Kroll and strep throat

I believe after Tannen, my favorite author on argument is Kroll. I like reading his papers. It may be because he relates his writings directly with teaching. Kroll’s aikido samples connected to rhetoric were very unique and explanatory.
The idea of stopping the aggressive behavior but not fighting back is the secret for “arguing differently”. As Kroll stated, when we do not fight back we use the other sites energy against them. I believe Tannen was making the same comment in that when people fight at television programs it does not reach any solution, but if you choose not to fight back then you do not leave any room for them to argue with you in an aggressive way.
One of my professors at MU told one of her anecdotes. She was the manager of a bank and she needed to take care of upset and angry customers all the time. This was not an easy job for her with constant yelling and blaming. One day when she had some throat problems a very angry customer popped up . The man was yelling at her but as soon as she opened her month with her weak voice the man calmed down and started to listen. They could arrange a common solution.
The conclusion she made was: After that day whenever I had an angry customer, I had a bad throat.
So she was not fighting back but she was stopping his fight.

Difficult Conversations

Hi all.
I'm done reading Difficult Conversations. If anyone would like to borrow my copy, hollaatcherboy.*

* you could also let me know via the comments section of this post :P

Aikido & Argument

There are many reasons why the theory and practice of Aikido are excellent vehicles for studying and approaching argument. One of the things that stands out to me most is that it is an alternative to assertive & aggressive argumentation. A disadvantage or consequence to assertive and aggressive argumentation is that when  one attempts to "fight back" against the conflict this may "drive the opposition into more deeply entrenched positions" (Kroll, 2008).

Instead, Aikido offers an alternative to "fighting back".  In the practice and theory of Aikido one uses the other persons energy against them (Kroll, 2008). Related to argumentation Kroll suggests that this is "when you accept their points as true, but then reach beyond them and express how even through these truths there is not enough to go on, the person has no argument left" (Kroll, 2008).

Not only is this a strategic move to prevent a stalemate and to keep argument and communication going, it is also harmonious, it is respectful of the other and the others position, it shows its commitment to the topic or issue with which people are arguing about, and it helps to facilitate a space for learning.

As is noted by Kroll, one does NOT need to be skilled in the physical practice of Aikido to practice the theory of Aikido as applied to argumentation, or to teach it- which makes this idea and potential practice accessible.

Kroll, B. (2008). Arguing with adversaries: Aikido, rhetoric, and the art of peace. College, Composition, and Communication, 59(3).

Rethinking Kroll and Aikido

Reading Kroll’s “Arguing with Adversaries” a second time made me rethink about the aikido metaphor in argumentation. Although Kroll emphasizes a lot of cooperation, and even related aikido to it, the metaphor left me wondering how the defensive art could be a model of cooperative argument.

Trying to maintain the parallel between the art of aikido and the art of argumentation, Kroll explains that the one who practices/ exercises the art of aikido does so in his defense, physically, and in terms of an argument, there is not physical threat but someone has been threatened in terms of his/ her values, principles, commitments, etc. In other words, one argues to defend himself/ herself just like in aikido.

The art of aikido gives pertinent strategies for defending oneself – not only physically but also logically. 


And Kroll’s use of those strategies to discuss how we can better argue with adversaries makes a lot of sense. But my impression is that in this understanding of argument, argument hardly becomes a method of inquiry. In aikido the adversaries are not in search for a common understanding, a new agreement. They are rather in an effort to minimize each other’s “effect” on them, by averting the force that comes from the other side. There may not be the ultimate goal of winning, unlike in the traditional understanding of argumentation, but there is also not a purpose to reach a new understanding. So, I’m also wondering – does one really cooperate with the adversary in the defensive art of aikido? Or am I going back? 

Digging Past the Bells & Whistles

As the semester is wrapping up I am immersed in my scholarship, in reflective moments about my courses, and in reflective moments about my teaching. 

For example, in my work for the paper for this class I am seeing how argument in ads is less based on substantive learning about issues (not to dismiss this completely, because there is learning potential) and more about sensationalism and bells and whistles. This quote below highlights this issue more generally.

"When differences of opinion are polarized and sensationalized....the emphasis in argument shifts from the issue to the skills and personalities of the combatants and the formal structures of argumentation" (Lynch, George & Cooper, 1997,p.76).

Some of the seemingly more persuasive ads I am studying, are not persuasive because they are so much critical, rational, or logical- or because they dive deep into issues and contexts- but because they are sensationally layered with multiple texts building upon one another to reinforce key messages. 

Also, the effort into bells and whistles, and sensationalism over the complexity of issues is problematic, not only for the viewer of an ad, but in general. The practices of evading, of covering up, and of reframing through sensationalism poses problems not only for the issues and people at the mercy of these practices, but for our ways of life and understandings of peoples and issues. 

"Focusing on stark controversies at the expense of the complexities of an issue is also a way of evading or covering up the painful and complex problems that face us and that we must  
resolve if we want to have a society that's worth living in" (Lynch, George & Cooper, 1997, p. 76)

Last night President Obama took the birther issue head on by holding a press release and releasing the "long version" of his birth certificate, in an effort to end discussion and attention to the issue, and also in order to redirect discussion and attention to more important issues.

I think that the birther issue is one of those issues that has become sensationalized both in practice and in theory and has been a way to "evade and cover up" complex problems that we are facing today. 

As a general ending note, not only in politics do we see the bells and whistles of sensationalist arguing, but as was noted by Lynch, George, and Cooper (1997) we see this in the classroom all the time. Providing alternative ways to think about arguing, about important issues, is not only important for debate and argument practices, but it is important for us to be critical consumers of information, it is important for our livelihood, and it I think has emancipatory potentials.

