Tag: agonistic

Tough Room

/ dmueller / 2 Comments

Last week’s This American Life on Tough Rooms has been lingering in the back of my mind since I heard it—again, as a podcast to make time pass on the elliptical. The first segment on headline-invention meetings at The Onion struck me at the time as a fantastic clip for orienting the ENGL121 students I will have in the spring to the idea of entering the conversation. As usual, I’m mildly conflicted (and I have the luxury of time before this conflict must be resolved): it’s a bit more agonistic than irenic, but I am still thinking about its possibilities for framing how some of our in-class discussions could go. The idea of tough rooms could also be a useful counterpart to echo chambers. Could the two be joined to suggest a spectrum that has different consequences on either extreme—too much believing or too much doubting?

I’ve also been thinking about a sequence in ENGL121 that would adopt in turn composing logics associated with Grammar A (conventions; writing mythos; “Inventing the University”), Grammar B (Winston Weathers; crots), and Grammar <a> (Rice; networks; hypertext). I don’t know yet how I would position the three in relation, but I can faintly imagine a promising sequence that would help us gain traction on their differences, their respective strengths and limitations, etc.

Cooper/George/Lynch, 1998, “Moments of Argument”

/ dmueller

 Cooper,
Marilyn, Diana George, and Dennis Lynch. “Moments of Argument: Agonistic
Inquiry and Confrontational Cooperation.” On Writing Research: The Braddock Essays, 1975-1998.
Ed. Lisa Ede. New York: Bedford St. Martin’s, 1999. 390-412.

Big Idea
George, Cooper and Lynch, teaching from Michigan Tech, call for more
sophisticated argument pedagogies in this essay.  They begin by waving off
the slew of textbooks that introduce argument as a simplistic binary, a scheme
of either/or, right and wrong, often setting up hypothetical tensions and
straw-thin oppositions.  The trio historicizes cooperative models for
argument, juxtaposing them with caustic models.  They invoke Susan Jarratt,
citing, at length, her call for "composition instructors to rethink their
objections to agonistic rhetoric and conflict-based pedagogy" (391), and
John Gage, for his concern that "the real conflicts are already there at
the outset of a disagreement" and that teachers ought to draw students
toward cooperative, collaborative interchanges toward a shared sense of social
resolve (394).  The authors also acknowledge the rootedness of their
central research question–toward an improved model of argument in writing
pedagogy–in their own teaching.  To that end, George, Cooper and Lynch,
propose the blend of "agonistic inquiry" and "confrontational
cooperation" so that teachers and students might see "argumentation as
a crucial social responsibility–an activity that requires us to position
ourselves within complicated and interconnected issues" (411). 

Monday Morning
Before wrapping these notes up and putting them to blog (this is the bit I’m
doing last), just wanted to make a few pieces about my experiences teaching
argument as argument.  Once I inherited an argument-based course. 
Last minute appointment, two-alarm shortage.  Usual adjunct drill.  The syllabus was already written (ugh!) and the text already ordered.  I don’t remember the name of the textbook, but I do recall its onerous simplicity with respect to polarized arguments.  

Sample assignment: Pick a side:  For war or for peace.  Go.  

Continue reading →