Saturday, February 24, 2007
Faith On Rhetoric
I'm convinced that we need more rhetorical debate in the public sphere, but I'm still confused about how we decide our topics for debate. Simon's TIF article shows us one model of public debate, but I wondered, like Mark, how relevant such issues were to our students – ahem, future citizens of a rhetorical democracy. I also wonder about how the choice of debates for such a public forum could be used for political maneuvering – who decides what issues are “big” issues? (This is especially relevant for say, a high school. How do we decide between issues that enfranchise and interest more people and issues that are “important” but maybe less interesting? Debates in popular culture (Stones vs. Beatles, Paris vs. Nicole, the merits of American Idol contestants ) would interest a large group, but I don't know what the outcomes would be, or how one could go about getting funding for such things. (This reminds me – last week I was talking to a friend of mine who teaches eighth grade. He was telling me that recently his students were locked in a heated debate about who would win: Chewbacca riding on a velociraptor vs. the snow monster riding on a brontosaurus. I believe the consensus was Chewy, because Han Solo liked him, and brontosauruses are vegetarians). A debate in the war in Iraq is important, but not as many people will feel like they have something to say. Perhaps I'm too focused here on outcomes: something has to happen because of the debate. But if nothing happens, is it still worthwhile? Can we argue for the sake of argument?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I see this as traditional outcomes from traditional composition courses, unlike yours, of course Faith. *non sarcastic*
Seriously, when we teach these sorts of things, the idea that argument is everywere, and such, I think we end up in Kevin's post as well, with "its only argument" and so doesn't matter.
Making these things meaningful seems more important, to me any way, than strictly "what makes an argument"
I would tend to believe that a debate means more if the topic is of greater social significance, but I can imagine a very appealing argument to the contrary. Aristotle (and plenty of others) argued that human beings' capacity for reason is what makes us unique. Similarly, Burke argued that it is our use of symbols that make separate us from the rest of the animal world. So even if our deliberations aren't concerned with public policy, maybe there is some value in exercising these basic human functions -using reason and symbols. In other words, maybe a healthy debate/discussion is an end in itself. If you're like Eberly, you're convinced that most students "have little hope of affecting political outcomes at any level" regardless of the content and context of their utterances. In short, I think we can argue for the sake of argument.
Arguing for argument's sake would maybe help convince the students that they had something to say, which seems key in a social-constructivist perspective.
But I wonder the same thing Faith does--how the TIF model could be funded, i.e. made to seem relevant enough to draw the interest of both students and faculty.
I don't wonder about the other debate she raised, though--Chewbacca, definitely. The snow monster wouldn't stand a chance.
I'm a fan of argument for argument's sake over, say, silence for the sake of maintaining. I just worry over the easy feeling of resolution with formal public and often academic debates. Novelistically, we seem to have moved past traditional closure (vice punished, virtue rewarded) in favor of a messier moral ambiguity, a muted ending, a Pynchonesque non-ending, etc. Likewise, I like debates that leave people really unsettled, and I worry that, for a host of reasons, I don't always achieve that in classes (or "we" don't always achieve that in TIF type settings within the campus).
Post a Comment