Lynch, D. A., George, D., Cooper, M. M. (1997). Moments of argument: Agonistic inquiry and Confrontational Cooperation. College Composition and Communication, 48(1). pp. 61-85.

Rhetoric for Education of Citizenship?

I came across an article called "Rhetoric and Communication Studies as Education for Citizenship" while I was on the old Facebook today. In it, J. Michael Hogan makes an argument about the purpose of higher education and what it means to society that young people are increasingly apolitical. A well-heard argument to be sure. What I thought was interesting were his ideas for academics to begin to fix the problem.

We can begin by reminding our students what it means to be a “good citizen” and by providing them with the knowledge and competencies they need for civic life. We also might revive the classical tradition’s emphasis on the ethics of speech, and we could do a better job teaching the habits and skills of civic participation: how to speak, how to argue, and how to deliberate in a diverse, technologically advanced society.

Does this speak to 'arguing differently? Is this different than what we're currently doing in our classes? How can we move to Hogan's ideal of a civic-minded student/citizen?

Let me know what you think....

Knowing what we are arguing for...

Lynch et al. make a great comment on page 77: “It takes time to learn about an issue, to learn what you really think about it and how it affects your life and the lives of others” . I really liked this sentence because it highlights the rationale between arguing differently. Arguing differently along with other ones, aims to show the rationale in others beliefs as well as in our owns.
If we visit high schools and even colleges, we would find several students who have strong ideas on politics, religions… but these students, at least most of them, do not really know what made them have those beliefs, what are their reasons. They hear it from families, teachers, friends. As Max said in his post argumenter is socially constructed, and so to argument they are make. Our social world help us to form our concepts, belief systems. And I do not say that it is something bad, the bad part is that while we construct our beliefs, we do not see the bricks we use, where they are coming from, what they are made of. We are in fact totally foreign to the building but believe that it is ours.
Argument as an inquiry not only helps us understand the other ideas but our own. And I believe that the latter is sometimes much more important than the former.

Writers Block and the Process of Intellectual Inquiry

I have been in my workspace in Heinkel this evening, absolutely paralyzed trying to write my semester paper for this class. The writing process is often this way for me. As a diversion, I read the assigned reading for our class this week, and found it not only refreshing, but relevant to my writing block. I have been so worried that my desire to take a "side" in the Prop B issue would be a problem in a class that has seemed to emphasize cooperation and inquiry so strongly, that I have been afraid to start writing. What I saw in the Lynch,et al piece gave me hope. It is possible to come to a position with thought and complexity, and to stake a claim that will make a difference in the real world. Doing so is not easy, for it involves a process of inquiry that hears the complexity of the issues, examines the consequences of the various positions,and recognizes the situatedness of the various participants. I know that, for me, any paper worth its salt, particularly one on an issue that I care about as much as this one, challenges me to find the moment when I can stop researching and write. There is always more to learn, more to explore, more to consider. And, in a rhetorical piece, there is always one more piece of "text" to examine. I really love the process outlined in the Lynch, et al piece. I wish we had read it earlier in the semester, and I would have enjoyed having my paper due in four pieces at various stages along the way. It would be a very interesting exercise in arguing differently!

Confrontational cooperation

We have been discussing argumentation as a method that has to go beyond agonistic confrontation. In this approach, we tend to make space for opposition voices and reach a conclusion that is acceptable for both or all sides of the argument. And ideally, this approach functions at the level of cooperation.  

But, as Lynch and others have hinted at, in most cases even the approaches which seem to be making space for opposing voices and working together with those voices to reach a shared conclusion may be just another way to enforcing one’s own ideas. We are prepared to allow opposition voices and make concessions because we believe that that method will help us win our argument. Even if we cannot establish our claim one hundred percent, we will perhaps be able to establish it ninety percent or so and that should be fine. That will at the end help us prevail. So the intention to “win” is still there even in Rogerian method of argumentation. Lynch and others write, “This distributive paradigm [where oppositions are given space in the name of cooperation] forces even arguments for ending nonmaterially based oppression and dominance to look like arguments to attain the selfish desires of a particular interest group” (62). Giving the example of public debates they explain that the success of such debates lies on how much one can get others of his/ her side. And one strategy for getting others on our side could be listening to their voices and making space for them as well. Hence, the debates are about how much we can make others come to my side. Hence arguments where we seem to be trying to accommodate others’ positions/ opinions could also end up being not very different from traditional argument.

In the meantime, Lynch and friends also claim that in the name of cooperative we may lose the essence of how we make meaning through argumentation. I agree so much with them in this regard, and I recall my post on Tannen’s book at the beginning of the semester. Argumentation as a method of reaching a conclusion has its own beauties. I can see how much American democracy is based on this principle. If I have to compare to politics of other countries (esp. from South Asia) I can see how much the argumentative culture has helped American democracy. In countries where people understand its value less and so practice less, we can hardly find democracies functioning well. I’ve taken politics just as an example, and I believe that it makes a lot of sense in all walks of life.

But it is not to say that arguments have to be all agonistic (after all those discussions throughout the semester!) and we should understand and practice it as a method of winning, but I definitely see the value of healthy argumentation. Lynch and friends’ idea of confrontational cooperation is interesting although one might find it hard how to explain how that balance is maintained.

The Social Construction of Argument/Argumenter

Consider this quote from Lynch, George, and Cooper's "Moments of Argument." When explaining why they wanted their students to move beyond a position, they wanted their students to see things differently.

