Mediating Conflict & Working Through Difficult Conversations

Stone, Patton, & Heen (2010) in their book Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most  provide some suggestions for problem solving, which can also be understood within this particular context as mediating conversations and moving them forward, as well as working through difficult conversation.

One of the strategies talked about is Re-Framing. Reframing in this book is understood as "taking the essence of what the other person says and "translating it" into concepts that are more helpful" (p. 202). As someone who studies frames, framing, and reframing I find this to be an excellent suggestion that can be applicable to many different conversations: interpersonal and face-to-face, as well as larger meta-conversations that may occur through different media. Framing alone is to make some issues more or less salient, and so reframing can be understood as reinterpreting, or in fact changing the initial frames to be understood differently.

Another suggestion that they provide is to listen. For example, "when the other person becomes highly emotional, listen and acknowledge" (p. 206) and "whenever you feel overwhelmed or unsure how to proceed, remember that it is always a good time to listen" (p. 207). The advice to listen is important and useful in these contexts. How many times have you either witnesses or participated in a heated conversation that became problematic in nature to the point where people were getting upset and/or people were feeling unheard? I know I have. And, listening seems to be one of those no-brainer things that gets lost. So, as a reminder- when in doubt- LISTEN. When getting upset, take a step back and LISTEN. And when feeling unheard- LISTEN. And when you notice the other getting upset- LISTEN.

The last one which I will mention is to "name the dynamic" (209). The authors suggest that "when nothing else has worked" you may want to name the dynamic: "You put on the table as a topic for discussion what you see happening in the conversation itself" (p. 209). Although they say to do this when nothing else has worked because it is a blunt move that can escalate tensions, and can potentially take the conversation off topic, I feel that even this may be appropriate even before nothing else has worked. Naming the dynamic is a blunt and straightforward maneuver, that if we did more often, I believe we could have more "real" and down to earth conversations. The fact that we have to wait until nothing else has worked before we can show all of our cards and be blunt I believe says a lot about our culture. The authors are correct when they say that this could escalate tensions, because as we know- "being real" in conversation, being blunt, isn't always well received and can make the speaker anxious. Have you ever avoided putting things on the table in fear of how it will be received? Or have you had someone put something on the table in front of you and you weren't a welcome receiver? These conversations can be tense and uncomfortable, but I think there is something to be said about the person who "names the dynamic" during conflict and in difficult conversations, as well as in regular speaking practice. I know, as hard as those conversations can be, I would rather someone just go ahead and name the dynamic instead of having to jump through a million hoops, dancing around the bush, and slowly taking off the bandaid. Just say it already- "be real"- and lets move forward :)

Difficult Conversations- Complicating interpersonal/ face-to-face conversations and mediated/ larger meta-conversations

Stone, Patton & Heen (2010), in their book Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most provide a section titled "What if the other person really does have bad intentions--lying, bullying, or intentionally derailing the conversation to get what they want?". In this section they give advice if they encounter people in situations who, whether intentionally or not, "manipulate, threaten, delay, obfuscate, bully, or derail in an attempt to get their way". They give us three suggestions for how to handle such behavior: don't reward bad behavior, don't react in kind and "play their games", and seek to understand why they think their intentions and actions are justified (p. 244-5).

I believe that what they provide is some good advice, especially in interpersonal  and face-to-face conversations. However, I do think that these suggestions have potential limitations when thinking about applying them to larger meta-conversations and mediated conversations- such as those that happen through political campaign ads. For example, say an ad is aired on television that is clearly manipulative, threatening, delaying, obfuscating, bullying, or derailing in an attempt to send a particular message- how should those against this ad, its sponsors, and/or its message(s) respond? How do these authors pose responses to such behaviors in such a larger meta and mediated conversation? How should the counter messages "focus on their [own] objective" and move toward it (p. 245) without falling victim to the potential claims and attacks made previously?

Intentions

I loved Stone et al.’s comments on “Commenting on other people’s intentions”. This is such a similar scene for me. I want to also add Stone’s comment that we usually benefit from our old experiences to support our ideas on another person’s current intentions. “You did this… before, you said ….before” so “I am sure now you are trying to hurt me because of….”. I had opportunities to reflect back my comments also. He was right in that that we get mad when someone corrects us while we are together with other people, but when we do it we always do it with good intentions. Balzac says in Old Pere that “Consciousness is a stick with which we hit others, we never use it for ourselves”. When I first read this sentence, I was really impressed. Stone et al.’s comments also influenced me very much in that especially when we are very mad and convinced ourselves with the bad intentions of the other side, we do not really think clearly.
One of the other impressive ideas in the book so far was that “Accusing them of bad intentions creates defensiveness”. I was at one of my friends’ house with my husband. My friend was discussing something with her husband and the discussion got worse. Feeling very uncomfortable and not knowing what to do we just sat down and tried to figure out the best moment to excuse ourselves. I observed that the husband was starting all of the sentences with “but…”. He was trying to defend himself all the time. The blaming and not listening to each other made the argument got worse and both sides got very defensive.
I really loved Difficult conversations. I agree with Cathy that the beginning and the ending readings for this course were similar in that they were for a popular audience. I believe I will get a lot of insights about my relationships from this book. I understand better why Max really wanted us to read this book!

Blaming or Learning?

