I don’t want to over-simplify anything, but this reading, to me, helped me understand the consequences of a well prepared argument. Not only is it important for one to consider the logic of one’s argument, it is equally critical to assess the structural apparatus of an argument. In other words, statis gives us a “blue-print” of sorts to assemble a sound rhetorical argument. If rhetoric is a vehicle of knowledge, of building upon ideas and asking further questions beyond the topic of interest, then perhaps statis is the underbelly of this overall process. That is to say, a systematic procedure to unveil one’s contention is equally as important as the argument, itself. Stasis implies a method in which allows for two contending ideas to be argued in a systematic fashion while inhibits—rather than prohibits—the free-flow of thoughts and ideas. In the example given in the book regarding abortion, I believe that Crowley and Hawhee want us to understand that even though 2 conflicting points of view may never cease to exist, the idea of stasis underlies the ability for one to rationalize each argument.
(I feel like I am talking in circles!) I feel like I understand the chapter, but feel even more as though a closer look and a classroom discussion will help me understand the entire concept better.
On a side note, I kind of chuckle to myself remembering an 8th grade debate assignment. My team had been charged with the issue of “pro-hunting versus anti-hunting.” I recall making points about population control, crop damage, etc. A member from the opposing team began an argument about illegal hunting. If we’re introducing the ideals of stasis here, the topic of discussion was not about illegal hunting, it was whether or not an individual has the right to hunt. Therefore, we can apply the method of asking particular questions and making logical (and arguable) statements: Hunting is wrong because killing animals is wrong. Hunting is not wrong because animals do not have the same rights to existence as humans. The point of my memory here is that I can see, now, that any and all points are arguable, but it is most important to make sure there is a linear path to argue (for or against) a particular point. If your opponent says: Hunting is acceptable because it controls animal population; it is probably not a solid argument to say: Hunting is wrong because people kill animals illegally. Those two points do not counterbalance the other—aha! The notion of balance is key. I get it.
I look forward to seeing everyone in class tonight!
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Preparing for Contrary Arguments
In reading chapter 3 about stasis, I was taken back to one of my favorite classes high school: creative writing. It was taught by a very influential teacher named Mr. Miles. It was the heading entitled The Staseis and Contrary Arguments that caused my flashback: "The sophists taught their students how to argue both sides of any question," (Crowley & Hawhee, 73). In the creative writing course, we were told we would have to choose a topic we were very passionate about. Mr. Miles built it up by making it seem like this would be easy - just write about a topic or issue you have strong feelings about. At the right moment Mr. Miles revealed the exact assignment: decide what side of the issue you side with, then write a paper assuming the opposite viewpoint! The entire class buzzed with apprehension, excitement and probably confusion. At first I too was frustrated because I felt very passionately about my topic and now I had to research my argument's opposing view. Throughout the next few weeks we all realized how difficult this actually was. Looking back at it, this was the best assignment any of us would ever receive. In thinking about the recurring example given in the chapter, imagine someone who is pro-life having to argue about abortion from a pro-choice perspective. I can guarantee that this experience would open someone's eyes to the general topic and it would teach someone how to appreciate opposing views.
I'm sure that at the time of this assignment I was understood how this was a way of thinking outside of the box of normal high school assignments. Now that I'm in grad school and I have been in the real world for a few years, I understand just how important this way of approaching life is. It is saying it is OK to have strong beliefs, but be open and understanding of other beliefs and opinions.
As far as a rhetorical invention, preparing for contrary arguments is one of the greatest tools a rhetor can employ.
Also in the chapter, I was especially interested in all of the ways an issue can be stated and how careful a rhetor needs to be to maintain "control" of their stated argument (78-79).
I look forward to discussing this chapter in class tonight!
I'm sure that at the time of this assignment I was understood how this was a way of thinking outside of the box of normal high school assignments. Now that I'm in grad school and I have been in the real world for a few years, I understand just how important this way of approaching life is. It is saying it is OK to have strong beliefs, but be open and understanding of other beliefs and opinions.
As far as a rhetorical invention, preparing for contrary arguments is one of the greatest tools a rhetor can employ.
Also in the chapter, I was especially interested in all of the ways an issue can be stated and how careful a rhetor needs to be to maintain "control" of their stated argument (78-79).
