclusively in the conclusion.

Key guidelines for writing the body of a discursive essay:

• Remain Unbiased: Prioritize objectivity. Evaluate all facets of the issue, leaving personal sentiments aside.
• Build Your Argumentation: If you have multiple arguments supporting your viewpoint, present them in separate, well-structured paragraphs. Provide supporting evidence to enhance clarity and credibility.
• Use an Alternate Writing Style: Present opposing viewpoints in an alternating manner. This means that if the first paragraph supports the main argument, the second should present an opposing perspective. This method enhances clarity and research depth and ensures neutrality.
• Include Topic Sentences and Evidence: Commence each paragraph with a topic sentence summarizing the argument. This aids reader comprehension. Substantiate your claims with evidence, reinforcing the credibility of your discourse.

By adhering to these principles, you can construct a coherent and well-supported body for your discursive essay.

Conclusion 

Writing an effective conclusion is crucial to leaving a lasting impression on your reader. Here are some tips to guide you in crafting a compelling and impactful conclusion:

• Begin your conclusion by summarizing the key points discussed in the body of the essay. 
• Remind the reader of your thesis statement, emphasizing the primary purpose of your discursive essay. 
• Address the broader significance or implications of the topic. 
• Explain why the issue is relevant and underscore the importance of considering multiple perspectives in understanding its complexity.
• Reiterate the balanced nature of your essay. Emphasize that you have explored various viewpoints and arguments without necessarily taking a firm stance.
• Reinforce the idea that your goal was to present a comprehensive analysis.
• If applicable, suggest possible recommendations or solutions based on the insights gained from the essay.
• Encourage the reader to reflect on the topic independently. 
• Pose open-ended questions or invite them to consider the implications of the arguments presented. 
• Resist the temptation to introduce new information or arguments in the conclusion.
• Keep the tone of your conclusion professional and thoughtful. 
• Conclude your essay with a strong, memorable closing statement.
• Carefully review your conclusion to ensure clarity and coherence. Edit for grammar, punctuation, and overall writing quality to present a polished final product.

By incorporating these tips into your discursive essay conclusion, you can effectively summarize your arguments, leave a lasting impression, and prompt thoughtful reflection from your readers. Consider using our term paper writing service if you have to deal with a larger assignment that requires more time and effort.

Yays and Nays of Writing Discourse Essays

In learning how to write a discursive essay, certain do's and don'ts serve as guiding principles throughout the writing process. By adhering to these guidelines, writers can navigate the complexities of presenting arguments, counterarguments, and nuanced analyses, ensuring the essay resonates with clarity and persuasiveness.

• Conduct thorough research on the topic to ensure a well-informed discussion.
• Present multiple perspectives on the issue, exploring various arguments and viewpoints.
• Maintain a balanced and neutral tone. Present arguments objectively without expressing personal bias.
• Structure your essay logically with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. Use paragraphs to organize your ideas effectively.
• Topic Sentences:
• Include clear topic sentences at the beginning of each paragraph to guide the reader through your arguments.
• Support your arguments with credible evidence from reputable sources to enhance the credibility of your essay.
• Use transitional words and phrases to ensure a smooth flow between paragraphs and ideas.
• Engage in critical analysis. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different arguments and viewpoints.
• Recap key points in the conclusion, summarizing the main arguments and perspectives discussed in the essay.
• Carefully proofread your essay to correct any grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors.
• Don't express personal opinions in the body of the essay. Save personal commentary for the conclusion.
• Don't introduce new information or arguments in the conclusion. This section should summarize and reflect on existing content.
• Don't use overly emotional or subjective language. Maintain a professional and objective tone throughout.
• Don't rely on personal opinions without sufficient research. Ensure that your arguments are supported by credible evidence.
• Don't have an ambiguous or unclear thesis statement. Clearly state the purpose of your essay in the introduction.
• Don't ignore counterarguments. Acknowledge and address opposing viewpoints to strengthen your overall argument.
• Don't use overly complex language if it doesn't add to the clarity of your arguments. Strive for clarity and simplicity in your writing.
• Don't present ideas in a disorganized manner. Ensure that there is a logical flow between paragraphs and ideas.
• Don't excessively repeat the same points. Present a variety of arguments and perspectives to keep the essay engaging.
• Don't ignore the guidelines provided for the essay assignment. Follow any specific instructions or requirements given by your instructor or institution.

Feeling exhausted and overwhelmed with all this new information? Don't worry! Buy an essay paper of any type that will be prepared for you individually based on all your instructions.

Discursive Essay Examples

Discursive essay topics.

Writing a discursive essay on a compelling topic holds immense importance as it allows individuals to engage in a nuanced exploration of diverse perspectives. A well-chosen subject encourages critical thinking and deepens one's understanding of complex issues, fostering intellectual growth. 

The process of exploring a good topic enhances research skills as writers delve into varied viewpoints and gather evidence to support their arguments. Moreover, such essays contribute to the broader academic discourse, encouraging readers to contemplate different facets of a subject and form informed opinions.

• The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Employment.
• Should Social Media Platforms Regulate Content for Misinformation?
• Exploring the Ethics of Cloning in Contemporary Science.
• Universal Basic Income: A Solution for Economic Inequality?
• The Role of Technology in Shaping Modern Education.
• Nuclear Energy: Sustainable Solution or Environmental Risk?
• The Effects of Video Games on Adolescent Behavior.
• Cybersecurity Threats in the Digital Age: Balancing Privacy and Security.
• Debunking Common Myths Surrounding Climate Change.
• The Pros and Cons of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).
• Online Education vs. Traditional Classroom Learning.
• The Impact of Social Media Influencers on Consumer Behavior.
• The Ethics of Animal Testing in Medical Research.
• Universal Healthcare: Addressing Gaps in Healthcare Systems.
• The Role of Government in Regulating Cryptocurrencies.
• The Influence of Advertising on Body Image and Self-Esteem.
• Renewable Energy Sources: A Viable Alternative to Fossil Fuels?
• The Implications of Space Exploration on Earth's Resources.
• Is Censorship Justified in the Arts and Entertainment Industry?
• Examining the Impact of Globalization on Cultural Identity.
• The Morality of Capital Punishment in the 21st Century.
• Should Genetic Engineering be Used for Human Enhancement?
• Social Media and Its Influence on Political Discourse.
• Balancing Environmental Conservation with Economic Development.
• The Role of Gender in the Workplace: Achieving Equality.
• Exploring the Impact of Fast Fashion on the Environment.
• The Benefits and Risks of Autonomous Vehicles.
• The Influence of Media on Perceptions of Beauty.
• Legalization of Marijuana: Addressing Medical and Social Implications.
• The Impact of Antibiotic Resistance on Global Health.
• The Pros and Cons of a Cashless Society.
• Exploring the Relationship Between Technology and Mental Health.
• The Role of Government Surveillance in Ensuring National Security.
• Addressing the Digital Divide: Ensuring Access to Technology for All.
• The Impact of Social Media on Political Activism.
• The Ethics of Animal Rights and Welfare.
• Nuclear Disarmament: Necessity or Utopian Ideal?
• The Effects of Income Inequality on Societal Well-being.
• The Role of Education in Combating Systemic Racism.
• The Influence of Pop Culture on Society's Values and Norms.
• Artificial Intelligence and Its Impact on Creative Industries.
• The Pros and Cons of Mandatory Vaccination Policies.
• The Role of Women in Leadership Positions: Breaking the Glass Ceiling.
• Internet Privacy: Balancing Personal Security and Data Collection.
• The Impact of Social Media on Youth Mental Health.
• The Morality of Animal Agriculture and Factory Farming.
• The Rise of Online Learning Platforms: Transforming Education.
• Addressing the Digital Gender Gap in STEM Fields.
• The Impact of Global Tourism on Local Cultures and Environments.
• Exploring the Implications of 3D Printing Technology in Various Industries.

By the way, we have another great collection of narrative essay topics to get your creative juices flowing.

Wrapping Up

Throughout this guide, you have acquired valuable insights into the art of crafting compelling arguments and presenting diverse perspectives. By delving into the nuances of topic selection, structuring, and incorporating evidence, you could hone your critical thinking skills and sharpen your ability to engage in informed discourse. 

This guide serves as a roadmap, offering not just a set of rules but a toolkit to empower students in their academic journey. As you embark on future writing endeavors, armed with the knowledge gained here, you can confidently navigate the challenges of constructing well-reasoned, balanced discursive essays that contribute meaningfully to academic discourse and foster a deeper understanding of complex issues. If you want to continue your academic learning journey right now, we suggest that you read about the IEEE format next.

Overwhelmed by Essays? 

Let professional writers be your writing wingman. No stress - just success!

Daniel Parker

is a seasoned educational writer focusing on scholarship guidance, research papers, and various forms of academic essays including reflective and narrative essays. His expertise also extends to detailed case studies. A scholar with a background in English Literature and Education, Daniel’s work on EssayPro blog aims to support students in achieving academic excellence and securing scholarships. His hobbies include reading classic literature and participating in academic forums.

is an expert in nursing and healthcare, with a strong background in history, law, and literature. Holding advanced degrees in nursing and public health, his analytical approach and comprehensive knowledge help students navigate complex topics. On EssayPro blog, Adam provides insightful articles on everything from historical analysis to the intricacies of healthcare policies. In his downtime, he enjoys historical documentaries and volunteering at local clinics.

Related Articles

26 Planning a Discursive Essay

Discursive essay – description.

A discursive essay is a form of critical essay that attempts to provide the reader with a balanced argument on a topic, supported by evidence. It requires critical thinking, as well as sound and valid arguments (see Chapter 25) that acknowledge and analyse arguments both for and against any given topic, plus discursive essay writing appeals to reason, not emotions or opinions. While it may draw some tentative conclusions, based on evidence, the main aim of a discursive essay is to inform the reader of the key arguments and allow them to arrive at their own conclusion.

The writer needs to research the topic thoroughly to present more than one perspective and should check their own biases and assumptions through critical reflection (see Chapter 30).

Unlike persuasive writing, the writer does not need to have knowledge of the audience, though should write using academic tone and language (see Chapter 20).

Choose Your Topic Carefully

A basic guide to choosing an assignment topic is available in Chapter 23, however choosing a topic for a discursive essay means considering more than one perspective. Not only do you need to find information about the topic via academic sources, you need to be able to construct a worthwhile discussion, moving from idea to idea. Therefore, more forward planning is required. The following are decisions that need to be considered when choosing a discursive essay topic:

• These will become the controlling ideas for your three body paragraphs (some essays may require more). Each controlling idea will need arguments both for and against.
• For example, if my topic is “renewable energy” and my three main (controlling) ideas are “cost”, “storage”, “environmental impact”, then I will need to consider arguments both for and against each of these three concepts. I will also need to have good academic sources with examples or evidence to support my claim and counter claim for each controlling idea (More about this in Chapter 27).
• Am I able to write a thesis statement about this topic based on the available research? In other words, do my own ideas align with the available research, or am I going to be struggling to support my own ideas due to a lack of academic sources or research? You need to be smart about your topic choice. Do not make it harder than it has to be. Writing a discursive essay is challenging enough without struggling to find appropriate sources.
• For example, perhaps I find a great academic journal article about the uptake of solar panel installation in suburban Australia and how this household decision is cost-effective long-term, locally stored, and has minimal, even beneficial environmental impact due to the lowering of carbon emissions. Seems too good to be true, yet it is perfect for my assignment. I would have to then find arguments AGAINST everything in the article that supports transitioning suburbs to solar power. I would have to challenge the cost-effectiveness, the storage, and the environmental impact study. Now, all of a sudden my task just became much more challenging.
• There may be vast numbers of journal articles written about your topic, but consider how relevant they may be to your tentative thesis statement. It takes a great deal of time to search for appropriate academic sources. Do you have a good internet connection at home or will you need to spend some quality time at the library? Setting time aside to complete your essay research is crucial for success.

It is only through complete forward planning about the shape and content of your essay that you may be able to choose the topic that best suits your interests, academic ability and time management. Consider how you will approach the overall project, not only the next step.

Research Your Topic

When completing a library search for online peer reviewed journal articles, do not forget to use Boolean Operators to refine or narrow your search field. Standard Boolean Operators are (capitalized) AND, OR and NOT. While using OR will expand your search, AND and NOT will reduce the scope of your search. For example, if I want information on ageism and care giving, but I only want it to relate to the elderly, I might use the following to search a database: ageism AND care NOT children. Remember to keep track of your search strings (like the one just used) and then you’ll know what worked and what didn’t as you come and go from your academic research.

The UQ Library provides an excellent step-by-step guide to searching databases:

Searching in databases – Library – University of Queensland (uq.edu.au)

Did you know that you can also link the UQ Library to Google Scholar? This link tells you how:

Google Scholar – Library – University of Queensland (uq.edu.au)

Write the Thesis Statement

The concept of a thesis statement was introduced in Chapter 21. The information below relates specifically to a discursive essay thesis statement.

As noted in the introduction to this chapter, the discursive essay should not take a stance and therefore the thesis statement must also impartially indicate more than one perspective. The goal is to present both sides of an argument equally and allow the reader to make an informed and well-reasoned choice after providing supporting evidence for each side of the argument.

Sample thesis statements: Solar energy is a cost -effective solution to burning fossil fuels for electricity , however lower income families cannot afford the installation costs .

Some studies indicate that teacher comments written in red may have no effect on students’ emotions , however other studies suggest that seeing red ink on papers could cause some students unnecessary stress. [1]

According to social justice principles, education should be available to all , yet historically, the intellectually and physically impaired may have been exempt from participation due to their supposed inability to learn. [2]

This is where your pros and cons list comes into play. For each pro, or positive statement you make, about your topic, create an equivalent con, or negative statement and this will enable you to arrive at two opposing assertions – the claim and counter claim.

While there may be multiple arguments or perspectives related to your essay topic, it is important that you match each claim with a counter-claim. This applies to the thesis statement and each supporting argument within the body paragraphs of the essay.

It is not just a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. A neutral tone is crucial. Do not include positive or negative leading statements, such as “It is undeniable that…” or “One should not accept the view that…”. You are NOT attempting to persuade the reader to choose one viewpoint over another.

Leading statements / language will be discussed further, in class, within term three of the Academic English course.

Thesis Structure:

• Note the two sides (indicated in green and orange)
• Note the use of tentative language: “Some studies”, “may have”, “could cause”, “some students”
• As the thesis is yet to be discussed in-depth, and you are not an expert in the field, do not use definitive language
• The statement is also one sentence, with a “pivot point” in the middle, with a comma and signposting to indicate a contradictory perspective (in black). Other examples include, nevertheless, though, although, regardless, yet, albeit. DO NOT use the word “but” as it lacks academic tone. Some signposts (e.g., although, though, while) may be placed at the start of the two clauses rather than in the middle – just remember the comma, for example, “While some studies suggest solar energy is cost-effective, other critical research questions its affordability.”
• Also note that it is based on preliminary research and not opinion: “some studies”, “other studies”, “according to social justice principles”, “critical research”.

Claims and Counter Claims

NOTE: Please do not confuse the words ‘claim’ and ‘counter-claim’ with moral or value judgements about right/wrong, good/bad, successful/unsuccessful, or the like. The term ‘claim’ simply refers to the first position or argument you put forward (whether for or against), and ‘counter-claim’ is the alternate position or argument.

In a discursive essay the goal is to present both sides equally and then draw some tentative conclusions based on the evidence presented.

• To formulate your claims and counter claims, write a list of pros and cons.
• For each pro there should be a corresponding con.
• Three sets of pros and cons will be required for your discursive essay. One set for each body paragraph. These become your claims and counter claims.
• For a longer essay, you would need further claims and counter claims.
• Some instructors prefer students to keep the pros and cons in the same order across the body paragraphs. Each paragraph would then have a pro followed by a con or else a con followed by a pro. The order should align with your thesis; if the thesis gives a pro view of the topic followed by a negative view (con) then the paragraphs should also start with the pro and follow with the con, or else vice versa. If not aligned and consistent, the reader may easily become confused as the argument proceeds. Ask your teacher if this is a requirement for your assessment.

Use previous chapters to explore your chosen topic through concept mapping (Chapter 18) and essay outlining (Chapter 19), with one variance; you must include your proposed claims and counter claims in your proposed paragraph structures. What follows is a generic model for a discursive essay. The following Chapter 27 will examine this in further details.

Sample Discursive Essay Outline 

The paragraphs are continuous; the dot-points are only meant to indicate content.

Introduction

• Thesis statement
• Essay outline (including 3 controlling ideas)

Body Paragraphs X 3 (Elaboration and evidence will be more than one sentence, though the topic, claim and counter claim should be succinct)

• T opic sentence, including 1/3 controlling ideas (the topic remains the same throughout the entire essay; it is the controlling idea that changes)
• A claim/assertion about the controlling idea
• E laboration – more information about the claim
• E vidence -academic research (Don’t forget to tell the reader how / why the evidence supports the claim. Be explicit in your E valuation rather than assuming the connection is obvious to the reader)
• A counter claim (remember it must be COUNTER to the claim you made, not about something different)
• E laboration – more information about the counter claim
• E vidence – academic research (Don’t forget to tell the reader how / why the evidence supports the claim. Be explicit in your E valuation rather than assuming the connection is obvious to the reader)
• Concluding sentence – L inks back to the topic and/or the next controlling idea in the following paragraph

Mirror the introduction. The essay outline should have stated the plan for the essay – “This essay will discuss…”, therefore the conclusion should identify that this has been fulfilled, “This essay has discussed…”, plus summarise the controlling ideas and key arguments. ONLY draw tentative conclusions BOTH for and against, allowing the reader to make up their own mind about the topic. Also remember to re-state the thesis in the conclusion. If it is part of the marking criteria, you should also include a recommendation or prediction about the future use or cost/benefit of the chosen topic/concept.

A word of warning, many students fall into the generic realm of stating that there should be further research on their topic or in the field of study. This is a gross statement of the obvious as all academia is ongoing. Try to be more practical with your recommendations and also think about who would instigate them and where the funding might come from.

This chapter gives an overview of what a discursive essay is and a few things to consider when choosing your topic. It also provides a generic outline for a discursive essay structure. The following chapter examines the structure in further detail.

• Inez, S. M. (2018, September 10). What is a discursive essay, and how do you write a good one? Kibin. ↵
• Hale, A., & Basides, H. (2013). The keys to academic English. Palgrave ↵

researched, reliable, written by academics and published by reputable publishers; often, but not always peer reviewed

assertion, maintain as fact

The term ‘claim’ simply refers to the first position or argument you put forward (whether for or against), and ‘counter-claim’ is the alternate position or argument.

