Can't We All Just Get Along? At Least on Paper?

In Barry Kroll’s article “Arguing Differently” he describes a new form of argumentation that he used with his student writers where instead of making a single argument in an essay, the student is asked to “consider is a conciliatory stance in which the goal is to get people who disagree with you to listen rather than respond defensively… a conciliatory stance toward readers who had opposing viewpoints ,” (38).  In this model, Kroll hopes to avoid beating “both sides” over the heads with counter-argument and offer a “softer” and less “defensive” form of argument based on understanding rather than resistance.  I think this format could work within a discussion, where two parties with differing ideas are present at the table, trying to come to a result.  In this scenario, one party trying to scream over another, as Kroll portrays in his exercises, will not work.  Each party eventually will have to listen to and acknowledge the other’s argument before any resolution can be reached.  In this scenario, I agree with Kroll’s approach. 

However, the scenario changes when the paper replaces the table.  In a paper, the writer isn’t engaging in a traditional conversation, going back-and-forth in the way that an in-person conversation moves, but rather, he is placing all of his thoughts and support of his argument into his paper because once someone reads it, he won’t get the chance to respond immediately.  The conversation of the written argument happens when someone writes a piece responding to the original paper.  That piece too will contain all of writer’s thoughts and support of his argument because he too will not get the chance to respond again as one does in a verbal conversation.  Perhaps the difference between written discourse and spoken discourse is that while you can talk over someone; you can’t write over someone.  You don’t have to remind people to stop writing and read what the other person has written as you would remind someone to shut up and listen. 

In fact, Kroll’s idea isn’t that radical.   Argumentative essays frequently include a counter-argument, but only to break it down and reveal its flaws to support the original argument of the essay.  Furthermore, asking a writer to try to consider the “other side” is to assume that there are only two sides of an argument, which among other things, would go against Kroll’s intent to cultivate decision through understanding.  So what would Kroll say about this?  Ask the student to write a paper where he’s considering each and every perspective of the argument?  In my experience at the writing center, students already try to do this enough.  They try to summarize all of the information that they’ve read into a report that doesn’t say anything other than that they’ve read the material.  Such papers lack the direction that a single argument can provide.

Though I do see some value in Kroll’s argument model--having a student examine an argument in its entirety, detailing all possible perspectives, in order to better understand a concept--I see this value in terms of helping the student write a stronger case for his own argument.  I think the more difficult, and more beneficial skill to teach is how to formulate an argument and provide evidence to support it.  Otherwise, papers lack focus and say nothing.  I don’t believe the point of an argumentative essay is to “win” readers; but rather, to clearly express one point of view that readers can either accept, reject, accept partially, or whatever.  By muddling an argument with multiple perspectives, the reader isn’t given a true impression of the argument; and therefore, isn’t given a true chance to understand it and decide for himself.