When Henry Reid made the argument that Obama would have never been elected if he spoke in a “Negro dialect,” he received a backlash of vehement criticism, not because his argument was illogical, but because of the rhetoric he used to frame his argument. He wasn’t taking into account the subject he was treating on (race) and the audience he was addressing (the American people), and therefore did he fail to follow the rules of Ballenger’s infamous “rhetorical triangle, which our students know the implications of all too well.
In the context of the above situation we can see how our contingency on proper rhetoric, as a paramount facet of persuasion and argumentation, plays a role in our daily lives, in and out of the classroom. The concept that we have free speech in the presence of such a diverse grouping of beliefs amongst people, be it social or political leanings or assumptions about race or gender, would seem to require the need to employ rhetoric and argumentation “correctly,” but as we know that is not the case. Turn on Fox news and catch a glimpse of the “Brady Bunch” politicized diatribe hour to obtain somewhat of a sense of how rhetoric and argumentation are employed today, and thus can we ascertain why perhaps our students believe that argumentation is “partially structured by the concept of war” (Jones 154), and not a means of “conversation, as new metaphor for public deliberation” (Jones 178).
The aforementioned situation highlights the role that language, an essential entity of rhetoric, plays in the classroom in regards to dialogue and discourse. We alienate our students by teaching only to prove a point to ourselves rather than actually listening to what they have to say. In other words, rather than a pose a problem about a subject to students in an effort to hear their input and see their means toward how they get to a rational solution, we assert that our own approach and take on the subject is the only one that matters. They listen while we talk. In remembering Joel’s “out of body” experience where he wishes he had the power to tell himself to just “shutup” while teaching, something I need to work on, comes the notion that “language is a complex and flexible means of making ourselves understood,” as well as being “fundamental to all social relations and action” (Keith, Lundberg 19). This is indicative of how we can teach effectively by employing a language that relates to the commonality of situations in the classroom, which helps build a community rather than a dictatorship. In submitting the idea to our students that we too are human and were once students who were as naïve as they were about the subject of rhetoric, we can work in a communal effort to gain an understanding where we are not “constrained by the language we speak” (Keith, Lundberg 51) and begin to build trust in the classroom.
It is unfortunate that academia reinforces the concept that “rhetoric helps us understand how certain identities are persuasive and why certain identity practices and labels seem to facilitate political power” (Keith, Lundberg 9). Too often situations in academia mirror this principle when educators allow the rhetoric of their lectures or class dialogue to mirror the convoluted nature of the subjects they treat on. The verbose, ambiguous assertions elicited by the Professor reinforce the identity of the teacher as having absolute power, with the result being nothing more than a classroom of oppressed students who harbor nothing but ambivalence and apprehension toward providing their take on a subject for fear of looking stupid or ignorant. In this regard, it is crucial to see why we must employ rhetoric that helps people “relate to language and to each other simultaneously” (Keith, Lundberg 54).
In an effort not to be overly cynical, both readings also make a case for rhetoric and argumentation as a form of praxis. There is an art in employing rhetoric and argumentation as a means to facilitate an open dialogue between people that wish to come to an understanding of something through an interconnected effort. Therefore, rhetoric and argumentation must be a social act and a reflective act, not a means towards achieving a personal objective of victory, but a means of obtaining knowledge and a “worldly” perspective in finding a solution to a problem through “a conversation that requires constant vigilance and interaction by participants” (Jones 178).
Jimmy,
ReplyDeleteI love the fact that you draw on a current issue to elaborate on the importance of framing one’s argument. I am fairly certain that you meant Harry Reid in your example, but that is of very little importance to your overall point. The idea that we must use the rhetorical triangle to deliver an argument appropriate to a given audience is significant—I know how you have driven that point home for your students. It is exactly this that must be done!!! It is of critical importance that students learn how to use their voice and shape their arguments based on those persons engaged in them. However, this does not mean that those arguments should be made without critical thinking being integral to them.
I too think that we all have to help students move away from thinking that argumentation is a terrible thing. Like Jones says, “We rarely say, “Great, argument. Thanks!”” The lack of such thankfulness only indicates how our culture has changed since the days of Aristotle. However, like in Aristotle’s time, democracy is still dependent on argumentation in the form of debate. Democracy is therefore also dependent on an educated populace, a populace, to a very small extent, that we have the opportunity to teach. In my class, I may stress the importance of argumentation in upholding the original intentions of the 1st Amendment. Thomas Jefferson realized the central importance of debate to democracy, but he also knew that in order for it to function as such, there has to be a self-correcting principle involved in that debate. In other words, and John Stewart Mill makes this much more comprehensible in On Liberty, Jefferson would say that we must submit to the closure rule Jones mentions (Jones, 176). Such adoption would render political and public debates (I am desiring a different word choice here as I don’t think they are yet debates) actual debates, in which there becomes a purpose to their words.
