Hello all. After our dialogue this evening (which was wonderful by the way, the only thing missing was a Californian opinion) we ran out of time before we could talk about our plan of action for when we return from break.
Any suggestions? Anything jump out at you from the syllabus? Perhaps there's something not on the syllabus that you'd like to bring to the class' attention?
Post a comment below with your input :)
I would be very interested in looking at feminist approaches to argumentation. Just did a little searching, and found that there was an entire issue of Argumentation & Advocacy dedicated to feminist argumentation (1996, Vol 32, #4). Four articles. Doesn't look like it would be too much reading. Haven't read any of them yet, so don't know how much it would be about arguing differently per se...
ReplyDeleteWell, I am interested in reading what is left on the syllabus. I am also interested in non-western, as well as queer & performance literature/scholarship on argument & rhetoric. Finally, I am pretty much open to what we read. I do have a couple questions: what am I supposed to have prepared for class next week? and When should we have our final papers ready to turn in?
ReplyDeleteI like Revcat's idea about looking into Feminist argumentative strategies.
ReplyDeleteCan we also talk/read about ways to bring arguing differently into our own classrooms? I am coming up to the 'argumentative paper' unit in my Composition class, and I think bringing some of this to my students would be quite helpful. Are there practical application type pieces that we can look at? I'm particularly interested in the three types of arguing differently that Kroll brought up in his article of that name. I think they were mediation, deliberation, and .... oh shoot, I'll go back and look.
If this doesn't sound appealing, perhaps we can look in depth at one scholar's attempt to argue differently. Kind of what we did with Crowley, only we could go with someone who is more consciously trying new argumentative techniques (ie: Anthony Weston). Let me know what you all think.
Shall we go with Cathy's suggestion, then? I'll post a link to the library's online holdings, but you'll need to already be logged in through the MU library portal to access them.
ReplyDeleteI noticed on the syllabus you had said we would get to feminist perspectives, so I am wondering if there are other readings that you would suggest besides the one I posted? Just checking...
ReplyDeleteYay! Portals!
ReplyDeleteThere's Catherine Lamb's piece (cited I believe by Kroll) and Susan Jarratt's feminist defense of assertive argument, but I felt that the pieces in A&A did a nice job of laying out the various issues (mediation or not? essentialist or not?) as I understand them. Thanks for checking, Cathy.
ReplyDeleteFor future readings I was curious if people were interested in invitational rhetoric or the Art of War. Both alternative ways to explore rhetoric & conflict.
ReplyDeletefunny. of course this weeks readings included mention of invitational rhetoric
ReplyDelete