Academic Writing Skills Copyright © 2021 by Patricia Williamson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

How to Write a Good Discursive Essay?

05 June, 2020

7 minutes read

Author:  Elizabeth Brown

What does a discursive essay mean? We have an answer to this and many other questions in our article. Welcome to the world of ideal essay writing. Ever wanted to build buzz for your text? We know you do. And we also know how you can do that with minimum effort and little diligence. So forget about your trivial academic essays - they are not as exciting as a discursive one. Ready to dive in?

What is Discursive Writing?

For all those who wanted to know the discursive essay meaning, here it is: a discursive essay is a writing piece, in which the focal element is devoted to an argument. That is, discursive writing presupposes developing a statement that ignites active discussions. After this essay, readers should be motivated to express their own opinions regarding the topic. Discursive essays have much in common with argumentative and persuasive papers, but these are not to be confused. Despite some similarities, discursive writing is a separate type of work that has its specific features and nuances. What we do want you to remember about discursive essays is that you need to concentrate on the power of thought rather than factology and pieces of evidence. In short, your mind is the only tool required to persuade and interest others on the topic you choose.

Discursive Essay Format

Now that we’ve figured out what is discursive writing, it’s time to focus more on the “skeleton” of discursive essay. Like any other piece of writing, discursive essays have clear requirements that help to glue their elements into a coherent paper. By the way, there are many writing services available which can help you present an excellent academic essay. So if you need professional assistance with your task, check them out. But if you want to do it yourself, you can simply take any discursive essay example from the web and use it as a starting point for your paper.

As for the discursive structure itself, you need to start your essay with an introduction in the first place. Create a lead-in that’ll spark the reader’s interest and make them genuinely responsive to the topic. Also, make sure that your introduction is neither small nor extensive. Stick to the optimal amount of words that’ll be sufficient for readers to get the general idea of your essay.

Another essential aspect of an effective intro is your opinion. It’s worthy of note that some discursive essays might require no particular stance on the topic. In situations like this, wait until the end of an essay comes, and only then share your personal view on the matter. This way, readers will understand the neutral tone throughout the piece, shape their own thoughts about it, and later decide whether to agree with yours or not.

In the paragraphs that follow, you’ll need to accentuate on the argumentation. There’s no room for vague and unarticulate expressions at this point. Quite the contrary – you need to unfold your statements consecutively, in a couple of paragraphs, to depict the entire image of your stance for or against the topic. And don’t forget to link your discursive text to supporting evidence.

The last section is the conclusion. Your finishing remarks should clearly articulate your position toward this or that issue, with a close connection to the main ideas in the essay body.

Discursive Essay Thesis

To construct a good thesis for your discursive essay, you’ll need to describe the general stance your work will argue. Here, it’s important to back up the thesis statement with points. These are the opinions that support your thesis and allow to create an affirmative structure for the entire paper.

Discursive Essay Linking Words

The points you use while writing a discursive essay need to flow smoothly so that readers could see a logical organization of the work. For this, you can use transition words that’ll make your paper easily readable and crisp. For example, if you want to list some points, opt for such words as firstly, to begin with, secondly, lastly, finally, etc. If you wish to point at advantages or disadvantages, consider using these transitions: the main/greatest/ first advantage of… is …, another positive side is…, an additional drawback is, another negative aspect of…is…

How to Write an Introduction for a Discursive Essay?

The introductory part is the critical aspect of creating a good discursive essay. In this section, specific attention should centralize on what your topic is all about. Therefore, it needs to be presented with clarity, be informative, and attention-grabbing. How to make your intro sentence for discursive essay memorable? You can start with a spicy anecdote to add humor to discussion. Another powerful way for hooking readers is stating a quote or opinion of experts and famous influencers. This will add to the credibility of your statements, making readers more motivated to read your work.

How to Write a Discursive Essay Conclusion?

Your discursive essay ending is the climax of your argument, a final link that organically locks up a chain of previously described points. This part is devoted to the restatement of the main arguments that sum up your attitude to the topic. And just like with introduction, the conclusion should leave a trace in readers’ minds. To achieve this result, your closing paragraph should include a call to action, warning or any other food for thought that will encourage people to ponder on the issue and make relevant conclusions.

Discursive Essay Topics

The ideas for discursive papers are so versatile that it’s hard to compile all of them in one list. For such list will extend to kilometers. However, we’ve collected some of them for you to facilitate your work on this task. So here are some discursive essay examples you can use any time:

As you understand now, discursive writing definition and discursive essay definition are not as scary as they seem from the first glance. Even though the art of this type of paper is hard to master, over time, you’ll notice significant progress. All you need for this is practice and a little bit of patience to understand the subtle nuances of this task and develop the skill of writing confidently. And if you ever wondered what is an essay, a team of professional academic essay writers can give a helping hand and provide you with a top-notch paper.

A life lesson in Romeo and Juliet taught by death

Due to human nature, we draw conclusions only when life gives us a lesson since the experience of others is not so effective and powerful. Therefore, when analyzing and sorting out common problems we face, we may trace a parallel with well-known book characters or real historical figures. Moreover, we often compare our situations with […]

Ethical Research Paper Topics

Writing a research paper on ethics is not an easy task, especially if you do not possess excellent writing skills and do not like to contemplate controversial questions. But an ethics course is obligatory in all higher education institutions, and students have to look for a way out and be creative. When you find an […]

Art Research Paper Topics

Students obtaining degrees in fine art and art & design programs most commonly need to write a paper on art topics. However, this subject is becoming more popular in educational institutions for expanding students’ horizons. Thus, both groups of receivers of education: those who are into arts and those who only get acquainted with art […]

• Buy Custom Assignment
• Custom College Papers
• Buy Dissertation
• Buy Research Papers
• Buy Custom Term Papers
• Cheap Custom Term Papers
• Custom Courseworks
• Custom Thesis Papers
• Custom Expository Essays
• Custom Plagiarism Check
• Cheap Custom Essay
• Custom Argumentative Essays
• Custom Case Study
• Custom Annotated Bibliography
• Custom Book Report
• How It Works
• +1 (888) 398 0091
• Essay Samples
• Essay Topics
• Research Topics
• Writing Tips

How to Write a Discursive Essay

November 17, 2023

A discursive essay is a type of academic writing that presents both sides of an argument or issue. Unlike an argumentative essay where you take a clear stance and defend it, a discursive essay allows you to explore different perspectives and provide an objective analysis. It requires careful research, critical thinking, and the ability to present logical arguments in a structured manner.

In a discursive essay, you are expected to examine the topic thoroughly, present evidence and examples to support your points, and address counterarguments to demonstrate a balanced understanding of the issue. The purpose is not to persuade the reader to take a particular side, but rather to present a comprehensive view of the topic. By mastering the art of writing a discursive essay, you can effectively convey complex ideas and contribute to meaningful discussions on various subjects.

What’s different about writing a discursive essay

Writing a discursive essay differs from other types of essays in several ways. Here are some key differences to consider when approaching this particular form of academic writing:

• Explores multiple perspectives: Unlike an argumentative essay, a discursive essay examines different viewpoints on a given topic. It requires you to gather information, analyze various arguments, and present a balanced view.
• Structured presentation: A discursive essay follows a clear structure that helps organize your thoughts and arguments. It typically consists of an introduction, several body paragraphs discussing different arguments, and a conclusion.
• Impartiality and objectivity: While other essays may require you to take a stance or defend a particular position, a discursive essay aims for objectivity. You should present arguments and evidence without bias and demonstrate a fair understanding of each viewpoint.
• Importance of research: Good research is essential for a discursive essay. You should gather information from reliable sources, consider various perspectives, and present evidence to support your ideas.
• Addressing counterarguments: In a discursive essay, it is crucial to acknowledge and address counterarguments. By doing so, you show a comprehensive understanding of the topic and strengthen your own argument.
• Use of transitions: To maintain coherence and provide a smooth flow of ideas, appropriate transitions should be used to link paragraphs and signal shifts between arguments.

By recognizing these key differences and adapting your writing style accordingly, you can effectively write a discursive essay that engages the reader and presents a well-rounded discussion of the topic.

Step-by-Step Discursive Essay Writing Guide

Selecting a topic.

Selecting a topic for a discursive essay is a crucial first step in the writing process. Here are some considerations to help you choose an appropriate and engaging topic:

• Relevance: Select a topic that is relevant and holds significance in the current context. It should be something that sparks interest and discussion among readers.
• Controversy: Look for topics that have multiple perspectives and controversial viewpoints. This will allow you to explore different arguments and present a balanced analysis.
• Research opportunities: Choose a topic that offers ample research opportunities. This ensures that you have access to reliable sources and enough material to support your arguments.
• Personal interest: It is easier to write about a topic that you are genuinely interested in. Consider your own passion and areas of expertise when selecting a subject for your essay.
• Scope and depth: Ensure that the chosen topic is neither too broad nor too narrow. It should provide enough scope for thorough analysis and discussion within the word limit of your essay.

Remember, the topic sets the foundation for your discursive essay. Take time to consider these factors and select a topic that aligns with your interests, research capabilities, and the potential to present a well-rounded discussion.

Possible Discursive Essay Topics:

• The impact of social media on society.
• Should euthanasia be legalized?
• Pros and cons of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
• The influence of technology on human interactions.
• Is homeschooling more beneficial than traditional schooling?
• The effects of climate change on the environment.
• Should animal testing be banned?
• The advantages and disadvantages of globalization.
• The ethics of capital punishment.
• The legalization of marijuana: pros and cons.

Write the Thesis Statement

The thesis statement in a discursive essay serves as the central argument or main claim that sets the tone for the entire essay. It typically appears in the introductory paragraph and guides the reader’s understanding of the essay’s purpose and direction. Here are some key points to consider when crafting an effective thesis statement for a discursive essay:

• Clear stance: The thesis statement should clearly express your position or viewpoint on the topic. It should present a concise statement that reflects your overall argument or analysis.
• Controversy: The thesis statement should highlight the controversy or debate surrounding the topic. It should indicate that there are multiple perspectives to be explored and that you will discuss them in a balanced manner.
• Specificity: The thesis statement should not be too vague or general. It should address a specific aspect of the topic that you will focus on in your essay.
• Clarity: The thesis statement should be clear and easy to understand. It should provide a clear sense of direction for the reader, indicating the main points that will be discussed in the essay.
• Strong and compelling: The thesis statement should be strong and compelling, capturing the attention of the reader. It should be a statement that provokes thoughtful analysis and discussion.

By considering these factors, you can develop a thesis statement that effectively sets the tone for your discursive essay and captures the essence of your argument or analysis.

Conducting Research

Conducting thorough research is a critical step in writing a discursive essay. Here are some essential tips to help you effectively gather information and sources:

• Define your research question: Clearly define the question or issue you want to explore in your essay. This will guide your research and help you stay focused.
• Use a variety of sources: Gather information from a diverse range of sources, such as books, scholarly articles, reputable websites, and academic journals. This will ensure a well-rounded and comprehensive understanding of the topic.
• Evaluate the credibility of sources: Assess the reliability and credibility of each source before including it in your essay. Consider factors such as author credentials, publication date, peer-reviewed status, and the reputation of the source.
• Take organized notes: As you read and review your sources, take organized notes to keep track of key points, quotes, and references. This will make it easier to cite sources accurately later.
• Analyze and synthesize information: Analyze the information you have gathered and synthesize it into coherent arguments. Identify common themes, patterns, and conflicting viewpoints that will form the basis of your essay.
• Address counterarguments: Remember to consider and address counterarguments in your research. Engaging with opposing viewpoints will strengthen your arguments and demonstrate a well-rounded understanding of the topic.

By following these research strategies, you can gather reliable and varied sources to support your discursive essay, ensuring a balanced and well-informed discussion of the topic.

Writing the Introduction

The introduction sets the tone and direction for a discursive essay, providing context and background information on the topic. Here are some key elements to include when writing the introduction to a discursive essay:

• Grab the reader’s attention: Use a hook or attention-grabbing statement to draw the reader in and generate interest in the topic.
• Introduce the topic: Clearly state the topic and provide some background information to contextualize the issue.
• Define key terms: Define any key terms related to the topic that may be unfamiliar to the reader.
• Present the thesis statement: Clearly state your main argument or claim, which sets the tone for the rest of the essay.
• Outline the structure: Briefly outline the main points or arguments that will be addressed in the essay.
• Write in a discursive style: Use a discursive style of writing in the introduction that presents multiple viewpoints on the topic.

By including these elements, you can craft an effective introduction to your discursive essay that engages the reader, establishes the context for the topic, and clearly presents your thesis statement. Remember to present a balanced analysis of multiple viewpoints, maintaining the discursive style of the essay.

Presenting Arguments and Counterarguments

Presenting arguments and counterarguments is a crucial aspect of writing a discursive essay. Here are some strategies to effectively structure and present your arguments and counterarguments:

• Identify key arguments: Begin by identifying the main arguments or perspectives related to the topic. These arguments will form the basis of your essay and provide a framework for your analysis.
• Develop supporting evidence: Gather relevant evidence, examples, statistics, or expert opinions to support each argument. This evidence should be well-researched and credible to strengthen your claims.
• Present arguments in a logical order: Organize your arguments in a logical and coherent manner. You can choose to present each argument separately, dedicating individual paragraphs to each one or use a point-counterpoint approach where you counter each argument with a counterargument.
• Address counterarguments: Acknowledge and include counterarguments in your essay to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the topic. Refute counterarguments by presenting contrasting evidence or providing a persuasive rebuttal.
• Provide balanced analysis: While presenting arguments and counterarguments, ensure a balanced analysis that gives due weight to each viewpoint. Avoid bias and strive for objectivity by presenting evidence from various perspectives.
• Use transition words and phrases: Utilize appropriate transition words and phrases to guide the reader through the presentation of arguments and counterarguments. Examples include “on the one hand,” “however,” “in contrast,” “nevertheless,” etc.

By following these strategies, you can effectively present arguments and counterarguments in your discursive essay, demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the topic and engaging the reader in a thoughtful analysis.

Writing the Body Paragraphs

When writing the body paragraphs of a discursive essay, it’s important to present a balanced and well-structured analysis of the topic. Here are some key strategies to consider:

• Organize your paragraphs: Each body paragraph should focus on a single argument or idea. Start with a clear topic sentence that introduces the main point of the paragraph.
• Provide evidence and examples: Support your arguments with evidence, facts, statistics, or examples from credible sources. This will enhance the validity and persuasiveness of your arguments.
• Use logical reasoning: Present clear and coherent reasoning to connect your evidence with your main argument. Use logic and critical thinking to explain the relevance and significance of your evidence.
• Consider opposing viewpoints: Acknowledge potential counterarguments and address them within your body paragraphs. Refute counterarguments using logical and evidence-based reasoning.
• Use paragraphs for different viewpoints: If you’re discussing multiple perspectives or arguments within the same essay, dedicate separate paragraphs to each viewpoint. Clearly indicate transitions between paragraphs to maintain a coherent flow.
• Include topic sentences and transitions: Begin each paragraph with a topic sentence that clearly states the main idea. Use transitional words and phrases to guide the reader smoothly from one paragraph to the next.

Remember, in a discursive essay, the body paragraphs should explore various arguments and perspectives related to the topic, providing a balanced analysis and supporting evidence. By following these strategies, you can construct well-organized and compelling body paragraphs for your discursive essay.

Incorporating Evidence and Examples

Effectively incorporating evidence and examples is crucial in a discursive essay to support your arguments and strengthen your analysis. Here are some strategies to consider when integrating evidence:

• Choose credible sources: Gather evidence from reputable and reliable sources such as scholarly articles, books, authoritative websites, or academic journals. This ensures the validity and credibility of the evidence.
• Use a variety of evidence: Draw from a range of sources to provide a well-rounded perspective on the topic. This can include facts, statistics, expert opinions, case studies, or historical examples.
• Provide context: When presenting evidence, provide context to help the reader understand its significance. Explain the relevance of the evidence to your argument and how it supports your main points.
• Analyze and interpret evidence: Avoid simply regurgitating evidence. Instead, analyze and interpret it, explaining how it supports your argument and contributes to your overall analysis.
• Quote and paraphrase effectively: When using direct quotes, ensure they are relevant and support your argument. Use accurate paraphrasing to summarize and restate ideas from your sources.
• Cite your sources correctly: Properly cite your sources using a citation style appropriate for your academic field, such as APA, MLA, or Chicago. This gives credit to the original authors and avoids plagiarism.

By incorporating evidence and examples effectively, you can provide a solid foundation for your arguments in a discursive essay, enhancing your credibility and persuasiveness.

Addressing Counterarguments

Addressing counterarguments is an essential component of a discursive essay as it demonstrates critical thinking and strengthens your overall argument. Here are some strategies to effectively address counterarguments:

• Identify counterarguments: Identify the main counterarguments or opposing viewpoints related to your topic. This shows that you have considered different perspectives on the issue.
• Understand the counterarguments: Thoroughly analyze and understand the counterarguments before addressing them. This will help you develop a strong response based on evidence and reasoning.
• Refute the counterarguments: Present a persuasive rebuttal to counterarguments by providing evidence or logical reasoning that challenges or disproves them.
• Anticipate objections: Address potential objections or criticisms that readers might have. Proactively refute these objections by providing additional evidence or presenting alternative perspectives.
• Acknowledge validity: Recognize the validity of certain counterarguments or aspects of opposing viewpoints. This demonstrates fairness and strengthens your overall argument by showing that you have carefully considered all sides.
• Use transitional phrases: Use transitional phrases such as “however,” “although,” or “on the other hand,” to seamlessly introduce counterarguments and your responses.

By effectively addressing counterarguments, you can strengthen your own argument and demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the topic. Engaging with opposing viewpoints in a fair and persuasive manner enhances the overall credibility and impact of your discursive essay.

Concluding the Discursive Essay

Concluding your discursive essay is an opportunity to summarize your main points and leave a lasting impression on the reader. Here are some strategies to effectively conclude your essay:

• Restate your thesis statement: Begin your conclusion by restating your thesis statement in a concise and clear manner. This reminds the reader of your main argument and reinforces its significance.
• Summarize your main points: Provide a brief summary of the main points you discussed in the body paragraphs. This helps to reinforce the key arguments and evidence presented throughout the essay.
• Emphasize the significance of your argument: Highlight the importance and relevance of your argument in relation to the broader context or real-world implications. This helps to leave a lasting impact on the reader.
• Address counterarguments: Briefly acknowledge the counterarguments you addressed in the essay and reiterate why your main argument is stronger or more compelling.
• Offer a final thought or call to action: Conclude your essay by offering a final thought, reflection, or call to action that encourages the reader to further consider the topic or take action.
• Provide closure: End your conclusion by providing a sense of closure to the essay. This can be achieved by offering a conclusive statement or returning to an anecdote or example mentioned earlier in the essay.

