Experimenting with Argument

I think both James L. Kastely and Barry M. Kroll encourage the writer to approach disagreements differently; to be more specific, using disagreements as a resource to complicate and expand one’s arguments and opinions. Kastely proposes “conceiving argument as a particular type of inquiry in which disagreement becomes a resource for exploring both personal and political identity” (223). Kroll also shares this sentiment by arguing that the writer can approach disagreements in ways that are “conciliatory, integrative, and deliberative” (54). I do think that their propositions are helpful in a way that they broaden my view of what argument can be. Argument is not simply a game in which one wins or loses, one succeeds in persuading or fails to change the opponent’s mind. It implies negotiation, mediation, recognition (of other’s views), and exploration (of solutions and possibilities).

     I was thinking how I can use their arguments in my class. First, of course, I have to let my students know that one can approach argument in various ways. Challenging my students’ imagination of what argument can be is the first step. Here, I think I can offer some texts and examples that demonstrate the possibility of alternative approaches to argument. In fact, I think there are more forms of arguments than those mentioned in these two authors’ articles. For example, I once read an article which presented powerful and potent argument in a way that is not “critical” but simply “descriptive.” I think I can show my students some paragraphs that make convincing argument without following traditional models (for example, formalist approach).

    Also, allowing students to experiment with their argument is also important. This is not to say that students can randomly write what they want, but they are offered some flexibility. If an instructor emphasizes how important it is to strictly obey the patterns of “classical argument,” then I do not think students would like to take the risk of incorporating or considering disagreements or conflicts. I actually think that exploratory essay or synthesis essay is a good point of departure where students are trained to take different points of view into consideration.

    Even though I think these two authors’ arguments are helpful, there is one point I have to be careful about. When I was reading Kroll’s article, I felt that there was an imposition of “harmony” going on in his argument about arguing differently. Since we are dealing with “controversial” issues, I do not think it is always necessary to come up with some “common interests,” “shared goals” or “compatible values” in integrative or deliberative argument. I think the question of how to avoid this harmonization and at the same time argue differently (not in an attempt to defeat someone) can be a challenging one.