Crowley, Aidos, and the "Low Risk"

At first I thought I was fortunate, in the spring of 2003, to have a class of FYC students who were not immediately out to "vehemently" lob "feminizing" insults at those on the "opposite side" of our escalation into Iraq (Crowley 30-31). Then, as I began to use the backdrop of military invasion as a series of "teaching moments"--class discussions that would segue into written responses to "what are the best arguments for 'liberating' Iraq?"--I started encountered the avoidance issues Crowley discusses in the first few chapters of _Toward a Civil Discourse_. On the positive side, the low key ("low risk"?) nature of the discussions allowed us to stay focused on the pros and cons (and less on ad hominem attacks). The discussions also made me consider--though I didn't have Protagoras handy at the time--how writing classes were better suited to teach "respect" than "justice" (i.e. Crowley's / Atwill's discussion of the sophist who argues that "the political art 'consists of two qualities,' aidos and dike," or "respect" and "justice" pg. 22). On the negative side, I was let down that these students--free of a draft, insulated from seeing Iraq anywhere but on TV--didn't care more to argue and were respectful to the point of immediately agreeing to disagree ("Hey, I see where you're coming from, that's cool, I'm just saying. . .and that's just my opinion"). Finally I decided that it was too easy to blame them. I was also free of the draft, wasn't likely to see any combat directly in my life time, and was probably as let down by my "teaching moment" not being more successful as anything else.

I guess that was the spring I started considering the easy distance from the "real" that rhetorical invention allowed the Left and Right on my campus (and also allowed us to construct the "Left" and the "Right"). One afternoon we took our classes outside to watch a heated debate between two venerable professors, but, afterwards, most students just reported initial feelings of fear ("Dr. ____ and Dr. _____ were really going at it! I thought they were going to throw down!") and massive relief when the colleagues later displayed mutual admiration, to the point of performing aidos as though it were the bigger issue at stake, which made the vehemence of the previous argument also seem like crafted performance, which, to me, was both a positive example and something that cut against "the mobilization of the passions. . .[as the] task for rhetoric" that Crowley emphasizes.

Of course, we should be about finding rhetorical space (or uncovering the "paths" Crowley notes in her introduction) for moving beyond the "current ideological impasse". We should, I suppose, display colleagiality in civic discourse, particularly in civic arenas, as opposed to the peace vigil invective Crowley references on pg. 1. My worry is that, in modeling colleagial and academic discourse, we can also diffuse the conflict--or de-mobilize passions of the students. I'm not saying Crowley endorses this; I'm just considering the ways good intentions can still enable fixed positions. I'm sure many of us have been sent a copy of a reader entitled _Everything's An Argument_. That title makes me wonder if I've convinced students that "everything's only an argument." I like that Crowley offers language--and appropriation of ancient discourse--that could be helpful in conveying how aidos does not mean "carefully avoiding anything that might sound disrespectful" in public or private discourse.

"Exemplary persons seek harmony, not sameness." -- Analects 13.23