By following these strategies, you can effectively conclude your discursive essay, leaving a strong and memorable impression on the reader while summarizing the key points and reinforcing the significance of your argument.

Sociology Research Topics Ideas

Importance of Computer in Nursing Practice Essay

History Research Paper Topics For Students

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related emails.

Latest Articles

In today’s digital era, the fusion of artificial intelligence (AI) with academic writing has revolutionized how students approach essay composition....

Using Artificial Intelligence (AI) in education is changing how things are taught and learned in standard ways. With its ability...

The advancement of artificial intelligence has made it increasingly common for essays and articles to be written by AI. But...

I want to feel as happy, as your customers do, so I'd better order now

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.

How To Write Discursive Essays

• Essay Writing Lower Secondary

1. What is a Discursive Essay?

A discursive essay is an essay which involves a discussion. You’re encouraged to examine different perspectives on the issue so that the discussion you provide is a balanced one! You are on the right track if your essay sheds light on the issue by looking at it from different viewpoints.

But before you go on reading… You might want to download a pdf copy of this article as it is quite long!

Click the blue download button, enter your email, and the pdf file will be delivered to your inbox! (Remember to check spam!)

  Click here to Download

2. How do I Identify a Discursive Essay Topic?

Let’s take a look at some of the discursive essay topics from past year papers:

2021 O-Level: “Young people are changing the world for the better.” What is your opinion?

• 2019 O-Level: “Most young people today are obsessed with fame and imitating celebrities.” What are your views?

In recent years, “What is your opinion?” and “What are your views?” are common signposts used to indicate a discursive essay topic. However, there are also instances where such questions are not used. Consider:

• 2012 O-Level: People all over the world are living longer. What are the advantages and disadvantages of their increased life expectancy?
• 2010 O-Level: What important lessons in life are learned away from school?

So note that the question can still indicate discursive writing even when it does not contain “What is your opinion?” or “What are your views?”

3. What is the Difference Between a Discursive Essay, an Argumentative Essay and an Expository Essay?

Now that we’ve cleared that up, let’s look at the differences in requirements for a discursive and an argumentative essay.

Argumentative: you are required to take an explicit stand on the issue. Your essay is structured in a manner that argues towards this stand. When writing an argumentative essay, your goal is to persuade, to convince the reader to be in support of your stand.

Discursive: you are not required to take an explicit stand on the issue. In other words, you do not need to pick a side. You may choose to pick a side; that’s perfectly fine! Just note that the goal here is not to persuade or to convince; it is to provide the reader with a balanced discussion by examining the issue from various viewpoints.

Now that you’ve learnt how to identify a discursive question and gotten a better idea of what it requires, let’s look at how to plan a discursive essay.

4. How do I Approach or Structure a Discursive Essay?

Some essays require  a binary approach , meaning to say you tackle the issue by addressing the positive and the negative aspects of the question at hand. 

Here is how you can plan your body paragraphs for such topics:

Now, it’s your turn! Try planning an outline for the following topics:

• 2017 O-Level: It is often said that people
• are too concerned with getting things and spending money. What is your opinion? 

On the other hand, there are topics which are not suited for such a binary approach. Consider questions such as:

• Give 3 x features (1 per body paragraph)
• Give 3 x important lessons (1 per body paragraph)

5. How do I Brainstorm Ideas for a Discursive Essay to Achieve a Balanced Discussion?

Give yourself 10 minutes to do a proper planning. It’s useful to approach the issue at hand by exploring its significance and relevance in different spheres and domains : Education, Ethics or Morals, Technology, Law etc.

Instead of giving 3 different points from an education perspective, why not broaden your scope and look at the issue from not just an educational perspective, but also a technological perspective and an ethical perspective?

This is what makes for a matured, holistic response. 

Let’s use the following topic as an example:

If you run out of ideas, you can also examine two sides of a coin in a single domain. For example, you’ll see that in the example, that for the technological sphere, there are instances of youths making and  not changing the world for the better.  

Now that the brainstorming is done, let’s put pen to paper and start writing!

6. How do I Write an Introduction for a Discursive Essay?

• Share an insight or observation regarding the issue. Why is this issue worth discussing? What are the implications of the issue? You can also use 5W1H questions to help you generate ideas.
• Define your scope of discussion and if needed, define the keywords in the topic by setting out what is meant by, for instance, “young people” and “for the better”.

You can ask yourself these questions to help you with your intro:

• Who are “young people”?
• In which domains are youths making significant impact?
• Why do some people believe that they are making the world a better place?
• Why do other people not trust youth to positively impact the world?
• What is my thesis?

Simply answer these questions + include your thesis. Voila, you have a solid introduction!

7. How do I Write the Body Paragraphs for a Discursive Essay?

Students, you must have heard of the PEEL method by now. We introduce the POINT in the first sentence, ELABORATE on the point, then substantiate with EVIDENCE or EXAMPLES , and finally, we round it all off by LINKING back to the point.

It sounds easy enough, doesn’t it?

Each body paragraph should only discuss one main idea , and only one! Introduce the main idea in your topic sentence (the first sentence of your body paragraph), not after you’ve given your example or when you’re wrapping up the paragraph.

A good topic sentence is straightforward and clear .

Here is an example of a coherent and concise topic sentence:  

• In the sphere of education, youth activists are making positive changes by advocating to make education available to girls in less developed societies.

After you have crafted your topic sentence, it’s time to elaborate on your main point. A well-developed body paragraph elaborates by delving deeper into the main point and substantiating with relevant examples or evidence.

For our point on “education”, consider asking and answering the following questions:

• Education imparts knowledge and skills to girls, which then grants more employment opportunities. In turn, they break free from the poverty cycle.
• Don’t stop here! Make sure to link back to the idea of “making the world a better place”.
• This means lower poverty rates in the world and society also benefits from the contributions that the girls go on to make in the workforce.

Important Reminders:

a. Your essay  must not be example-driven ! It must always be point-driven. 

b. Remember to make the link from your examples/ evidence back to your topic sentence. This illustrates the relevance and strength of your evidence and reinforces your main point. 

For our example, a coherent body paragraph could look like this: 

8. How to Write a Conclusion for a Discursive Essay?

Many students just reiterate the points in conclusion. But that is… you guessed it, boring. Last impression lasts!   You want to provide an insight to this issue to demonstrate your maturity of thought. Apart from summarising your points, link your conclusion back to the introduction so that your essay comes a full circle. You can also use a quote or thought-provoking question for readers to make their own conclusion.

Students, this is how you tackle a discursive essay. Try applying these tips to one of the topics above!

Visit other related articles on Writing Samurai:

How to write argumentative essays.

• 7 Exam-Smart Tips For Language Editing
• 9 Tips for English Summary Writing
• Practice Past Years O-Level English Essay Questions
• Exam Smart Tips for Secondary English Paper 1 and Paper 2

You might want to download a pdf copy of this article for future reference!

Click here to Download

Follow Writing Samurai on Telegram for the latest tips and strategies for English, Chinese, and Creative Writing!  Pssst... We will also share the latest compo topics during test or exam season!

Click this link to follow our channel >>> https://t.me/writingsamurai

A Guide On How To Prepare for PSLE

Cancel reply

Your comment ...

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Writing Samurai is an online platform dedicated to nurturing children’s creative writing skills. Our courses are designed to be engaging and effective, without resorting to traditional teaching methods.

Subscribe for latest news & English tips:

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

2024 Copyright Writing Samurai

PRIMARY ENGLISH

• Model Compositions
• Situational Writing Tips
• PSLE English Oral Exam Tips
• PSLE Chinese Oral Exam Tips
• 50 Meaningful Proverbs
• Composition Writing
• PSLE Marking Scheme

SECONDARY ENGLISH

• Past Year's O-Level Essays
• Discursive Essay Writing
• Argumentative Essay Writing
• Secondary English Writing Tips (O-Levels)
• Exam Tips for Secondary English
• 7 Exam Tips for Language Editing (O-Levels)

POPULAR TOPICS

• English Oral
• Chinese Oral
• Situational Writing
• Secondary School Writing
• Synthesis & Transformation
• Calculate AL PSLE Score

TOP FREE RESOURCES

• Free English Writing Resources List
• Free Model Compositions Examples
• Video - Proverbs Composition Writing
• Video - How to Write A Powerful Introduction
• Video - How to Use Good Expressions in your Compositions
• Free Online Writing Course - Kick Start Your Writing

TOP COURSES

• Junior Writers Masterclass - P1 / P2
• Little Writers Masterclass - P3 / P4
• Creative Writing Masterclass - P5 / P6
• Chinese Composition Writing - P5 / P6
• Essay Writing Masterclass - S1 / S2
• Essay Writing - Expository & Argumentative Crash Course
• Grammar Editing Crash Course for Secondary School
• Model Composition Examples
• Free Model Compositions

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• BSA Prize Essays
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Publish with BJA?
• About The British Journal of Aesthetics
• About the British Society of Aesthetics
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

1. politically discursive art, 2. the problem of parity, 3. the pre-eminence of the objective style, 4. plurality of rhetorical modes, 5. political art in context, 6. artworks and arguments.

• < Previous

Art as Political Discourse

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Vid Simoniti, Art as Political Discourse, The British Journal of Aesthetics , Volume 61, Issue 4, October 2021, Pages 559–574, https://doi.org/10.1093/aesthj/ayab018

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Much art is committed to political causes. However, does art contribute something unique to political discourse, or does it merely reflect the insights of political science and political philosophy? Here I argue for indispensability of art to political discourse by building on the debate about artistic cognitivism, the view that art is a source of knowledge. Different artforms, I suggest, make available specific epistemic resources, which allow audiences to overcome epistemic obstacles that obtain in a given ideological situation. My goal is to offer a general model for identifying cognitive advantages for artworks belonging to distinct artforms and genres (e.g. satire, visibility-raising artworks, caricatures, and so on), in a way that can account for each artwork’s historical and cultural specificity. More speculatively, however, my account also comments on the ancient struggle between philosophy and the arts as competing modes of persuasion, and expands our notion of legitimate political discourse to include a greater plurality of discursive genres.

Gerhard Richter’s portrait of his uncle wearing a Nazi uniform, Uncle Rudi (1965), addresses the subject of intergenerational guilt in Germany; Margaret Atwood’s novel The handmaid’s tale ( 1985 ) critiques patriarchal oppression through a story set in a dystopian future society; Public Enemy’s hip-hop album Fear of a Black Planet ( 1990 ) tackles institutional racism in the USA; Jasmila Žbanić’s film Esma’s Secret (2006) narrates the story of a rape survivor raising her child, broaching this difficult subject in the aftermath of the Yugoslav wars. We can categorize such works as politically discursive art, in the sense that they are recognizably about a political issue: audiences receive such works as contributions to a debate in the public sphere. While in the first half of the twentieth century, the very idea of political content in art had to be defended—for example, in W. E. B. Du Bois’ defence of anti-racist art ( Du Bois, 1926 ) or in Walter Benjamin’s defence of ‘tendentious art’ and the role of the author as ‘producer’ ( Benjamin, 1934 /1999)—in our own time, art has become an undeniably political forum. From TV series to hip-hop albums, from feminist ‘craftivism’ to environmentalist land art, the artist’s licence to display overt political tendencies through her work is hardly in doubt.

Nevertheless, what role such politically discursive art performs may be questioned. For example, should we say that Atwood’s novel merely reflects feminist criticism of patriarchal society, or does it add something to that criticism in a way that a feminist theorist might? Fear of a Black Planet may motivate one to notice the racism experienced in the United States, but does it itself contribute to political discourse about racism in a way that a manifesto might? The question I propose to address, accordingly, is this: can politically discursive art contribute something distinct to political debate on specific topics, or does it simply rehearse positions arrived at in other disciplines?

Before we tackle the question, a brief methodological note is in order. The background to my enquiry will be ideas of deliberative democracy: broadly speaking, the thought that political debate takes place within a public sphere, within which different modes of communication are available to participants. The key question for theorists of public reason in deliberative democracy—such as John Rawls, Amy Gutmann and Jürgen Habermas—is what deliberative norms will ensure outcomes that are both fairly arrived at and are likely to be correct. To establish art’s contribution to discourse, I therefore suggest that we compare political art with argument-driven forms of public debate, which are typically presented as ideal within a well-ordered public discourse. Admittedly, some readers will find this set-up as already too optimistic about the merits of deliberative democracy. Indeed, the connection between art and politics has been much more readily studied within critical theory traditions such as the Frankfurt school and poststructuralism, which begin with a radical scepticism of the public sphere—viewing it as already deeply compromised by unequal power relations and false consciousness—and then posit art as a kind of counterweight to that sphere (the work of Theodor Adorno is perhaps most representative here). To put my cards on the table: the picture I build here will, by contrast, allow for considerable faith in the public sphere in modern democracies, although I hope the relationship between my position and some of the valid worries traditionally expressed in critical theory will become clearer later in the paper.

I begin the investigation by pointing to a related view in contemporary aesthetics—cognitivism about art—in order to formulate the problem of parity between art and non-art discourse. I delineate my view—that art yields discursive knowledge—from views that it yields experiential or practical knowledge. Then, in Section 3, I will offer a case against parity in the political context. Making use of John Rawls’ and Jürgen Habermas’ accounts of public reason, I will construct an argument for the pre-eminence of the objective style of political discourse. In Section 4, I will resist that case, arguing that there are instances where the very attempt to inhabit the objective style may leave us worse off epistemically and that, in those cases, political art can be epistemically superior. I illustrate my argument with two examples in Section 5, before addressing objections in Section 6.

Artistic cognitivism is the claim that art makes available non-trivial knowledge, in a way that is particular to it as art. Several philosophers have argued for cognitivism by pointing out an overlap between artistic and systematic forms of justification: works of art, just like systematic discourse, can provide thought experiments ( Camp, 2009 ), can offer examples of virtue and vice ( Carroll, 2002 ), can encourage inductive reasoning from examples to general conclusions ( Putnam, 1978 ), can appeal to emotions to motivate arguments ( Nanay, 2013 ) and can clarify concepts by offering particular applications for them ( John, 1998 ). We might designate these philosophical efforts as formulating an ‘argument from overlap’: art is a source of knowledge, because artistic devices overlap with methods that we, as philosophers, already recognize as conducive to knowledge. This may be easily translated into a political context. Atwood’s The handmaid’s tale (1985) may be thought of as a carefully constructed thought experiment of a life lived under extreme misogyny; Public Enemy’s Fear of a Black Planet (1990) may be said to conceptually clarify the concept ‘systemic racism’ by giving clear examples of it. By using such legitimate devices of political discourse, each artwork thereby furthers our understanding of the political issues it tackles.

So, art clearly can contribute to political discourse. However, the initial problem that artistic cognitivism sought to address, chiefly in the 1990s and 2000s, was the question of whether art could yield any valuable knowledge at all ( Lamarque and Olsen, 1994 , pp. 324ff, 68, 84–5, 402ff). With that worry by now largely laid to rest, a further problem arises: the problem of epistemic parity between art and non-artistic disciplines. Consider this analogy. You are having a drunken late-night conversation about politics with a particularly brilliant friend. Even though that conversation does not conform to the rigours of academic discourse, it is presumably possible to learn much from it. While desultory and digressive, the conversation might still contain valid argumentation and truthful assertions, even singular moments of inspiration. Still, it is also true that you would have acquired the relevant knowledge more efficiently were your friend not inebriated and could have organized her thoughts more systematically. The worry now is that art is just like your brilliant, drunken friend: overlap does not guarantee parity. Since non-art political discourse has only one aim (to deepen our understanding of political issues), it can absorb any mechanism found in art (such as detailed thought experiments or emotionally forceful examples) and apply them exactly as needed without getting distracted with other aims (such as plot pacing in fiction, or rhyme in hip hop). While the arts may do well, and even very well , at progressing knowledge, there remains a possibility that the arts will always be worse at securing knowledge than theoretical disciplines. This is the problem of parity.

In choosing how we deal with the problem of parity, the cognitivist about art encounters an interesting fork in the road. The first option is to propose that there exist special kinds of knowledge, which art is especially good at securing. Some philosophers have put forward the idea that art offers experiential insights (e.g. Gaut, 2007 , pp. 141–202; Green, 2010 ; Walton 1990 , pp. 25–30, 34–35, 95, 211), or that art yields practical moral wisdom (e.g. Carroll, 2002 ; Gaut, 2007 , pp. 163ff; Nussbaum, 1990 , pp. 148–67). Now, the exact nature of these claims varies from philosopher to philosopher, and some of them can be interpreted as also leaning towards the ‘overlap’ claims mentioned above. But the important point is this: insofar as one insists that experiential and practical knowledge arrived at through art are truly distinct from the more propositional knowledge pursued by argumentation, then it is easy to overcome the problem of parity. Art then reigns over its own realm of non-propositional, non-paraphrasable insight (cf. Nussbaum, 1990 , pp. 4–5), while systematic intellectual disciplines are left confined to their own domain.

To insist on a clear distinction between different domains of knowledge, however, strikes me as unsuitable for the politically discursive artworks. Politically discursive works broach a thesis, a point or a subject that is clearly legible from the purview of other disciplines (it is for this reason that these works have been disparagingly called ‘tendentious’ or even ‘didactic’ works of art). Art criticism around Richter’s Uncle Rudi routinely points to the subject of intergenerational guilt in Germany, and the reception of Atwood’s The handmaid’s tale points towards a critique of patriarchal relations. But such subjects are fully debatable through political science or philosophy. Therefore, if artworks make genuine contribution to our understanding of such subjects, their contribution cannot be of a radically different kind, and must be interrogable by systematic disciplines.

For this reason, I propose to take a different path, and to insist that political art and systematic disciplines are after knowledge of the same kind . The kind of knowledge in question will, to a large degree, be propositional (it will include statements about how the world is, or how it ought to be), but we need not get too caught up in the propositional-practical-experiential distinction, sometimes imported into philosophy of art from analytic epistemology. Two other clarifications are more important. First, by invoking the term ‘knowledge’ in the political context, I mean to assume that some epistemic progress can be made in the realm of politics, although this allows that there may be areas of uncertainty that we shall never fully settle (we may never know what a perfect society looks like, but we now know that feudalism is not it). Secondly, a contrast seems to obtain between discursive propositional knowledge, such as knowledge about the nature of tolerance, and mundane propositional knowledge, such as knowing that ‘it is raining outside’. We can obtain mundane propositional knowledge simply from perception or from testimony. Discursive knowledge , by contrast, is a matter of more complex processes of justification. A subject can be said to have understood more , say, about the nature of patriarchy, if she has considered a greater number of theories and facts, and worked through her conceptual schemas. The knowledge we are after is arrived at by more intellectually exerting routes than simply looking through the window or asking the teacher.