Instead, we sought to give students more time to learn and think about the issues they were engaging, with the idea in mind that in the process they will recognize that the positions we take -especially the first, easy positions that we have 'accepted' -usually have been socially, cultrually, and historically determined and, not coincidentally, usually have unforseen consequences for others, others whose positions are often not even represented by the manner in which the issues are handed down to us. (69)

This model seeks not only for students to learn about a certain topic so they can more effectively argue for or against it, but it seeks for students to learn about themselves. Looking backwards to understand where one's own assumptions can be difficult. Students might not have the skills to do this type of self-reflection. Last semester was the first time I was introduced to the 'Exploratory Essay', one of Donna's favorites, which asks the writer to challenge his/her assumptions, held beliefs, and knowledge to truly explore a given topic. It was hard for me to do this. I was unable to see that I was simply reaffirming what I already knew, and even when I went back to 'revise' my process I still had trouble just exploring. Unconsciously I was afraid of the risk involved. I didn't understand why until reading this piece I learned that the biggest risk is that I may change.

The argumenter is socially constructed, and so to are the arguments that they make. This fact is more straightforward, but for some reason our students (and the students reported in this article) fail to come to grips with this idea. Why is it they fail to see that "conflicts have histories and are embedded in more or less permanent power structures" (84). There's no easy answer to this question, and I'm finding it out firsthand this semester as I try and have my students create arguments that take their own place in the food system into consideration. I'm asking them to develop problem-solution type arguments, and many of them bring up one problem out of context (obesity epidemic in America) and then propose a singular solution equally out of context (tax fat-heavy foods). I've spent the past 9 weeks of the semester trying to show them how complex and interconnected the food system is, and yet my students lack the critical ability to see these connections.

Perhaps the strategies in "Moments of Argument" will help me bridge my expectations with my student's skills and abilities.

Maybe not.

RH and inquiry

We had really a nice discussion in class on rival hypothesis. Having read Flower more thoroughly after the discussions, it made much more sense for me to value rival hypothesis in the academia. I think this thought makes so much in the context when we talk about academic writing as an argument.

One thing that differentiates academic argument from other arguments is that academic arguments are geared toward making knowledge or meaning. An academic argument is a means of looking at an issue from various possible standpoints and reaching a conclusion, knowledge that was not previously realized. That is why it is so much about the conversation that is already there—no academic discourse can take place in a vacuum. And the emphasis on the conversation, the Burkean parlor, is, I suppose an attempt to look at all possible rival hypothesis. Flower writes, “RH is … a constructive process, attempting to build a ‘better,’ new, qualified, or consensual conclusion in the midst of strong alternatives” (30). This very much explains the process we get involved in an academic conversation. Hence, rival hypothesis is part of the meaning making process in an academic conversation. Valuing RH will help us understand argumentation as an inquiry, and I think the idea of RH can be used productively in the composition class as well. 

This week's class discussion and Rival Hypothesis

The discussion in class was very interesting this week. Especially the last part about schizophrenia. I want to share a little anecdote. When I was in college, we watched A Beautiful Mind with my friends. We were all influenced by the movie; the visuals, the story, Russell Crowe:) But one of my friends was especially influenced and she told us afterward that her father had schizophrenia and committed suicide. I remember her repeating a few times “I wish we knew other ways to help him”, “I wish we could find different ways to help him”.
This anecdote kind of supports our discussions of this week, there is always other ways of finding solutions to the problems or helping others. But we need to inquire these ways.
I really liked the description of “contact zone” and the discussion we had on the subject. I agree that being so fond of our comfort zones kills RH and we never can get to the contact zone, but it is such a challenging task that I sometimes lose hope. Yet, as an educator I believe I should never lose hope and continue to do my best. I wish I could have these kinds of discussions each time I lose hope to gain strength. This blog will be a good source to return to when I suffer from hopelessness again.

Response to Today's (actual) Reading

Thanks to Khem for setting my ship on the right track and pointing me to the *actual* reading for today's class.

I'm glad he did too.

I especially like the way Flower (et al) establishes the framework for this study in Intercultural Inquiry, RH theory, and Community Literacy before delving in to the case studies that, I think, are the true focus of this work. Each of these antecedents were interesting to me in different ways. The introduction took plenty of time defining how II was an effective means for conducting this type of rhetorical analysis. Flower states that 'intercultural inquiry makes contact with another person's richer. more experientially grounded situated knowledge" (6). I like this because it, as we see later in the reading, creates experts of one's own experience. When dealing with soon-to-be college students or members of a community center who must deal with the specter of illegal drugs on a daily basis, creating a sense of agency and expectancy is an important aspect for conducting an intercultural inquiry.
Flower goes on to situate Rival Hypothesis theory in her study. While RH theory was certainly novel terminology for me, it speaks to my interests, goals, and emphases in my own work/life. This is a functional, flexible guiding theory. Flower describes how RH is an attitude, a strategic tool, and a process all in one. As an attitude, it is bold enough to function in uncertainty. Open questions and multiple answers are hallmarks of RH, and it's this kind of mindset that leads to effective inquiry. RH also guides the types of strategies one might use in conducting an inquiry. It's possible (and necessary) in RH to actively seek out opposing claims, view a situation from a variety of perspectives, and challenge outlying views (including ones own). Building from these strategies, the process of RH is constructive in that it provides a chance to find a conclusion that is best-fit for the situation at hand (30).
Finally, and for me most interestingly, Long (et al) explicate the idea of Community Literacy in the "Rivaling out of School" chapter. Long defines CL in opposition to the 'glamorless problem' that is illiteracy. She calls CL 'action, power, and collaboration' (233). In other words, CL is "utilized wherever people collaborate and use literate means to construct shared purposes and to take action" (Peck, 1991 qtd in Flower 234). Taking the same questions to a more community-oriented situation, these researchers broadened the scope of their inquiry in extremely important and provocative ways. For those of you who heard my presentation on community food security last semester, Flower's name might sound familiar as I quoted from her Community Literacy: The Rhetoric of Public Engagement text extensively. For me, this type of community engagement is central to any type of inquiry that affects local populations.

