As Kastely imparts Antigone’s narrative in his article he describes Creon one who, “fears and resists argument, because argument entails surrender of his personal authority and control,” (225). I think this lost line encapsulates many people’s, many student’s, reticence towards any form of argument, Kastely’s very much included. I think many people—fictional or not—regard argument as a battle where there is a chance of winning or losing. By avoiding argument, one can never truly lose under this philosophy. Kastely’s model of argument occludes the notion of winning or losing and urges a form of argumentation where both parties are open and accepting of the other’s criticism of their argument, if not directly seeking out this criticism. From a writing center perspective, I have many tutees whose thesis statements, or main arguments, are weak or flawed. Though they might not always request it directly, when they come in for appointments with me, they’re actually asking me to engage in Kastely’s form of argument—as opposed to trying to win some kind of argument battle—and provide them with criticism of their argument so that it can be made stronger. By playing Devil’s Advocate I can help strengthen an argument. This is what I see as the primary purpose of Kastely’s model for argument—to take it through a kind of peer review process so that it can be improved. This is easier when I have no real stake in the argument as a tutor, but I believe this is the gist of Kastely’s model.
Maybe I just have peer review on the brain since it’s the topic of my exploratory paper, but I’ll roll with it. This idea of argumentative improvement through critical peer review reminds me of an example from my research; a student writes an essay of the benefits of affirmative action and the peer reviewer criticizes the crux of the argument, saying that he fundamentally disagrees with it because as a Caucasian male, he’s witnessed affirmative action take away jobs from his family. This criticism has nothing to do with rhetoric of the first student’s argument, but rather with the basis of the argument itself. The example then details how this first student takes this criticism and applies it to his argument to make it stronger. What really happens is that he alters his argument to incorporate the peer reviewer’s concerns and offers his own criticism to his counter-argument, asking how many minorities have lost jobs to Caucasian males prior to affirmative action. In this example both parties involved in the argument are invested in it, and don’t want to yield their ground, yet this model for peer review forces them into a discourse over it. I don’t know how much stronger this criticism through discourse necessarily makes the first student’s argument, but from discourse, understanding may be achieved, which is what I think Kastley’s intent is with this model. Ultimately, this is the example that Kastely sees applicable to Creon and Antigone’s situation. Although I don’t know if either pair—the student and peer reviewer, or Creon and Antigone—would be rational enough to attain understanding from such heated discourse.
Okay, so I'm basically 180-ing from my blog post about Kastely, but I think there is something useful to the article now. I was listening to a podcast, one of those iTunes U things, where the instructor was talking about argument. She used "Argument Clinic" from Monty Python to show how people can confuse argument with contradiction, or think that contradiction is the only form of argument. Occasionally I'll have students at the writing center who react badly when I ask them what their argument is. They don't see their thesis/stance/what have you as an argument. I've since changed my vocab, but it is interesting that students still tend to think of arguments as only contradictions.
ReplyDelete