Against this background, we must push our analysis of art further than the 'argument of overlap' did. The task is to address the problem of parity anew, to show that art is not a second-best path to knowledge, and to do so without invoking a distinct sphere of knowledge. In other words, we are back in the midst of Plato’s ancient quarrel between poetry and philosophy in Plato’s original formulation, that is, their quarrel over the same domain—the domain of politics—where what matters is truth, justice and careful thinking (cf. Plato, 2000 , X 607b5–6).

In the analogy above, art corresponded to the intoxicated friend. But that correspondence is not in fact an obvious one. Why should the drunken friend not be, say, political philosophy or political science ?

The anti-art assumption seems to be a natural one to make from within philosophy itself. Especially in analytic philosophy, we have come to value a certain measured style that comprises perspicacious structuring of arguments, clear signposting, definite conclusions, systematic presentation of evidence, elimination of the author’s distinct voice and autobiography, lack of flourishes and digressions, avoidance of ambiguity, and other such stylistic properties. We may call such a style the ‘objective style’ of discourse. We find one manifesto-like defence of it in Timothy Williamson’s Philosophy of Philosoph y:

We need the unglamorous virtue of patience to read and write philosophy that is as perspicuously structured as the difficulty of the subject requires, and the austerity to be dissatisfied with appealing prose that does not meet those standards. The fear of boring oneself or one’s readers is a great enemy of truth. ( Williamson, 2007 , p. 288)

Following this line of reasoning, art would almost certainly count among the enemies of truth; after all, few artists set out to bore their audiences. However, it is not yet clear what exactly might justify our preference for the objective style when we speak of political discourse. After all, discourse that is so boring and unglamorous that nobody has the patience to engage with it would hardly convince anybody. To mount an argument in favour of the objective style, we need to reflect on the proper procedure of acquiring knowledge through a political debate. A suitable philosophical portrait of such a process may be borrowed from democratic discourse theory in its original form; here I shall draw on two best-known exponents, John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas.

While following different political programmes, both Rawls and Habermas have defended the notion of public reason: the idea that the legitimacy of political rules depends not simply on the agreement of actual citizens, but on what would be agreed by suitably idealized rational subjects. For Rawls, only ‘reasonable’ subjects form the constituency of public reason. These are the subjects who can temporarily bracket their own interests, position, substantive opinions or religious views, as suggested by the veil of ignorance of Rawls’ ‘original position’ ( Rawls, 1997 , pp. 769–73; Rawls, 2005 , pp. 22–23, 47–59). Habermas’ early theory of communicative rationality similarly stipulates that those engaging in public argumentation must assume an ‘ideal speech situation’ ( Habermas, 1970 ; for elaboration, see Brand, 1990 , pp. 11, 19–24, 28–29). Here, subjects do not seek to coerce each other’s opinions (what Habermas calls ‘strategic action’) but jointly aim to find inherently good solutions (‘communicative action’) ( Habermas, 1984 , pp. 87–88, 94–96). As with Rawls’ reasonable subjects, the participants in an ideal speech situation weigh different political options impartially, such that ‘the structure of [the participants’] communication rules out all external or internal coercion other than the force of the better argument‘ ( Habermas, 1990 , pp. 88–89). Neither Rawls nor Habermas is primarily concerned with the question of what rhetorical style should be employed under the idealized conditions of political discourse they describe. And yet, the picture they paint tends towards the objective style.

In Political Liberalism, for example, Rawls suggests that reasonable subjects ought to abide by the duty of civility to one another—that is, be willing to explain how their political preferences derive from impartial concerns ( Rawls, 2005 , pp. 217). He also introduces the requirement that they should do so in an accessible way ( Rawls, 2005 , p. 162n28), and elsewhere calls for ‘public occasions of orderly and serious discussion of fundamental questions and issues of public policy’ ( Rawls, 1997 , p. 772, my emphasis). Rawls gives the measured and impartial style in which the Justices of the Supreme Court should ideally give their opinions as an exemplar (2005, pp. 235ff). Habermas, comparably, insists that all forms of public reason be free of the attempt to manipulate the other party, and should in principle be justifiable in the ideal speech situation of giving reasons and yielding to better arguments: ‘Even the most fleeting of speech-act offers, the most conventional yes/no responses, rely on potential reasons’. ( Habermas, 1996 , p. 19; cited in Allen, 2012 , p. 356) For this reason, as one commentator noted, Habermas demands that speakers in the ideal situation should avoid insincerity, self-contradiction and inconsistent use of terms and irony ( Panagia, 2004 , pp. 832–33).

What is here stipulated is a certain match between idealized political subjects and the manner of their deliberations. Reasonable participants in public discourse, as we saw, have a duty to expurgate idiosyncratic epistemic obstacles: their individual biases, their desire for dominating others, and so forth. They affirm this commitment to reasonableness by addressing themselves only to those epistemic obstacles that are indelible and shared: obstacles such as the inherent difficulty of the arguments involved, the unavailability of evidence or the vagueness of shared concepts (these are what Rawls calls the ‘burdens of judgment’; Rawls, 2005 , pp. 56–57). For such obstacles, the objective style of reasoning will be best-suited. The objective style separates the speaker’s idiosyncratic position from the content of her arguments and, by eliminating such features as wilful self-contradiction or lack of seriousness, the objective style is also the most accessible—that is, easiest for other reasonable participants to follow.

This rationalist picture of public reason is, it ought to be noted, no longer as dominant in political theory as when Rawls and Habermas first formulated it. Some proponents of deliberative democracy have become more open to forms of communication that go beyond argumentation, especially when considering the real, rather than idealized, conditions of democratic deliberation ( Polletta and Gardner, 2018 ). The case I intend to formulate for political art is broadly aligned with such developments. That being said, the rationalist model is still at the core of democratic deliberation theory (cf. Goodin, 2018 ) and, even in its expanded format, provides a foil for artistic forms. Art does not fit snugly with its demands: ruminative paintings about guilt do not even offer clear-cut conclusions, and hip-hop albums do not abide by the ‘duty of civility’. So, let us, for now, distil the rationalist model of public reason into an argument for the pre-eminence of the objective genre, and consider the implications such an argument has for works of political art.

The first premise of the argument here is that, at the commencement of any political enquiry, reasonable subjects should aspire to the idealized condition of speech. They should try to reduce their individual epistemic obstacles as much as possible: bracket their biases, but also brace themselves against boredom and distraction. What degree of idealization we should expect of real-life participants can be debated (cf. Vallier, 2018 , §2.4); however, it seems clear that the subjects should aspire to be as impartial and public-minded as possible. Let us call such an aspirational state—the state with the fewest possible epistemic obstacles—the state of discursive rationality. Importantly, the first premise need not stipulate that participants in public discourse should ever actually achieve that state, merely that it is something we should aspire towards. And that seems self-evident: the state with the fewest epistemic obstacles is the one we should aspire towards.

The second premise is that the objective genre is best-suited to a subject in the state of discursive rationality. This also seems plausible. By perspicuously structuring arguments and impartially laying out evidence, the objective style is directed precisely at the remaining, indelible obstacles of any enquiry. The objective style makes no concessions to laziness, or to biases, or to being easily distracted, or indeed to the propensity to be moved by anything other than the force of the better argument. The various features typical of the arts, such as plot pacing, concerns with rhythm or creation of thoughtful aporias, on the other hand, are not directed at the indelible epistemic obstacles—namely, the difficulty of arguments or unavailability of evidence. Precisely those devices that separate art from objective discourse are, then, at best superfluous and at worst distracting.

What follows from these premises—that we should aspire to discursive rationality, and that the objective style is best-suited to that state—is a certain elite position for the objective genre. The reasonable subject and the objective style of discourse are a good fit; they are the model enquirer and the model medium of any intellectual investigation. It may be observed that, in reality, the rhetorical styles in public debates are a lot more mixed (there are, for example, more subjective forms of journalism and more personal modes of public address). But the compass of epistemic prestige in political discourse will point towards the stylistically objective elements, just as Williamson suggests for philosophy in general. There is, then, no parity between objective political discourse (philosophy, political science, serious journalism, and so on) and the arts.

Still, this argument does not imply that the proper attitude of the philosopher towards the arts should be one of disparagement; rather, it should be a kind of patronizing encouragement. The arts, as we saw, overlap with other forms of public discourse. They may therefore serve those public discussants who, due to some circumstantial weakness or disadvantage, cannot quite aspire to the state of discursive rationality (cf. Polletta and Gardner, 2018 , pp. 72–3). For somebody easily bored, for example, Atwood’s gripping narrative in The handmaid’s tale may be a useful introduction to ideas about anti-patriarchy. For somebody daunted by the turgid texts on social justice, rap albums may provide a more engaging way to think through oppressions of racism. Equally, we might say that introductions to philosophy (but not serious texts) may take a literary form, such as Jostein Gaarder’s Sophie’s world (1991) or Timothy Williamson’s own Tetralogue (2015). The arts may, then, play a sort of didactic, kindergartenly handmaiden to philosophy. For discursive knowledge of the highest kind, we must still ascend to the clear-sighted industriousness of the objective style.

Our aim now is to defuse the argument for the pre-eminence of the objective genre. I propose that we take no issue with the second premise: that the objective genre is best-suited to subjects who have already arrived at the state of discursive rationality. I like to imagine such subjects as the souls in Dante’s Paradiso, the non-omniscient but ideally rational beings, who would probably have little use for political art of any sort. I propose that we dislodge the first premise instead and claim that aspiring towards the state of discursive rationality—bracketing one’s biases and so forth—is not always the epistemically best thing to do at the commencement of an enquiry. This may seem counterintuitive, but there is an important ambiguity at work here. If we conceive of ‘aspiration’ as merely ‘the desire to be in’, then we ought to agree with the first premise: the state with the fewest epistemic obstacles is the epistemically most desirable. However, if we conceive of ‘aspiration’ as ‘an attempt to inhabit’, then the premise becomes less obviously appealing. We must ask, in other words, whether, for people like ourselves, there might not obtain situations where the effort of hoisting ourselves up to that exalted position would backfire, create new epistemic obstacles or fail to dispel the ones that exist. We will have to fill in some details here. Who are ‘people like ourselves’? What sorts of beings might stumble and scratch their knees when reaching for the highest echelons of rationality?

Recent social epistemology has pointed out various ways in which epistemic obstacles form part of our social background: injustice may be woven into publicly available concepts ( Fricker, 2007 , pp. 18–27), into our sense of identity ( Stanley, 2015 , pp. 196–201; elaborating on Stebbing 1939 , p. 33), and may be inherent in psychological attitudes like closed-mindedness or dogmatism ( Cassam, 2019 , Chapters 2–4). If we accept that such obstacles are pervasive and recalcitrant, there is a genuine question as to whether taking a deep breath, pointing them out, ‘bracketing them’, and then proceeding with the rigorous objective style is always the optimal way for their overcoming.

To see what I have in mind, consider a few examples; these are gathered from philosophical and political science literature. Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler have reported on the ‘backfire effect’ in political persuasion ( Nyhan and Reifler, 2010 ). This occurs when a participant in a debate is offered evidence that contradicts her preferred belief; curiously, offering such new evidence can backfire in the sense that the participant then doubles down on her belief rather than revises it in accordance with the new data. Nyhan and Reifler observed this effect in the context of the Second Gulf War, when pro-war subjects, who believed in the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Iraq, were presented with evidence to the contrary. Afterwards, the subjects curiously reported a higher certainty in the existence of WMDs ( Nyhan and Reifler, 2010 , pp. 314–15; analogous findings were established on the left of the ideological spectrum as well). What is curious for our purposes in that the corrective evidence in these experiments was invariably presented in the objective style: as impartial, factual news reports. And yet, such calm, evidence-driven counter-arguments have led the subjects to hold even tighter onto their beliefs, when we would expect them to lower their credence, or for it at least not to change.

To give a different case of how the objective style of discourse may fail us, consider Robin McKenna’s (2019) recent exploration of subjects’ weakened ability to obtain new justified beliefs, when these beliefs are consistent with the subject’s ideological position. For example, McKenna argues that subjects who identify with liberal and environmentalist values are less critical of studies that support the existence of climate change. While climate change, of course, exists, not all reports on all aspects of it will be factually correct, and liberal-environmentalist audiences are more likely to go along, uncritically, with such faulty studies. As a result, we seem less capable of obtaining new knowledge on issues we politically identify with, even if our views happen to be broadly correct ( McKenna, 2019 , pp. 758, 763–65; analogous cases can be found elsewhere on the political spectrum). Again, it seems, the objective, scientific presentation of evidence by itself provides no additional help to our critical faculties. When strong political commitments are in place, it seems that we are only too happy to be led down the route that gets us to the desired conclusion—without applying due critical pressure on the way.

In all these cases we find what Adrian Piper has called the state of ‘pseudo-rationality’: the semblance of rational coherence that we inhabit to justify the beliefs we are committed to ( Piper, 2013 , pp. 289–96, 312–16). Piper’s point, as I understand it, is that such subjects need not engage in deliberate sophistry; they do not merely cynically use arguments to further a point they do not believe in, as Habermas at some point suggested ( Habermas, 1984 , pp. 295ff). In fact, the subjects might quite sincerely attempt to bracket their biases and reason impartially; it is only that by doing so, they still weigh evidence or apply focus in a biased way. Our adherence to the objective style may be perfectly well-meaning, but this does not guarantee that our epistemic processes will proceed impeccably.

If one acknowledges such cases, the crucial question becomes: what, if anything, might help? What would snap a person out of their state of pseudo-rationality? As the examples given above demonstrate, simply trying harder, and more doggedly pursuing rational argumentation, will not always work. In those cases, we might speculate, an interlocutor’s sarcastic remark may make us see that we have sacrificed truth to argumentative rigour. Or, perhaps, a joke, or, a plaintive tone of voice, or, alternatively, creating some healthy ruckus, slamming the table, saying, ‘come on now, I know you are smart, but look at the facts!’. What— if anything —will lead to epistemic progress and acknowledgement of the facts will depend on the specific dynamics of the situation. Anybody who has engaged in protracted intellectual gymnastics over a heated political issue—or even in a debate over whose turn it is to do the dishes—will be, I take it, familiar with this phenomenon to an extent. For a given epistemic obstacle to be noted and overcome, what sometimes needs to happen is a shift from the objective style into another rhetorical mode.

At this juncture, it may be helpful to again acknowledge that great schism in twentieth-century Western political theory: between those who have extolled rational deliberation as the best tool for political emancipation, and those who have treated the objective style itself as irredeemably corrupted by power relations. Rawls and Habermas, as well as most first-generation analytic political philosophers, may be counted within the first camp; ideology-critical traditions, from Theodor Adorno and Jacques Derrida to Judith Butler, within the second. While I do not mean the present paper to spill into the intractable territory of this rift, it is worth pointing out that our discussion at this point allows for a middle path between these extremes: a pluralist position. Sometimes , a sincere aspiration to discursive rationality and the objective style will offer the best available means to overcome social epistemic obstacles. But that need not be universally the case. To dislodge the argument for the pre-eminence of the objective style, we need not do anything as ambitious (and counterproductive) as deconstruct all instances of objective-style thinking. Our criticism of the objective style can confine itself, more modestly but also more precisely, to isolated cases— those where objective-style thinking fails epistemically.

This, I suggest, is the chink in the armour of objective style through which we can address the problem of parity. Attempting to inhabit the state of discursive rationality is not always a good idea. This claim, it strikes me, is modest enough; but if it is true, we still need to take a few more steps to secure parity between artistic and objective genres. We need to demonstrate a sort of match: show that precisely in those cases where objective style fails, artistic devices can help overcome epistemic obstacles. That, if you like, is the general model. But to secure parity with any particular genre of art, or indeed any particular work of art, the discussion must now become more piecemeal and responsive to culturally specific contexts; philosophy must here join hands with history of the arts and art criticism. I will merely offer two, necessarily brief and schematic, illustrations.

To illustrate how parity may be achieved, I will use two examples of politically discursive art belonging to the recent Anglophone popular culture. Due to the United States' status as the global cultural hegemon, these examples do not require much of an introduction, which in a brief philosophical paper will have to be accepted as a somewhat unpleasant advantage of US hegemony. I should also say at the outset that I do not take these to be necessarily the most accomplished works of political art. Indeed, some of their very discernible faults will allow us to show how art participates in the public attempt at reaching discursive knowledge, but may (just like discourse in the objective style) both contribute to and detract from it.

Consider first the satirical works that were popular in the 2000s, such as Borat (2006) and Brüno (2009) created by Sacha Baron-Cohen, or South Park (1997 –) and Team America (2004) by Trey Parker and Matt Stone. These works have an excessive, grotesque, Rabelaisian quality to them. Just as François Rabelais’ Gargantua and Pantagruel disparaged all strata of the sixteenth-century society through grossness and absurdity, these modern satires mercilessly lacerate a variety of political positions and characters. They denigrate both the ideals that their liberal audiences perceive as ‘bad’ (domestic and imperialist forms of US chauvinism), and those they may perceive as ‘good’ (environmentalism, multiculturalism, pacifism). For example, Team America derides US hawkish foreign policy—personified in the disastrously bumbling ‘world police’ taskforce—but it also lampoons the idealist, pacifist option, represented by a gang of dumb Hollywood actors. The primary target of Borat, meanwhile, is certainly the casual chauvinism of some Americans, whose openly expressed xenophobic reactions are shown in the film’s final cut. However, I depart from the interpretations that see Borat as unequivocally subversive of xenophobia (for such an analysis, see Zupančič, 2008 , p. 33). The depiction of the film’s protagonist as promiscuous and crude also channels stereotypes about third-world immigrants, and the film, I think, therefore is also at odds with a more liberal sentiment, which would censor such depictions as offensive. In short, these satires are decidedly non-partisan (and perhaps non-partisan to a fault); instead of picking a side, they denigrate all political positions that dominated the public sphere at the time of their making.

I shall not attempt a more detailed description of such neo-Rabelaisian satires, although one could certainly chart their relationship to other established genres of satire (e.g. Horatian, Juvenalian, Menippean, Dryden-esque and so forth) or to other subversive comedies (cf. Griffin, 1994 ; Zupančič, 2008 ). For now, let us isolate just one artistic feature common to these works: the indiscriminate disparagement of opposing political positions. This feature is not something that we typically find in works written in the objective style, nor can we imagine it being easily imported into it. The objective style generally seeks to put forward one position at the expense of another and to do so respectfully. So, what could be gained epistemically by such an artistic device, by such a flurry of low blows?

