It is an inarguable fact that the most important quality for any author or researcher is the ability to use sources well. Whether you are composing an economic survey, a scientific study, or even a personal account, being able to coherently and clearly represent outside sources in your work is crucial. The difficulty, however, lies not in acknowledging this fact, but in actually learning to effectively integrate texts into your writing. Using a source cannot be limited to stamping out another author’s exact viewpoints and arguments without extrapolation, nor is it a matter of stringing up an opponent to use as a rhetorical punching bag. The truth about utilizing another individual’s work is that it takes a huge amount of understanding, insightfulness,
…show more content…
Just as Gudynas identifies how certain contemporary governments excuse neglectful, extractivist policy and behavior as means to combat poor living conditions, Klein (2014) echoes that they assert a need to “pursue extractive policies in order to pay for programs that alleviate poverty” (p. 181). In paraphrasing this critical point of Gudynas’ report, Klein presents what she believes one of its goals: to address how even the most progressive of societies excuse terrible ideology in order to address some larger conflict. Not only does she present her perception of Gudynas’ argument that extractivist policy is inherently damaging to society, muddying our perception of the issue and negating our ability to deal with it, but she also explains how it the report can be useful to others, showing how it is an enlightening approach to understanding extractivism as an ideology of power and …show more content…
Although the initial report expands greatly on the subject of South American extractivism, going on to analyze how territorial division and social behaviors have been greatly altered under the evolving ideology, Klein does not make use of these core aspects of the report, only referencing a very small portion of it. This behavior traces back to Harris’ refinement of forwarding, that an author need only use a source to the extent that is necessary. Stemming from this logic, Klein is only obliged to use the source to outline what she needs for her own argument, and does not need to rely entirely on what this one source portrays. In fact, her use of Gudynas’ report is juxtaposed with her reference of several other sources, identified in her notes as Gudynas’ “Buen Vivir: Today’s Tomorrow,” and also L. Temper et al. in “Towards a Post-Oil Civilization” (Klein, p. 490-491). Seeing as how she uses the work of Gudynas in culmination with other texts, it is clear that she is using just one of many sources in her research, and that the work of Gudynas is not at all emphasized. Gudynas’ report, in retrospect, is only pivotal in its definition of the term Klein uses and its promotion in the
Just as Gudynas identifies how certain contemporary governments excuse neglectful, extractivist policy and behavior as means to combat poor living conditions, Klein (2014) echoes that they assert a need to “pursue extractive policies in order to pay for programs that alleviate poverty” (p. 181). In paraphrasing this critical point of Gudynas’ report, Klein presents what she believes one of its goals: to address how even the most progressive of societies excuse terrible ideology in order to address some larger conflict. Not only does she present her perception of Gudynas’ argument that extractivist policy is inherently damaging to society, muddying our perception of the issue and negating our ability to deal with it, but she also explains how it the report can be useful to others, showing how it is an enlightening approach to understanding extractivism as an ideology of power and …show more content…
Although the initial report expands greatly on the subject of South American extractivism, going on to analyze how territorial division and social behaviors have been greatly altered under the evolving ideology, Klein does not make use of these core aspects of the report, only referencing a very small portion of it. This behavior traces back to Harris’ refinement of forwarding, that an author need only use a source to the extent that is necessary. Stemming from this logic, Klein is only obliged to use the source to outline what she needs for her own argument, and does not need to rely entirely on what this one source portrays. In fact, her use of Gudynas’ report is juxtaposed with her reference of several other sources, identified in her notes as Gudynas’ “Buen Vivir: Today’s Tomorrow,” and also L. Temper et al. in “Towards a Post-Oil Civilization” (Klein, p. 490-491). Seeing as how she uses the work of Gudynas in culmination with other texts, it is clear that she is using just one of many sources in her research, and that the work of Gudynas is not at all emphasized. Gudynas’ report, in retrospect, is only pivotal in its definition of the term Klein uses and its promotion in the