Notes: Class 2

Maxine Hairston “Carl Rogers’ Alternative to Traditional Rhetoric” (1976)

Non-threatening argument?

1)      Agonistic approach (adversarial vs. meditation in law)

A)     Aristotelian rhetoric based on struggle between thesis/antithesis/synthesis

B)      Sample argument “Why 12 year olds should drive!”

C)      Threatening—only one right answer (mine); artificial divide into good/bad

D)     Whole point of argument: to convince/persuade/win

E)      Ideal objective truth (as opposed to process/method of discerning truth at a given moment)

2)      Is the purpose win (persuade) or agree (generate consensus)

a.       “The basic premise of the article is, like most important truths, very simple: you do not convert people to your point of view by threatening them or challenging their values.”

3)      Our culture has become hyper-agonistic through media and ad culture, etc.  (Hot Or Not, Hero or Zero, either/or) Media knows that struggle/drama/agon sells

a.       Us Magazine: Who wears this dress better?  Capitalistic competition  Polarization

4)      Traditional agonistic writing prompts for argument tend to go for emotional jugglar.  Abortion.

a.       Gay Marriage, Guns law, video violence, first amendment, second amendment (high values/emotion types of argument)—enough cultural context (easily accessible evidence and data)—not a lot of ambivalence for the student writer

                                                                           i.      Makes it easier for the student because they start with a “thesis”

                                                                         ii.      Argument about jerky?  Emotional?

5)      Move away from life-or-death prompts to real-world prompts that aren’t necessarily either/or propositions.  Gain consensus/middle ground.

a.       Avoid evaluative language (objective)  racist?  Biased? Ill-informed? Unfamiliar? Insensitive?

b.      “Value judgments tend to freeze people into the status quo and make them commit themselves to a stand, and almost inevitably, once a person takes a position on an issue, even one so trivial as the merits of a movie or of daylight-saving time, the possibility of his listening to a dissenting point of view with an open mind diminishes. Instead of wanting to hear both sides, he goes on the defensive and becomes more concerned about justifying his own opinion than understanding someone else's point of view.”

                                                                           i.      Problem with student writing—more about defense of pov than understanding another position; static thinking and writing

                                                                         ii.      Highlight originality, personal pov, authenticity, static product, no negotiation

                                                                        iii.      Makes the reviewer the devil’s advocate working “against” the paper/argument

                                                                       iv.      Rigidity vs. flexibility in establishing point of view

                                                                         v.      Presupposes that this is the way that “game is played” this way in agonistic fashion—you’re at war with your peers/co-workers

C. Listening with understanding—empathetic listening and being able to summarize opposing pov’s in other’s frame of reference

Jeryn Warren Proto-Argument

How arguments arise?  Intellectual exchange (he’s trying out an argument on audience)—messy process—language and logic are not linear in oral setting

How was rhetoric used?  What kinds of rhetoric were used?

Specific examples (maybe fully contextualized) –dating, arguing specific to general, red herring arguments, audience awareness (uses physicists because of his audience bias)

Did we come to an issue/thesis? Almost at that point

How do I move from the personal to the abstract, first-person to third-person

Focus! Financial/intellectual success of Jews?  Jews are smarter than rest of population?

Jewish influence in Congress—does it mirror population and should it?

Counter arguments? 

Being able to move from the clutter of experience to the abstraction—this is skill they need in writing, not fed prompts

1. Give a brief, objective statement of the issue under discussion.

2. Summarize in impartial language what you perceive the case for the opposition to be; the summary should demonstrate that you understand their interests and concerns and should avoid any hint of hostility.

3. Make an objective statement of your own side of the issue, listing your concerns and interests

but avoiding loaded language or any hint of moral superiority. 

4. Outline what common ground or mutual concerns you and the other person or group seem to share; if you see irreconcilable interests, specify what they are.

5. Outline the solution you propose, pointing out what both sides may gain from it.

Other Hairston Article to read—more pedagogically centered

Using Carl Rogers' Communication Theories in the Composition Classroom

Maxine Hairston

Rhetoric Review, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Sep., 1982), pp. 50-55

Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/465557

For next time:

1)    Record narrative of argument

2)    Transcribe into printed document

3)    Mark up transcription—highlight terms/phrases you consider rhetorical/persuasive not merely informative (evaluative or judgmental or metaphor or literary figures)  Goal is to make students aware/conscious of their use of rhetoric/argument—not to become literary experts in identifying and naming literary figures

4)    Identify abstract issue or thesis for development into printed essay

5)    Select Rogerian or Traditional Aristotelian approach (other argument/refutatio are part of both approachs)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4z-a8IJ99g “The Lady or the Tiger?” Frank Stockton

The price of human life

The nature of love—one-side passion vs selflessness (eros vs. agape)

Is she emotionally damaged somehow (barbarian)—what’s the relationship with dad?

Class roles?  Gender roles?

How would this story have to be rewritten for a contemporary audience to make it believable?  Or is it?

How does the role of Fate vs. the individual work out in this story?