The epistemic benefit of neo-Rabelaisian satire should be understood against the specific background of a polarized political space. As we saw in the previous section, subjects who strongly identify with a given position may find the objective style less suitable for the critical revision of their beliefs. Objective-style corrections may backfire, while objective-style confirmations may be accepted uncritically. Whenever such a highly polarized political situation obtains any loosening of the subject’s identification with her political camp may become epistemically useful. Neo-Rabelaisian satire, at its best, achieves just that. Within the world of Team America, the liberal viewer finds it just as uncomfortable to identify with the sanctimonious Hollywood actors as she does with the mindless military interventionists. Borat is perhaps something of a limit case, because here even the political beliefs that are foundational to democracy—such as the belief that xenophobic stereotypes are a bad thing—are temporarily suspended in the portrayal of the protagonist. Now, at a wrong place, at a wrong time, in the wrong hands, this may certainly result in dangerous cynicism, but, at an appropriate moment, neo-Rabelaisian satire can aim at something that the objective-style discourse has trouble with: it can weaken the subject’s over-confidence in their own position. By temporarily softening our attachment to any of the contestant positions in the public sphere, this form of satire can recalibrate the critical capacity needed for the proper processing of arguments and evidence.

For my second (and quite different) example, consider what we may call visibility-raising artworks: works that foreground the experience of oppressed and culturally underrepresented social groups. The recent television series Pose (2018 –) is one such work. The series is set in the ballroom subculture of the late 1980s New York, which was largely run by LGBTQ and gender-non-conforming people of colour. If we think about what epistemic obstacles visibility-raising artworks are up against, one uncontroversial proposal would be: essentialization. This we may define as a tendency to explain somebody’s entire person—their motives, emotions, capabilities and ethos—by reference to a type they are perceived as belonging to. Overtly negative stereotypes are a clear case of essentialization, but essentialization may also inhere in subtler forms of xenophobia; for example, stereotypes that attribute a seemingly positive property, such as a Black person’s ‘sense of rhythm’ or a gay man’s ‘artistic sense’ (cf. Piper, 2013 , pp. 438–39). Edward Said describes this phenomenon succinctly in his study of Orientalism:

[In an Orientalist mindset,] [w]e are to assume that if an Arab feels joy, if he is sad at the death of his child or parent, if he has a sense of the injustices of political tyranny, then those experiences are necessarily subordinate to the sheer, unadorned, and persistent fact of being an Arab. ( Said, 1978 , p. 230)

As an epistemic obstacle, essentialization can lead to various false beliefs about other persons, indeed, with dire political consequences. Adrian Piper describes such essentialization as xenophobia; as she puts it, xenophobia ‘reduces the complex singularity of the other’s properties to an oversimplified but conceptually manageable subset’. ( Piper, 2013 , p. 422).

Objective-style discourse certainly has a role to play in overcoming essentialization, by, for example, showing that stereotypes are empirically groundless. Nevertheless, we may suggest that objective discourse, in its very structure, makes it hard to contemplate individuals in their distinctiveness. Objective discourse must posit abstract groups even as it calls for those group’s emancipation. Therefore, even if one were to well-meaningly say that ‘LGBTQ individuals have faced challenges of such-and-such nature … ’ one already predisposes the listener to view each individual’s singular nature as primarily understood through their membership of that group. Of course, one may attempt to ameliorate that effect by various qualifications within objective discourse (‘ some LGBTQ people have tended to … ’). Note, however, that a format like the television series does not have the problem of positing groups with essential characteristics built into its structure, like the objective style does. In a TV series, we simply follow the fate of individual characters, and are not given a set of theses about them as a social group.

That is not to say that every television series is wonderfully good at this; earlier episodes of Pose are, I believe, less successful at dispelling essentialization. These involve several clichéd, soap-opera storylines, such as the mentor-student rivalry of Blanca and Elektra, so that the only salient feature in an otherwise predictable situation remains the social type of the protagonists. However, as the series progresses, characters increasingly emerge in their individuality. Blanca’s reaction to her HIV diagnosis is particularly complex, evolving from despair, to a sense of purpose and often-employed gallows humour. All this makes Blanca, as played by Mj Rodriguez, stand out as an individual, whose actions the audience cannot simply reduce to that of a ‘typical’ transwoman. If essentialization is an epistemic obstacle that prevents us from obtaining discursive knowledge about other persons (cf. Piper 2013 , pp. 421ff), then the long narrative format of the contemporary TV series, when intelligently employed, carries certain specific advantages over the objective-style discourse about minoritarian subjects.

These examples fill in, I hope, the general from of the argument for parity between politically discursive art and objective-style discourse. In each case, the argument does not require us to represent some kinds of knowledge as exclusive to art alone (the ‘unparaphrasable knowledge’ path); nor does it require a full takedown of the objective style (the critical theory path). Instead, we need to point at specific situations where the objective discourse fails us, where it becomes haunted by spectres of pseudo-rationality, of which dogmatism and essentialization are but two. Whenever this happens, it is to art that we can look for possible corrections.

There are a few objections that will hopefully bring my position into sharper relief. Firstly, one might object that there is no necessary link between the artworks I have discussed and their epistemic benefits. Surely, it is possible to imagine an objective-style article that successfully convinces the audiences to be more critical of their own position (my first example) or to behold persons in their singular nature (my second). Indeed, that is true. However, as we saw at the outset of this paper, it seems patently wrong to think that any epistemic shift can be achieved exclusively through either art or through objective discourse. Such exclusivity cannot obtain because objective and artistic discourses overlap. Works of art may sometimes point to general trends or facts, and works written in the objective style may sometimes incorporate satirical turns of phrase, detailed descriptions and so forth. The question here is what epistemic obstacles and benefits tend to inhabit different rhetorical modes. The arts can overcome forms of pseudo-rationality that the objective style suffers from, just as, undoubtedly, the objective style can excise epistemic obstacles that it would be more arduous to remove through the arts.

Another objection may point to the epistemic weaknesses of the individual artworks I have described. Artworks, of course, can create epistemic obstacles as well as offer resources. For example, while the neo-Rabelaisian satires may invigorate our critical capacities, as I suggested, one could certainly protest that they can also weaken our critical capacities with their use of crude stereotypes. With regards to my other example, Pose, I have suggested the series removes the epistemic obstacle of essentialization. But one may protest that I have unduly privileged the epistemic interests of the hegemonic (white, heteronormative) audience when I should have also considered the epistemic interests of the people represented in the series. The epistemic needs of an oppressed group may be quite different from those of the mainstream; as Paul C. Taylor has argued in Black Aesthetics, for example, a positive self-understanding of an oppressed group might depend on creating opportunities for authenticity and belonging, as much as on battling stereotypes and essentialization ( Taylor, 2017 , pp. 132–52).

Such polemical points strengthen, rather than weaken, the case for the cognitive value of political art. Criticisms of specific artworks on epistemic grounds may be justified, but we ought to think of such criticism as analogous to objections and counter-arguments that any philosophical essay is likely to invite as well. Discursive knowledge is rarely settled conclusively in a single contribution, and its goal is not a state of dogmatic certainty that would admit no further objection or thought. Artworks (just as works of objective-style discourse) show themselves to be a part of the cognitive enterprise precisely in virtue of inviting objections or re-interpretations.

Such discursive responses to artworks can be offered through art criticism, but also through the development of artistic forms themselves. For example, certain recent television series perform a similar loosening on their audience’s strongly held, ‘right-on’ beliefs as neo-Rabelaisian satires did in the early 2000s, but they do so by creating morally unsettling, flawed protagonists, rather than by employing crude stereotypes (I here have in mind works like Michaela Cole’s brilliant television series I May Destroy You (2020) ). There is cognitive progress here, in the sense that art now avoids artistic devices, which, on reflection, we think left us epistemically worse off, or unduly muddled the public debate. The correction here is analogous to, say, a shift in the concepts we use in the objective style, or to a shift in arguments we offer.

If artworks can be thought of, in this way, as engaging in a common polemic, this also helps to clarify the difference between attributing discursive knowledge to artworks, as I have done, as opposed to claiming distinctly experiential or practical domains of knowledge for art (see Section 2 above). It seems unlikely to me that the artworks I have discussed impart significant experiential or practical knowledge. For example, we do not go up to victims of political oppression and say ‘I know how it must feel; I have read many novels about oppression’, nor do we consult artworks in preparation for some distinctly practical challenge. If you also find such claims counterintuitive, then it may come as a relief that the current position does not imply them. There is no claim here that some distinct know-how or wisdom is acquired, nor that artworks are substitutes for lived experience. Artworks are simply contributions to a public debate. Those that are best at it will leave their audiences with beliefs better attuned to how the world is, in ways that would not have been possible had those audiences engaged in the objective-style debate alone.

We ought to think, then, of serious political art as much more tightly interlaced with our ‘non-art’ ways of thinking about the world. To achieve a parity between these ways of thinking, I have suggested, we must show how pseudo-rationality rises up in one rhetorical style, and is then met by countermeasures in another. This is the general model; more fine-grained accounts would demonstrate how this works for specific artistic genres or even specific artworks or movements. Acquiring discursive knowledge in a politically changing world is a dynamic process, which requires shifts from objective to artistic registers and back again; indeed, it requires constant reinvention of rhetorical and artistic modes. But while this means that the objective style of enquiry is displaced from its preeminent place in democratic deliberation, philosophers ought not to feel too despondent about it. Public discourse requires a plurality of communicative styles: not a hierarchical procession with the objective style at the helm, but a concert of rhetorical modes that all have distinctive roles to play.

Atwood , M . ( 1985 ). The handmaid's tale . Toronto : McClelland and Stewart.Borat . (2006). Created by Sacha Baron Cohen. Distributed by 20th Century Fox .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Allen , A . ( 2012 ). ‘The unforced force of the better argument: Reason and power in Habermas’ political theory’ . Constellations , 19 ( 3 ), pp. 353 – 368 .

Benjamin , W. ( 1934 /1999). ‘The author as producer’, in Jennings , M. , Eiland , H. and Smith , H. (eds), Walter Benjamin: Selected writings , vol. II. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press , pp. 768 – 782 .

Borat . ( 2006 ). Created by Sacha Baron Cohen . Directed by Larry Charles. USA : 20th Century Fox .

Brand , A . ( 1990 ). The force of reason: An introduction to Habermas’ theory of communicative action . London : Allen & Unwin .

Brüno . ( 2009 ). Created by Sacha Baron Cohen . Directed by Larry Charles. USA : Universal Pictures .

Camp , E . ( 2009 ). ‘Two varieties of literary imagination: Metaphor, fiction, and thought experiments’ . Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 33 ( 1 ), pp. 107 – 130 .

Carroll , N . ( 2002 ). ‘The wheel of virtue: Art, literature, and moral knowledge’ . Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 60 ( 1 ), pp. 3 – 26 .

Cassam , Q . ( 2019 ). Vices of the mind: From the intellectual to the political . Oxford : OUP .

Du Bois , W. E. B . ( 1926 ). ‘Criteria of Negro art’ . The Crisis , 32 ( 6 ), pp. 290 – 297 .

Esma's secret: Grbavica . ( 2006 ). Directed by Jasmila Žbanić . Distributed by Dogwoof Pictures .

Fricker , M . ( 2007 ). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing . Oxford : OUP .

Gaarder , J . ( 2000 ). Sophie's world: A novel about the history of philosophy . Møller , P. (trans.). New edition. London : Orion Children's Books .

Gaut , B . ( 2007 ). Art, emotion and ethics . Oxford : OUP .

Goodin , R . ( 2018 ). ‘If deliberation is everything, maybe it’s nothing’, in Bächtiger , A . et al.  (eds), The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy . Oxford : OUP , pp. 883 – 899 .

Green , M . ( 2010 ). ‘How and what we can learn from fiction’, in Hagberg , G. and Jost , W. (eds), A companion to the philosophy of literature . Malden, MA : Wiley-Blackwell , pp. 350 – 366 .

Griffin , D . ( 1994 ). Satire: A critical reintroduction . Lexington : University Press of Kentucky .

Habermas , J . ( 1970 ). ‘Knowledge and interest’, in Emmett , D. and MacIntyre , A. (eds), Sociological theory and philosophical analysis . London : Palgrave .

Habermas , J . ( 1984 ). The theory of communicative action, vol I: Reason and the rationalization of society . McCarthy , T. (trans.). Boston : Beacon Press .

Habermas , J . ( 1990 ). Moral consciousness and communicative action . Lenhardt , C. and Weber Nicholsen , S. (trans.). Cambridge, MA : MIT Press .

Habermas , J . ( 1996 ). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy . Rehg , W. (trans.). Cambridge, MA : MIT Press .

I may destroy you . ( 2020 ). TV series. Created by Michaela Coel . Directed by Sam Miller and Michaela Coel. UK : BBC Studios .

John , E . ( 1998 ). ‘Reading fiction and conceptual knowledge: philosophical thought in literary context’ . Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 56 ( 4 ), pp. 331 – 348 .

Lamarque , P. and Olsen , S. H . ( 1994 ). Truth, fiction, and literature: A philosophical perspective . Oxford : Clarendon .

McKenna , R . ( 2019 ). ‘Irrelevant cultural influences on belief’ . Journal of Applied Philosophy , 36 ( 5 ), pp. 755 – 768 .

Nanay , B . ( 2013 ). ‘Philosophy versus literature? Against the discontinuity thesis’ . Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 71 ( 4 ), pp. 349 – 360 .

Nussbaum , M . ( 1990 ). Love’s knowledge: Essays on philosophy and literature . Oxford : OUP .

Nyhan , B. and Reifler , J . ( 2010 ). ‘When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions’ . Political Behavior , 32 ( 2 ), pp. 303 – 330 .

Panagia , D . ( 2004 ). ‘The force of political argument’ . Political Theory , 32 ( 6 ), pp. 825 – 848 .

Piper , A. M. S . ( 2013 ). Rationality and the structure of the self, Volume II: a Kantian conception. Berlin : APRA Foundation Berlin .

Plato ( 2000 ). The Republic . Griffith , Tom (trans.). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Polletta , F. and Gardner , B . ( 2018 ). ‘The forms of deliberative communication’, in Andre Bächtiger et al.  (eds), The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy . Oxford : OUP , pp. 71 – 85 .

Pose . ( 2018-21 ). TV series. Created by Ryan Murphy, Brad Falchuk and Steven Canals . USA : 20th Television and others .

Public Enemy . ( 1990 ). Fear of a Black planet . Studio album. New York : Def Jam Recordings .

Putnam , H . ( 1978 ). ‘Literature, science, and reflectio n’, in his Meaning and the moral sciences . London : Macmillan , pp. 83 – 94 .

Rawls , J . ( 1997 ). ‘The idea of public reason revisited’ . The Unviersity of Chicago Law Review , 64 ( 3 ), pp. 765 – 807 .

Rawls , J . ( 2005 ). Political liberalism . Expanded edition. New York : Columbia University Press .

Rabelais , F . ( 2006 ). Gargantua and Pantagruel . Screech , M.A. (trans.). London : Penguin Classics .

Said , E. W . ( 1978 ). Orientalism . London : Penguin .

Stanley , J . ( 2015 ). How propaganda works . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press .

Stebbing , S . ( 1939 ). Thinking to some purpose . New York : Penguin .

South Park . ( 1997 -present). TV series. Created by Trey Parker and Matt Stone . Distributed ViacomCBS Domestic and others .

Taylor , P . ( 2017 ). Black is beautiful: A philosophy of black aesthetics . Malden, MA : Wiley Blackwell .

Team America: World police . ( 2004 ). Directed by Trey Parker . USA : Paramount Pictures .

Vallier , K . ( 2018 ). ‘Public justification’, in Zalta , E. N. (ed.). The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy . Spring 2018 edn. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=justification-public ( Accessed 20 November 2020 ).

Walton , K . ( 1990 ). Mimesis as make-believe: On the foundations of the representational arts . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press .

Williamson , T . ( 2007 ). The philosophy of philosophy . Oxford : Blackwell .

Williamson , T . ( 2015 ) Tetralogue: I’m right, you’re wrong . Oxford : OUP .

Zupančič , A . ( 2008 ). The odd one in: On comedy . Cambridge, MA : MIT Press .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1468-2842
• Print ISSN 0007-0904
• Copyright © 2024 British Society of Aesthetics
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 31 October 2017

The visual essay and the place of artistic research in the humanities

• Remco Roes 1 &
• Kris Pint 1  

Palgrave Communications volume  3 , Article number:  8 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

9762 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Archaeology
• Cultural and media studies

What could be the place of artistic research in current contemporary scholarship in the humanities? The following essay addresses this question while using as a case study a collaborative artistic project undertaken by two artists, Remco Roes (Belgium) and Alis Garlick (Australia). We argue that the recent integration of arts into academia requires a hybrid discourse, which has to be distinguished both from the artwork itself and from more conventional forms of academic research. This hybrid discourse explores the whole continuum of possible ways to address our existential relationship with the environment: ranging from aesthetic, multi-sensorial, associative, affective, spatial and visual modes of ‘knowledge’ to more discursive, analytical, contextualised ones. Here, we set out to defend the visual essay as a useful tool to explore the non-conceptual, yet meaningful bodily aspects of human culture, both in the still developing field of artistic research and in more established fields of research. It is a genre that enables us to articulate this knowledge, as a transformative process of meaning-making, supplementing other modes of inquiry in the humanities.

Introduction

In Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description (2011), Tim Ingold defines anthropology as ‘a sustained and disciplined inquiry into the conditions and potentials of human life’ (Ingold, 2011 , p. 9). For Ingold, artistic practice plays a crucial part in this inquiry. He considers art not merely as a potential object of historical, sociological or ethnographic research, but also as a valuable form of anthropological inquiry itself, providing supplementary methods to understand what it is ‘to be human’.

In a similar vein, Mark Johnson’s The meaning of the body: aesthetics of human understanding (2007) offers a revaluation of art ‘as an essential mode of human engagement with and understanding of the world’ (Johnson, 2007 , p. 10). Johnson argues that art is a useful epistemological instrument because of its ability to intensify the ordinary experience of our environment. Images Footnote 1 are the expression of our on-going, complex relation with an inner and outer environment. In the process of making images of our environment, different bodily experiences, like affects, emotions, feelings and movements are mobilised in the creation of meaning. As Johnson argues, this happens in every process of meaning-making, which is always based on ‘deep-seated bodily sources of human meaning that go beyond the merely conceptual and propositional’ (Ibid., p. 11). The specificity of art simply resides in the fact that it actively engages with those non-conceptual, non-propositional forms of ‘making sense’ of our environment. Art is thus able to take into account (and to explore) many other different meaningful aspects of our human relationship with the environment and thus provide us with a supplementary form of knowledge. Hence Ingold’s remark in the introduction of Making: anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture (2013): ‘Could certain practices of art, for example, suggest new ways of doing anthropology? If there are similarities between the ways in which artists and anthropologists study the world, then could we not regard the artwork as a result of something like an anthropological study, rather than as an object of such study? […] could works of art not be regarded as forms of anthropology, albeit ‘written’ in non-verbal media?’ (Ingold, 2013 , p. 8, italics in original).

