“Cooking” With An Open Mind

After reading this week’s assignment, I was struck with the relationship between keeping an open mind and that of “cooking”. Peter Elbow in his brilliant book, Writing without Teachers, discusses the idea of cooking. In his opinion, “cooking means getting material to interact. The interaction that is most important to me is the interaction between writing out and summing up (working in the words and working in meanings)…Make each cycle complete: at least ten minutes of involved writing; then stop completely to see what it all adds up to or is trying to add up to” (Elbow 73). After reading chapter three, I felt that Elbow’s idea of cooking is the fundamental point to Crowley and Hawhee’s argument about ‘asking the right questions” (Crowley and Hawhee 71). I also noticed that all three authors firmly believe that in order for a person to fully exhaust all sides of an issue , he or she must be willing to opening acknowledge that there are more than two sides to an any situation. Thus, it is crucial to have an open mind while formulating a particular opinion on an issue. In this blog, I wish to explore how this chapter invites the reader to cook with an open mind.
In this chapter, Crowley and Hawhee discuss how people are too limited in their thoughts about a particular situation and are only willing to examine an issue according to their view. They write that “Most people who are engaged in arguments want to advance their own positions as quickly and forcefully as possible. And so they do not want to take the time to find all the available arguments, as stasis theory and other ancient means of invention require” (72). Both authors point out that this one perspective ideal is wrong because it can lead to the termination of discourse and even to destructive actions or agendas. Crowley and Hawhee use several examples in this chapter to illustrate the extent of destruction that are caused by a close-minded argument. Abortion and hate speech are the two major examples that highlight how a close-mind argument can perpetuate an issue. In this chapter, Crowley and Hawhee utilize and emphasize the term stasis and its rule in debates. According to both authors, stasis is “finding the place where opponents agree to disagree” which means that all perspectives of an argument have been examined and allowed to cook ( the intermingling of perspectives with each other) in order to formulate opposing opinions on an issue. Thus, those involved in a particular debate
have remain open-minded. In the cases of abortion and hate speech, Crowley and Hawhee point out that the two major opposing viewpoints “are not in stasis” (81). Hence these issues and others that are unable to reach stasis continue on.
The second reason that Crowley and Hawhee emphasis the importance of an open mind and the interaction of various viewpoints is that these attributes allow one to formulate a better argument and reach stasis. Both authors write that “Rhetors who do take the time to find all the available arguments can be assured both that their position is defensible and that they have found the best evidence to support it” (72). So if you are arguing that Christopher Columbus is a fantastic guy and his holiday needs to continue to be celebrated by the United States, you need to examine not only all the supportive pieces of evidence but also explore all of Columbus’ negative aspects and critics. Its easy to argue that Columbus rocked the new world and that he found the Americas but how would you be able to counter an opponent’s key point that Columbus has a questionable history and that his holiday should be celebrated in the Caribbean nations (which he uncovered) and not the United States? In order to refute these claims, you need to be prepared for them and preparing means that you have to keep an open mind to all Columbus evidence as well as the history of conquistadors. This example supports Crowley and Hawhee’s point that “Contemporary debaters [are] preparing all relevant arguments in advance in case they ever need to use them, and to limit as well the chance that a skilled opponent will use an argument they are not prepared to answer” (73).
Lastly, this open-mindedness and interaction of all materials allows the debater, like the astronomer from Ourtown, to move from a generalized debate into a more specific one in which a firm, concrete stance will be reached. For example, the streetlights stay on and the billboards are turned off or the observatory leaves town and the billboards and advertisement companies stay, etc. Thus, the right questions have been asked and the right answer(s) for the time will be given (not to say that in another future generation the question will be asked again and that this time it will have different result or that it will still stay the same). It only matters that at certain times, specific questions will be asked that will challenge, change or uphold a time period’s beliefs, ideals or perspectives. The chapter’s point is that one is to remain open-minded, open to various perspectives on the issue, and willing to ask detailed questions in order to generate a discourse and reach a fuller opinion (ruling or response).
I really enjoyed this chapter! Thought it was very thought-provoking and insightful. Also, I highly recommend Peter Elbow’s text (basically any of Peter Elbow’s books)! I was able to see that cooking is not merely a writing event but that this idea of cooking closely links together writing and debating. I am looking forward to Thursday night’s class!