I look forward to discussing this chapter in class tonight!
We should take advice from the ancient rhetors who spent a lot of time preparing for writing and speaking (72). So many individuals and groups are quick to present their opinion, but are lacking a relevant argument. The author of the article, “CAN A FETUS FEEL PAIN?” reminds the public of a concept that is so basic, which supports this notion. There is nothing wrong with people trying to discourage others from participating in activities that oppose their viewpoints. But, when it comes to actually creating laws based on these highly debated topics, it must be based on facts (97). Do our lawmakers actually strictly rely on facts, or do they allow their personal ethical values to play a role in their decision making?
On page 77, the authors make a very interesting point. I used to believe that when or if a couple chooses to get married or procreate that it was a personal issue. The authors state that there is definitely ethical aspects included in these decisions as well because they affect many other people (77). I quickly realized that teachers and a few other professions are held to higher moral and ethical values as opposed to many career choices. As a teacher in a rural, conservative district I have witnessed the reactions of parents and school employees to situations that would fall under these topics. Members of the community may not accept or approve of a teacher living with his or her girlfriend or boyfriend before marriage. I know of another teacher who pulled her daughter out of a classroom of an unmarried pregnant teacher. She did not want her impressionable teen daughter to be influenced by this teacher’s choices. Are there any situations in our society that are strictly private, or are we judged for every decision that we make?
When reading about applying the stasis theory to the first amendment in regards to hateful speech, a current controversial issue comes to mind. Reverend Terry Jones of Florida plans to burn copies of the Quaran on September 11 to mark the 9th anniversary of the terrorist attacks. This act of burning the Quaran is protected by the first amendment; however, despite the legality of this issue, many view it as distasteful. An article published by the Associated Press displays concerns of politicians, military leaders, and ambassadors. They are concerned with the backlash that this act may fuel in regards to anti-US hatred.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100908/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning
According to an article on msnbc.com, Rev. Jones feels as if his first amendment rights are being threatened and plans to follow through despite the negative responses.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39048161/ns/us_news-security
This is such a sticky situation and raises many questions in regards to rhetoric, media coverage, ethics, and rights. Overall, I am not sure that I want to see how this display of American rights pans out.
On page 77, the authors make a very interesting point. I used to believe that when or if a couple chooses to get married or procreate that it was a personal issue. The authors state that there is definitely ethical aspects included in these decisions as well because they affect many other people (77). I quickly realized that teachers and a few other professions are held to higher moral and ethical values as opposed to many career choices. As a teacher in a rural, conservative district I have witnessed the reactions of parents and school employees to situations that would fall under these topics. Members of the community may not accept or approve of a teacher living with his or her girlfriend or boyfriend before marriage. I know of another teacher who pulled her daughter out of a classroom of an unmarried pregnant teacher. She did not want her impressionable teen daughter to be influenced by this teacher’s choices. Are there any situations in our society that are strictly private, or are we judged for every decision that we make?
When reading about applying the stasis theory to the first amendment in regards to hateful speech, a current controversial issue comes to mind. Reverend Terry Jones of Florida plans to burn copies of the Quaran on September 11 to mark the 9th anniversary of the terrorist attacks. This act of burning the Quaran is protected by the first amendment; however, despite the legality of this issue, many view it as distasteful. An article published by the Associated Press displays concerns of politicians, military leaders, and ambassadors. They are concerned with the backlash that this act may fuel in regards to anti-US hatred.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100908/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning
According to an article on msnbc.com, Rev. Jones feels as if his first amendment rights are being threatened and plans to follow through despite the negative responses.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39048161/ns/us_news-security
This is such a sticky situation and raises many questions in regards to rhetoric, media coverage, ethics, and rights. Overall, I am not sure that I want to see how this display of American rights pans out.
The Rhetorical Plot Thickens
Just as rhetoric was beginning to make sense, enter Chapter 3 to complicate the issue. The first section of the reading where
This lends itself to the authors’ point that “most people who are engaged in arguments want to advance their own position as quickly and forcefully as possible… and do not want to take time to find all the available arguments…” (72) How can you have an effective argument or discussion if both sides are not clear on what is being argued?
