Jay Caspian Kang makes interesting arguments in part because he’s conflicted–he’s interested in issues of identity, but he’s also critical of the way that people talk about them. He’s a seeker, looking for a new way to see a problem. Elizabeth Bruenig is similar, in that her writing spans modes of identification that are challenging. She’s a Christian and a parent advocate for children, and she’s also a committed leftist. She’s not interested in the Democratic party, which she views as too far right on most issues, she’s interested in something like a socialist revolution, in which society is rebuilt in accord with principles of bringing about economic equality for the mass of world citizens. While most people don’t usually think “Christian” and “Radical leftist” go together, this is Bruenig’s terrain. In the essay attached, “Not that Innocent,” Bruenig discusses one of the topics that is most important to her: capital punishment. Bruenig is a staunch critic of capital punishment but her argument is not the typical argument against it. As you read this piece, note how Bruenig avoids the conventional arguments against capital punishment. What is unique about her argument? Why does she insist on the specificity of her claim, over and against other criticisms of capital punishment? What kind of thinker rejects other arguments in favor of her own position? Here’s the essay: Not That Innocent by Elizabeth Bruenig.pdf
Elizabeth Bruenig is writing about capital punishment, which is what is known as a “hot button” topic. That’s a topic that a lot of people talk about, and most people already have opinions about. Rather than simply issuing her opinion directly, Bruenig attempts to recast the nature of the debate around the topic, so that readers see it in a new light. Why do you think Bruenig chooses this strategy? What is the value of such a strategy and what do you think her aim is?
