Dr. Viktor Frankl's book (New York: Washington Square Press, 1966) is both an autobiographical account of his years as a prisoner in Nazi concentration camps and a presentation of his ideas about the meaning of life. The three years of deprivation and suffering he spent at Auschwitz and other Nazi camps led to the development of his theory of Logotherapy, which, very briefly, states that the primary force in human beings is "a striving to find a meaning in one's life" (154). Without a meaning in life, Frankl feels, we experience emptiness and loneliness that lead to apathy and despair. This need for meaning was demonstrated to Frankl time and again with both himself and other prisoners who were faced with the horrors of camp existence. Frankl was able to sustain himself partly through the love he felt for his wife. In a moment of spiritual insight, he realized that his love was stronger and more meaningful than death, and would be a real and sustaining force within him even if he knew his wife was dead. Frankl's comrades also had reasons to live that gave them strength. One had a child waiting for him; another was a scientist who was working on a series of books that needed to be finished. Finally, Frankl and his friends found meaning through their decision to accept and bear their fate with courage. He says that the words of Dostoevsky came frequently to mind: "There is one thing that I dread: not to be worthy of my suffering." When Frankl's prison experience was over and he returned to his profession of psychiatry, he found that his theory of meaning held true not only for the prisoners but for all people. He has since had great success in working with patients by helping them locate in their own lives meanings of love, work, and suffering.
One of my reactions to the book was the relationship I saw between the “Capos” and ideas about anxiety, standards, and aggression discussed in our psychology class. The Capos were prisoners who acted as trustees, and Frankl says they acted more cruelly toward the prisoners than the guards or the SS men. Several psychological factors help explain this cruelty. The Capos must have been suppressing intense anxiety about “selling themselves out” to the Nazis in return for small favors. Frankl and other prisoners must have been a constant reminder to the Capos of the
courage and integrity they themselves lacked. When our behaviors and values are threatened by someone else acting in a different way, one way we may react is with anger and aggression. The Capos are an extreme example of how, if the situation is right, we may be capable of great cruelty to those whose actions threaten our standards.
Topic sentence for second reaction paragraph
I think that Frankl’s idea that meaning is the most important force in human beings helps explain some of the disorder and discontent in the world today. Many people are unhappy because they are caught in jobs where they have no responsibility and creativity; their work lacks meaning. Many are also unhappy because our culture seems to stress sexual technique in social relationships rather than human caring. People buy popular books that may help them become better partners in bed, but that may not make them more sensitive to each other’s human needs. Where there is no real care, there is no meaning. To hide the inner emptiness that results from impersonal work and sex, people busy themselves with the accumulation of material things. With television sets, stereos, cars, expensive clothes, and the like, they try to forget that their lives lack true meaning instead of working or going to school to get a meaningful job, or trying to be decent human beings.
Topic sentence for third reaction paragraph
I have also found that Frankl’s idea that suffering can have meaning helps me understand the behavior of people I know. I have a friend named Jim who was always poor and did not have much of a family—only a stepmother who never cared for him as much as for her own children. What Jim did have, though, was determination. He worked two jobs to save money to go to school, and then worked and went to school at the same time. The fact that his life was hard seemed to make him bear down all the more. On the other hand, I can think of a man in my neighborhood who for all the years I've known him has done nothing with his life. He spends whole days smoking and looking at cars going by. He is a burned-out case. Somewhere in the past his problems must have become too much for him, and he gave up. He could have found meaning in his life by deciding to fight his troubles like Jim, but he didn't, and now he is a sad shadow of a man. Without determination and the desire to face his hardships, he lost his chance to make his life meaningful.
Concluding paragraph
In conclusion, I would strongly recommend Frankl’s book to persons who care about why they are alive, and who want to truly think about the purpose and meaning of their lives
Welcome to summer quarter! Visit the summer quarter overview page for helpful links and resources.
From Peter Elbow and Pat Belanoff, Sharing and Responding , Random House
When we talk about collaboration between peers, whether that’s in peer review or in a writing center session, we have some expectations, whether implicit or explicit, for how participants should behave. These expectations can create tension, confusion, or even frustration, especially if we try to push back against them. It’s important that we learn to work with these paradoxes rather than against them. In order to do that, we must avoid a “one size fits all” method of responding to each other’s writing.