This seems to be the case in contemporary society, unfortunately on a large scale. The authors use the examples of abortion and hate speech, neither topic on which stasis has been achieved. This lack of general understanding on what parties disagree on brings to mind not only the issue of the proposed building of a Mosque near the Ground Zero site in
And so the plot of rhetoric thickens. While I find a systematic approach to most situations is beneficial, including stasis theory when preparation time for an argument or debate is appropriate, I’m not sure how it would apply to general everyday discourse. Although it would be ideal to understand on or at exactly what point disagreement is taking place, our society rarely takes to time to figure it out.
Week #2 Post
The first section of this week’s reading that caught my attention was the discussion on contrary arguments- good vs. bad. I was just talking about the concept of good vs. evil and about how it’s an underlying theme in a majority of the texts we read and movies we watch. We went through a number of Disney films and discussed how they are, in their most basic form, tales of good vs. evil. We then discussed the concept of good and evil in Beowulf and Anglo-Saxon culture. I showed the students a copy of John Gardner’s Grendel, and summarized the book. These two works support the argument from “Dissoi Logoi” that “good and bad are the same, depending on circumstances and point of view” (Crowley 73). I confess that the inversion of this concept lost me. I struggled to figure out how to invert this concept for the given example.
The next section on level of generalities syncs up with much of the tenth grade curriculum in our district. When we teach persuasive arguments, we spend a considerable amount of time discussing levels of generality and support. It’s an important argumentative (or should I say rhetorical) tool and skill for students to grasp, because I believe it helps them better understand the concept of audience. The textbook’s approach to the concept in “Putting These Distinctions To Work” provides a systematic approach to addressing the needs of an issue and its audience. While it may be too much to tackle for some HS students, I see value in the way the authors break it down for readers.
Stasis theory leaves me with a few questions. While I understand the importance or making sure that each rhetorician is arguing about the same issue, I don’t see how this is possible. It’s not a practical method. Certainly we could place such high expectations on “experts” (but then we’d have to agree on what defines an expert) and on individuals in an academic world, but it doesn’t seem fit for everyday life/people. Aside from being exhaustive, approaching an issue in such a systematic way seems to devalue instinct and they way people naturally respond to a particular issue. I do like the idea of moving through “The Four Questions” as a way of grasping the issue at hand. It’s an effective way of insuring that a discussion progresses and avoids becoming stagnant, but I still don’t know if it’s practical for a day-to-day setting.
The bottom line is I need more time to digest these definitions and I need an opportunity to hear this chapter being discussed. I feel I’m missing some of the essential points, or maybe I’m bogged down by the specificity of it all. Either way, I didn’t conclude this section with a strong grasp on Stasis theory. I see the big picture, and I understand its utility. As I mentioned above, it lacks practicality at this point, and I hope to clear my misunderstandings up in class tonight.
Significance of Answers
The importance of the systematic approach to questioning was firmly established in this chapter. In which, I learned that it is not only the questions asked that matter, but also the timing, specificity, and type that play an important role in serving the rhetor’s argument and really the discussion as a whole. However, the new understanding of the significance of questioning probed me to ask that, if questioning is so important, then do the answers generated even matter?
I say this not because the chapter left me with the impression that the questions were more important than the actual answers they received, but because this conflicted with the initial impression of rhetoric that I established from last week’s reading and class. I thought that rhetoric was the art (or science) of making meaning: “kairos requires that rhetors view writing and speaking as opportunities for exploring issues and making meaning” (48). I thought that the basis for this meaning came from discourse with other people on common topics through the process of invention. I thought that both people were speaking their way to a common understanding or acceptance of the other person’s opinions or even simply talking to solidify their own understanding.
This chapter elevated my original understanding and put it on steroids. I no longer envisioned two rhetors discussing their thoughts to come to an equal understanding, but rather I pictured a boxing ring in which the victor rhetor was the one who came with the most preparation. This preparation allows them to shuck and jive their way through their opponent’s arguments and propositions, essentially running circles around the unprepared logic of the other person.
Is then stasis elitist? Is stasis a method to prove that you are smarter, better, or more adapt than your opponent? Obviously, the answer is no. I understand that stasis can only work if both parties are prepared and have considered both sides to the issue, “seen from the point of two disputants, the stasis marks the place where two opposing forces come together, where they rest or stand in agreement on what is at issue” (72). I understand that stasis is a method to systematically level the playing field and make it so that both parties can approach a topic rationally.
