What is involved in doing dialogue? Audience adaptation in children's persuasive letters. For Makau and Marty, Cooperative argumentative practice involves a process of reasoned interaction intended to help participants and audiences make the best assessments or the best decisions in any given situation 87. I wanted to present another option, based on a different conception of the open hand. Although I touch on some theoretical issues and refer to the work of scholars who have influenced my thinking, I have avoided a comprehensive review of the literature as well as extensive citations, believing that they would detract from my purpose. My approach—like that of Young, Becker, and Pike—assumes that a writer can enter a dispute with intentions that differ from those that prevail in an argument culture, where goals are usually conceived in terms of winning and losing, defending and defeating, supporting and critiquing, and so forth.
Logan: Utah State University Press, 2013. Some Key Influences When I reflect on the origins of my interest in an open-hand approach to arguing, I go back to the 1970s, when I was a new doctoral student at the University of Michigan. Persuasion Rhetoric —Study and teaching. In short, it would be difficult to regard Kroll's The Open Hand as anything other than a generous offering in the vein that he prescribes here for a reconfigured approach to argumentation. And how might we teach it? Kroll cultivates a bodily investigation of noncombative argument, offering direct pedagogical strategies anchored in three modalities of learning conceptual-procedural, kinesthetic, and contemplative and projects, activities, assignments, informal responses, and final papers for students. Kroll Utah State University Press Logan © 2013 by University Press of Colorado Published by Utah State University Press An imprint of University Press of Colorado 5589 Arapahoe Avenue, Suite 206C Boulder, Colorado 80303 The University Press of Colorado is a proud member of The Association of American University Presses.
And how can we teach that? But I had their attention and seized the opportunity to introduce some features of the course. How is dialogue different from debate or, more importantly, from discussion? A response to Rubin et al. Barry Kroll specializes in the field of CompositionRhetoric. In The Argument Culture, Tannen describes the prevalence of a pervasive warlike atmosphere that makes us approach public dialogue, and just about anything we need to accomplish, as if it were a fight, portraying a culture in which people approach issues with an adversarial frame of mind Tannen 1998, 3. Attentive Listening and Conciliatory Argument 4. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 138, 27- 35.
This article responds to Burleson and Rowan's 1985 discussion of the relationship between social-cognitive ability and writing skill. Later, Debra Hawhee and Donna Strickland reviewed a complete manuscript for Utah State University Press: their insightful comments and thoughtful suggestions improved the final version in numerous respects. At the same time, I am particularly interested in cooperative perspectives on argument because of my focus on disputes and intensive conflicts. Bowing Out Appendix 1: Photographic Illustrations of Movement Sequences Appendix 2: Three Student Papers References About the Author Index Acknowledgments I wrote The Open Hand with the help and support of many individuals. All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America Cover design by Dan Miller Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kroll, Barry M. And the notion that a clap provides a wake-up call resonated with the emphasis on mindful awareness that would permeate the course.
Morihei Ueshiba 1883—1969 , founder of Aikido 1 Clapping In What is the sound of one hand? Kroll cultivates a bodily investigation of noncombative argument, offering direct pedagogical strategies anchored in three modalities of learning—conceptual-procedural, kinesthetic, and contemplative—and projects, activities, assignments, informal responses, and final papers for students. Friends and colleagues have also encouraged my work over the years, particularly my close friends since graduate school, Irvin Hashimoto and John Schafer. The vision for the Rogerian project was to develop a rhetoric that has as its goal not skillful verbal coercion but discussion and exchange of ideas Young, Becker, and Pike 1970, 8. Writing for readers: Three perspectives on audience. And yet none are able to act accordingly. ³ In this course, I explained, we would be exploring the kinds of intense disagreements that arise when people have differing views, values, or goals, and when they have a stake in how those differences get resolved.
