Part Two — Argument: Making It Reason

Six reasoning moves that turn what you observed into a claim a thoughtful reader will accept

← Back to the guide overview

Part One taught you to build the essay. But a well-built essay can still fail to argue—that is, to move a reader from “here is what this author saw” to “yes, and it changes how I understand something.” That reasoning is what this part teaches. When a reader or your instructor writes “this needs more analysis” or “what is your argument?” in the margin, they are rarely asking for more detail; they are asking for a move, a piece of reasoning that does something with the detail you already have. The six moves here are that toolkit. They are a menu rather than a near-universal set: you choose the move your evidence and your reader call for, and strong essays chain several together.

This is the part of essay-writing students find hardest, and it is worth being honest about why. By your final undergraduate years or your first graduate ones, you can almost certainly describe a fieldsite vividly. What may be harder—what separates an essay a reader calls “rich but descriptive” from one they call “insightful”—is the reasoning that turns observation into a claim worth making. The good news is that the basic moves are learnable. Learn to recognize each one, and you will start to see the scaffolding beneath essays you admire. Learn to perform each one, and you will have a set of tools to reach for when you are staring at your fieldnotes wondering what on earth to say about them.

A Note on What an “Argument Move” Is

An argument move is a unit of reasoning—a way of getting from evidence to a claim that a reader will accept. It is not a paragraph template or a phrase to paste in. It is a shape of thinking you can apply to your own material. The moves in this part are not mutually exclusive; a strong essay usually chains several together. And they are not a checklist to complete: you choose the move that fits your evidence, the way you would choose the right tool for a physical task. Part of the skill this part teaches is that choosing.

Contents: The Six Moves

  1. Move 1. Surface an Assumption, Then Overturn It
  2. Move 2. Hold the Tension Instead of Resolving It
  3. Move 3. Follow the Logic to Its Extreme
  4. Move 4. Make the Case Reveal Something Larger
  5. Move 5. Let Two Things Explain Each Other
  6. Move 6. Relocate the Problem

Move 1. Surface an Assumption, Then Overturn It

This is the workhorse of ethnographic argument, perhaps the single most common reasoning move in the genre, and the one to learn first. Its shape is simple. You name something the reader is likely to take for granted—a piece of “common sense,” an obvious-seeming assumption. You give that assumption its due, even showing how widely it is held. And then you use your ethnographic evidence to show that it is wrong, incomplete, or backwards. The argument lives in the gap between what the reader assumed and what your fieldwork reveals.

The reasoning problem it solves

Every essay has to answer a silent question from the reader: why are you telling me this? If your claim merely confirms what the reader already believes, the honest answer is “no reason.” Overturning an assumption solves this at a stroke. It creates what readers experience as insight: the small, pleasurable jolt of realizing that something they thought was obvious is not. It also gives your essay obvious stakes, because now there is something at risk: a common belief that your evidence is about to correct.

Example: The three beats of a reversal

Liang and Zhang perform this move on the reader’s likely first impression of Hong Kong’s street writers—that they are simply graffiti artists, or nostalgic “heritage”:

Similar to contemporary graffiti, Tsang’s and Yim’s works are subversive by reclaiming visibility… Yet to characterize their interventions solely within the contemporary graffiti discourse risks oversimplifying their unique visual tactic. Rather… we argue that their practices operate through the logic of the knockoff.Liang and Zhang 2026, 5

The three beats are clear. First, the assumption is named and taken seriously: these look like graffiti, and the comparison is granted its due. Second, the pivot: “Yet to characterize their interventions solely… risks oversimplifying.” Third, the evidence and reconception: the writers are recast as producers of knockoffs. The reader ends somewhere they did not expect to be, carried there by a better analytic.

How it goes wrong

Try this

Write down, in one plain sentence, what a reasonable person would assume about your fieldsite before reading your essay—the “obvious” take. Then ask: does my evidence confirm it, complicate it, or overturn it? If it overturns or complicates the assumption, you have the spine of an argument. Draft the three beats: name the assumption (fairly), pivot, and let a specific piece of evidence do the overturning.

Discussion: The reversal is so effective that it can become a reflex. Anthropology has sometimes been accused of a “but really it’s the opposite” habit. When is overturning an assumption a genuine discovery, and when is it a formula performed for its own sake? How would you know which one you are doing in your own draft?