But this then leads me to the question of the first two chapters, how does stasis factor in changing another person’s opinion? How is this possible if both rhetors approach an argument knowing all sides and counter arguments, and still they feel so strongly as to press on with their original position? How can a resolution ever be achieved?
Even in the case of the abortion example, if stasis is achieved and the place of “agreeing to disagree” is established (72), can people truly focus on the logical arguments that they have prepared?
I am left with the current Mosque conflict erupting across the nation. As I type the word citizenship, I can’t help but think of stasis in approaching this topic. Can stasis ever be reached when so much debate is lying simply on the definition of citizenship and civic duty? Is there emotion in stasis? (I am well aware that, in ending this post on a question, I seemingly refute the latter part of my post; however, it undeniably makes me look forward to hearing others’ thoughts in class tonight!)
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
The importance of being in stasis
I found it very interesting how important it is to be in stasis. The example for the topic on abortion was very revealing. It is very clear to me now that the two parts are discussing two different aspects of the same issue. Moreover, according to the authors, the reason why the issue hasn’t been resolved is because it was not in stasis which means that they haven’t agreed on what to disagree.
I think it is very common that this happens in our daily lives discussions. Many times I’ve found myself discussing an issue without being able to get to an agreement and feeling that me and my counter part are speaking in different languages. Now, I think that many of those times the discussion was not in stasis. Most of the times, we think that since we are discussing about the same topic, we are discussing the same issue. However, Crawley and Hawhee help us to make a clear distinction between those two situations. In order to develop a good argument that in addition will lead to a resolution, we need to agree on what specific issue we are disagreeing.
While reading the stasis theory and the cases used to exemplify it, I realized how useful the questions are to really achieve stasis, to clarify ones mind about the subject and especially think about the assumptions and values shared by members of the audience. (72).
As the authors state, this technique is important because it helps us to recognize that there are always two sides to every argument and that people can change their minds about the issues. Moreover, it can reveal that there are more than two sides to any issue.
Reading this chapter and especially the example about abortion, made me think about an issue I’ve been thinking about for a while and which has started discussions with friends and my partner as well. The discussion is about having children or not. I am sure most people will have strong positions about this issue. Especially because, in my opinion, it is a visceral and instinctive subject. Most of us don’t really rationalize this decision, but rather feel it or let it happen. I would like to try and follow the method systematically as suggested to see what happens.
The question about having children can be, as with most subjects, theoretical or practical. The main practical question in this case would be: should people have children or not? A theoretical question would ask for the right reasons for having children.
Following the conjectural, definition, quality and policy questions, one can ask about the subject questions such as: should people in the US have children? (In this case the answer would be completely different if you asked the question about a country like Denmark where most of the population is elderly. Or in a country such as China where there is overpopulation.) What are the implications and consequences of having children in the 21st century? Is it appropriate or inappropriate to have children at a certain age? Is it necessary for humanity that people have children? In what circumstances is it appropriate to have them? Should the governments regulate the number of children a couple can have as it happens in China?
Off course, I can stay here writing questions forever. However, the question that concern me the most about the subject is whether or not people actually should think about having children or if they should just follow their instincts. Should people review if their current partner would be a good parent? Should they review their current financial situation? Should they evaluate if they are willing to commit to this enterprise for the rest of their lives? Should they revise if they are the kind of people that are willing to sacrifice their comfort to benefit someone else well being? Or as many people say, they should not think about these questions because if they do they will never have them...
In any case, the questions method helped me to clear my mind about the discussion. I am sure that in future discussions my speech will be more structured than that of my counter parts who haven’t done the exercise. I will have more arguments because I have explored different stands on the subject. Moreover, if I took the time to answer each of this questions, I would have many reasons to support my stand because I will have had developed each idea fully. And most importantly, I will be able to point out to them that we need to be in stasis when having the conversation and decide what specific issue it is that we are going to discuss.
I think it is very common that this happens in our daily lives discussions. Many times I’ve found myself discussing an issue without being able to get to an agreement and feeling that me and my counter part are speaking in different languages. Now, I think that many of those times the discussion was not in stasis. Most of the times, we think that since we are discussing about the same topic, we are discussing the same issue. However, Crawley and Hawhee help us to make a clear distinction between those two situations. In order to develop a good argument that in addition will lead to a resolution, we need to agree on what specific issue we are disagreeing.
