CLAIMS MAKING PROCESS

This week we’ll be looking at the construction of social problems in a slightly different way than the way we did last week, where we focused mostly on how different parties to an established political or social controversy seek to FRAME the discussion of the issues involved. This week we turn our focus to the examination of how “social problems” come to be discovered and “known” in the first place. And in so doing, we’ll consider the question at the heart of Spectre & Kitsuse’s reading: how do social problems come to be seen AS “social problems”? And once we open up that can of worms, we have to ask: “could there be some real and very significant problems some non-trivial number of people in our world/nation/community that never get SEEN by the wider public?”

This is what Spectre and Kitsuse study, and it is directly relevant to issues of social justice and institutionalized racism and marginalization. They call it “the CLAIMS MAKING PROCESS.” The way a putative social problem becomes “seen” by the public as a social problem that we collectively need to address is by successfully navigating the CLAIMS MAKING PROCESS.

 

So lets talk about that by just asking some very simple questions:

What distinguishes a claim? Who is a claims maker?

is complaining at the bar about the crappy wages at the oil pump factory claims making?
is raising your hand at a public forum and complaining about the lead pipes in your building claims making?
is writing your representative in congress claims making?
is throwing a garbage can through a store front window claims making?
Is a lawsuit against the working conditions of welfare workers in New York state a form of claims making?
Is a song a form of claims making?
In your post, you can address one or more of the questions above OR you can think about your own life or the lives of people you’ve known or an issue that was significant in your community at one point in time. Just take any claim that you’ve once made or a claim that you’re aware of (it can be from personal experience or something you’ve seen in the news. Heck, it can even be an example drawn from a movie, television show or a book or article) and try to “interrogate” how the claims making process unfolded for that claim by tracing it through the analytic grid below. Its ok if this seems confusing right now. We’re going to play with this grid in class and get to know how to use it better.

 

Analyzing the Social Significance of Claims Made: Determining/Predicting what will become of claims

The Claim

By Whom it is Made

The Way it is made

To Whom it is made

In what forum it is made

When and under what conditions it is made

Expected Outcome

 

Sample Solution

Claims making process

Critical thinking means being able to make good arguments. Arguments are claims backed by reasons that are supported by evidence. A claim is a statement purporting/proposing the status of disposition of something (or some act). Claims are potentially arguable. “A liberal arts education prepares students best” is a claim, while “I didn’t like the book” is not. Any time you make a debatable statement in writing that is backed up with facts and/or other types of evidence, you are using a claim. Evidence serves as support for the reasons offered and helps compel audiences to accept claims.

Generally, jus in bello recommends in wars, damage must be utilized against soldiers, never against the guiltless. Be that as it may, eventually, the point is to lay out harmony and security inside the district. As Vittola’s decision: ‘the quest for equity for which he battles and the protection of his country’ is the thing countries ought to be battling for in wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332). In this manner, albeit the present world has created, we can see not entirely different from the pioneer accounts on fighting and the traditionists, giving one more segment of the hypothesis of the simply war. In any case, we can in any case reason that there can’t be one conclusive hypothesis of the simply war hypothesis due to its normativity.

Jus post bellum
At long last, jus post bellum recommends that the moves we ought to initiate after a conflict (Frowe (2010), Page 208). Vittola, first and foremost, contends after a conflict, it is the obligation of the pioneer to judge how to manage the foe (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332).. Once more, proportionality is stressed. For instance, the Versailles arrangement forced after WWI is tentatively excessively brutal, as it was not all Germany’s problem for the conflict. This is upheld by Frowe, who communicates two perspectives in jus post bellum: Moderation and Maximalism, which are very contrasting perspectives. Minimalists propose a more permissive methodology while maximalist, supporting the above model, gives a crueler methodology, rebuffing the foe both monetarily and strategically (Frowe (2010), Page 208). At the last case, notwithstanding, the point of war is to lay out harmony security, so whatever should be done can be ethically legitimate, assuming it observes the guidelines of jus promotion bellum. All in all, simply war hypothesis is truly contestable and can contend in various ways. Be that as it may, the foundation of a fair harmony is critical, making all war type circumstance to have various approaches to drawing closer (Frowe (2010), Page 227). In any case, the simply war hypothesis contains jus promotion bellum, jus in bello and jus post bellum, and it tends to be either ethically questionable or reasonable relying upon the proportionality of the situation. Consequently, there can’t be one conclusive hypothesis of the simply war yet just a hypothetical manual for show how wars ought to be battled, showing normativity in its record, which responds to the inquiry to what a conflict hypothesis is.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.