Move 2. Hold the Tension Instead of Resolving It

Where the reversal replaces one view with a better one, this move does something harder: it refuses to choose. You show that a situation is genuinely two contradictory things at once, and that the contradiction is not a problem to be solved but the truth to be reported. The argument is that reality here is irreducibly double, and that any account which flattens it into one thing or the other is false to the people you studied.

The reasoning problem it solves

Human situations are frequently contradictory, and beginning writers tend to treat that contradiction as a mistake—something they must resolve before making a clean claim. So they pick a side: the ritual is empowering, or it is oppressive. But the flattening loses exactly what was interesting and faithful to lived experience. The tension-holding move makes the doubleness itself the finding. It lets you be faithful to complexity without becoming vague, because you are not saying “it’s complicated”; you are naming, precisely, the two things that are simultaneously true and showing how they coexist.

Example: Naming a doubleness precisely

Khan’s account of the Rust Belt’s “biomedical corridor” is built on a tension he refuses to resolve: in this economy, growth and injury are not opposites but the same process:

Here, growth and injury form a single continuum: the injuries and sicknesses of the poor, aging working-class communities and the racialized are converted into market signals… that fuel new circuits of accumulation. The biopolitical order of the postindustrial city… depends not on the protection of life but on the profitable management of its depletion.Khan 2026, 2

This is not fence-sitting. Khan is not saying “redevelopment has upsides and downsides” or retreating into “it depends.” He is making a strong, specific claim: that the very same wounds that devastate residents are what generate value. That precision is what separates holding a tension from simply failing to reach a conclusion.

How it goes wrong

Try this

Find a place in your material where you feel pulled in two directions. Resist the urge to pick. Instead, write two sentences: one naming pole A as sharply as you can, one naming pole B. Then write the harder sentence that says how they are related—not just “both are true” but why they are true together, and what that coexistence reveals.

Discussion: There is a fine line between honestly holding a tension and using “it’s both” to dodge a claim you should be brave enough to make. In your own writing, how can you tell whether you are reporting a real irreducible doubleness or avoiding a conclusion? What would each one feel like from the inside?

Move 3. Follow the Logic to Its Extreme

This move takes a claim, a value, or a logic you have found in the field and follows it all the way to where it leads—to its limit case, its fullest expression, its logical end point. You do this not to be absurd but to reveal something: pushed to its extreme, a logic shows its true shape, its hidden stakes, or the point at which it breaks. Philosophers call the destructive version reductio ad absurdum; ethnographers use a gentler, more revealing version, following a logic to its extreme to expose what it really commits its holders to.

The reasoning problem it solves

Sometimes a belief or value seems perfectly reasonable in its everyday form, and its real character only becomes visible at the extreme. By extending the logic yourself—asking “if this were followed all the way, what would it mean?”—you make the implicit explicit, and often startling. This move is especially powerful for analyzing the reasoning of institutions, ideologies, or experts.

Example: Taking a value to its limit

In Reisman’s almond essay, the value in question is biosecurity, which sounds unobjectionable. But the farmers of Alicante trace the logic to its destination and find it uninhabitable:

eradication of Xylella was impossible given the range of hosts… An already aging farming population might not replant, many feared, accelerating rural abandonment. The weeds that regrow on untended land might also raise the risk of fires… Landscape purification was simply a futile bureaucratic performance, farmers claimed.Reisman 2021, 418–19

Followed all the way, the logic of eradication arrives at a self-defeating destination: a landscape stripped of trees, its farmers gone, its abandoned fields catching fire—all to remove a disease that cannot, in fact, be removed. Crucially, this is the administration’s own logic followed faithfully by the people subject to it, not a straw exaggeration. That fidelity is what makes the move an argument rather than a cheap shot.

How it goes wrong

Try this

Identify a value, goal, or logic at work in your fieldsite—something people or institutions there treat as obviously good (efficiency, safety, authenticity, growth, tradition). Write the sentence: “If this logic were followed all the way, it would mean…” Complete it honestly, without distorting the premise. Does the extreme reveal a hidden stake, a cost, or a breaking point? If it does, you have found an argument.

Discussion: Following a logic to its extreme can be illuminating or a rhetorical trick. The difference often lies in whether you represented the original logic fairly. Where is the line between a fair reductio and a straw man? Can a move be technically fair and still be unfair in spirit, and how would you guard against that in your own work?

Move 4. Make the Case Reveal Something Larger

Ethnography studies the small and particular: one company, one product, one exchange. But an essay that stays entirely at that scale risks a devastating reader response: “so what?” The revealing-case move answers it. You argue that your specific site illuminates something much larger than itself. The particular becomes a window onto the general.