While reading the stasis theory and the cases used to exemplify it, I realized how useful the questions are to really achieve stasis, to clarify ones mind about the subject and especially think about the assumptions and values shared by members of the audience. (72).
As the authors state, this technique is important because it helps us to recognize that there are always two sides to every argument and that people can change their minds about the issues. Moreover, it can reveal that there are more than two sides to any issue.
Reading this chapter and especially the example about abortion, made me think about an issue I’ve been thinking about for a while and which has started discussions with friends and my partner as well. The discussion is about having children or not. I am sure most people will have strong positions about this issue. Especially because, in my opinion, it is a visceral and instinctive subject. Most of us don’t really rationalize this decision, but rather feel it or let it happen. I would like to try and follow the method systematically as suggested to see what happens.
The question about having children can be, as with most subjects, theoretical or practical. The main practical question in this case would be: should people have children or not? A theoretical question would ask for the right reasons for having children.
Following the conjectural, definition, quality and policy questions, one can ask about the subject questions such as: should people in the US have children? (In this case the answer would be completely different if you asked the question about a country like Denmark where most of the population is elderly. Or in a country such as China where there is overpopulation.) What are the implications and consequences of having children in the 21st century? Is it appropriate or inappropriate to have children at a certain age? Is it necessary for humanity that people have children? In what circumstances is it appropriate to have them? Should the governments regulate the number of children a couple can have as it happens in China?
Off course, I can stay here writing questions forever. However, the question that concern me the most about the subject is whether or not people actually should think about having children or if they should just follow their instincts. Should people review if their current partner would be a good parent? Should they review their current financial situation? Should they evaluate if they are willing to commit to this enterprise for the rest of their lives? Should they revise if they are the kind of people that are willing to sacrifice their comfort to benefit someone else well being? Or as many people say, they should not think about these questions because if they do they will never have them...
In any case, the questions method helped me to clear my mind about the discussion. I am sure that in future discussions my speech will be more structured than that of my counter parts who haven’t done the exercise. I will have more arguments because I have explored different stands on the subject. Moreover, if I took the time to answer each of this questions, I would have many reasons to support my stand because I will have had developed each idea fully. And most importantly, I will be able to point out to them that we need to be in stasis when having the conversation and decide what specific issue it is that we are going to discuss.
Making an Argument in Contemporary Society
As I wrote last week, the United States has become a nation where disagreement, in the truest sense of the word, is discouraged. Instead, it is replaced by faux arguments done only to draw ratings and appeal to only the most surface-level logic of each side. In the reading for this week, a theory is examined that requires substantial use of empathy in order to discern the best possible argument, amongst other uses.
This theory, known as stasis theory, implores rhetors to first be certain they are discussing the same topic at the outset of an argument. Stasis theory contends that, until stasis (an agreement to disagree, so to speak) is achieved, no true discourse can take place. The example of an abortion debate is used to solidify this point, as the text aptly points out no Pro-Lifer would say they’re anti-choice and vice versa.
On the surface, I feel the theory itself is very sound. My issue, however, is with one of the points used to describe the product of all the work one would have to do if using stasis theory in preparation for a discussion. At first glance, the point I’m going to take issue with will make me sound completely absurd, but within the context I’ll examine it, I think several of my colleagues might agree.
“2: Forces them to think about the assumptions and values shared by members of their targeted audience.” (72)
I know what you’re thinking – “How could this possibly be a bad thing?” Well, when used within the way described in the text, this sort of thinking is not only harmless, but productive as well. On a macro level, however, we’ve gone beyond the usage Crowley & Hawhee outline for us. As a culture, we are so careful not to offend or step on anyone’s toes anymore that it is difficult for anyone to pose an original thought, much less a poignant argument.
I could easily illustrate to the many examples in politics, entertainment and journalism that make this point. The corporate (non-FCC) restrictions placed on talk radio alone (heaven forbid someone hear the term “douchebag” on the air) are enough to make any fan of the First Amendment uncomfortable. The recent backlash to boxer Floyd Mayweather’s YouTube rant on would-be opponent Manny Pacquiao, though, is one of the most revolting displays of kowtowing in media I’ve seen without politics involved.