The reader gets to decide what’s true about their reaction: about what they have seen or what happened to them, about what they think or how they feel. It makes no sense to quarrel with the reader about what’s happening to them (though you can ask the reader to explain more fully what they are saying).
But the writer gets to decide what to do about the feedback they get: what changes to make, if any. They don’t have to follow the reader’s advice. They should listen openly–swallow it all. They can do that better if they realize that they get to take their time and make up their own mind–perhaps making no changes in their writing at all.
The writer must be in control. It’s their writing. They should not be passive or helpless. They need to decide what kind of feedback (if any) they need for this particular piece of writing. Is their main goal to improve this piece of writing? Or perhaps they don’t really care about working more on this piece–their main goal is to work on their writing in general. Or perhaps they don’t want to work on anything, but instead just enjoy sharing this piece and hearing what others have to say. They need to make decisions about what kind of feedback can help them and not let the reader make those decisions.
From Peter Elbow and Patricia Belanoff, A Community of Writers: A Workshop Course in Writing , McGraw Hill
Here is an overview of different and valuable ways of responding to writing, and a few thoughts about when each kind is valuable. Try to incorporate some of them into your sessions. Always be explicit in discussing with the writer what type of response would be most helpful. Never assume.
The writer reads the piece aloud to listeners to simply listen and enjoy. Simple sharing is also a way for a writer to listen better to their own responses to their own piece, without having to think about how others respond. They can learn an enormous amount from hearing themselves read their own words–or from reading them over when they know that someone else is also reading them.
No response is valuable in many situations: when they don’t have much time, at very early stages when they just want to try something out or feel very tentative, or when they are completely finished and don’t plan to make any changes at all–as a form of simple communication or celebration. Sharing gives a writer a no pressure setting for getting comfortable reading their own words out loud and listening to the writing of others.
This method can provoke some anxiety from tutors, who think they’re wasting the writer’s time or not doing enough by just listening. Ultimately, the writer may just be looking for encouragement or validation.
You are not necessarily looking for the main points, but rather for sections or passages that seem to resonate or linger in your mind or be sources of energy to continue improving the project.
These quick, interesting forms of response are good for early drafts and writers who are struggling or who lack confidence. It helps a writer establish a sense of contact with readers. A center of gravity response is particularly interesting for showing a rich and interesting part of a writer’s project that they might have neglected, but which might be worth exploring and developing. Center of gravity can also help a writer see their piece in a different light and suggest ways to make major revisions.
These are both useful at any stage in the writing process in order to see whether readers “got” the points the writer is trying to give. But sayback is particularly useful at early stages when the writer hasn’t yet been able to find what they really want to say. When readers say back to writer what they hear–and invite the writer to reply–it often leads the writer to find exactly the words or thoughts or emphasis the writer was looking for.
This kind of response is particularly useful when the writer needs to develop or enrich their piece, when you sense there is more here but you haven’t been able to find it yet. It gives the writer concrete substantive help because you can give them ideas to add to theirs. This is not a bad thing, as expressing your interpretation and where you think the piece is going can help spur the writer into generating more idea. What the writer implies but doesn’t say in the writing is often very loud to you, but unheard by the writer.
Simply explain what your thoughts are on the writer’s topic after you’ve heard what the writer has to say. This kind of response is useful at any point, but especially at early stages when the writer hasn’t worked out their thinking yet. This can even work in brainstorming. This is actually the most natural and common response in any human discourse. You can have a small discussion about the topic, and the writer can choose what to move forward with.
You can comment on the following:
This kind of feedback can be useful at any stage. When people describe the voice they hear in writing, they often get right to the heart of the subtle but important matters of language and approach. You don’t have to talk in technical terms (passive vs active verbs, nominalized phrases, etc.); instead, you can say, “You sound a little unsure in what you’re saying. Can you tell me about that?”
Tell the writer honestly and in detail what is going on in your mind as you read or listen to the writer’s words. There are three powerful ways to give a writer this kind of response. Make sure you ask the writer which way (if any) they prefer.
Movies of the reader’s mind make the most sense when the writer has a fairly developed draft, and they want to know how it works on readers, rather than when they’re still trying to develop their ideas. Movies are the richest and most valuable form of response, but they require that the writer feels some confidence in themselves and support from you as a reader, because when you tell them honestly what is happening while you read their piece, they may hear that you don’t like it or even that you’re mad at it (even if that’s not true).