These theoretical frameworks are individually instrumental for Flower (et al) to carry out this type of inquiry. One of the frustrations I've had with Flower's work in the past (one that RevCat mentioned in her blog) is just how time-consuming and dense this type of scholarship can be. However, if you have a chance to read the rest of this text, or Community Literacy, the bulk of the study is written in clear, approachable prose. The theory serves as an important framework for establishing a scholarly disposition with which she carries out her practical, community-oriented work.

Qualitative Research and Representation

Last year in Qualitative Methods in Communication, we read Lindlof and Taylor's (2002) Qualitative Communication Research Methods, where they made clear the distinction between post-positivist and interpretive research methods. The interpretive/qualitative approach includes the following commitments (among a much longer list - found on pp. 11-12):

realities are plural, simultaneous, and local phenomena

research should privilege deep understanding of human actions, motives, and feelings. It should illuminate how cultural symbol systems are used to attribute meaning to existence and activity.

true knowledge is gained through prolonged immersion and extensive dialogue practiced in actual social settings

knowledge claims should preserve the subjective experience and motivations of social actors in their meaningful performances

Earlier in the chapter (p. 6) they note that "qualitative research in communication involves the performances and practices of human communication...Performances are local and unique interaction events. Their execution is collaborative and their significance is negotiable."

I share all of this as background to the material we read for this week, especially for those who may not have taken qual methods (whereas I had not had much exposure to "cognitive rhetoric"). Clearly one of the issues in all of this is how the researcher then represents the voices, perspectives and meaning-making activity of the participants. It was interesting to me to see how Flower, Higgins, and Long argue for the possibility of representation, including a fairly strong critique of self-reflexivity (I share much of their concern about navel-gazing, yet at the same time it seems to me a strength of qual research not to make a naive assumption about the ability to fairly represent the other if one doesn't remain aware of one's own social location).

It seems to me that, if we are to have any connection with the other, we will always be representing their voices, perspectives, and meaning-making activity, if only by the way we replay the home movies in our minds. Yet that does not mean, I believe, that we give up on trying to listen in the transformative way outlined in this week's reading. The process of articulating and hearing rival hypotheses can be such a transformative process, yet I wonder, in the end, how truly the voices of those who are not the authors of the article are being represented. As we learned in qual, even a transcript of a conversation is not "what really happened." And, if the final product is an article/book chapter so dense with academese that even a language-buff academic like me is falling asleep, I wonder how the participants in the research would respond. Would they feel represented? included?

Home movies of the mind

In what I otherwise found to be a slog through this week's dense reading, this question leapt out at me: "What are those contextualized representations - those home movies of the mind that we all play as we interpret a problem?" (p. 6). I think because I am currently so interested in visual representation and issues of visual rhetoric, the idea of "home movies of the mind" was particularly intriguing to me. Home movies aren't scripted, and often not particularly coherent, but they have such rich "narrative fragments" that they can be a source of a deep understanding. When we seek to understand the other, to engage in argument (in the positive sense of the word), how often do we seek a rational, linear set of "explanations" for the positions they take, the choices they make, etc.? What if, instead, we sought to get a glimpse of the home movies of their mind? I know, for me, as someone who does not tend to think in a linear fashion and has an even harder time articulating a set of logical data and warrants when asked, the idea of somehow, in a holistic way, sharing the home movies of my mind sounds like a much more invitational and promising venture.

The "Contact Zone"

According to Pratt the "contact zone" of cultural difference makes everyone uncomfortable (1).

Whether we are scholars, educators, students, parents, friends, family members, etc...whatever identity role we are playing at the time, we need to remember that the "contact zone" of cultural difference can produce discomfort. The "contact zone" itself although discomforting at times is a critical place to practice intercultural inquiry, and is a place with constantly emerging sets of practices where we can begin to make progress in learning not just about our own limits and potential for growth, but we can learn about others.

Unfortunately due to the level of discomfort that people can feel, the tensions that can be felt throughout peoples body as ideas and concepts are challenged- this "contact zone" is, at times, avoided at all costs.

This "contact zone" can challenge, at times, people's fundamental understandings which produce such levels of cognitive dissonance that jumping ship can be seen as a more likely outcome than continuing into the territory of the unknown. Because, when jumping ship- at least we can grab onto the life raft that has kept us afloat until now.

A challenge for many of us, in the classroom, at home, with family, with friends, in professional situations- is this "contact zone". How do we negotiate through it? How do we invite others willingly into the "contact zone"? How do we navigate through this zone?

This "contact zone" is something that as individuals, who are not solipsist beings, - we must be willing to enter. For the avoidance of the "contact zone" is the avoidance of the interconnectedness of beings. It is the silencing of the other. It risks the perpetual violences that peoples experience.

"To be heard is power. But to hear-to really hear- is to be transformed" (2).

(1)- Pratt as cited in Flower, Higgins, Long, Learning to Rival, p. 19
(2)- Flower, Higgins, Long, Learning to Rival, p. 21

Learning to listen to rival voices

I found the idea of intercultural inquiry very pertinent in terms of our discussion about arguing differently. It is perhaps worthwhile to understand “arguing differently” as a method of acknowledging difference and creating an atmosphere in which different voices can get space in an argument presumably dominated by traditional power-holders—could be males, white, and the like. But it may apply also in a reverse situation in which argument (from the marginalized position) can be meaningful only if those who are making argument can hear the rival voices coming from the other side. So what is necessary is the ability to listen to rival voices, and in many situations that ability may need to be taught.

