We, as a country, only
see an argument or conflict as having two sides: a right and a wrong side. We
don’t know how to think through a problem and discover more angles that we
could possibly think about. We think that because there are no other options, we
have to choose one or the other. This also affects the way that we have learned
how to argue. We see arguments as a war; something to “win” or “lose” at. We
don’t realize that an argument can be a simple conversation, a sort of sparring
match if you will, that by the end we shake hands and have more insight than we
did at the beginning. Argumentation is a way to become less ignorant about an
issue rather than beat your opponent with your words.
In the article A Method for Reading, Writing, and
Thinking Critically by Kathleen McCormick, her general argument is that “…we do
not possess a wide spectrum of ways to adequately understand or negotiate the
complex positions people occupy…” (pg. 21). In simpler terms, we can’t think
for ourselves and so when we see the win or lose, right or wrong, we agree with
one or the other. She also gives us a model for critically analyzing the varied
texts around you, visual or written. We need to break them down through
historical analysis or by cultural analysis. These will help you better think
critically about an issue in the way of connections being made.
I will use the example of being pro-life or pro-choice. I
feel that whenever this issue comes up, you either have to be on one side or
the other. I myself am a fence sitter on the issue. For example, I think it is
ok to get an abortion if you have been raped, either by someone you didn’t know
or by a family member leading to incest, or if the baby will damage the
mother’s health. I don’t think its ok, however, if you simply don’t want the
baby. Adoption would be a better choice in that situation. Personally, I think
abortions are really sad and so inhuman that I would never get an abortion
unless one of the three reasons I gave were specific to my situation.
In the article Argumentation in a Culture of Discord by
Frank L. Cioffi, he uses the idea that we see things in right or wrong, win or
lose, black or white because of the media and that effects the way that we
argue in this country. “Our media do not provide a forum for actual debate.
Instead, they’re a venue for self-promotion and squabbling, for hawking goods,
for infomercials masquerading as news or serious commentary. In terms of
discussing issues, they offer two sides, pick one…” (pg. 63). This ties in that
if we only have two views of an issue or argument, how can we expand the
knowledge of it without broadening our horizons? We won’t be seeing all of the
angles of the problem and therefore probably won’t implement the best way to
solve a problem.
A perfect example I have relates to my online government
class. We are supposed to comment on a message board with our opinion, lately
about super pacs, and then respond to someone else’s post. By doing this we see
a majority of opinions and the reasons why. By reading the reasons why you
start to stray off of your path of thinking onto their path and maybe change
your view about it a little bit. I read a girls post and didn’t even think
about the issue in that way at all and she opened my eyes to that line of
thinking and I was actually excited because I now had another way to look at
something I never would have thought of.
On the other hand, I suppose one might argue that they
have thought about the issue enough to know that only two arguments exist and
there is room for no more. And why in the world would we see an argument as a
polite conversation? The point of an argument, according to some people’s
opinion, is to get the opponent to side with your opinion, because your opinion
is the right opinion. There is no need to see anything in more than black and
white. But that is just other people’s opinions.
No comments:
Post a Comment