Without their wholehearted participation and willing cooperation, there would have been no project and no book. I leave the book, though, with a number of questions about underexamined terms and concepts. In his course Arguing as an Art of Peace, Barry Kroll uses the open hand to represent an alternative approach to argument, asking students to argue in a way that promotes harmony rather than divisiveness and avoiding conventional conflict-based approaches. This hand is neither belligerent nor passive, neither confrontational nor submissive, yet it has within its reach elements of both assertiveness and receptivity. But nearly four decades later, has the situation changed appreciably? Closed Fist, Open Hand The semiotics of fist and palm are complex and multivalent: a closed fist can be used to defend oneself or to protect good causes in peril, whereas an open palm can signal resignation or suggest appeasement.
When they clapped in that first day, students were performing a ritual that anticipated many aspects of their seminar, Arguing as an Art of Peace. Young, Becker, and Pike claimed that the times the late 1960s and early 1970s required a new approach to argument: Perhaps never before in our history, they say, has there been such a need for effective communication, but the old formulations of rhetoric seem inadequate to the times 8—9. I read their work with interest and excitement, particularly the chapter on Rogerian argument, in which the authors posit the need for a new rhetoric. Reframing is useful in situations in which adversarial arguing about positions is likely to occur unless a controlling hand can guide the conversation toward deliberation about issues and options. This practical, engaging, and accessible guide for teachers contains clear examples and compelling discussions of pedagogical strategies that teach students not only how to write persuasively but also how to deal with personal conflict in their daily lives. What is the dialogue process and how might we teach it? The three approaches it explicates are concrete, pragmatic, and seemingly very useful ways of reconfiguring argument so that progress on the issues and the relationships of the disputants might become possible. Quite a few things about this course would, I said, be different from most of their other college classes.
Hence, our focus would be on argumentative conflict, situations in which one could form a combative fist or offer an open palm. The Open Hand There is no one in the world that does not know That the soft prevails over the hard, And the weak prevails over the strong. In my course Arguing as an Art of Peace, I opened class sessions by clapping in with students, a ritual that signaled the beginning of our work for the day. But how do we do that? Instead, I want to explore what it means to argue for common concerns, shared values, mutual benefits, respectful listening, and joint problem solving. Tannen 1998, 3—4 Although Tannen calls attention to the excesses of the argument culture, she refrains from rejecting tactics of the closed fist completely. Effect of mode of communication on the informational adequacy of children's explanations.
In our case, clapping would serve as a call to attention and an announcement that our work was about to begin no invoking of deities, for better or worse. Reframing and Deliberative Argument 3. To begin with, it is a territorial metaphor and thus seems doomed to fail because it reinvokes the whole metaphor of argument-as-war. It means, instead, the search for reasons that will bring about cooperation among people who differ in how they view ideas but who nevertheless need to discover grounds for agreement Gage 2006, 43. As she recognizes, assertive approaches are sometimes warranted: There are times when we need to disagree, criticize, oppose, and attack—to hold debates and view issues as polarized battles Tannen 1998, 26. Research in the Teaching of English, 12, 269- 281.
How, exactly, does it differ from debate? In addition, I linked deliberation to a tactic called reframing, a method that entails shifting the focus of an argument away from points of intense conflict so that careful consideration can, in fact, take place. For that reason, my work stretches in the direction of the approach that Josina Makau and Debian Marty develop in Cooperative Argumentation, in which they aim to teach students not to avoid disagreement, but rather to develop tools for confronting disagreement peacefully, ethically, and effectively Makau and Marty 2001, 8. I decided to write about the experience of teaching the course because I believe that my curriculum, class activities, and pedagogical approach are sufficiently different from traditional ways of teaching argument to merit consideration. ² The project for students in my seminar was to explore how arguing could be conducted with an open hand, as an art of peace. It also indicated the degree to which I would be drawing on Asian arts, ideas, and practices to defamiliarize our work on arguing and provide fresh perspectives from a non-Western tradition.