For those unfamiliar, Mayweather and Pacquiao have been trying to work out a deal to meet in the ring, a prospect that would bring each man (and their respective promoters, as well as the sport itself) millions of dollars in pay-per-view revenue. When negotiations stalled and started becoming unsportsmanlike, Mayweather unleashed this (poorly-mixed) tirade in reference to Pacquiao.
Granted, it wasn’t a nice way to say things, but is it really all that bad? Yes, it’s relatively racist. But Mayweather is a boxer. Their entire job is to sell the conflicts they create. That’s what Mayweather is doing here. He knows he’ll eventually fight Pacquiao. With this kind of an insult, he’s insured that he’ll create more controversy, and thus more buys, from people wanting to see the confrontation.
It’s certainly not worth some of the backlash it has received. Kevin Iole, one of Yahoo! Sports’ boxing experts, wrote this piece condemning all things Mayweather in the wake of the incident. I would pick out one or two condescending quotes Iole used, but it would be doing a disservice to the fantastic way he looks down his nose in no less than 700 words. Iole is a perfect representative of the way this country loves to scold someone when they offend someone else. The days of turning the dial when we hear something we don’t like, as media pundit Sean Hannity suggests, are sadly behind us.
Stepping on the toes of others has become so taboo in this society that it cost Don Imus, a man who is an institution in broadcast radio, his job. The fact that Imus was fired in the midst of a telethon to raise money for children with blood disease and cancer just shows that we’ve prioritized the possible hurt feelings of others above giving back to others, something Imus did with his wife for years. All over a throwaway term like “nappy-headed hoe.” Perfectly rational, right?
Lastly, there was an incident with Tiger Woods in 2007 that perfectly illustrates the issue I’m trying to raise. In a roundtable discussion, Golf Channel analyst Kelly Tilghman made the mistake (in jest) of suggesting several golfers get together and “…lynch [Woods) in a back alley.” She apologized for the remark the following day on the network, and was still suspended two weeks for the transgression. Even Tiger himself came out in defense of Tilghman immediately following the comments, stating through his agent that “"We know unequivocally that there was no ill intent in her comments."
Such statements weren’t good enough, of course, and Tilghman continued to serve her suspension while Rev. Al Sharpton and his “congregation” protested the Golf Channel’s decision not to fire her outright.
This kind of attitude has to cease for stasis theory not to be viewed as a double-edged sword. It certainly must be done away with for us to be able to have insightful and meaningful discussions, especially about contentious issues. If we can’t do that, what hope can we have for resolution?
Well, at least no one’s feelings will be hurt.
This theory, known as stasis theory, implores rhetors to first be certain they are discussing the same topic at the outset of an argument. Stasis theory contends that, until stasis (an agreement to disagree, so to speak) is achieved, no true discourse can take place. The example of an abortion debate is used to solidify this point, as the text aptly points out no Pro-Lifer would say they’re anti-choice and vice versa.
On the surface, I feel the theory itself is very sound. My issue, however, is with one of the points used to describe the product of all the work one would have to do if using stasis theory in preparation for a discussion. At first glance, the point I’m going to take issue with will make me sound completely absurd, but within the context I’ll examine it, I think several of my colleagues might agree.
“2: Forces them to think about the assumptions and values shared by members of their targeted audience.” (72)
I know what you’re thinking – “How could this possibly be a bad thing?” Well, when used within the way described in the text, this sort of thinking is not only harmless, but productive as well. On a macro level, however, we’ve gone beyond the usage Crowley & Hawhee outline for us. As a culture, we are so careful not to offend or step on anyone’s toes anymore that it is difficult for anyone to pose an original thought, much less a poignant argument.
I could easily illustrate to the many examples in politics, entertainment and journalism that make this point. The corporate (non-FCC) restrictions placed on talk radio alone (heaven forbid someone hear the term “douchebag” on the air) are enough to make any fan of the First Amendment uncomfortable. The recent backlash to boxer Floyd Mayweather’s YouTube rant on would-be opponent Manny Pacquiao, though, is one of the most revolting displays of kowtowing in media I’ve seen without politics involved.