Describe the writing in terms of clothing (e.g., jeans, tuxedo, yoga pants), weather (e.g. foggy, stormy, sunny, humid), animals, colors, shapes. This kind of response is helpful at any point. It gives the writer a new view, a new lens. It’s particularly helpful when the writer feels stale on a piece, perhaps because they have worked so long on it.
These forms of feedback obviously lend themselves to persuasive essays or arguments, though the believing game can help writers flesh out and enrich the world of a story or poem. Believing is good when the writer is struggling and wants help. It is a way to give a writer new ideas and arguments and improve their piece in all sorts of ways. Doubting is good after the writer has gotten the piece as strong as they can get it and they want to send it out or hand it in but first find out how hostile readers will fight them.
Obviously, you can also do this in verbal discussion. Because they take time, you may only get through part of the paper, or you may need to have more than one session. These methods can give the writer the most distance and perspective on what they have written. They can help on late drafts when the writer wants to test out their reasoning and organization. Skeleton feedback can also be useful on early drafts when the writer is still trying to figure out what to say or emphasize and how to organize their thoughts.
You can absorb this list as a writer and as a reader/tutor. When in a session, ask the writer what kind of feedback they want most. You could even share this list with them and negotiate what would be most useful. Respect that choice. It’s important to realize that the writer will be more satisfied, and you’ll have an easier time, by not imposing your own preferred type of response or your own agenda on the session.
Think back to your previous experiences, especially if you have regulars. Under what circumstances could you use these kinds of feedback? What could you do if the writer really doesn’t know what type of response they want or need? What could you do if you and the writer disagree about the type of response that would be most productive?
FILE- Gulls follow a commercial fishing boat as crewmen haul in their catch in the Gulf of Maine, in this Jan. 17, 2012 file photo. TExecutive branch agencies will likely have more difficulty regulating the environment, public health, workplace safety and other issues under a far-reaching decision by the Supreme Court. The court’s 6-3 ruling on Friday overturned a 1984 decision colloquially known as Chevron that has instructed lower courts to defer to federal agencies when laws passed by Congress are not crystal clear. (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty, File)
The Supreme Court building is seen on Friday, June 28, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Executive branch agencies will likely have more difficulty regulating the environment, public health, workplace safety and other issues under a far-reaching decision by the Supreme Court .
The court’s 6-3 ruling on Friday overturned a 1984 decision colloquially known as Chevron that has instructed lower courts to defer to federal agencies when laws passed by Congress are not crystal clear.
The 40-year-old decision has been the basis for upholding thousands of regulations by dozens of federal agencies, but has long been a target of conservatives and business groups who argue that it grants too much power to the executive branch, or what some critics call the administrative state.
The Biden administration has defended the law, warning that overturning so-called Chevron deference would be destabilizing and could bring a “convulsive shock” to the nation’s legal system.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said federal judges “must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.”
The ruling does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron doctrine, Roberts wrote.
Here is a look at the court’s decision and the implications for government regulations going forward.
Atlantic herring fishermen sued over federal rules requiring them to pay for independent observers to monitor their catch. The fishermen argued that the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act did not authorize officials to create industry-funded monitoring requirements and that the National Marine Fisheries Service failed to follow proper rulemaking procedure.
In two related cases, the fishermen asked the court to overturn the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine, which stems from a unanimous Supreme Court case involving the energy giant in a dispute over the Clean Air Act. That ruling said judges should defer to the executive branch when laws passed by Congress are ambiguous.
In that case, the court upheld an action by the Environmental Protection Agency under then-President Ronald Reagan.
In the decades following the ruling, Chevron has been a bedrock of modern administrative law, requiring judges to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of congressional statutes.
But the current high court, with a 6-3 conservative majority has been increasingly skeptical of the powers of federal agencies. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch have questioned the Chevron decision. Ironically, it was Gorsuch’s mother, former EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch, who made the decision that the Supreme Court upheld in 1984.
With a closely divided Congress, presidential administrations have increasingly turned to federal regulation to implement policy changes. Federal rules impact virtually every aspect of everyday life, from the food we eat and the cars we drive to the air we breathe and homes we live in.