As with the Fox News example and the example given within the Jones essay, it has too often been the case that persons are cultivated with a bifurcation in their thinking. That is to say that there are only two choices, two sides to a coin, two perspectives to every problem. This sort of either or mentality is exactly the reason we get nowhere in politics and nowhere as a nation. We are at a constant standstill with regard to making those improvements necessary to our country being strong and necessary if we are to prevent it from being torn apart. I’m making the argument here, that we as Americans, have the duty to preserve democracy by engaging in REAL debate. As Quintilian would say, “a good citizen is always a PUBLIC participant” (Jones, 161).
Wow, like Lauren, I too have just learned about logos, ethos, and pathos… And I have already begun becoming aware of how I am using them in my arguments.
Given what I have all said here, I would also like to say to Jayme that I do not think that we need a new Aristotle. I would urge that we have to recover those core elements of good argumentation and instill them in ourselves and in our students.
(Part 1)
ReplyDeleteJimmy,
I love the fact that you draw on a current issue to elaborate on the importance of framing one’s argument. I am fairly certain that you meant Harry Reid in your example, but that is of very little importance to your overall point. The idea that we must use the rhetorical triangle to deliver an argument appropriate to a given audience is significant—I know how you have driven that point home for your students. It is exactly this that must be done!!! It is of critical importance that students learn how to use their voice and shape their arguments based on those persons engaged in them. However, this does not mean that those arguments should be made without critical thinking being integral to them.
I too think that we all have to help students move away from thinking that argumentation is a terrible thing. Like Jones says, “We rarely say, “Great, argument. Thanks!”” The lack of such thankfulness only indicates how our culture has changed since the days of Aristotle. However, like in Aristotle’s time, democracy is still dependent on argumentation in the form of debate. Democracy is therefore also dependent on an educated populace, a populace, to a very small extent, that we have the opportunity to teach. In my class, I may stress the importance of argumentation in upholding the original intentions of the 1st Amendment. Thomas Jefferson realized the central importance of debate to democracy, but he also knew that in order for it to function as such, there has to be a self-correcting principle involved in that debate. In other words, and John Stewart Mill makes this much more comprehensible in On Liberty, Jefferson would say that we must submit to the closure rule Jones mentions (Jones, 176). Such adoption would render political and public debates (I am desiring a different word choice here as I don’t think they are yet debates) actual debates, in which there becomes a purpose to their words.
(Part 2)
ReplyDeleteAs with the Fox News example and the example given within the Jones essay, it has too often been the case that persons are cultivated with a bifurcation in their thinking. That is to say that there are only two choices, two sides to a coin, two perspectives to every problem. This sort of either or mentality is exactly the reason we get nowhere in politics and nowhere as a nation. We are at a constant standstill with regard to making those improvements necessary to our country being strong and necessary if we are to prevent it from being torn apart. I’m making the argument here, that we as Americans, have the duty to preserve democracy by engaging in REAL debate. As Quintilian would say, “a good citizen is always a PUBLIC participant” (Jones, 161).
Wow, like Lauren, I too have just learned about logos, ethos, and pathos… And I have already begun becoming aware of how I am using them in my arguments.
Given what I have all said here, I would also like to say to Jayme that I do not think that we need a new Aristotle. I would urge that we have to recover those core elements of good argumentation and instill them in ourselves and in our students.
Sorry everyone. I just realized this posted twice. My bad.
ReplyDeleteJimmy, your connection (and Jones’ on the same topic) of our academic discussion surrounding the theory of rhetoric to timely, concrete extremes and the related dire consequences of bifurcation is important. During one of our class discussions concerning rhetoric, audience, and persuasion, this was something a student brought up and I was thankful for the real world connection.
ReplyDeleteNot only does this realization provide our students with more power as writers, but it means that, at least some people, are applying the critical awareness toward reading a text that we’ve discussed as integral in engaging sources and being a responsible citizen.
Jimmy,
ReplyDeleteYou make some very salient points about our use of rhetoric in our classrooms. I agree with you in that teachers often “alienate [their] students by teaching only to prove a point…rather than actually listening to what they have to say.” I’ll be the first to admit that my very first “discussion” session in my Writ 101 class was not as effective as I’d intended because I approached it knowing precisely what I wanted to say. I was not very successful in letting my students’ input guide the conversation; I didn’t engage well with their contributions. I was guilty of letting my rigid lesson plan inhibit me. After this first ineffective discussion attempt, I rethought my strategy and approached the next class conversation with a new rhetoric in place: one that, as you advocate, “helps to build a community rather than a dictatorship.” This discussion was much livelier in terms of student participation, and was also more productive, both for my students and for myself.
Your commentary on rhetoric in the classroom marries nicely with Jayme’s suggestion that we need a new rhetoric founded on listening, understanding, and collaboration—as teachers we need to listen to our students’ thoughts, concerns, and needs, seek to understand these, and then actively collaborate with them in the classroom, allowing their inquiry and participation to shape our course goals.