Any topic Entry

Contrasting the cultural perspective On Evidence and Argumentation as a way of reasoning between the American and Ghanaian approach using References from Althen “American Ways ” for Americans and my lived experiences in Ghana (Where I’m from and grew up). 

March 23rd, 2024.

 

In a world where global connectivity has become the norm rather than the exception, the difference in which we communicate and argue across cultures differs from one country to another and has never been more important to comprehend. Central to this intercultural exchange is the role of evidence in shaping our discussions, debates, and speech. Althen in his book “American Ways”, illuminates resourceful exploitation into the American cultural framework, which offers a valuable and resourceful perspective for this comprehensive analysis between Americans and other countries like Japan. While he did not talk about Ghanaians, I will reference my life-lived experiences and analyze the differences between Americans.

Gary Althen, in his insightful work, “American Ways: A Guide for Foreigners in the United States,” highlights the American penchant for quantifiable facts and a linear reasoning process as foundational to effective argumentation (Althen and Bennett, 2011). This preference stems from a broader cultural emphasis on individualism and the empirical tradition of the Enlightenment, which vaporizes scientific reasoning and objective evidence. In the American educational system, students are taught to build their arguments like a scaffold, where each fact acts as a support beam for the overarching thesis. This methodological approach ensures that arguments are structured, predictable, and, most importantly, verifiable. In professional settings, this manifests in a reliance on data, statistics, and explicit linkages between cause and effect. Althen notes that Americans tend to be skeptical of arguments that rely heavily on anecdotal evidence or emotional appeals, viewing them as less legitimate or persuasive. This can be seen in the legal system’s emphasis on ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ and in academic research’s peer review processes, which prioritize methodological rigor and replicability. An example of how Americans use evidence in their speech, debates, or discussions is shown in the picture below.

In contrast with the American emphasis on facts, data, quantities, ranking, or amounts, as a way of reasoning, the Ghanaian approach to argumentation, discussions, and even speech is deeply rooted in storytelling and communal validation. Growing up in a Ghanaian home, school, and community, evidence is often presented through narratives that encapsulate moral lessons, historical precedents, and communal wisdom. These stories do not merely serve to entertain; they are a vehicle for transmitting values, norms, and ethical guidelines across generations. For example, whenever my mom or an elderly person gives me advice, they always use someone’s life experience as a reference. This can be a person whom I have no knowledge about and can’t even find online when I search but I need to believe that and act accordingly.

Also, in discussions, speech, and arguments, the effectiveness of an argument in this context is measured not only by its logical consistency but also by its ability to resonate with the audience’s shared experiences and collective memory. This approach underscores the importance of relational harmony and social cohesion, reflecting a worldview where the community’s well-being is prioritized over individual interests. In such a setting, the persuasiveness of evidence is intricately linked to the speaker’s ability to weave together personal anecdotes, cultural references, and communal values into a coherent and compelling narrative. The pictures below illustrate how when growing up, elders give speeches, discussions, and even debates based on storytelling and lived experiences and usually this is done by sitting beside a fire at home.

These differences in ways of reasoning between the Americans and Ghanaians highlight a deeper cultural divergence regarding the nature of truth, the role of the individual versus the community, and the pathways to knowledge. While the American approach prioritizes objective analysis and the deconstruction of arguments into verifiable components, the Ghanaian approach values the holistic integration of knowledge, emphasizing relational dynamics and communal consensus.