Bell hook contends, as the authors (Flower et. al.) discuss, that until white people are educated in critical consciousness, they cannot accept the “rival perspectives” and so black woman wound not achieve their goals (19). This very much speaks about the need to have the opposition’s involvement in the discourse of one in order to achieve the goal. Only one side cannot declare something true; truth needs validation. I think this very much explains why arguing differently matters. Unless the others are made a part of our discourse, a part of our argument, there will hardly be a productive conclusion. Whether it be in a literate practice of academia or any other real-world situation, bringing the other side into play becomes a crucial issue.

I liked the idea that not only the agency but also the system, the structure, matters. Agency is an individual position. In terms of an argument, it may perhaps be understood as one’s position – based on that person’s understanding of the world, individual experiences, and the like. And all those things make sense only in relation to the system that provides the individual space for the agency. So, my interpretation is that an individual position, a person’s argument, makes a meaning only in relation to the arguments that are out there. Hence, I can be meaningful only if I have considered the system and the structure that is out there.

The authors write in the preface, “To be heard is power. But to hear – to really hear – is to be transformed” (21). And that ability to hear is an important aspect of how we reach a “negotiated meaning” through an argument. I very much like about what they say about “collaborative, transformative listening.” It’s only through such listening, through “entertaining rival voices, that we can create a meaningful argument.

RH and Education!

I have not finish the chapters we are assigned yet but I found a lot of relations to my experiences in teaching. I am working with ELL students and also teachers; and it is sometimes horrifying to see the stigma that the teachers have for some of the cultures and students from this culture. I attended a meeting where an ELL professor and three adjunct faculties were talking about their students and the students were mentioned as groups “ Yes, all of the …. students are like that so do not really worry about ….”, “ Oh, I love having students from…. their English level is much better than…..s”. These teachers do not see their students as individuals but as categories and any student who is above or below the standardization of their categorization is an exception.
Last semester, I took a class and one of the papers we read was on deficiency (Douglass Barn term). If we categorize students like this and label them, how far we expect them to go! Looking for alternatives is very important, instead of circling around the same terms and keep labeling it is important to find ways to help these students. Rival Hypothesis should be part of the method courses and teachers as mentioned on page 30, should be trained to “build a “better”, new, qualified, or consensual conclusion in the midst of strong alternatives”.

Difficult Conversations and the HNP

I'm rather enjoying this book. The guiding principles of Difficult Conversations have carried my interest as I move through it. Principles like understanding the other person in a difficult conversation (or any conversation for that matter) underlie each step of this process. For example, the key to the 'what happened' conversation is knowing that each party has his/her own way of describing the events that led up to the conversation, and that neither view is completely accurate. One of the ways to mitigate the problems this can cause, is by trying to see how the other party viewed it and then comparing their narrative to one's own. The same is true with when trying to untangle intent. It's imperative to be able to relate to the other party in a difficult conversation. If an action has a negative affect on someone, it's unlikely that the offending party purposefully set out to hurt them. That being the case, it's key for the offender's intent to be explicitly stated to clear the air. It's also key for the offending party to understand why his/her words had the impact on the other person. Either way, if one is unable to relate, sympathize, put oneself in someone else's shoes, difficult conversations are unavoidable. It's true with the 'feelings conversation' and the 'identity conversation' as well.
This must have something to do with argumentation (and Rhetoric and Dialectic). Perhaps the most effective way to be persuasive to someone is by fully understanding that person. What do they need? What do they relate to? How can you identify with them? It seems like a straightforward way of thinking about persuasion, but it seems like contemporary argumentation is more about asserting ones own will over another party, heedless of the realities of a situation.

In the introduction to my version (newly published for the 10th anniversary, thanks for that Penguin), the authors mention that this work came from the Harvard Negotiation Project. Curious to see just what Harvard negotiation might entail, I went to the HNP Website. It seems like this group of scholars are doing interesting things with argumentation, dialogue, and negotiation. I was quite interested in their focus on negotiation in Middle East peace talks. A worthy endeavor to be sure. Like Difficult Conversations, the HNP seems to focus on business and personal situations for negotiation, which isn't all that interesting to me. However, I'm glad to see that this type of work is going on.

If you get a chance, check out the website. If you find anything interesting, leave a comment and let me know :)

The Faith Club

Here is the Amazon link for The Faith Club (the interfaith dialogue book I mentioned):

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=faith+club&x=0&y=0

Kroll and arguing differently

Reading the Kroll’s article the second time helped me to see how this class helped me I feel like I understood the paper much better than the first one (of course the role of reading the second time cannot be underestimated) but I believe I could understand the rationale and the claims better. The paper is very strong in terms of giving writing teachers some ideas about helping students argue differently in their writings. However, I believe the tactics in the conclusion part are not as strong as the ones in the beginning and the middle. Even though Kroll highlights that the students need to make sure that they “resist the temptation to deliver to knockout punch” (p. 52) , still the students need to state their ideas and this statement of idea causes most of the hot debates.
I remember that while writing our responses on Tannen’s book there were comments about how much we liked the book, but we felt her a bit strong ( or she was stating her ideas strongly) on holocaust. These were the conclusion sentences! I think the idea that stating in the conclusion that “ a cooperative effort can be grounded” (p. 52) is a good idea but I believe there should be some other techniques to hinder the polarization.