For those unfamiliar, Mayweather and Pacquiao have been trying to work out a deal to meet in the ring, a prospect that would bring each man (and their respective promoters, as well as the sport itself) millions of dollars in pay-per-view revenue. When negotiations stalled and started becoming unsportsmanlike, Mayweather unleashed this (poorly-mixed) tirade in reference to Pacquiao.
Granted, it wasn’t a nice way to say things, but is it really all that bad? Yes, it’s relatively racist. But Mayweather is a boxer. Their entire job is to sell the conflicts they create. That’s what Mayweather is doing here. He knows he’ll eventually fight Pacquiao. With this kind of an insult, he’s insured that he’ll create more controversy, and thus more buys, from people wanting to see the confrontation.
It’s certainly not worth some of the backlash it has received. Kevin Iole, one of Yahoo! Sports’ boxing experts, wrote this piece condemning all things Mayweather in the wake of the incident. I would pick out one or two condescending quotes Iole used, but it would be doing a disservice to the fantastic way he looks down his nose in no less than 700 words. Iole is a perfect representative of the way this country loves to scold someone when they offend someone else. The days of turning the dial when we hear something we don’t like, as media pundit Sean Hannity suggests, are sadly behind us.
Stepping on the toes of others has become so taboo in this society that it cost Don Imus, a man who is an institution in broadcast radio, his job. The fact that Imus was fired in the midst of a telethon to raise money for children with blood disease and cancer just shows that we’ve prioritized the possible hurt feelings of others above giving back to others, something Imus did with his wife for years. All over a throwaway term like “nappy-headed hoe.” Perfectly rational, right?
Lastly, there was an incident with Tiger Woods in 2007 that perfectly illustrates the issue I’m trying to raise. In a roundtable discussion, Golf Channel analyst Kelly Tilghman made the mistake (in jest) of suggesting several golfers get together and “…lynch [Woods) in a back alley.” She apologized for the remark the following day on the network, and was still suspended two weeks for the transgression. Even Tiger himself came out in defense of Tilghman immediately following the comments, stating through his agent that “"We know unequivocally that there was no ill intent in her comments."
Such statements weren’t good enough, of course, and Tilghman continued to serve her suspension while Rev. Al Sharpton and his “congregation” protested the Golf Channel’s decision not to fire her outright.
This kind of attitude has to cease for stasis theory not to be viewed as a double-edged sword. It certainly must be done away with for us to be able to have insightful and meaningful discussions, especially about contentious issues. If we can’t do that, what hope can we have for resolution?
Well, at least no one’s feelings will be hurt.
Teaching stasis theory effectively
The rhetorical device that uses stasis questions to find the point of argument (disagreement) seems a useful tool, but its potential for adding complexity to the argumentative task also seems evident. Perhaps this is why many of the contemporary texts that I have seen that are used to teach argument and, more specifically, the concept of stasis, whittle the discussion and examples down to the just the four primary questions devised by ancient rhetors, typically presented in this way: fact (did something happen), definition (what is the nature of the thing/issue), quality (what is the quality of the thing/issue), and proposal (what should be done about the thing/issue).
One of the first problems that can occur when the stasis theory is given such a rudimentary explanation is student confusion over what is up for disagreement. Take, for example, the substitution of the word FACT for what the ancients termed conjecture, which connotes an uncertainty and thus establishes the presence of or at least potential for disagreement. For many students, even when the explanation of the stasis theory confirms a disagreement over facts, the term FACT, itself, suggests a certainty and, therefore, misleads students to assume that no disagreement can exist at this level. (Perhaps this relates to some of my comments in a previous blog regarding society’s reliance on facts.)
Beyond this, many of these texts do not pursue a discussion on the purpose of and need for elaboration of the four basic questions, leaving students shortchanged by the invention process. The stasis questions are presented as a way into argument rather than as a means toward digging deeper into an issue to see the many perspectives available and establishing one’s own position and the evidence and proofs available to support it.
When students begin to apply the four stasis questions in an effort to confirm the type of argument they have and the point of disagreement, they stop short of seeing the possibilities that exist within their argumentative stance. What often results then are arguments that merely revisit previous arguments, addressing the same points of contention that have been presented, chewed on and spit back out time and time again. Or, this elementary form of questioning gets students started on the right track with an issue, focusing on a specific point of contention, but then finds them branching out into other aspects of the issue because they’ve run out of things to say that expand on this point. This causes their argument to take a different direction altogether, resulting in an argument that attempts to do so much that it fails to really do anything. I guess what I am referring to is students not really being able to isolate clearly enough the thrust of their argument and then arguing an issue from such a broad stance that to do it justice would require a much lengthier discussion (I think points to what Crowley and Hawhee suggested can occur when the questions we generate about an issue are too general).