President Joe Biden’s administration, for example, has issued a host of new regulations on the environment and other priorities, including restrictions on emissions from power plants and vehicle tailpipes , and rules on student loan forgiveness , overtime pay and affordable housing.
Those actions and others could be opened up to legal challenges if judges are allowed to discount or disregard the expertise of the executive-branch agencies that put them into place.
With billions of dollars potentially at stake, groups representing the gun industry and other businesses such as tobacco, agriculture, timber and homebuilding, were among those pressing the justices to overturn the Chevron doctrine and weaken government regulation.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief last year on behalf of business groups arguing that modern application of Chevron has “fostered aggrandizement’’ of the executive branch at the expense of Congress and the courts.
David Doniger, a lawyer and longtime Natural Resources Defense Council official who argued the original Chevron case in 1984, said he feared that a ruling to overturn the doctrine could “free judges to be radical activists” who could “effectively rewrite our laws and block the protections they are supposed to provide.”
“The net effect will be to weaken our government’s ability to meet the real problems the world is throwing at us — big things like COVID and climate change,″ Doniger said.
“This case was never just about fish,’' said Meredith Moore of the environmental group Ocean Conservancy. Instead, businesses and other interest groups used the herring fishery “to attack the foundations of the public agencies that serve the American public and conserve our natural resources,’' she said.
The court ruling will likely open the floodgates to litigation that could erode critical protections for people and the environment, Moore and other advocates said.
“For more than 30 years, fishery observers have successfully helped ensure that our oceans are responsibly managed so that fishing can continue in the future,’' said Dustin Cranor of Oceana, another conservation group.
He called the case “just the latest example of the far right trying to undermine the federal government’s ability to protect our oceans, waters, public lands, clean air and health.’'
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey called the decision a fitting follow-up to a 2022 decision — in a case he brought — that limits the EPA’s ability to control greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. The court held that Congress must speak with specificity when it wants to give an agency authority to regulate on an issue of major national significance.
Morrisey, now the GOP nominee for governor, called Chevron “a misguided doctrine under which courts defer to legally dubious interpretations of statutes put out by federal administrative agencies.”
The Supreme Court ruling will almost certainly shift power away from the executive branch and Congress and toward courts, said Craig Green, a professor at Temple University’s Beasley School of Law.
“Federal judges will now have the first and final word about what statutes mean,″ he said. “That’s a big shift in power.″
In what some observers see as a historic irony, many conservatives who now attack Chevron once celebrated it. The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was among those who hailed the original ruling as a way to rein in liberal laws.
“Conservatives believed in this rule until they didn’t,’' Green said in an interview.
In recent years, conservatives have focused on “deconstruction of the administrative state,’' even if the result lessens the ability of a conservative president to impose his beliefs on government agencies.
“If you weaken the federal government, you get less government,’' Green said — an outcome that many conservatives, including those who back former President Donald Trump, welcome.
The ruling will likely “gum up the works for federal agencies and make it even harder for them to address big problems. Which is precisely what the critics of Chevron want,” said Jody Freeman, director of the environmental and energy law program at Harvard Law School.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
When writing a response essay, it is crucial to thoroughly analyze the source material provided. This process involves carefully examining and understanding the key ideas, arguments, and evidence presented by the author without bias or preconceived notions. By effectively analyzing the source material, you can ensure that your response essay is ...
1. Identify the main topic or issue you will be responding to. 2. State your position or stance on the topic clearly and concisely. 3. Provide a brief preview of the key points or arguments you will present in your essay to support your thesis. Remember, your thesis statement should be specific, focused, and debatable.
Record your thoughts. Develop a thesis. Write an outline. Construct your essay. It may be helpful to imagine yourself watching a movie review as you're preparing your outline. You will use the same framework for your response paper: a summary of the work with several of your own thoughts and assessments mixed in.
Various steps are outlined and discussed below to help you better understand how to write a response essay. 1. Pick a Topic for Your Response Essay. Picking a topic for response essay topics can be affected either by the scope of your assignment as provided by your college professor or by your preference.
Get an outline of the process for how to write a response essay from the prewriting to the final piece. See all the different steps in action to make writing a response essay a breeze.