Implications: Research and Beyond

Since I've been walking (in grad school anyway) I've always been affronted with the same question: "ok but what are you arguing?" My work never has seemed to be quite certain as to what it was trying to say, what it was supporting, what it was trying to put down. This inability to effectively describe, in a succinct way, what I was specifically arguing, has always made me a bit self-conscious about my scholarly work. I never knew what to make of it. I felt like I was saying something. I felt like there was a logical progression. I felt like there was a payoff at the end. But no. Time and time again I received the same feedback.
Reading the piece by Kastley makes me less anxious about my writing.
To me, the idea of inquiry is an inherent one. I've always been curious (to the annoyance of my parents to be sure) and I've always wanted to know more about how others make sense of things. These characteristics helped shape my writing style, and led me to producing pieces of work that elicited that familiar comment. All along I felt like my education had done me a disservice. How could it be that my expensive, private, liberal arts college could have let me down so badly? How could it be that the type of writing I was most comfortable with and most adept at, didn't mesh with what was expected of me in graduate school. Curses on you Gustavus!!!
Slowly, my mind is being (re)changed. I'm starting to see how my education ( a good one to be sure) has led my mind to work the way it does, and that it's not a bad thing that it works the way it does. My scholarship (if you don't mind me calling it that) asks more questions than it answers. My 'argument' is often lost because it never looks like the kind of argument that some academic types are used to seeing. I usually employ a strong narrative in my academic writing, something that can help my readers (and my potential arguers) recognize the difference in me. For the past few years I was starting to wonder if I would ever figure out how to write good academically.
My challenge now is how to understand and push the limits of those power structures that govern academic discourse. I agree wholeheartedly with Haleysrundown, when she talks about the conservatism of academic discourse. It's expected that a 'good' article will rely heavily on research, an act that reaffirms the ideas, the methods, and the arguments of those before us. This act is itself a conservative act. For me (and Hayley and others) testing the limits of what we can do with our academic prose, while still playing by those conservative rules, is the greatest implication for an inquiry-based construct of argumentation.

Implications: In the classroom

Kastley addresses the 'real-life' implications of seeing argument as inquiry towards the end of his article. To Kastley, when students are taught to conceive of arguments in a formulaic manner, when they see what they're doing as a charade, cynical lessons are taught. Lessons promoting subterfuge, deceit, false-pretenses, and agonism all work to pollute the democratic ideals that argumentation should promote. More insidiously Kastley warns, that when a structural conception of argument is taught and lauded, "reason and argument become the cover for the operation of powerful lobbying groups indifferent to the consequences of their actions for others" (239). A blind adherence to a Toulmin-based concept of argumentation can lead to the reentrenchment of unequitable power balances, fear of difference, and inability to respond to a changing world.
Teaching argument as inquiry, then, can unsettle some of those issues by allowing students to be critical of argumentation and its purposes in our society. Instead of reifying these power structures through their argumentation practices, students can begin to question the purpose of argument. They can question what the goals of argument are. They can question how and why argument functions they way it does and to what ends. Kastley sees the need for "a rich and complex sense of the opportunities and limits of argument" (239), and the more we can push these, the more likely argument will be allowed to function democratically as Kastley envisions. In this view, the ideal implications are to unshackle our students' minds, give them the tools they need to push the boundaries of their particular assumptions, and allow them to work productively with people who are different.
Not long ago I would have said "but we'd be doing our students a disservice, they need to know how to argue to make through college." While it's true that academic discourse is extremely conservative and resistant to change (see Haleysrundown's previous post), I have started to see how an inquiry-based approach would not only benefit students in the pursuit of their degrees, but also instill in them skills that do not easily come from an argumentative mindset. Specifically, having a curious mind is something that this model can offer to students in a productive way. As much as any formulistic set of argumentation skills is important, being able to develop questions, find ways to better understand those questions, and let those questions lead to further questions in a productive way is something that no college student should be able to pass on without. The implications, then, for challenging the paradigmatic model for academic discourse, are great. There might be some disagreement (nay, hostility) in emphasizing these types of skills from our students, from other academic units, from society at large, but Humanistic inquiry may be what balances this troubled world.

Loneliness, Openness to Inquiry, and Public Speaking

One of the things that struck me most keenly in the Kastely reading is how profoundly lonely is the person who is not willing to engage the other. Kastely notes that both Creon and Antigone, in the end, cannot get outside themselves, and that other protagonists in Sophocles' works seem to suffer similar fates. Martin Luther spoke of sin as being "incurvatus in se" - turned in on the self - a concept that seems to me underlying much of Kastely's reflections. Being willing to engage with the other means opening up and out, like a flower unfurling its petals to welcome the bee - engaging with one who is able to bring the germinating promise of pollen, but who also carries with it the possibility of a sting. If we are to be truly open to inquiry, to changing our mind, we will engage in a similar level of promise and risk.

For teaching Intro to Public Speaking, I have often noted that the more nervous a student it, the more likely they are to be locked into their own private world - so tied to their notes they could be giving the speech in an empty room, for all they are not engaging with the audience. Ironically, since they perceive that they are scared of the audience, they actually do better and have a better time when they look up and engage. It can take a while to convince them of that! Hayley is right that a significant teaching moment comes with the chapter on listening (and I admit, when I first taught Comm 1200, I wondered how in the world i was going to do an entire lesson on something we do all the time (HA - so I thought!) ). Public speaking is all about engaging with the other, even though it is one person who is (normatively) talking. The entire process that we teach our students is audience-centered. But that does not mean that we do not encounter the problems with argumentation that Kastely outlines, especially as the students work on their persuasive speeches. And, this semester, teaching a writing intensive, I see much the same issues as first-year composition teachers experience. Somehow, I want there to be space to talk about the underlying human/spiritual/ethical issue of engaging the other, being open to the process, and getting out of the self. The Comm Dept and I both hope that, once I pass comps, I will be able to teach Comm Ethics. Something tells me I am going to be engaging these issues!

