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.