Kastley and Kroll

I found Kastely's article surprisingly interesting and agreed, at least in theory, with many of his claims. For example, I agree with his claim that many people think that the formal exercise of producing arguments is a charade and subsequently have cynical attitudes toward argument as it is taught in the classroom. We all know, Kastley says, that this is not how people discourse in the real world, and that “argument outside the classroom adheres a different set of rules.” (23) I'm in a philosophy class, and every Monday I'm reminded how true this is. There is something blatantly aggressive and unreflexive about classical arguments, and so when we see, as we all to often do, the “blatant manipulation of discourse by various politicians and corporations”(22), this only underscores our cynicism.

The cynics, Kastley seems to admit, have a point, but this does not mean we need to abandon the argument; rather, we need to re-conceptualize how we understand, use, and teach argumentation. One way we can do this is to use literature (Antigone, for example) as theoretical texts so we can broaden the way we understand argumentation, and address pragmatic,and til now pedagogically unasked, questions such as why-even when logically sound-arguments fail and why people argue in the first place (not why they disagree, but why they engage in the first place in the rhetorical practice of arguing) (39). If we can implement a theoretical scaffolding along these lines, we will able to determine things such as whether or not an argument was “generative” rather that merely see which arguer was victorious. While this sounds a little hokey, I think it gets at a worthwhile point. It casts light on an oft overlooked aspect of arguing, which is that most people attempt, when arguing, to dominate, and very few are willing to “risk understanding”(38).

Ideally,when I teach argument writing, I will stress that one of the most important “victories” one can achieve in arguing is not persuasion, but rather getting the other side to attentively listen to your argument, even if in the end they remain unconvinced.

The perspectives on argument that are presented by Kastely and Kroll are inherent in the theoretical field I work in. Lacanian theory makes claims that are pretty wide-sweeping (and which seem to step on a lot of toes, ranging from those of the cognitive scientists to chomskian linguists). This field is marginalized and jostles for recognition, and this is why some of my favorite writers in the field are those who exemplify Kroll's advice, that one of the most important “victories one can achieve in argument is not vulgar persuasion, but rather getting the other participant to attentively listen to your argument, even if in the end they remain unconvinced.