Implications for teaching academic writing

When I first tried to “redefine” argument for first year students along Kroll’s line, quite a few students were skeptical of me. Of particular concern for them was the fact that I was asking them to give space to their opponents as well. Argument for them meant winning. You are involved in an argument means you need to win. Those students very clearly envisioned their opponents as enemies. Sounds pretty harsh, but that was what some students were up to. One of the students even made a valid argument with me: won’t giving space to your opponent/ listening to your opponent show your weakness? To an extent it made sense, but again the question itself was based on the false premises that all arguments are for winning/ defeating your opponents. I remember, I had hard time convincing them that they had to understand argument differently. It was like redefining “argument.”

I think this situation speaks about the way our students have understood argument. We have already discussed so much about the argument culture of the American society – the TV shows, radio talks, town-hall debates, and all – and it needs further explication as to why our students would not readily new approach to argumentation. But having read the texts, and after all those discussions, I feel that I’m better prepared to deal with the concerns of the students who feel that all arguments are antagonistic and we need to win them.

I have been trying to convince my students that arguments should be for inquiry, but I have also realized that it is not always easy to make them practice it. One of the reasons why Toulminian method of argument (formalistic argument, following Kastely) has been very popular is perhaps its straightforward explanation to argumentation. Kastely also talks about the pedagogical value of Toulmin’s method. There is something concrete we can show our students, and that’s always good to have. We feel like teaching, and our students feel like learning something. That’s in a way a feel good pedagogy. However, in real life situation, I agree with Kroll, Kastely and others, that argument does not function in a straightforward fashion. And more importantly, just winning does not matter as much as convincing others.

This new approach can be tremendously helpful, I feel, when it comes to teaching students academic writing. Academic writing is all about joining a conversation. And if our students cannot listen to all the discussions, at least as many perspectives as possible, they will jump into a conclusion (almost always based on what they “feel” is true) and they will only try to justify their position irrespective of what the existing data and conversation might call for. In other words, when they do not prepare themselves to listen to other’s voices (read opponents’), they are most likely to miss the point. And their writing will end up being a piece on what they think, based on their feeling, or let’s say partial understanding. So, this approach can prepare our students in a way that they are ready to listen to all the voices, irrespective of their positions, so that they can come up with a more logical conclusion. So, I see a tremendous value of “arguing differently” approach in first year composition teaching.

Argument and difference and humanity!

Kastely asks a very genuine question: what if someone denies arguing? In other words, how would one argue with someone who is not ready to accept that there exists a situation that demands an argument? I agree with Kastely that the formalistic approaches do not address issues that related to these questions. In the traditional/ common understanding of argument, it is assumed that parties have agreed that there exists a situation that requires argument and they are ready to “fight” to prove themselves right. While reading Toulmin, I hardly thought about that formalistic approach to argumentation although I certainly thought that if arguments in the real world really functioned in so much formulaic way. But, it was Toulmin, and I hardly questioned him. But now, I can see how rigid, formalistic approach to argumentation may not always solve problems pertaining to argumentation.

In my previous post also I talked about difference, and here I also see Kastely dealing with “difference” a lot, but in slightly differently. There, in relation to feminist argumentation, or any argumentation made from the margin for that matter, I was talking about how the inability, or rejection, acknowledge difference, in the name of treating all as “equal” result into unfair ground for argumentation for the two sides, but Kastely talks about difference in terms of the existence of the positions themselves, at the level of existence in the language of statis theory.

The inability to listen to others, as explained in detail through the characters of Creon and Antigone, is a not very different from traditional, oppositional argument. That mode of argumentation is based not the desire to make an understanding but prevailing over the other. Kastely talks about threat, which I find very useful. Those who feel threat cannot listen to others; hence their argument is bound to be antagonistic. I would like to add that that sense of threat could also be a sign of insecurity – if I make concessions, I’ll be defeated, someone will prevail over me. That is exactly the fear that both the characters seem to have. The new method of argumentation, which is based on the acknowledgement that there are differences and it is fine to have differences, encourages one to come out of the rigid self and embrace others opinions as well. In that sense, the self making arguments is extending his or her self beyond himself/ herself. In this sense I like how Kestely relates argument to humanity. Nice reading; feel like I had hardly grasped the essence when I read it first (as if I were doing it now!) 

Academic Scholars

For me scholar is the person who seeks for the problems in her area and then tries to fill in these gaps, work with other scholars to see the events from different perspectives, think more critically and to reach more sources. A scholar is in a way ready to change her beliefs as she learns and always builds up to old ones. I really liked Kroll’s article because of this! In fact he is trying something new and he himself does not know how it is going to end. He describes what he did and why he did it, and how the responses changed his ideas on the method. I am reading about PCK (Pedagogical Content Knowledge)and I believe that Kroll is developing his PCK on- action as he continues to teach his class. His inquiry-based approach helps him to see the best ways to teach the class and also best ways to make this class useful for the students.
I agree with Hayley that there is a huge pressure on the scholars in terms of publishing. And I also heard a few instructors who are teaching smaller colleges that they are so worried about the student evaluations that they do not follow their beliefs while teaching in their classes. So if they were Kroll, they would give up trying to persuade their students about the benefits of arguing differently not to get bad evaluations at the end of the semester.
Just today my office mates were talking about an email one of their instructors sent saying that “please do not put that on evaluation, I will not use that paper again”. She chose a paper for students to read and some of the students found it too hard to decode because of the small punts and she feels the need to send such a message. I believe with pressure to publish, to make the students happy, to publish _ papers a year, scholars loses their critical thinking abilities and they do not argue/discuss very differently.
I believe the Simpson’s episode on graduate students though it is highly exaggerated would suit here…
Enjoy!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XViCOAu6UC0

Academic Scholarship: If You Want to be Heard- Follow the Rules

In the academy graduate students learn how to produce scholarship in a manner that is acceptable to the academy, that is publishable, and ideally is related to ones scholarly interests. Additionally, Professors (depending on the type of institution they seek to call home) have publishing requirements that pressure great thinkers to produce knowledge that meets academic quality, publisher needs and desires, and their institutional standards. Somewhere in all these standards and demands is the researcher: A scholar at heart who has a desire to seek out information that satisfies their burning questions and philosophical quandaries. So how does the romantic scholar negotiate their preferred work with the academy and academic publishers?