Nick Seaver’s “Care and Scale” (Cultural Anthropology, 2021) is the model here. Its fieldsite is truly small: “The Yams,” a short-lived service where a few people in Brooklyn hand-made music playlists by text message. Yet Seaver argues that this minor case reveals something large: how the people who build algorithmic systems reason about the assumed opposition between care (small, human, attentive) and scale (large, automated, impersonal), and how they are quietly remaking both concepts.

The reasoning problem it solves

This is the move that licenses the leap every ethnographic essay must eventually make: from “here is what I found in one place” to “here is something true beyond that place.” But the leap is also where essays most often overreach, so this move is as much about discipline as ambition: claiming the right amount of generality, neither trapping your insight in one case nor inflating it into a claim about all of humanity.

Example: Sizing the claim correctly

Too small: “This essay has shown how one tiny startup made playlists by hand.” (True, but so what? The insight dies at the fieldsite.)

Too large: “This essay has shown that all technology everywhere destroys human care.” (Unsupportable from one startup; the reader stops trusting you.)

Just right: The story of The Yams shows how the makers of algorithmic systems, faced with the apparent opposition of care and scale, resolve it not by choosing a side but by redefining both terms—a pattern likely to recur across an industry that must reconcile the two. The right-sized claim generalizes along a specific dimension to a bounded larger domain, and stops there.

How it goes wrong

Try this

Write your central insight three times: once too small (trapped in the fieldsite), once too large (a claim about all of humanity), and once at the right size. For the right-sized version, name explicitly the dimension along which you are generalizing and the domain you are generalizing to. Then write the one sentence that bridges your case to that domain: the shared feature that licenses the leap.

Discussion: How much can a single case legitimately prove? Some argue that ethnography’s power is precisely its particularity, and that generalizing betrays it; others argue that a study which reveals nothing beyond itself is merely journalism. Where do you stand, and how does your position change what you should claim in your conclusion?

Move 5. Let Two Things Explain Each Other

This move builds an argument out of a juxtaposition. You set two things side by side—two places, two practices, two people, two moments—chosen so that each throws the other into relief. The comparison is the argument. What you could not see about either thing on its own becomes visible the moment you hold them up against each other.

The reasoning problem it solves

Some features of a situation are invisible in isolation because you have nothing to measure them against. A practice looks simply “normal” until you place beside it a different practice that makes a different choice, and suddenly the first one’s particular shape becomes visible. Comparison manufactures contrast, and contrast manufactures insight. This move is especially useful when a single case feels flat or self-evident.

Example: A contrast that does the work

The entire structure of Lezaun and Pinto-García’s essay is a comparison: the “counterpoint” of its title, borrowed from Fernando Ortiz’s classic pairing of tobacco and sugar in Cuba:

In coca-growing areas, leishmaniasis is driven underground as yet another marker of criminality, while just a few miles away, it is surfaced as an occupational hazard… the contrast between coca and coffee is driven by the stigma attached to one agricultural activity but not the other.Lezaun and Pinto-García 2026, 180

The juxtaposition produces two insights at once. Set beside coffee, coca country reveals how a disease can be buried. Set beside coca, coffee country reveals that the same disease can be surfaced. Holding the two together yields the central claim: that the disease’s visibility tracks not biology but the social value of the crop. That reciprocity—each side illuminating what the other conceals—is the signature of a comparison doing real argumentative work.

How it goes wrong

Try this

Take the central case in your essay and ask: what could I place beside it that makes a different choice about the same thing? A different site, a different era, a different way of doing the same practice. Draft the juxtaposition and then test it: does holding these two together let me see something I could not see in either alone? If yes, write the two insights the comparison produces, one about each side.

Discussion: A comparison always implies that the two things are alike enough to compare—a claim that can itself be contestable or even political. What are the risks of comparing two fieldsites, two cultures, or two practices? When does comparison illuminate, and when does it distort by forcing unlike things into the same frame?

Move 6. Relocate the Problem

The final move changes where a problem is understood to come from. Faced with a situation everyone explains one way—usually by blaming an individual, or pointing at an obvious culprit—you argue that the real source lies elsewhere: in a structure, a system, a set of relations, a history. You move the explanation from the surface to the depth, from the person to the pattern. The argument is that the obvious account misidentifies the cause, and that relocating it changes what we should do about it.