What a pleasure to have the opportunity to end the semester as we began, with a book for a popular audience! Difficult Conversations has been a timely read for me, and I have found much to use in my personal life, at the same time that I have recognized the ways that it connects to themes from our other readings and conversations in this class. I found this quote to be a microcosm of one of the central themes (argument as inquiry) we have addressed: "Focusing on blame is a bad idea because it inhibits our ability to learn what's really causing the problem and to do anything meaningful to correct it" (p. 59).

Having a difficult conversation means engaging in a dialogue, rather than delivering a monologue of blame. It means being open to the other person - their views, their feelings, and their identity. It means being open to the self, which takes some digging to get at what we really think, feel, and own up to. We engage in a process of inquiry, genuinely wanting to explore together how we each contributed to see what went wrong and how it might be addressed in the future. It means learning rather than blaming.

I found myself reviewing conversations I have had with my significant other, and seeing how the process they outline is so attractive and helpful when you really care about the other person and genuinely want to address the issues that might arise between you. I can also see how this process would be important in situations where you will continue to engage with the person (such as a workplace, or with a neighbor). I wonder, though, how it would translate to the situations where the communication is more public. In the political context, mapping your part of the contribution system could be used as an opening for an attack! But I live in hope that there remain those in the public/rhetorical/political realm who do want to engage in genuine dialogue/argument/inquiry. It seems to me that what is needed is a willingness to recognize the real people, rather than seeing them as representatives of an issue. But is that giving in to American individualism? Is that mistaking public communication for interpersonal comm? We miss something if we do not see the organizational communication issues that are often at stake in these difficult conversations. See how I'm putting in a good word for our entire field over in Comm? :-)

I will continue to think on these things, and hope we will have time for a little conversation about the book on Thursday before our presentations.

Identity

"Our anxiety [of having difficult conversations] results not just from having to face the other person, but from having to face ourselves. The conversation has the potential to disrupt our sense of who we are in the world, or to highlight what we hope we are but fear we are not. The conversation poses a threat to our identity -the story we tell ourselves about ourselves -and having our identity threatened can be profoundly disturbing" (111-112).

One of the most interesting portion of this book, imho, is this idea that every time we have a conversation (difficult or not) our own identity is somehow at stake. I wonder, though, how this may be different than the rest of our outward expressions on a given day. It seems like every time we get dressed in the morning, our identity is at stake. Every time we decide what radio station to put on, every time we decide which poster to hang, which restaurant to take our significant other out to, which potato dish to serve at a formal dinner, each time we make a decision, the possibility that our conception of our own identity might be altered is very real.
This idea brings me back to Lynch, George, and Cooper's ideas that learning something about yourself is possibly the reason students are unwilling to take a complex inquiry into a given topic. It's not so much that students will change a topic based on the research they do, but rather that a topic, if startling information threatens to unseat the carefully constructed reality of that student, might work to change the student. Like I talked about on the blog last week, this can be the scariest thing of all.
But while L, G, & C call for keeping the possibility of change open, even encouraging it in our students, I'm not sure Stone, Patton, and Heen make that same assertion. In Difficult Conversations, especially in the "Identity Conversation" section, we see many interesting strategies for understanding what your conversational counterpart is going through. The authors instruct that we keep their identity in mind, that we realize the complexity of the identities in question, and that we learn to ask for help when we just can't make the expectations of the identities mesh. The one aspect missing, however, is the idea that our identities are evolving. In this section, there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgment that difficult conversations can change our identity, can help us see ourselves in a different light. There is plenty of anxiety caused by people holding too much stock in their own identity, but the scary possibility that we might be an evolving identity is never quite addressed.

Who knows, someday I may want to hang the framed painting on my walls instead of the Angus Young poster....

Previous _Difficult Conversations_ Post

Here is my post on this book from two weeks ago.

Easing Difficult Conversations

Having read some books and articles on argumenttion theories this semester, I feel that it’s nice to wrap up our discussions with something very practical. Difficult Conversations by Stone et al. is a very useful and practical self-help book, which translates complex theoretical concepts of the art of arguing into easily understandable/ applicable advices. The use of anecdotes/ cases have helped so much to explain what they mean by approaching difficult conversations differently.

I found that the whole approach is about arguing differently. The culture we are born in makes us look at all things in it as natural. And the culture/ the society prepares us to argue in a particular way; our value systems determine how we understand a situation and interpret it. And we argue keeping ourselves at the center of everything. The authors very nicely explore how that limitation—the fact that we argue from our own value system without trying to understand other’s positions—determines how we get engaged in a conversation.

Sometimes, the issues look so simple and not worth-discussing. But if we look at the heart of the issue, it so happens quite often that we know in theory what we should de, but we hardly practice them. We cannot go beyond just knowing to realizing it. The authors do a great job by making us realize those situations.

Among many impressive discussions, I found their discussion of the value of feelings in difficult conversations so pertinent. I think many people believe that valuing feeling too much is being sentimental and emotional, which is against being rational. And I think most cultures, especially in the west, we privilege over feelings. But as the authors explicate, we can hardly resolve tensions unless we deal with issues at the level of feelings. The authors even relate feeling to thought, which I think make a lot of sense.

I’ve really become a fan of this book (when it comes to practical aspects of argumentation), and I feel that there are so many things we could discuss. Look forward to class discussions. 

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.