And yet we would hesitate to unreservedly answer yes to these rhetorical questions. For instance, it is true that one can consider the works of Francis Bacon as an anthropological study of violence and fear, or the works of John Cage as a study in indeterminacy and chance. But while they can indeed be seen as explorations of the ‘conditions and potentials of human life’, the artworks themselves do not make this knowledge explicit. What is lacking here is the logos of anthropology, logos in the sense of discourse, a line of reasoning. Therefore, while we agree with Ingold and Johnson, the problem remains how to explicate and communicate the knowledge that is contained within works of art, how to make it discursive ? How to articulate artistic practice as an alternative, yet valid form of scholarly research?

Here, we believe that a clear distinction between art and artistic research is necessary. The artistic imaginary is a reaction to the environment in which the artist finds himself: this reaction does not have to be conscious and deliberate. The artist has every right to shrug his shoulders when he is asked for the ‘meaning’ of his work, to provide a ‘discourse’. He can simply reply: ‘I don’t know’ or ‘I do not want to know’, as a refusal to engage with the step of articulating what his work might be exploring. Likewise, the beholder or the reader of a work of art does not need to learn from it to appreciate it. No doubt, he may have gained some understanding about ‘human existence’ after reading a novel or visiting an exhibition, but without the need to spell out this knowledge or to further explore it.

In contrast, artistic research as a specific, inquisitive mode of dealing with the environment requires an explicit articulation of what is at stake, the formulation of a specific problem that determines the focus of the research. ‘Problem’ is used here in the neutral, etymological sense of the word: something ‘thrown forward’, a ‘hindrance, obstacle’ (cf. probleima , Liddell-Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon). A body-in-an-environment finds something thrown before him or her, an issue that grabs the attention. A problem is something that urges us to explore a field of experiences, the ‘potentials of human life’ that are opened up by a work of art. It is often only retroactively, during a second, reflective phase of the artistic research, that a formulation of a problem becomes possible, by a selection of elements that strikes one as meaningful (again, in the sense Johnson defines meaningful, thus including bodily perceptions, movements, affects, feelings as meaningful elements of human understanding of reality). This process opens up, to borrow a term used by Aby Warburg, a ‘Denkraum’ (cf. Gombrich, 1986 , p. 224): it creates a critical distance from the environment, including the environment of the artwork itself: this ‘space for thought’ allows one to consciously explore a specific problem. Consciously here does not equal cerebral: the problem is explored not only in its intellectual, but also in its sensual and emotional, affective aspects. It is projected along different lines in this virtual Denkraum , lines that cross and influence each other: an existential line turns into a line of form and composition; a conceptual line merges into a narrative line, a technical line echoes an autobiographical line. There is no strict hierarchy in the different ‘emanations’ of a problem. These are just different lines contained within the work that interact with each other, and the problem can ‘move’ from one line to another, develop and transform itself along these lines, comparable perhaps to the way a melody develops itself when it is transposed to a different musical scale, a different musical instrument, or even to a different musical genre. But, however, abstract or technical one formulates a problem, following Johnson we argue that a problem is always a translation of a basic existential problem, emerging from a specific environment. We fully agree with Johnson when he argues that ‘philosophy becomes relevant to human life only by reconnecting with, and grounding itself in, bodily dimensions of human meaning and value. Philosophy needs a visceral connection to lived experience’ (Johnson, 2007 , p. 263). The same goes for artistic research. It too finds its relevance in the ‘visceral connection’ with a specific body, a specific situation.

Words are one way of disclosing this lived experience, but within the context of an artistic practice one can hardly ignore the potential for images to provide us with an equally valuable account. In fact, they may even prove most suited to establish the kind of space that comes close to this multi-threaded, embodied Denkraum . In order to illustrate this, we would like to present a case study, a short visual ‘essay’ (however, since the scope of four spreads offers only limited space, it is better to consider it as the image-equivalent of a short research note).

Case study: step by step reading of a visual essay

The images (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) form a short visual essay based on a collaborative artistic project 'Exercises of the man (v)' that Remco Roes and Alis Garlick realised for the Situation Symposium at Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in Melbourne in 2014. One of the conceptual premises of the project was the communication of two physical ‘sites’ through digital media. Roes—located in Belgium—would communicate with Garlick—in Australia—about an installation that was to be realised at the physical location of the exhibition in Melbourne. Their attempts to communicate (about) the site were conducted via e-mail messages, Skype-chats and video conversations. The focus of these conversations increasingly distanced itself from the empty exhibition space of the Design Hub and instead came to include coincidental spaces (and objects) that happened to be close at hand during the 3-month working period leading up to the exhibition. The focus of the project thus shifted from attempting to communicate a particular space towards attempting to communicate the more general experience of being in(side) a space. The project led to the production of a series of small in-situ installations, a large series of video’s and images, a book with a selection of these images as well as texts from the conversations, and the final exhibition in which artefacts that were found during the collaborative process were exhibited. A step by step reading of the visual argument contained within images of this project illustrates how a visual essay can function as a tool for disclosing/articulating/communicating the kind of embodied thinking that occurs within an artistic practice or practice-based research.

Figure 1 shows (albeit in reduced form) a field of photographs and video stills that summarises the project without emphasising any particular aspect. Each of the Figs. 2 – 5 isolate different parts of this same field in an attempt to construct/disclose a form of visual argument (that was already contained within the work). In the final part of this essay we will provide an illustration of how such visual sequences can be possibly ‘read’.

First image of the visual essay. Remco Roes and Alis Garlick, as copyright holders, permit the publication of this image under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Second image of the visual essay. Remco Roes and Alis Garlick, as copyright holders, permit the publication of this image under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Third image of the visual essay. Remco Roes and Alis Garlick, as copyright holders, permit the publication of this image under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Fourth image of the visual essay. Remco Roes and Alis Garlick, as copyright holders, permit the publication of this image under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Fifth image of the visual essay. Remco Roes and Alis Garlick, as copyright holders, permit the publication of this image under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Figure 1 is a remnant of the first step that was taken in the creation of the series of images: significant, meaningful elements in the work of art are brought together. At first, we quite simply start by looking at what is represented in the pictures, and how they are presented to us. This act of looking almost inevitably turns these images into a sequence, an argument. Conditioned by the dominant linearity of writing, including images (for instance in a comic book) one ‘reads’ the images from left to right, one goes from the first spread to the last. Just like one could say that a musical theme or a plot ‘develops’, the series of images seem to ‘develop’ the problem, gradually revealing its complexity. The dominance of this viewing code is not to be ignored, but is of course supplemented by the more ‘holistic’ nature of visual perception (cf. the notion of ‘Gestalt’ in the psychology of perception). So unlike a ‘classic’ argumentation, the discursive sequence is traversed by resonance, by non-linearity, by correspondences between elements both in a single image and between the images in their specific positioning within the essay. These correspondences reveal the synaesthetic nature of every process of meaning-making: ‘The meaning of something is its relations, actual and potential, to other qualities, things, events, and experiences. In pragmatist lingo, the meaning of something is a matter of how it connects to what has gone before and what it entails for present or future experiences and actions’ (Johnson, 2007 , p. 265). The images operate in a similar way, by bringing together different actions, affects, feelings and perceptions into a complex constellation of meaningful elements that parallel each other and create a field of resonance. These connections occur between different elements that ‘disturb’ the logical linearity of the discourse, for instance by the repetition of a specific element (the blue/yellow opposition, or the repetition of a specific diagonal angle).

Confronted with these images, we are now able to delineate more precisely the problem they express. In a generic sense we could formulate it as follows: how to communicate with someone who does not share my existential space, but is nonetheless visually and acoustically present? What are the implications of the kind of technology that makes such communication possible, for the first time in human history? How does it influence our perception and experience of space, of materiality, of presence?

Artistic research into this problem explores the different ways of meaning-making that this new existential space offers, revealing the different conditions and possibilities of this new spatiality. But it has to be stressed that this exploration of the problem happens on different lines, ranging from the kinaesthetic perception to the emotional and affective response to these spaces and images. It would, thus, be wrong to reduce these experiences to a conceptual framework. In their actions, Roes and Garlick do not ‘make a statement’: they quite simply experiment with what their bodies can do in such a hybrid space, ‘wandering’ in this field of meaningful experiences, this Denkraum , that is ‘opened up’: which meaningful clusters of sensations, affects, feelings, spatial and kinaesthetic qualities emerge in such a specific existential space?

In what follows, we want to focus on some of these meaningful clusters. As such, these comments are not part of the visual essay itself. One could compare them to ‘reading remarks’, a short elaboration on what strikes one as relevant. These comments also do not try to ‘crack the code’ of the visual material, as if they were merely a visual and/or spatial rebus to be solved once and for all (‘ x stands for y’ ). They rather attempt to engage in a dialogue with the images, a dialogue that of course does not claim to be definitive or exhaustive.

The constellation itself generates a sense of ‘lacking’: we see that there are two characters intensely collaborating and interacting with each other, while never sharing the same space. They are performing, or watching the other perform: drawing a line (imaginary or physically), pulling, wrapping, unpacking, watching, framing, balancing. The small arrangements, constructions or compositions that are made as a result of these activities are all very fragile, shaky and their purpose remains unclear. Interaction with the other occurs only virtually, based on the manipulation of small objects and fragments, located in different places. One of the few materials that eventually gets physically exported to the other side, is a kind of large plastic cover. Again, one should not ‘read’ the picture of Roes with this plastic wrapped around his head as an expression, a ‘symbol’ of individual isolation, of being wrapped up in something. It is simply the experience of a head that disappears (as a head appears and disappears on a computer screen when it gets disconnected), and the experience of a head that is covered up: does it feel like choking, or does it provide a sense of shelter, protection?

A different ‘line’ operates simultaneously in the same image: that of a man standing on a double grid: the grid of the wet street tiles and an alternative, oblique grid of colourful yellow elements, a grid which is clearly temporal, as only the grid of the tiles will remain. These images are contrasted with the (obviously staged) moment when the plastic arrives at ‘the other side’: the claustrophobia is now replaced with the openness of the horizon, the presence of an open seascape: it gives a synaesthetic sense of a fresh breeze that seems lacking in the other images.

In this case, the contrast between the different spaces is very clear, but in other images we also see an effort to unite these different spaces. The problem can now be reformulated, as it moves to another line: how to demarcate a shared space that is both actual and virtual (with a ribbon, the positioning of a computer screen?), how to communicate with each other, not only with words or body language, but also with small artefacts, ‘meaningless’ junk? What is the ‘common ground’ on which to walk, to exchange things—connecting, lining up with the other? And here, the layout of the images (into a spread) adds an extra dimension to the original work of art. The relation between the different bodies does now not only take place in different spaces, but also in different fields of representation: there is the space of the spread, the photographed space and in the photographs, the other space opened up by the computer screen, and the interaction between these levels. We see this in the Fig. 3 where Garlick’s legs are projected on the floor, framed by two plastic beakers: her black legging echoing with the shadows of a chair or a tripod. This visual ‘rhyme’ within the image reveals how a virtual presence interferes with what is present.

The problem, which can be expressed in this fundamental opposition between presence/absence, also resonates with other recurring oppositions that rhythmically structure these images. The images are filled with blue/yellow elements: blue lines of tape, a blue plexi form, yellow traces of paint, yellow objects that are used in the video’s, but the two tones are also conjured up by the white balance difference between daylight and artificial light. The blue/yellow opposition, in turn, connects with other meaningful oppositions, like—obviously—male/female, or the same oppositional set of clothes: black trousers/white shirt, grey scale images versus full colour, or the shadow and the bright sunlight, which finds itself in another opposition with the cold electric light of a computer screen (this of course also refers to the different time zones, another crucial aspect of digital communication: we do not only not share the same place, we also do not share the same time).

Yet the images also invite us to explore certain formal and compositional elements that keep recurring. The second image, for example, emphasises the importance placed in the project upon the connecting of lines, literally of lining up. Within this image the direction and angle of these lines is ‘explained’ by the presence of the two bodies, the makers with their roles of tape in hand. But upon re-reading the other spreads through this lens of ‘connecting lines’ we see that this compositional element starts to attain its own visual logic. Where the lines in image 2 are literally used as devices to connect two (visual) realities, they free themselves from this restricted context in the other images and show us the influence of circumstance and context in allowing for the successful establishing of such a connection.

In Fig. 3 , for instance, we see a collection of lines that have been isolated from the direct context of live communication. The way two parts of a line are manually aligned (in the split-screens in image 2) mirrors the way the images find their position on the page. However, we also see how the visual grammar of these lines of tape is expanded upon: barrier tape that demarcates a working area meets the curve of a small copper fragment on the floor of an installation, a crack in the wall follows the slanted angle of an assembled object, existing marks on the floor—as well as lines in the architecture—come into play. The photographs widen the scale and angle at which the line operates: the line becomes a conceptual form that is no longer merely material tape but also an immaterial graphical element that explores its own argument.

Figure 4 provides us with a pivotal point in this respect: the cables of the mouse, computer and charger introduce a certain fluidity and uncontrolled motion. Similarly, the erratic markings on the paper show that an author is only ever partially in control. The cracked line in the floor is the first line that is created by a negative space, by an absence. This resonates with the black-stained edges of the laser-cut objects, laid out on the desktop. This fourth image thus seems to transform the manifestation of the line yet again; from a simple connecting device into an instrument that is able to cut out shapes, a path that delineates a cut, as opposed to establishing a connection. The circle held up in image 4 is a perfect circular cut. This resonates with the laser-cut objects we see just above it on the desk, but also with the virtual cuts made in the Photoshop image on the right. We can clearly see how a circular cut remains present on the characteristic grey-white chessboard that is virtual emptiness. It is evident that these elements have more than just an aesthetic function in a visual argumentation. They are an integral part of the meaning-making process. They ‘transpose’ on a different level, i.e., the formal and compositional level, the central problem of absence and presence: it is the graphic form of the ‘cut’, as well as the act of cutting itself, that turns one into the other.

Concluding remarks

As we have already argued, within the frame of this comment piece, the scope of the visual essay we present here is inevitably limited. It should be considered as a small exercise in a specific genre of thinking and communicating with images that requires further development. Nonetheless, we hope to have demonstrated the potentialities of the visual essay as a form of meaning-making that allows the articulation of a form of embodied knowledge that supplements other modes of inquiry in the humanities. In this particular case, it allows for the integration of other meaningful, embodied and existential aspects of digital communication, unlikely to be ‘detected’ as such by an (auto)ethnographic, psychological or sociological framework.

The visual essay is an invitation to other researchers in the arts to create their own kind of visual essays in order to address their own work of art or that of others: they can consider their artistic research as a valuable contribution to the exploration of human existence that lies at the core of the humanities. But perhaps it can also inspire scholars in more ‘classical’ domains to introduce artistic research methods to their toolbox, as a way of taking into account the non-conceptual, yet meaningful bodily aspects of human life and human artefacts, this ‘visceral connection to lived experience’, as Johnson puts it.

Obviously, a visual essay runs the risk of being ‘shot by both sides’: artists may scorn the loss of artistic autonomy and ‘exploitation’ of the work of art in the service of scholarship, while academic scholars may be wary of the lack of conceptual and methodological clarity inherent in these artistic forms of embodied, synaesthetic meaning. The visual essay is indeed a bastard genre, the unlawful love (or perhaps more honestly: love/hate) child of academia and the arts. But precisely this hybrid, impure nature of the visual essay allows it to explore unknown ‘conditions and potentials of human life’, precisely because it combines imagination and knowledge. And while this combination may sound like an oxymoron within a scientific, positivistic paradigm, it may in fact indicate the revival, in a new context, of a very ancient alliance. Or as Giorgio Agamben formulates it in Infancy and history: on the destruction of experience (2007 [1978]): ‘Nothing can convey the extent of the change that has taken place in the meaning of experience so much as the resulting reversal of the status of the imagination. For Antiquity, the imagination, which is now expunged from knowledge as ‘unreal’, was the supreme medium of knowledge. As the intermediary between the senses and the intellect, enabling, in phantasy, the union between the sensible form and the potential intellect, it occupies in ancient and medieval culture exactly the same role that our culture assigns to experience. Far from being something unreal, the mundus imaginabilis has its full reality between the mundus sensibilis and the mundus intellegibilis , and is, indeed, the condition of their communication—that is to say, of knowledge’ (Agamben, 2007 , p. 27, italics in original).

And it is precisely this exploration of the mundus imaginabilis that should inspire us to understand artistic research as a valuable form of scholarship in the humanities.

We consider images as a broad category consisting of artefacts of the imagination, the creation of expressive ‘forms’. Images are thus not limited to visual images. For instance, the imagery used in a poem or novel, metaphors in philosophical treatises (‘image-thoughts’), actual sculptures or the imaginary space created by a performance or installation can also be considered as images, just like soundscapes, scenography, architecture.

Agamben G (2007) Infancy and history: on the destruction of experience [trans. L. Heron]. Verso, London/New York, NY

Google Scholar  

Garlick A, Roes R (2014) Exercises of the man (v): found dialogues whispered to drying paint. [installation]

Gombrich EH (1986) Aby Warburg: an intellectual biography. Phaidon, Oxford, [1970]

Ingold T (2011) Being alive: essays on movement, knowledge and description. Routledge, London/New York, NY

Ingold T (2013) Making: anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. Routledge, London/New York, NY

Johnson M (2007) The meaning of the body: Aesthetics of human understanding. Chicago University Press, Chicago

Book   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Hasselt University, Martelarenlaan 42, 3500, Hasselt, Belgium

Remco Roes & Kris Pint

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Remco Roes .

Additional information

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Publisher’s note : Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Roes, R., Pint, K. The visual essay and the place of artistic research in the humanities. Palgrave Commun 3 , 8 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0004-5

Download citation

Received : 29 June 2017

Accepted : 04 September 2017

Published : 31 October 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0004-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

How to Write a Band 6 Discursive Writing Piece for HSC English Module C

Just heard about the term discursive writing from HSC English for Module C?

Whether you’re an expert or beginner at discursive writing, we’re here to help secure a Band 6 for Module C! We’ll break down exactly what discursive writing involves and how to produce a Band 6 discursive writing piece.