Perhaps this is why I appreciated Crowley and Hawhee’s discussion about the elaboration of the stasis questions. The authors make it clear in both explanation and examples that the questioning process is neither simple nor straightforward, although it is systematic, with each subsequent question relying on the answer to the previous question.
This chapter has made me stop to think about the importance of extending the discussion of stasis theory to include this more critical and generative questioning process, even if the current text in use does not.
Yet to do so presents new problems, which I alluded to in my opening thoughts—namely, how to teach students to question more deeply, more critically, and not get lost within the complexity of some of the issues they might choose to broach and then how to get them to actually engage in a process that does just this. Arguing effectively is difficult, time-consuming work, fraught with twists and turns and even changes in the direction of one’s thinking. Can I motivate the students to be willing to do this? How?
Another challenge is to get these students to ask not just more questions but the right questions and to be willing to open their minds to the possibility that by asking these questions they might be forced to change perspectives. Complex indeed, for both teacher and student.
And so I am left to ponder ways that I can approach teaching the concept of stasis theory more effectively. I look forward to our discussion of this chapter and hope it will elicit some possibilities.
One of the first problems that can occur when the stasis theory is given such a rudimentary explanation is student confusion over what is up for disagreement. Take, for example, the substitution of the word FACT for what the ancients termed conjecture, which connotes an uncertainty and thus establishes the presence of or at least potential for disagreement. For many students, even when the explanation of the stasis theory confirms a disagreement over facts, the term FACT, itself, suggests a certainty and, therefore, misleads students to assume that no disagreement can exist at this level. (Perhaps this relates to some of my comments in a previous blog regarding society’s reliance on facts.)
Beyond this, many of these texts do not pursue a discussion on the purpose of and need for elaboration of the four basic questions, leaving students shortchanged by the invention process. The stasis questions are presented as a way into argument rather than as a means toward digging deeper into an issue to see the many perspectives available and establishing one’s own position and the evidence and proofs available to support it.
When students begin to apply the four stasis questions in an effort to confirm the type of argument they have and the point of disagreement, they stop short of seeing the possibilities that exist within their argumentative stance. What often results then are arguments that merely revisit previous arguments, addressing the same points of contention that have been presented, chewed on and spit back out time and time again. Or, this elementary form of questioning gets students started on the right track with an issue, focusing on a specific point of contention, but then finds them branching out into other aspects of the issue because they’ve run out of things to say that expand on this point. This causes their argument to take a different direction altogether, resulting in an argument that attempts to do so much that it fails to really do anything. I guess what I am referring to is students not really being able to isolate clearly enough the thrust of their argument and then arguing an issue from such a broad stance that to do it justice would require a much lengthier discussion (I think points to what Crowley and Hawhee suggested can occur when the questions we generate about an issue are too general).
Perhaps this is why I appreciated Crowley and Hawhee’s discussion about the elaboration of the stasis questions. The authors make it clear in both explanation and examples that the questioning process is neither simple nor straightforward, although it is systematic, with each subsequent question relying on the answer to the previous question.
This chapter has made me stop to think about the importance of extending the discussion of stasis theory to include this more critical and generative questioning process, even if the current text in use does not.
Yet to do so presents new problems, which I alluded to in my opening thoughts—namely, how to teach students to question more deeply, more critically, and not get lost within the complexity of some of the issues they might choose to broach and then how to get them to actually engage in a process that does just this. Arguing effectively is difficult, time-consuming work, fraught with twists and turns and even changes in the direction of one’s thinking. Can I motivate the students to be willing to do this? How?
Another challenge is to get these students to ask not just more questions but the right questions and to be willing to open their minds to the possibility that by asking these questions they might be forced to change perspectives. Complex indeed, for both teacher and student.
And so I am left to ponder ways that I can approach teaching the concept of stasis theory more effectively. I look forward to our discussion of this chapter and hope it will elicit some possibilities.
Monday, September 6, 2010
“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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)