This question is obviously relative to the scholar and has inherent relative difference depending on the person attempting to answer this question, however, it seems as though scholars are expected to follow structural requirements in order to be “successful”. Success is understood in this framework, for example, as one who can get their work published. This success is dependent on one’s ability and will to produce knowledge according to preconceived and approved forms, methods, and resulting works of research and scholarship that give into the pressures and standards of what is and isn’t acceptable scholarly work.

For example, quantitative studies have preconceived ideas as to the format of the work, standards for how research is collected, analyzed, and presented, and without some of these basic requirements the work can be rejected prima facie. Same is true for qualitative studies, rhetorical studies, and critical studies. It seems as though, scholarship is more interested in showcasing the meeting of standards, formulaic and accepted formats, and producing work that fits into a mold rather than inquiry that is accepted as part of a conversation that is most interested in learning and listening to what others are finding in their scholarly explorations.

As a graduate student who conducts research in each class and produces scholarship that aims at contributing to conversations, I am at a loss for getting my work published. My work collects dust in the memory of my computer, in my own mind, and possibly some of my peers and Professors take in what I work on….but besides that I am constantly either being rejected by scholarly publishers or are told to revise and resubmit based on their proposed changes.

In a competitive world, where there are preconceived notions for performance, there is a lack of appreciation for those just trying to participate in the conversation. If I don’t meet this expectation, or that standard, or I am doing things too differently compared to how things have always been done, I am immediately rejected. I am told that I basically lose and the person who did what is told wins.

The academy itself is situated in an argumentative framework that embraces practices of compliance, structure, rules, legitimacy, and rigorous competition where there are accepted winners and losers. And in our present world of education budget cuts, the need for standards of excellence within this framework will only be heightened. If the academy itself is structured in such a way, it seems reasonable to assume that some of this framework is being imposed in the classroom.

Overall, as a young scholar who works to get their voice heard in the world of academia I find that the standards of rigor, excellence, scholarly quality, and other conformist and oppressive practices are straight up violent and silencing. This tyranny to conformity and to academic standards is a practice of silencing and eliminating other voices, and until the academy shifts and makes changes that are more inclusive, instead of exclusive, that are more willing to hear and listen to others and their scholarly work and practices, I believe that my scholarship as well as the scholarship of other lost voices will continue to be absent in the conversation. Hopefully one day I, and the other scholars out there who are to remain nameless because we have no idea who they are because they are also rejected, will be accepted into the conversation(s). At that point, I believe that education and the academy has some potential to make some real changes to its own practices, as well as practices in the classroom.

Speech Pedagogy: A Focus on Dialectical Argumentation

In an introduction to speech course it may at first glance seem as though argumentation practice may not be a core piece of the curriculum since a large chunk of the time is spent on teaching students how to present standardized speeches, such as: to inform, to mark a special occasion, impromptu speaking, and persuasive speaking. However, I believe that intro to speech teachers can incorporate some components of dialectical argumentation into their lesson plans.

For example, every intro to speech class should have a lesson on listening, and listening is a key component to dialectical interplay (Kastely, 1999). Listening can, at times, be difficult in explaining and teaching because it can be viewed as so basic and such a normalized practice that we don’t need to learn anything else about it because we always do it. But, if we can break our bad listening habits and teach it as well as its importance it can serve a variety of functions.

First, with a focus on listening the listener is required to submit oneself to the discourse of another and “putting oneself in situations marked by real listening means giving  up exclusive authorship over one’s own account” (Kastely, 1999, p. 236). This is the antithesis of traditional notions of argumentative listening which supposes that the listener is only listening to things that will fuel their Toulman style of argumentation. Therefore, instead of listening only to strengthen ones preconceived notions/facts, one is listening with “the possibility that what we hear will require change from us” (Bickford, 1996, p. 149).

Next, instructing students about this type of listening encourages students to think outside the box, to be vulnerable to changes, and can potentially produce educational opportunities for students in the classroom and outside of the classroom. Additionally, for the lovers of democracy and active citizenship, it also produces a more critical thinker who is willing to engage in more open deliberation versus a form of argumentation that seeks only to reinforce ones one argument and eliminate others for the purposes of power, control, and winning.

Using listening as a core component in which to approach the introduction of speech communication will open a dialectical space and may allow for unique approach(s) to different rhetorical purposes to communication. For example, using listening as a key component to informative speaking could provide students a critical way to approach information and knowledge production. Additionally, using listening as a key component to persuasive speaking may allow for differing types of persuasive speaking that go beyond the basic Toulmin model of claim- evidence- and warrant, or traditional Problem-Cause-Solution. To add, in my classroom I like to make time for debate after each persuasive speech and a space where dialectical argumentation and listening is encouraged I suggest may be a more beneficial exercise than argumentation and debate which is practiced in order to defeat the opponent.

Bickford, S. (1996). The Dissonance of Democracy: Listening, Conflict and Citizenship. Ithica, NY: Cornell UP.   

Kastely, J. L. (1999). From formalism to inquiry: A model of argument in Antigone. College English, 62(2). Pp. 222-241).