Keen to know more? Then keep scrolling!

What is Discursive Writing? What’s in a HSC Discursive Writing Question? How to Write a Discursive Text How to Structure Your Discursive Writing Tips for Discursive Writing Features Should You Memorise Your Discursive Writing Piece for Module C? Discursive Writing Examples Discursive Writing Example Prompt

Click to download your own copy of our Discursive Writing guide!

What is Discursive Writing?

Discursive writing definition.

NESA defines discursive writing as including: Texts whose primary focus is to explore an idea or variety of topics. These texts involve the discussion of an idea(s) or opinion(s) without the direct intention of persuading the reader, listener or viewer to adopt any single point of view. Discursive texts can be humorous or serious in tone and can have a formal or informal register.

In this article, we’ll be giving you the lowdown on all types of discursive writing.  

This encompasses forms such as creative non-fiction, travel blogs, discussion essays, speeches, personal essays and much more!

Discursive Writing for HSC

The purpose behind discursive writing is for you to engage in a deeply relatable, thought-provoking discussion by exploring multiple perspectives on a topic. It is not argumentative nor is it imaginative.

One style of writing you may not be so familiar with in HSC English Module C: The Craft of writing is  discursive writing.

Common to both Advanced and Standard English, this module assesses a student’s ability to craft effective pieces of writing in relation to a given audience and purpose.

Unlike the other modules, the focus here is not as much on what you’ve written but more so a combination of what you’ve written and how you’ve written it.

The module takes up approximately 20 hours of course time. It will be assessed in one section in English Paper 2 in the HSC external examination block held in October, through one question containing up to two parts.

Discursive Writing is a new text type to appear on the syllabus in Module C. Let’s take a quick look at a part of the rubric for this module:

Excerpt of Module C in HSC English Syllabus from NESA

Modes of Writing

From this, we can see that within this module, you will be required to write in four different text types:

Imaginative: This type of writing often takes the form of a narrative and requires you to combine plot, setting and character to craft a short story.

Discursive:  We’ll be diving into what exactly this style of writing entails in this guide!

Persuasive: This writing style aims for you to convince the reader of a particular argument or idea. It can be written in the form of an academic essay, personal essay or speech.

Informative:  When writing an informative piece, you’ll be informing the reader of a particular topic — these are most commonly written as reports, explanations or descriptions.

For more on the different text types explored in Module C, check out our article !

What’s in a HSC Discursive Writing Question?

Here’s an example from NESA’s HSC English 2019 sample paper of a discursive writing question:

As you can see, Section III of the HSC exam paper focusses upon Module C: The Craft of Writing.

The question may ask you to write a persuasive, discursive or imaginative writing piece about a significant idea you have explored in your prescribed text whilst also using a stimulus.

Let’s take a look at another discursive writing question:

The exam question for this section may also be split into part (a) and part (b) — but don’t freak out!

Part (a) will require you to write an imaginative, discursive or persuasive writing piece using the stimulus provided, as well as one technique or stylistic feature used in your prescribed text.

Part (b) involves a reflective statement which will require you to explain how your prescribed text influenced your imaginative, discursive or persuasive writing piece in part (a).

In part (b) you may also be required to explain the literary or stylistic devices you employed in your writing.

Differences Between A Regular Persuasive Essay and Discursive Writing

Scratching your head at what you should do differently for your discursive writing, check out the key differences below!

Pros and Cons of Discursive Writing

To get some extra knowledge on the form, here is a good list of the pros and cons for discursive writing!

At Art of Smart Education our expert English Tutors can support you with Discursive Writing with tailored tutoring in your home or online.

How to Write a Discursive Text

While there is no single formula or “quick fix” to get a Band 6, there are certain steps you can take to increase your chances!

That said, you won’t jump from a Band 2 to a Band 6 overnight so be prepared to invest time and effort to achieve a Band 6-level result, or as close to it as you can get.

Discursive writing can be tricky. Our tutors here at Art of Smart can help you boost your marks with expert tips and tricks! Check out the K-12 English support we can provide in Parramatta , and all across Sydney!

Use the Discursive Writing Syllabus to Your Advantage

Let’s start by revisiting the marking criteria for Module C: The Craft of Writing:

• Craft language to address the demands of the question.
• Use language appropriate to audience, purpose and context to deliberately shape meaning.

So, how might these criteria apply to a discursive piece of writing?

How to Start Your Discursive Piece

This will ultimately depend on the question so ensure you read it carefully.

Likely, you will be asked to explore a key idea or concern from one of your prescribed texts — either from Module C or another module.

You may take this literally, exploring the idea as it is presented in the prescribed text or instead, you can think laterally and consider how this idea applies to the real world, occasionally bringing in the text — or a related text — as examples.

Note that many of the key ideas and concerns encountered in your prescribed texts are quite broad and malleable , so you can twist them in any way you want.

Tip: Manipulate the Question As the focus here is on unleashing your own personal voice as a writer, it helps to be writing about something you a) are genuinely interested in and b) know a bit about. Manipulate the question as is necessary. Example You might decide to write about power — as it is a key concern in the prescribed text for the Common Module, Nineteen Eighty Four (Orwell) . Power lends itself quite easily to politics but what if you don’t want to talk about politics? Instead, you might write about the psychological power of manipulation or the importance of individual empowerment. As the marking criteria for Module C explicitly ask for language crafted to “address the demands of the question” , it is imperative that whatever you do end up writing about is something that can be related to the question — by both yourself and your marker.

Discursive Writing Examples

Here are some of our favourite pieces of discursive writing!

• Immigrating to English by Ocean Vuong
• Slouching Towards Bethelehem by Joan Didion
• Just Kids by Patti Smith
• Upstream by Mary Oliver

You can also trawl through newspapers, magazines and blogs for great examples of discursive writing:

• The Economist
• Time Magazine
• National Geographic
• The Conversation
• The Atlantic

Tip : Also check out TED talks , many of which take on a discursive style and all of which are available to view online for free . Most talks uploaded on TED’s official site also have a transcript so you can not only follow along, but also take note of how the speaker uses language to create meaning. Check out the 20 Most-Watched TED Talks !

How to Structure Your Discursive Writing

While discursive writing is not wedded to a formal structure, it helps to plan things out before you start writing. This can help to avoid confusion or a lack of clarity in your writing.

You’ll want to follow a logical, sequential structure:

Introduction – Catch your reader’s attention and introduce them to your topic – whether explicitly or implicitly.

Body – Several paragraphs in which you explore your topic in greater detail. These can be of varying lengths and the number of paragraphs is up to you.

Conclusion – Sum up your discussion and end on a reflective, thought-provoking note.

Planning your response beforehand — even if it’s some dot points crammed into the corner of the page — allows you to think deeply about how to best organise and present your ideas. For each paragraph, plan what its focus will be and which pieces of evidence you will include.

What Can You Include As Evidence in Discursive Writing?

Evidence is crucial in a discursive response as it adds legitimacy to your discussion and helps to build authenticity.

You may include, but are not limited to, the following types of evidence:

• Textual examples from prescribed texts
• Textual examples from related texts
• Personal anecdotes
• Historical events (careful not to write a history essay though!)
• References to popular culture

Do I Have to Analyse the Textual Evidence?

You can but you are not required to. This entirely depends on the nature of the question and how you prefer to answer it.

If you want your response to be focussed on texts, then some analysis may be helpful.

If you’re focussing on broader ideas or phenomena however, perhaps ease up on the techniques for now.

Tips for Discursive Writing Features

You might be thinking: Module C seems all a bit… unstructured ?

Ironically, if you think that, you’re on the right train of thought! You’ve actually understood the form excellently. It’s natural to find discursive writing a little unfamiliar, considering you’re much more used to writing in a highly-structured essay style.

Discursive writing is deliberately exploratory and personal in nature. Great discursive writer Annie Dillard sums up the form well, noting that discursive writing has “ a structure that arises from the materials and best contains them ”. The discursive writing style is highly personal and effectively you can dictate your own structure.

However, don’t let this freak you out! You can in fact use the vagueness of this form to your advantage.

Tip #1: Make your Personal Voice Engaging

Authors use literary techniques for a reason. They provide an interesting, more meaningful way of getting ideas across than just stating things outright.

Consider this example from our old mate, William Shakespeare:

“I will speak daggers to her but use none”  (Hamlet, Hamlet , Act 3 Scene 2) Cool, right? Shakespeare uses a great metaphor of daggers to convey the sharp hostility Hamlet plans to convey in speaking to his mother. Can’t get enough of it. Let’s consider the same line without any techniques : I’ll speak rudely to her but I won’t actually do anything to physically harm her.

Look, it gets the meaning across and it’s nice and direct but let’s be real — it’s boring. The daggers metaphor captures our imagination and gets us thinking whereas the rewritten, metaphor-less line simply tells us what Hamlet is planning to do, no more.

Slightly random Hamlet analysis aside, techniques such as metaphors will help bring your writing voice to life — and will sure as heck engage your reader, if used correctly.

Tip #2: Use Good Techniques in Discursive Writing

When reading your prescribed texts, take note of techniques you personally find meaningful. Not just the techniques your teacher tells you to find meaningful but ones that you actually like yourself.

Experiment with these techniques in your own writing. Loved the dagger metaphor we learnt about from Hamlet just now? Have a go at writing your own metaphor to describe the way someone speaks to another . And so on, and so forth.

Don’t just focus on your prescribed texts either. If you’re keen on a Band 6 for HSC English, you should already be engaging in regular wide reading. As you do this, take note of any cool techniques you happen upon, and have a go at creating your own.

Here’s the absolute minimum set of techniques you should be including your discursive writing: Varying sentence structure: write like you’re a human, not a robot! Tone : depending on the formality or informality of the piece, the ultimate aim is to get them so immersed that they don’t feel like they’re reading at all! Nuance:  Add in some information that goes against your argument, then disprove it — this actually makes the reader trust your opinion! Here are some fancier techniques you can include to secure that Band 6: A running symbol: especially in more creative pieces, this reminds the reader of your point of view. The symbol should evolve as your point of view evolves Hero’s Journey:  to get your reader rooting for your side, implement the hero’s journey. Write your piece as if you’re telling a story: add a call to adventure, challenges and a transformation in your discursive writing! Imagery : Want your reader to feel like they’re not reading? Get them imagining the physical surroundings of your discursive text!

You’ll likely already be doing something similar to this in your classwork for Module C.

If you don’t know your techniques well, check out our handy dandy glossary !

Tip #3: Writing in First Person is Recommended 

You can write in first or third person for discursive writing however first person is recommended as it allows you to craft a much more authentic and engaging personal voice.

Think of discursive writing almost as an extended, slightly-more-structured stream of consciousness. You’re exploring and bouncing between your thoughts on a particular topic, and doing so through a voice that is inherently and unashamedly yours.

While third person is not necessarily wrong , it runs the risk of your discursive writing reading more like a persuasive essay.

Tip #4: Get Personalised Feedback on Your Work 

Even if you’re following the best advice on how to write a piece of discursive writing, it’s likely that you’ll struggle to accurately reflect on the quality of your work. You’ve probably heard this before: “HSC English is super subjective.”  To a certain extent, this is true!

That’s why we recommend getting personalised guidance from an HSC English tutor who knows the syllabus inside and out. They can point you in the right direction and decipher your teacher’s feedback with you! That way, you’ll be able to move forward knowing that you’re doing the right things.

Should You Memorise Your Discursive Writing Piece for Module C?

In previous HSC exams, it was common practice for students to write and perfect a creative writing story, memorise that story word for word, and use it in the exam — adapting when necessary — in the hopes of a Band 6.

It seems to be heading this way with the imaginative writing component of Craft of Writing, with many students already writing and revising a story to be kept as their “safety net”.

While this can have benefits for imaginative writing, it might not play out so well for discursive writing.

The fluidity of discursive writing means that your structure and content are likely to depend almost entirely on what’s asked in the question. As you can’t predict the question, logically it is also difficult to pre-prepare a response.

Rather than rote-learning a discursive piece, it is much wiser to instead practise a range of different Module C questions using a discursive form. Have your teacher — or a tutor — read over your discursive writings and either rewrite them using their feedback, or write new responses, keeping the feedback in mind (or you can also do both).

After all, you might not even be asked to write discursively in the exam! All that time spent memorising for nothing… (same goes for imaginative writing, just sayin’…)

If you’ve already been on the lookout for practice questions, you can find a bunch in this article !

Discursive Writing Example Prompt

Now that you’re a little more familiar with discursive writing, here’s a practice question:

“I pay no attention to anybody’s praise or blame. I simply follow my own feelings” — Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart Use this quote as a stimulus for a piece of discursive writing that expresses your perspective about a significant concern or idea that you have engaged with in ONE of your prescribed texts from Module C.

Have a go at this question and get feedback from your HSC English teacher and/or tutor.

And in the meantime — you can have a look at our monster list of Module C practice questions so you can practise your discursive writing!

Looking for some extra help with discursive writing in Module C for HSC English?

We have an incredible team of hsc english tutors and mentors who are current hsc syllabus experts.

We can help you master discursive writing and ace your upcoming HSC English assessments with personalised lessons conducted one-on-one in your home, online or at one of our state of the art campuses in Hornsby or the Hills!

Feel confident tackling Module C with personalised tutoring support in Mosman   or HSC English support in Hurstville !

We’ve supported over  8,000 students over the last 11 years , and on average our students score mark improvements of over 20%!

Looking for extra HSC English support in Wollongong? Get in touch with our team to secure your Wollongong English tutor today!

To find out more and get started with an inspirational HSC English tutor and mentor, get in touch today or give us a ring on 1300 267 888!

• Topics: ✏️ English , ✍️ Learn

Related Articles

The step-by-step guide to hsc english module c: the craft of writing, how to write a persuasive writing piece for module c: the craft of writing, how to integrate key ideas into your module c response, 45,861 students have a head start....

Get exclusive study content & advice from our team of experts delivered weekly to your inbox!

Looking for English Support?

Discover how we can help you!

We provide services in

National Endowment for the Arts

• Grants for Arts Projects
• Challenge America
• Research Awards
• Partnership Agreement Grants
• Creative Writing
• Translation Projects
• Volunteer to be an NEA Panelist
• Manage Your Award
• Recent Grants
• Arts & Human Development Task Force
• Arts Education Partnership
• Blue Star Museums
• Citizens' Institute on Rural Design
• Creative Forces: NEA Military Healing Arts Network
• GSA's Art in Architecture
• Independent Film & Media Arts Field-Building Initiative
• Interagency Working Group on Arts, Health, & Civic Infrastructure
• International
• Mayors' Institute on City Design
• Musical Theater Songwriting Challenge
• National Folklife Network
• NEA Big Read
• NEA Research Labs
• Poetry Out Loud
• Save America's Treasures
• Shakespeare in American Communities
• Sound Health Network
• United We Stand
• American Artscape Magazine
• NEA Art Works Podcast
• National Endowment for the Arts Blog
• States and Regions
• Accessibility
• Arts & Artifacts Indemnity Program
• Arts and Health
• Arts Education
• Creative Placemaking
• Equity Action Plan
• Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
• Literary Arts
• Native Arts and Culture
• NEA Jazz Masters Fellowships
• National Heritage Fellowships
• National Medal of Arts
• Press Releases
• Upcoming Events
• NEA Chair's Page
• Leadership and Staff
• What Is the NEA
• Publications
• National Endowment for the Arts on COVID-19
• Open Government
• Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
• Office of the Inspector General
• Civil Rights Office
• Appropriations History
• Make a Donation

“Where Is the Public Discourse Around Art and Technology?”

By hrag vartanian.

Photo by Aram Jibilian

As the emerging field of art and technology continues to garner media attention, the critical dialogue around the work remains uneven and underdeveloped. While various academic programs profess to teach art writing, they continue to champion an old formula that has not evolved and has yet to incorporate the tools of 2st-century culture. And while artists and audiences adapt, the majority of journalists, critics included, have yet to embrace the same tools of photography, memes, audio, video, and multimedia. Foundations, academia, museums, and other institutions should embrace a broader notion of discourse driven by media and art professionals, and not only academics, dedicated to innovative approaches.

University art writing programs still privilege longform writing in an impersonal and analytic style that is largely unread by anyone but the faithful. This type of writing is reinforced by traditional writing prizes, foundation grants, and academic committees, which invalidate other forms of writing during hiring processes. This reliance on traditional print-like media, rather than more contemporary and digital forms, makes writing about these works appear staid, esoteric, and uninteresting to the general public.

While many more conventional contemporary artists have embraced the tools of technology, creators who fully integrate technology still face obstacles, one of which is a lack of art criticism and critical dialogue. Criticism serves as an arbiter of “taste,” appealing to the patron classes who buy art or visit art institutions. Today, that has shifted as audiences are more fluid and broad, encompassing a wide range of types and media consumption habits. Criticism’s slowness to adapt is exacerbated by the fact that many art market-focused or -supported print publications rely on academics and graduate students, while supplementing words almost exclusively with gallery- or museum-approved press images that show work in a noncritical light. These types of writers often idealize and romanticize art as something detached from its financial realities, while being uninformed about or uninterested in more underground and emerging forms that do not receive institutional support and approval, or challenge the orthodoxies of the field.

Online journals, even if they write extensively about art that embraces technology, have also been slow to embrace the challenge. As Charlotte Frost, Karen Elio, and Keiko Suzuki, authors of Art Criticism Online: A History , have pointed out in one of their more interesting insights, these online journals, which they curiously distinguish from blogs, “have become the establishment when it comes to art and cultural criticism. Partly this is because they have been cautious about the real benefits of web-based art discussion.”

That aversion is partly reinforced by the majority of accredited academic programs that devalue innovative forms of writing and discussion that are both accessible and public-facing. A variety of funding sources is required to encourage this while seeking a broad impact for the work. Art-focused foundations, such as Creative Capital, have attempted to support blogs and other online forums as part of their annual grants, but their funding has been limited and has either targeted small, localized projects that are clearly unsustainable or those that have reproduced the same exclusionary tactics and values of the commercial art world that is embraced by conventional arts institutions. One project, for instance, created a very long-form text-only blog with no hyperlinks, which has since been archived by Rhizome at the New Museum. Funders also often support graduate student projects, and thus reinforce the romanticized notions mentioned above. This is in contrast to more public-facing art writing projects, such as Artblog in Philadelphia and Art F City in New York, that need annual—and not one-time—support to continue efforts while sustaining themselves.