Carefully Read and Analyze the Text. The first step in response paper creation is to carefully read and analyze the text. This involves more than just reading the words on the page; it requires critical thinking and analysis. As you read, pay attention to the author's tone, style, and use of language.
A response essay consists of 5-7 paragraphs: an introduction- a summary paragraph of the article; a response- 3 or more body paragraphs responding to the author; a conclusion- a concluding paragraph summing up your thoughts. Outline the essay your want to write. Use the structure of the response essay to determine the order of each paragraph.
To write an effective response essay, it is important to include several key elements in the essay. These include: Introduction: The introduction should provide background information on the text, including the author, title, and publication date. It should also include a thesis statement that expresses the writer's opinion about the text.
Write the Introduction. The introduction of a response paper sets the tone for the entire essay and is crucial for capturing the reader's interest. It should be engaging, informative, and clearly state the purpose of your paper. Engage the Reader. Begin the introductory paragraph with a compelling hook: a thought-provoking question, a striking fact, or a brief anecdote related to the text.
Essay Writing Response. A response paper (also known as a reflection or reaction paper) tends to be the most personal type of academic writing. Its purpose is to explain to a reader how you think or feel about a particular text. You may agree or disagree with an author, and in either case you'll want to explain to your reader why.
Step 1 - Read and Understand the Work. Before you can write a good response essay, you first need to read and understand the work that you're responding to. Whether it's a book, movie, article, or poem, the quality of your response paper is directly proportional to how well you've understood the source material.
Conclusion. tell a personal story. finish your personal story. explain the history of the topic. ask the reader what they think. tell why you found this interesting. suggest why this article might interest the reader. explain what you expected the article to be about. tell how you were surprised by the article.
Use concise and short paragraphs to cover each topic, theme or reaction. Use a new paragraph for each new topic discussed. Go into detail on your findings and reactions related to the text and try to maintain consistency and a clear flow throughout the body of your response paper. 5. Summarize your thoughts.
A response essay is generally meant to provide the reader with a better understanding of how you personally feel about a particular subject. As such, when you complete a response or reaction essay, you'll discuss your personal thoughts and feelings on the subject at hand. In many cases, a response or reaction essay is completed in response to a video, reading assignment, or special event. For ...
Sample response paper "Typography and Identity" in PDF with margin notes. Sample response paper "Typography and Identity" accessible version with notes in parentheses. This page titled 5.7: Sample Response Essays is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Anna Mills ( ASCCC Open Educational Resources ...
PRINCIPLES OF RESPONDING TO STUDENT WRITING. Your comments on student writing should clearly reflect the hierarchy of your concerns about the paper. Major issues should be treated more prominently and at greater length; minor issues should be treated briefly or not at all. If you comment extensively on grammatical or mechanical issues, you ...
A reaction paper is a form of essay in which you reveal your thoughts about a play, book, article, or any other literary work. This kind of academic writing has many parallels with a reaction paper because it contains your reaction to the reviewed work. While giving a written response to something, feel free to include your personal perspective ...
Introduction. Paragraph 1: The first part of the introduction which needs to be vivid, catchy and reflect the point you are about to make. Paragraph 2: Provide a context to your response essay: details about the source-text and the author and what the main points in the article are. Body.
As you summarize a point or argument from the original text, immediately follow it with your own intellectual response to the argument. 4. Wrap things up with a conclusion. Restate your stance or reactions to the text in a short paragraph. If desired or appropriate, explain why the matter is important overall.
Writing a Response or Reaction Paper. Each semester, you will probably be asked by at least one instructor to read a book or an article (or watch a TV show or a film) and to write a paper recording your response or reaction to the material. In these reports—often referred to as response or reaction papers—your instructor will most likely ...
5 Responses. Your reaction will be one or more of the following: Agreement/disagreement with the ideas in the text. Reaction to how the ideas in the text relate to your own experience. Reaction to how ideas in the text relate to other things you've read. Your analysis of the author and audience. Your evaluation of how this text tries to ...
There are three powerful ways to give a writer this kind of response. Make sure you ask the writer which way (if any) they prefer. Interrupt the reading a few times to describe what's happening in your mind. (If the writer is reading aloud, make sure they know you're going to do this.) Use "I" statements.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said federal judges "must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority." The ruling does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron doctrine, Roberts wrote.