SECTION Two--Developing Papers: Comparing and Contrasting: Finding Likenesses and Differences

Often you can generate ideas for your papers by asking how your subject is like or unlike another subject. In conversation we constantly make comparisons — of movies, teams, books, clothes, and so on. In writing we go through the same procedures more thoroughly and systematically in order to clarify our meaning or make an idea more persuasive. (Strictly, comparison implies likeness and contrast implies difference, but ordinarily comparison is applied to discovering and presenting either similarities or differences.)

Whenever your main intention in a paper is to bring out similarities and differences, comparison is naturally central. But it may also be essential in papers with other aims. A good way of explaining how a new mechanism works is to compare it with a familiar one, using a known to shed light on an unknown. To establish a generalization about television audiences, you might compare shows that enjoy high ratings with shows the public rejected. The technique of comparing is also useful in argument— inevitable, in fact, in controversies about which action should be taken, which policy adopted, which candidate elected.

Points of Comparison

A point of comparison is a significant question you can ask about each of your subjects. (What is significant will be determined by your purpose in comparing them.) About two presidential candidates you might ask, “What do they plan to do about the three issues that are bothering most Americans — unemployment, inflation, and defense?” These three issues would then be points of comparison, topics you would discuss in connection with your subjects.

Notice that you arrive at your points of comparison by dividing each of your subjects. What you’re looking for, however, is not all the parts, as in a division, but a manageable number that will yield significant likenesses and differences when applied to your subjects.

You’re most likely to discover relevant points of comparison if you begin by investigating your subjects as fully as possible. Study each one, jotting down all the details and aspects of it that occur to you. Keep turning it over in your mind; keep asking questions of it. Once you have two full lists (if you’re comparing two subjects), review them, looking for points of contact that suggest relationships worth exploring. As you examine these relationships more closely, you’ll begin to make finer distinctions, asking yourself whether the likenesses you’re uncovering are fundamental or superficial and whether the differences are differences in degree or differences in kind.

A difference in degree is expressed in terms of more or less, or better or worse, or stronger or weaker: “Both A and B are enjoyable, but A gives more lasting pleasure than B.” Uncovering differences in kind is often the most satisfactory way of accounting for the existence of differences where one would expect to find similarities. In this excerpt a scientist explores reasons for the differences between his own conclusions and those of a colleague:

As each of us draws opposite conclusions about the significance of the Mariner data regarding life on Mars, it’s difficult to escape the impression that we are both interpreting it in the context of differing a priori views of the planet.

Since Sagan and I respect each other greatly as scientists and find much stimulation in each other’s thoughts, why should we find it so difficult to read the record similarly? One can look first to our scientific backgrounds. He aimed at the planets and re search from his undergraduate days. My first love was—and is— the Earth, and my initial postgraduate activities were of an applied nature. I didn’t return to a university for a research career until I was twenty-nine years old. Carl has emphasized synthesis and conjecture about how things are, might be, or could be beyond the Earth. If he is lucky, his great passion, the search for extraterrestrial life, especially intelligent life, will blossom during his lifetime. I, on the other hand, have been mainly concerned about distinguishing fact from fiction in a subject moldy with misconceptions and inherited prejudices. My passion is to understand how things really are on Earth as well as in space. — Bruce Murray in Mars and the Mind of Man by Ray Bradbury et al.

Once you’ve discovered the points of comparison that have a bearing on your purpose, you have the criteria you need to select from your lists just those characteristics and qualities and details of your subjects that have a bearing on what you want to demonstrate or prove. Then you’re ready to consider how you can best organize your comparison.

• For Analysis

Initial cost, operating cost, and repair record are points of comparison that might be used to evaluate two or more makes of car. What points of comparison would you use to bring out significant similarities and differences between two musicians or groups of musicians ( you name them), two courses that you’re now taking ( you select them), two methods of learning a skill (a skill you’re qualified to teach)? In each case, state what Interest you have in making the comparison— what you’re trying to demonstrate or prove—and what audience you’re addressing. (In making a comparison of cars for an audience of wealthy readers, you might ignore matters of cost entirely.)