The reasoning problem it solves

Everyday explanations tend to individualize. A woman has a traumatic birth: she was a difficult patient. A neighborhood decays: its residents gave up. These explanations feel natural, and they are often unjust, because they locate the problem in the least powerful person in the scene and let the larger forces off the hook. Ethnography is unusually well equipped to relocate such problems, because months of close attention reveal the structures that a quick glance misses. This move is where ethnographic evidence becomes a form of critique.

Example: Moving the cause

Barata and Pussetti’s essay on obstetric violence in Portugal performs exactly this relocation. The mistreatment could be explained away as the failings of individual doctors, or blamed on the women themselves. Instead, the authors move the cause to a structure with a history:

In Portugal, the afterlives of empire and dictatorship generate a paternalistic and denialist mode of anti-Blackness… Such stereotypes… reactivate and renew the colonial sexual economy… These perceptions inform clinical encounters in ways that appear neutral, yet operate through subtle hierarchies of value and suspicion.Barata and Pussetti 2026, 10

The move relocates the problem from individuals to a structure—a historically sedimented, colonial-and-dictatorship-rooted racism that shapes what happens in the delivery room. Note the phrase “in ways that appear neutral”: the authors show that the individualizing frame is not merely incomplete but useful, because treating each incident as an isolated interpersonal lapse is precisely how the structural pattern escapes notice.

How it goes wrong

Try this

Find a moment in your fieldwork where someone is blamed—by others, by institutions, or by the easy reading you yourself first reached for. Ask: what larger structure, relation, or history produced the situation this person is being blamed for? Write the relocation: name the surface explanation fairly, then move the cause to the specific structure that better accounts for it. Finally, check that your person has not vanished and is still an agent making choices, not a puppet of forces.

Discussion: Relocating a problem from individual to structure is one of anthropology’s characteristic critical moves, and it carries an ethical charge, since it reassigns responsibility. When is this move a genuine correction of an unjust explanation, and when might it excuse behavior that people should, in fact, be held accountable for? How do you keep both structure and responsibility in view?

Choosing Your Move

Six moves are of little use if you do not know which to reach for. The mistake to avoid is mechanical: running through all six and bolting each onto your essay in turn. That produces a checklist, not an argument. Instead, let your evidence and your reader tell you which move fits. Each move answers a different situation:

Most strong essays chain several of these. Lezaun and Pinto-García’s leishmaniasis essay overturns an assumption (Move 1: the disease is not absent but hidden), builds its whole argument on a comparison (Move 5: coca against coffee), relocates the cause of suffering from the disease itself to the social value of crops (Move 6), and reveals something larger about how stigma governs visibility (Move 4). The moves are not competitors; they are a sequence of gears, and a well-argued essay shifts among them as the material demands. What matters is that each shift is motivated—you make each move because your evidence and your reader call for it, not because a list told you to.

The diagnostic question

When you are stuck—when you have a scene and a concept but no argument—ask the single most useful question in this part: what would a thoughtful reader assume about this, and is that assumption right? If it is wrong, you have Move 1. If it is half-right, you may have Move 2 or Move 6. If it is right but the reader would still shrug, you need Move 4. The reader’s likely starting point is almost always the doorway to your argument.

Revision Checklist

Run your draft against these questions. They test whether your essay argues rather than merely describes. Your essay does not need to check all the items; the goal is to help you see if your essay argues for something.

Key Terms

Argument move: A unit of reasoning that gets from evidence to a claim a reader will accept; a shape of thinking, not a paragraph template.

Reversal: Surfacing an assumption the reader holds, then using evidence to overturn it. The most common ethnographic argument move.

Holding a tension: Arguing that a situation is genuinely two contradictory things at once, and that the doubleness, named precisely, is the finding, not a problem to resolve.

Following the logic to its extreme: Extending a value or logic to its limit case to reveal its hidden stakes or breaking point; a revealing cousin of the philosophical reductio ad absurdum.

The revealing case: Arguing that a particular fieldsite illuminates a larger, bounded domain; the move that licenses the leap from “one place” to “something beyond it,” sized to avoid overreach.

Productive comparison: Building an argument from a juxtaposition, where two things set side by side each reveal what the other could not show alone.

Relocating the problem: Shifting the understood source of a problem from an individual to a structure, relation, or history; ethnography’s characteristic critical move.

Motivated move: An argument move made because the evidence and reader call for it, as opposed to one bolted on mechanically to satisfy a checklist.

← Part One — Craft Part Three — Context: Situating the Essay →
Back to the project's main page

Open Field: An open approach to teaching anthropology and ethnography