I wrote on my personal blog about looking more into what Kroll called 'Reconstruction Strategies'. For Kroll (and Anthony Weston, whom Kroll quotes heavily in this section of "Arguing about Public Issues"), there are some public issues that are to contentious, too inflammatory, too personal for it to even be possible to employ traditional deliberative strategies. Therefor, it may sometimes be necessary (and productive) to reconstruct the issue in a way that can open the possibility of dialogue and conversation.
Kroll acknowledges early on that this strategy doesn't often lead to hard and fast conclusions, it's not the way to solve problems. Rather, this method is something that can create common ground for two diametrically opposed sides. Instead of focusing on issues and topics that two sides will never agree on (Kroll and Weston use the Abortion controversy as an example), it is productive to find commonground where two sides can agree. From there, it may be possible to find another tract of commonground. From there, another. Etc.
Remember now, Kroll is writing specifically about ethical arguments, ones that are rarely ever completely resolved in the first place. Therefore, we must take these reconstructive approaches for what they are: mediation and deliberation strategies that promote creativity, critical thinking, and harmony. Yet, part of me thinks that reconstruction can work, if not to solve problems, then to at least begin the (sometimes most frustrating aspect of reconciliation) process of getting two sides to talk.
Think back to your last contentious argument/debate/conversation with a friend/acquaintance/enemy: was there any commonground you could both have stood on? How could you have restructured the argument so at least there was something you could agree on before completely disagreeing thereafter?
No comments:
Post a Comment