Structuring a Comparison

Essentially, a passage of comparison consists of several points of comparison filled out with details, examples, facts. How you arrange the points and the supporting information will usually depend on the material itself, on your audience’s familiarity with it, and on your purpose. Here are three patterns frequently used in balanced comparisons—comparisons in which roughly the same attention is given to each of the subjects being compared:

I. Whole-to-Whole

Thomas Jefferson grew up among the landed gentry of- Virginia, and he remained a confirmed Virginian throughout his life. He was a thoughtful man, a scholar and a philosopher, al ways eager to add to his knowledge of the arts and sciences and to explore the mysteries of the universe and of the human spirit. Though reluctant to take part in the clamor and conflict of politics, he became a powerful political leader, working for the welfare of his nation. A patriot and statesman, he devoted his life to the development of the Republic he had helped to create. His writings reflect a hopeful view of human nature, a belief that under the right conditions men will improve. That faith is implicit in the great Declaration of Independence, of which he was the author. It’s the basis of his dream of a happy land of free men, living together in natural harmony. And that faith is, of course, the root of his objection to any kind of government that would stifle individual liberty and hamper individual growth. Both his faith and his dream became permanent parts of American democracy.

Alexander Hamilton came from a background very unlike Jefferson’s. He was born into a poor family on an island in the Lesser Antilles. He became a New Yorker, joining a society of men as competitive and aggressive as himself. A gifted organizer and administrator, he used his brilliant mind as a weapon with which to fight not only for personal success but also for the practical policies he supported. His patriotism was as great as Jefferson’s, but his view of the future of the nation was dictated by a very different reading of human nature. He believed that men will act upon the same selfish motives whatever the form of government and that therefore a government with sufficient authority to impose order and stability is always essential. Only through a strong central government, he thought, could America achieve peace, progress, and prosperity. This idea, powerfully expressed in his Federalist papers, had great influence upon the organization of the new republic and upon its subsequent history.

II. Part-to-Part

Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were two of America’s most influential statesmen in the early period of the Re public. Jefferson grew up among the landed gentry of Virginia; Hamilton was born into a poor family on an island in the Lesser Antilles. Only with great reluctance did Jefferson accept a political career, with its accompanying clamor and conflict. A thoughtful man, he would have preferred to spend his life in his native state, free to add to his scholarly knowledge of the arts and sciences and to explore the mysteries of the universe and of the human spirit. Hamilton, on the other hand, found his natural milieu in New York City, in a society of men who shared his competitive, aggressive spirit, and he entered politics with the enthusiasm and efficiency of the born organizer and administrator. His brilliant mind served him admirably in his fight for personal success and for the political policies he supported. His Federalist papers are among the greatest documents of the period, ranking in historical importance with Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. Both are the works of great patriots.

Jefferson’s political philosophy was optimistic; he believed that, given the right conditions, men would improve. By contrast, Hamilton was convinced that, regardless of environment, human nature does not change. Accordingly, while Jefferson dreamed of a happy land of free men, living together in natural harmony, Hamilton worked for order and stability, for system and organization. The Virginian feared that the machinery of a strong central government would stifle individual liberty and hamper individual growth; the New Yorker believed that government must have authority in order to ensure peace, progress, and prosperity. Regardless of the differences in their views, both men devoted their lives to the welfare of the new nation, which both had helped to create and which both helped to survive. And their different views had permanent influence upon the history of America.

Ill. Likeness-Difference

Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were fellow patriots and fellow statesmen. Men of true brilliance, the powerful influence that they exerted upon the Republic at the beginning of its history had an effect that has persisted to the present day. To them we owe some of our greatest historical documents — to Jefferson the Declaration of Independence and to Hamilton a number of the famous Federalist papers. Both were powerful political leaders, working for the welfare of the new nation which they had helped to create and which they helped to survive.

At the same time, their differences were numerous and pro found. They were unlike in background, in temperament, in habit of mind, and in political philosophy. Jefferson grew up among the landed gentry of old Virginia; Hamilton was born into a poor family on an island in the Lesser Antilles. Throughout his life, Jefferson remained a confirmed Virginian, but Hamilton became a New Yorker, flourishing in a society of men as competitive and aggressive as himself. Jefferson shrank from the clamor and conflict of politics; Hamilton had the zeal of a born organizer and administrator. Jefferson was a thoughtful man, a scholar and a philosopher, always eager to add to his knowledge of the arts and sciences and to explore the mysteries of the universe and of the human spirit. Hamilton used his mind as a keen weapon with which he fought not only for personal success but also for the practical policies he supported.

They differed markedly in their views of human nature. An optimist, Jefferson believed that, under the right conditions, men would improve; Hamilton was convinced that, regardless of environment, human nature would never change. Because of their different readings of human nature, they had different views about the role of government. Since he could not believe that a new type of government would result in a new type of citizenry, Hamilton worked for the old objectives — order and stability, system and organization; he sought to build a government with traditional authority, which he considered essential to peace, progress, and prosperity. Just as naturally, considering his philosophy, Jefferson fought against a strong central government, fearing that it would stifle individual liberty and hamper individual growth, seeing it as a threat to his dream of a happy land of free men, living together in natural harmony.

These examples show that the same material can be organized in three ways, each giving the reader a slightly different view. The first, in which the writer has his say about one of the subjects before turning to the other, presents each subject as a whole rather than focusing on precise similarities or differences. The part-to-part scheme, with its perfect symmetry, highlights specific points of comparison, leaving the reader with a sharp impression of how the subjects relate to each other on each point. (Notice how the symmetry extends even to the individual sentences. Many of them are balanced, the two halves built just alike.) The third pattern begins with similarities but emphasizes differences; what is given most space and placed last is usually remembered longest.

Comparisons don’t often fall into patterns as neatly balanced as these. If you were comparing the British and American political systems in order to explain the British system to American readers, you’d naturally give the American “whole” briefer coverage. A few generalizations would be enough to remind your readers of what they already knew and to open the way for the contrast. The same unequal coverage would make sense if you used the part-to-part structure: whenever you introduced a point of comparison, you’d touch on its application to the American political system only briefly, giving much more space to the corresponding details of the British system.

If you were using comparison to establish the superiority of public schools over private schools, you’d naturally give most attention to the strong points of public schools —and to the weak points of private schools—since these would be what had convinced you of the superiority of public schooling in the first place. If you intended to bring out hidden likenesses between two things normally thought of as strikingly different — tap dancing and ballet, perhaps — there wouldn’t be any point in reviewing the differences. You’d acknowledge them very briefly and move on to what you were really interested in — the similarities.

There are valid reasons, then, for giving more attention to one of your subjects or for otherwise modifying the basic patterns of organization. But if you commit yourself to making a full, balanced comparison, you must work at doing just that. And in making a comparison you’ll find that each of the patterns poses some problems. In the whole-to-whole the two halves of your paper will drift apart if, in dealing with the second whole, you lose sight of the points you made about the first. Part-to-part has the advantage of keeping the topics in view, but unless they’re smoothly related, the paper will seem choppy and disjointed. And if the third pattern is less common than the other two, it’s probably because many subjects yield such a random collection of either likenesses or differences that half the comparison turns out to be weak and uninteresting.

In choosing among the patterns, try to decide which best suits your material, your purpose, and the needs of your audience. Suppose you were writing an article for a popular magazine about the pollution of waterways and you used as evidence a comparison of the Concord and Merrimack rivers as they are today with the rivers as Henry David Thoreau knew them in 1839. Doing a part-to- part comparison probably wouldn’t suit your purpose. You’d be more likely to offer a brief sketch of the rivers as Thoreau wrote about them and then move on to a detailed account of their present deplorable state. Your overriding pattern would be unbalanced whole-to-whole.

When you write an extended, analytical comparison for an audience that knows a good deal about your subjects, you’ll probably use the part-to-part pattern. Close analysis of separate points can be sustained longer in that scheme than in the whole-to-whole. A detailed comparison of the techniques and accomplishments of two film directors, supported by examples of their work, would be easier to follow in the part-to-part scheme than in whole-to-whole, and relationships could be stated with greater precision than in the likeness-difference pattern.

Likeness-difference is a good choice when your readers not only know a lot about your subjects but have a strong opinion about them that you want to change. If your purpose is to persuade them that subjects generally regarded as similar are actually unlike, begin with the like nesses and go on to the differences, perhaps showing that the likenesses are more apparent than real. If you want to persuade them that subjects generally regarded as different are actually much alike, acknowledge the differences first and then go on to reveal likenesses that are more significant.

In making a choice of methods, ask yourself questions like these: Will my purpose be best served (and my readers best informed) if I present a general view of each whole? Or should I set certain aspects of each side by side to sharpen the contrast? Or will it be more effective to talk entirely in terms of like and unlike? Do like and unlike need equal attention, or should I pass over the likenesses quickly and get on to what really counts—the differences?

Of course, the assumption behind all these questions is that you already have a definite thesis in mind, that you intend more than a mere list of particulars, that you have selected every point of comparison for a specific reason. Don’t focus so closely on the procedures of comparing that you forget the purpose you want the comparison to serve. And remember that though the structure of a comparison must be clear, symmetry doesn’t guarantee a good paper. Organization is only a means of calling attention to the similarities and differences. To convince the reader that they are real ones, you must present the details, the examples, the facts that make your subjects alike or different in respects you consider important and interesting.

In the following newspaper article comparison is used to support a thesis. The structure is clear-cut, and the proportions are balanced, but these virtues are functional. The writer is comparing two sports not simply to compare them but to make a point about their sociological significance.

Baseball and football nicely reflect, sociologically, their respective eras of inception, development and maturation. They reflect, rather directly, the evolution, or demise, of the American dream. It’s no accident that in terms of media popularity, foot ball, a game clearly defined by time and space, is the No. 1 sport in America today. Football in many ways mirrors contemporary America; baseball preserves an image of the America we have lost.

For baseball is a game in which the passage of time is incidental; the season turns, but no clocks run out in baseball games. Baseball is the summer game, reflecting a society still rural and thus fitting perfectly Into the languid season between sowing and reaping. Deeds matter in baseball: hits, runs, errors and outs rather than mere time make the inning.

Nor has space, time’s twin, much to do with baseball. There were no fences early in the game and even today they are seen as rather arbitrary.

There are home fields but no enemy territory to penetrate, no home territory to defend. The entire field is open to both teams equally. This befits a society in which land is abundant. Baseball is the Homestead Act with bases.

Although there are teams in baseball, there is little teamwork. The essence of the game is the individual with or against the ball: pitcher controlling, batter hitting, fielder handling, runner racing the ball. All players are on their own, struggling (like the farmer) to overcome not another human being but nature (the ball).

This individualism is demonstrated when the shortstop, cleanly fielding the ball, receives credit for a “chance” even if the first baseman drops the thrown ball. It’s demonstrated when a last-place team includes a Cy Young Award-winning pitcher or a league-leading hitter. It’s perhaps most clearly manifest in the pitcher-batter duel, the heart of the game, when two men face each other.

Baseball is each man doing the best he can for himself and against nature within a loose confederation of fellow individualists he may or may not admire and respect. This reflects a society in which individual effort, drive and success are esteemed and in which, conversely, failure is deemed the individual’s responsibility.

Like life itself, baseball is full of surprising twists and turns and there can be no game plans. The season contains all the stuff of the old American dream. Disappointments are softened by the realization that one game, one defeat or even a series of defeats does not spell failure. Such a situation weakens any tendency toward winning at all costs and by any means.

In football, losing is worse than death because after losing there is nothing. In baseball, there is always tomorrow or at least next year. The baseball season ends with harvest time; the football season ends with the plunge into deepest winter.

Baseball is everyman’s game; that is, it’s not a big man’s game: Phil Rizzuto, Bobby Shantz, Pee Wee Reese and Joe Morgan are among the greatest players and not big. Henry Aaron is barely above average in size.

Nor is baseball a specialist’s game. Except for pitchers and catchers, many players can readily shift positions, but who ever heard of a utility linebacker?

In baseball we see perpetuated one of the guiding myths of America—egalitarianism, equal opportunity, every man potentially a champion. Neither smallness of stature nor a computer analysis precludes everyman’s attempt to make the team and to attain glory. Baseball is perhaps the only team sport in which a good small team can beat a good big team — provided the small team has a superior pitcher.

These factors account in large part for the almost total absence of physical contact, to say nothing of physical violence, in base ball. This rarity of physical violence reflects a time when America Itself, as a nation among nations, was incapable of great violence, having neither contiguous enemy or potential enemy states nor a significant standing army.

But America has changed. After World War II, in a clear break with our history, America became a military power of the first order and in the last 25 years we have used that power often:

Massive violence, or the threat of it, has been our lot for a generation.

In such a context, football has matured. In football, violence is an essential characteristic; it’s a team sport played by specialists who must submerge their personalities for the sake of the corporation; it’s a game of big men whom lesser mortals may passively watch but not emulate; it’s a game severely circumscribed by time and space factors; it’s a game (unlike base ball, of “democratic” origins) that originated among college elites and was purveyed to the masses as a commodity.

Baseball appears as a relic from a simpler, richer, more lei surely past. Its enduring popularity attests to the strength of the myth it re-enacts, of individuals in their lonely struggle against nature. Football is a manifestation of that stage in the evolution of America when highly specialized organization men, inured to violence, confronted a world increasingly limited in economic time, space and resources. Now that “limits to growth” have been perceived, perhaps the situation is ripe for a new American pastime, in which space, time and organization factors are pre dominant but in which there is room for individualism as well.

Soccer, anyone?—Gerald J. Cavanaugh, New York Times

• For Analysis and Writing

1. Review the three methods of structuring a comparison, and then write a paper of about 1000 words on one of the following topics.

a. For a sympathetic audience, such as an old friend or a school counselor, compare and contrast your views and attitudes with those of your parents on matters that are especially important to you. (Suggestions: religious or moral views; social activities; dress; education; money.)

b. For the sports section in a newspaper or magazine, compare and contrast two games or sports, like table tennis and paddle- ball, handball and jal alai, basketball and hockey, baseball and stoopball, golf and tennis.

c. For a TV magazine, write a comparison of the styles of two comedians or two serious actors with a view to demonstrating that one is more talented or more entertaining than the other. Audience: TV fans.

2. Write a comparison of your own family and another, very different family that you know well. In making the comparison, rely chiefly on details about their homes—furniture, drapes, color schemes, pictures on the walls, knickknacks, and so on — that seem to you to reflect the occupants’ personalities, tastes, interests, and values. (The details you chose for assignment 5 on p. 39 could be used for this comparison.) Your audience is acquainted with both families but hasn’t visited their homes.

3. Examine the following paper. What purpose does the comparison serve? Is it intended simply to show likenesses and differences, or is it used to support a thesis? What method of comparison has the writer used? Is it a good one for the purpose, or would another have been better? Are the details well chosen? Do they make the generalization believable? Are the tone and style appropriate to the audience proposed in 1 a? Why or why not?

Old Is Right?

Many members of the older generation are under the impression that their values and ways of life are the only right ones. They think that their children must inherit these qualities or they, the parents, have failed. They refuse to acknowledge that teenagers might have some legitimate ideas of their own. I am tired of having my opinions put down by my parents simply because of my youth and relative lack of experience.

Family ties are extremely important to my father and mother. They feel that their children should prefer to do things with the family rather than on their own. Unfortunately, their attitudes make me unwilling to spend time with them.

“Conservative” is a good word to use to describe my parents. They find it hard to accept any sort of change. When I was growing up, all the girls were wearing pants to school, but I wasn’t allowed to until the seventh grade, and even then I was restricted to dress pants. It was my senior year in high school before I was permitted to wear jeans — once a week. I consider myself a liberal to a certain extent. At least I see nothing wrong in dressing in a casual, comfortable way.

My father and mother are very straitlaced Protestants who firmly believe that going to church every Sunday is an integral part of religion. I see religion as a more personal thing. I feel that I can be just as close to God, if not closer, through my own private, nightly prayers. Although I believe strongly in the love of God, I am not interested in organized religion. Rather than accepting and respecting my views, my parents are constantly trying to convert me to their way of thought.

Politics is another sore point. My parents are devoted Republicans and always vote for the party’s candidate because they are sure, he must stand for Republican principles and ideals. I chose to register as an Independent, believing that I should vote for the candidate whose personal qualities I most admire, regardless of his party label. My parents disapprove.

My father and mother are convinced that one of the most important things in life is working to earn money for later years. For them, work has nothing to do with enjoyment or even inter est. It’s a duty you must perform for yourself and your family. I feel that work is part of life but that life is something to be relished. So I would rather work for low pay in a job I like than be stuck in a high-paying dull job. My parents can’t understand this. One of the worst shocks of their lives was when my sister dropped Out of college, leaving behind a relatively secure career in fashion merchandising, to become an apprentice sailor on a square-rigged ship.

I don’t mean to sound like my parents are inhuman. My mother and father have always been more than generous, giving me everything I ever needed. I love them both dearly and don’t mean for it to appear otherwise. They have taught me many valuable lessons. But though I appreciate their efforts to give me the best upbringing possible, according to their standards, I think we would get along much better if they would only try to understand my feelings and remember that I am an independent adult with ideas of my own, however different they may be from theirs.

PREV. | NEXT

top of page   Home   Similar Articles