Conversations that influence society and the arts need to be sustained (and sustainable), embracing continuous and constant discourse that doesn’t lionize one-off supposedly “authoritative” articles that are more often read in grad seminars than by the public. Like technology itself, which permeates our lives, conversations that tackle art and technology need to be multifaceted, digital native, and changing, reflecting a thought process that evolves, reflects, absorbs, and synthesizes new information rather than relying solely on text-based analysis. This drip approach is what makes social media particularly well-suited to the constant stream of information many people now produce and consume, and is part of the reason social media continues to dominate information flow and networks today.

A lack of media and digital literacy is one of the obstacles, as many art writing and art programs do not support those forms of literacy. During a recent lecture at Chautauqua by Dr. Erika Wong , the U.K.-based scholar and artist pointed out that art programs often shun social media as an unreliable source rather than embracing and teaching it as part of a larger curriculum. Considering the recent role of social media in our politics and culture, this is concerning. An example of this disdain for social media was echoed by Johanna Burton — then New Museum’s Keith Haring director and curator of education and public engagement, and currently the director of the Wexner Center for the Arts. During a curatorial symposium in 2018, she shared that she has never engaged with social media and is not interested. This raises questions as to who those who shun social media are actually engaging and listening to other than the donors, curators, and administrators—who are almost all white and affluent in the United States—who dominate institutional settings.

One case study that may help illuminate the challenge is the way that critical discourse has treated the appearance of memes . While not traditionally seen as part of “contemporary art'' and culture, the emergence of memes, particularly in the 21st century, is now being embraced after years of being ignored by various elites in the mainstream. The 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign proved to many people that nontraditional media such as memes have political power.

Back in 2011, An Xiao Mina wrote about “ social media street art ” for Hyperallergic, which I edit. Riffing off the recent success of street art during the influential 2008 Obama presidential campaign, she noticed how users of the Chinese microblogging site Sina Weibo wielded images during moments of national crisis (such as national or human-made disasters) as a form of artistic dissent. During the same period, contemporary artist Ai Weiwei was actively using memes to engage in creating subversive images that evaded official Chinese censors, often using sunflower seeds, “grass mud horse,” and even images of people holding their legs like rifles with the words “京城反恐系列” (Beijing anti-terrorism series). “Grass mud horse” is a Chinese meme and symbol for defiance on the internet.

Mina was also briefly at Ai Weiwei’s studio, and she found that the art community was largely unwelcoming of writing about this type of work, particularly since it had not reached art galleries and museums and was not being taught in colleges and universities. “In the early 2010s, it was hard for me to find art world venues to write about the phenomenon of memes as political expression in China, as much of the art world was focused on Ai’s traditional sculptural and video work,” she noted in an interview for this essay. “I was interested in exploring the internet, culture, and power and found early opportunities to do this in a limited number of art venues. I then began writing about this in civic technology spaces.”

Her experience mirrors many others’ experiences around critical dialogue and new forms of art that embrace technology outside of the strict confines of the academy. In the case of Ai Weiwei, the memes have now become crucial parts of our larger understanding of his oeuvre, but the language around this work is reduced to more traditional conversations rooted in older Western art historical forms and images rather than within a larger media and social discourse.

In 2019, Mina went on to write Memes to Movements: How the World's Most Viral Media Is Changing Social Protest and Power , which was widely praised by those in a post-2016 world as a way to understand memes. Writing in the Atlantic , Megan Garber characterized Mina as a “digital-culture scholar,” encapsulating work in a manner that echoes many of the artists and projects featured in this current National Endowment for the Arts report, Tech as Art: Supporting Artists Who Use Technology as a Creative Medium . Garber wrote, “Memes, participatory and productively remixable, tap into the deep desire for storytelling—and for story-receiving—that is such a profound part of being human.” In her book, Mina wrote, “memes allow us to more quickly develop the visual and verbal language around which movements organize.” This is of particular interest to the creators in the field of art and technology, who are fully engaged in innovative approaches that respond to new realities.

Mina began her career as an artist and an innovator in social media art—she was the first commissioned artist by the Brooklyn Museum for its 1st Fans Twitter feed—and an early adopter of crowd-sourced art, such as Kickstarter. But while she has found support at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University and elsewhere, the art community has provided little support for her work. Many of these projects outlined in the report often receive press in non-art-focused publications. Most art publications, including many academic ones, focus on art market or art market-adjacent works that have established systems of circulation and commerce. This echoes their financial support structures, which can often be commercial art galleries and art foundations.

The lack of market and auction track records for most of the art being discussed in the National Endowment for the Arts’ report points to similar non-market dynamics, as these makers function outside the traditional commercial art market for various reasons. This lopsided ecosystem is certainly influenced by the current state of inequality in society, in which the wealthy institutions and companies dominate media attention through press agents and marketing departments pushing out related content, including art writing. The digital artists who succeed in the market-based gallery system are often engaged with artificial scarcity to maintain the aura of the art object and step away from the qualities that make the technology unique: its easy circulation and reproducibility.

While the commercial art system is not the only network in the art community, it tends to dominate art discourse because of its patronization of magazines through advertising and press trips, and because academics often contribute to their in-house publications and catalogues. There is a growing trend at major blue-chip art galleries to create in-house publications, such as Ursula at Hauser & Wirth and Gagosian at Gagosian gallery, that do not offer any negative reviews and support their sales priorities. A large number of writers for most of these art publications and catalogues are graduate students or academics, who often infuse their words with theoretical constructs that turn off general readers and laypeople, and raise serious questions about the independence of academia from the art market. These same people regularly appear at large corporate art fairs where sales dominate any other discourse, even if panels and talks offer an intellectual veneer to the brash commercialism of the event.

Similarly, art forms and practices such as networked photography, installations for festivals, and other projects that reject the traditional market model or system—which is often antagonistic to collectives and other non-traditional forms of art-making—suffer from the same issues. They have found support and traction in startups, corporations, or even universities (though rarely in art or art history departments). But the discourse in more traditional art media and scholarship channels doesn’t always situate the work in the dynamic history of art and technology without falling back on conventions that elevate the established canon that continues to underrepresent non-European, non-male, and non-object-based histories of art.

It is crucial that the art community expand the discourse not only to ensure that more diverse voices enter the field, but also to reflect the changing atmosphere in which art is being created. Art writers and critics must be engaged in art in order to accurately reflect the new waves of creators who often reject established forms to create new worlds that contain us all.

Hrag Vartanian is an editor, art critic, curator, and lecturer on contemporary art with an expertise on the intersection of art and politics. He is the editor-in-chief of Hyperallergic , which he co-founded in 2009 in response to changes in the art world, the publishing industry, and the distribution of information.

Stay Connected to the National Endowment for the Arts

Unraveling the Art of Discursive Passage: A Complete Guide for Class 11 Students

• Download file

Welcome to the comprehensive guide on discursive passage writing specifically designed for Class 11 students. Mastering the art of discursive writing is a crucial skill that will not only enhance your language proficiency but also help you excel in exams and beyond. In this guide, we will unravel the key components and techniques to craft engaging and persuasive discursive passages.

Discursive writing is an expressive and versatile form of writing that allows you to explore an argument from multiple perspectives. It requires critical thinking, research, and a firm grasp of language to effectively convey your ideas and opinions. Whether you are preparing for your board exams or simply aiming to improve your writing skills, this guide is here to support you every step of the way. Throughout this article, we will dive deep into the structure of discursive passages, the importance of research and evidence, effective language usage, and strategies to present your arguments persuasively. By the end of this guide, you will have the tools and knowledge to craft compelling discursive passages that stand out from the rest. Get ready to unleash your writing potential as we embark on this exciting journey into the art of discursive passage writing. Let's begin!

A passage where the writer rambles from topic to topic is called a discursive piece of writing. The adjective discursive is often used to describe a speech or writing that tends to stray from the main point, but the word can also have almost the opposite meaning.

A discursive passage includes argumentative, interpretative and persuasive text. such passages may include opinions or feedback. It allows students to arrive at a conclusion though reasoning and understanding rather than intuition. It presents a balanced and objective approach towards the subject being discussed.

Passages of this kind are analytical. Sometimes the author presents his views with great depth of reasoning or force of argument with the intention of convincing the reader to his point of view. Such texts have great persuasive power.

Discursive writing expresses opinions. It can be argumentative, i.e. may give reasons, explanations, or explore cause and effect relationship. Passages of this kind are analytical.  Sometimes the author presents his views with great depth of reasoning or force of argument with the intention of convincing the reader to his point of view. Such texts have great persuasive power.

What is a Discursive Passage?

A discursive passage is a type of writing that discusses a topic from different angles. It's like a conversation in writing.

Example : A discursive passage on "The Importance of Exercise" might talk about its health benefits but also discuss potential risks like injuries.

Importance of Studying Discursive Passages in Class 11

Building Critical Thinking : Learning to see different sides of an issue helps you think better.

Example : You'll learn to evaluate the pros and cons of a topic like "Is Social Media Good or Bad?"

Improving Language Skills : You get to learn new words and how to make good sentences.

Example : You might come across words like "advocate" or "detrimental" and learn how to use them.

Exam Preparation : These passages often come up in exams, so knowing them well helps.

Example : You'll find questions asking you to summarize a discursive passage or state its main point.

Types of Discursive Passages

Argumentative : Tries to convince you of a viewpoint.

Example : A passage arguing that recycling is essential for the environment.

Expository : Explains a topic in detail.

Example : A passage explaining how solar panels work.

Descriptive : Describes something so you can picture it in your mind.

Example : A passage describing a peaceful countryside setting.

Understanding the Structure

Introduction : Tells you what the topic is about.

Example : "Today we are discussing the effects of climate change."

Body : Discusses different viewpoints.

Example : One paragraph talks about the science behind climate change, another might discuss political debates around it.

Conclusion : Sums up the points and may offer an opinion.

Example : "While there are differing views on climate change, the scientific evidence is strong."

Tips for Analyzing and Interpreting

Read Carefully : Understand each line.

Example : If the passage is about climate change, notice if it talks about causes, effects, or solutions.

Take Notes : Write down key ideas.

Example : Jot down important statistics or arguments.

Think Critically : Ask yourself questions about the passage.

Example : Do you agree with the author? Why or why not?

Techniques for Effective Writing

Plan Ahead : Think before you write.

Example : Make a list of points you want to cover.

Be Clear : Use simple words.

Example : Instead of saying "utilize," you can say "use."

Balance Views : Show more than one side of the issue.

Example : If writing about fast food, mention both its convenience and health risks.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Being Biased : Show all sides.

Example : If writing about a political issue, present arguments from both sides.

Going Off-Topic : Stick to what you're supposed to talk about.

Example : If your topic is "healthy eating," don't start talking about exercise.

Poor Structure : Keep a clear beginning, middle, and end.

Example : Don't jump from one point to another without good flow.

Sample Discursive Passages for Practice

Look for samples in textbooks, or online resources. Practicing with these will help you get better.

Recommended Resources for Further Study

• School Textbooks : They often have good examples.
• Online Blogs : Some websites focus on discursive writing tips.
• Tutoring : A tutor can offer more personalized help.

By understanding these elements, students, parents, and teachers can gain a richer understanding of discursive passages, not just for exam success but for better thinking and communication skills.

DISCURSIVE PASSAGE SAMPLE

The Impact of Social Media on Today's Youth

Social media has become a big part of our lives. We use it to stay in touch with friends, to share moments, and even to catch up on news. But have you ever stopped to think about how it's affecting young people?

Let's start by talking about the good stuff. Social media can be a great tool for learning. Many students use platforms like YouTube to help them understand tricky topics. There are tons of educational videos out there, and they can make studying a lot more fun. Plus, social media can help you stay connected with your friends, even when you can't see them in person. You can chat, share pictures, and keep up with each other's lives, all at the click of a button.

But it's not all good news. Social media can also have some negative impacts. One of the biggest issues is how it affects our mental health. Scrolling through Instagram or Facebook can make you feel like everyone else has a perfect life. This can make you feel bad about yourself, and over time, it can even lead to anxiety or depression.

Another issue is that social media can be a big distraction. When you're supposed to be doing homework or studying, it's easy to get lost in your feed. Before you know it, you've spent an hour watching funny videos, and you haven't gotten any work done.

Then there's the issue of privacy. Everything you post online stays there forever. You might think it's fun to share pictures from a party, but what happens when a college admissions officer or a future employer sees it? Even if you delete it later, someone could have already taken a screenshot. You have to be really careful about what you share.

So, what can be done to use social media in a balanced way? First, it's important to set some rules for yourself. Maybe you can decide that you won't check your phone during meals or when you're doing homework. You can also set a time limit for how long you can use social media each day. There are even apps that can help you keep track.

Parents can play a role too. They can talk to their kids about the dangers and benefits of social media. They can also set rules, like no phones at the dinner table, to help everyone use social media in a healthy way.

Teachers are also a key part of this. They can guide students on how to use social media for educational purposes. For instance, they can suggest useful YouTube channels for learning new topics. Teachers can also discuss topics like online privacy and cyberbullying in class, to make students more aware.

In conclusion, social media is a tool, and like any tool, it can be used for good or bad. It has the power to help us learn and stay connected, but it can also make us feel bad and waste our time. By being mindful of how we use it, and by setting some simple rules, we can make sure that we're using it in a way that's healthy for us.

Certainly! Here are some questions that can go along with the discursive passage "The Impact of Social Media on Today's Youth." These questions are designed to help Class 11 students think more deeply about the topic, and they're also easy for parents and teachers to understand.

What are some of the positive ways social media can impact young people, according to the passage?

Describe the negative effects of social media on mental health as mentioned in the passage.

How can social media serve as a distraction for students?

What concerns does the passage raise about privacy and online behavior?

What roles can parents play in guiding their children's use of social media?

How can teachers contribute to a better understanding of social media among students?

What are some of the suggested ways to use social media in a balanced manner?

Do you agree with the passage's view that social media is a tool that can be used for both good and bad? Explain your answer.

What personal rules would you set for yourself to ensure a healthy use of social media?

What additional points, not covered in the passage, do you think are important to consider when discussing the impact of social media on today's youth?

• Discursive passage
• All CBSE notes
• All ENGLISH GRAMMAR notes
• All 11 SCIENCE notes

You may like these also

NCERT Solutions for Class 7 Chapter 1 - The Tiny Teacher: Your Key to Scoring High

चिट्ठियों में यूरोप: NCERT Solutions for Class 8 Hindi Chapter 3

NCERT Fractions Class 6 MCQ, Nots, Mind Map & More

A Comprehensive Guide to Heat Class 7 Printable Notes, MCQs and Answers

Teaching resources, test generator, worksheet generator, elearning for students, practice question paper, mock test series, happy parenting, elearning for child, worksheet for child, mock test series for child, witknowlearn, privacy policy, terms and condition, refund/cancellation policy.

Or login with Google

Notification

Upgrade to better learning opportunities.

Studying art in school also improves students' performance in other subjects, because it is easier for multi-skilled students to learn new things. That's why art should be obligatory in schools. Do you agree or disagree?

Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Writing9 with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

• Cognitive development
• Critical thinking
• Motor skills
• Perspectives
• Emotional outlet
• Cultural appreciation
• Global awareness
• Historical art movements
• Spatial intelligence
• Curriculum overload
• Non-competitive
• Cross-disciplinary benefits
• Check your IELTS essay »
• Find essays with the same topic
• View collections of IELTS Writing Samples
• Show IELTS Writing Task 2 Topics

Some people feel that school should teach children how to be good parent. Do you agree or disagree with this opinion? What skills people need to be a good parent?

Some people believe that traveling is a valuable experience; others say it is a waste of time and money. discuss both views and give your own opinion., more and more companies allow their employees to work from home or “remotely” rather than going into an office each day. do the advantages of this policy outweigh the disadvantages, some people believe that unpaid community service should be compulsory part of high school programes. do you agree or disagree, schools should not force children to learn a foreign language. to what extent do you agree with this statement.

Advertisement

Supported by

Francis Ford Coppola: ‘You Can’t Be an Artist and Be Safe’

The filmmaker talks about the inspirations for the characters in “Megalopolis” and “The Godfather,” and responds to recent allegations.

• Share full article

By Manohla Dargis

Reporting from Cannes

The first time that Francis Ford Coppola had a movie in competition at the Cannes Film Festival was in 1967. He was 28 and the movie was “You’re a Big Boy Now,” a neo-screwball studio comedy about a young guy trying to cut loose from his parents. Coppola made it while he was in film school at the University of California, Los Angeles, and it became his master’s thesis project. A month after the festival, he began directing his first big-budget studio film, “Finian’s Rainbow.” It flopped. He then poured some of his savings into a low-budget studio movie, “The Rain People.” It flopped. The next film he directed was “The Godfather.”

Coppola, now 85, was back again at Cannes last month with the epic fantasy “Megalopolis,” a big-screen dream that he has nurtured for more than 40 years. It’s his first movie since “Twixt” (2011), a little-seen horror tale about a genre novelist who says he wants to make something personal. It’s a plaintive refrain that Coppola has voiced repeatedly throughout his career. However celebrated he remains for the studio films that he has directed, Coppola is and has always been an unequivocally personal filmmaker, one whose love for the art of film has recurrently put him at odds with the industry and its media mouthpieces.

Given Coppola’s history of independence and specifically his record of great financial risks (as with “Apocalypse Now”) and sometimes staggering losses (“One From the Heart”), it was no surprise that much of the initial chatter about “Megalopolis” wasn’t about the movie per se or the sprawling ensemble headed by Adam Driver. Rather, much of the pre-festival talk was about how Coppola had helped bankroll it with “$120 million of his own money,” a phrase that was reflexively repeated in news reports. Even at Cannes, where the word “art” is used without embarrassment, money keeps an iron grip on both minds and movies.

By the time the festival opened on May 14, though, the talk about “Megalopolis” had changed course dramatically. That day, The Guardian published a long article on it. Much of the story was based on anonymous sources and was dedicated to gripes from crew members about Coppola’s methods — “‘Has this guy ever made a movie before?’” the headline read — echoing complaints that have dogged the filmmaker throughout his career. More alarming were the allegations that Coppola had tried to kiss female extras during production. In response , one of the executive producers, Darren Demetre, said he “was never aware of any complaints of harassment or ill behavior during the course of the project.”

A FEW DAYS AFTER “Megalopolis” had its premiere at Cannes, I walked under a canopy of clouds to a ship docked near the festival’s headquarters, to speak with Coppola. The yacht belonged to an Italian-Tunisian distributor and Coppola was, as he put it, “mooching” as assorted relatives, friends, colleagues and support staff buzzed around him. He looked tired, and while that’s normal for many attendees at the world’s largest film festival, it was hard not to think that grief had taken its toll, too. On April 12, Eleanor Coppola , his wife of more than six decades, died. On May 18, his longtime collaborator Fred Roos — a producer on numerous Coppola family films, “Megalopolis” included — also died.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .