Teaching Argumentation Existentially: Argumentation Pedagogy and Theories of Rhetoric as Epistemic.

Teaching an introductory course in argumentation can be a highly exciting and rewarding experience. We see students learn research skills, logical fallacies, and methods of refutation, and transform themselves in the course of a few short weeks into practitioners of the art of debate. My experiences as a debater and my brief foray into debate coaching left a fondness for the form and substance of that activity. I often find that same fondness in the assumptions and methods of introductory argumentation texts. However, the disparity between our rhetorical theories and teaching practice is increasingly disturbing. This is especially the case with the teaching of argumentation. Put simply, contemporary argumentation pedagogy is out of step with rhetorical theory. In order to bridge the gap we might consider infusing basic argumentation pedagogy with the perspectives of existential thinkers. This may create a more inclusive and dialogic model for argumentation and argumentation pedagogy. Robert L. Scott's theory of rhetoric as epistemic and Friedrich Nietzsche's writings provide ample foundation for an existential model of teaching argumentation. Scott's theory has been a dominant theme in rhetorical studies for many years (Zarefsky 177). Similarly, Nietzsche was influential in Scott's own work ("Rhetoric as Epistemic" 17) and has been an increasing presence in the communication discipline (see Desilet; Haynes-Burton; Porter; Thomas; Whitson and Poulakos). This essay seeks a rapprochement between these theories of rhetoric as epistemic and basic argumentation pedagogy. This rapprochement requires that we modify what we think of as argumentation to move away from the hegemony of a particular rationality toward a more pluralist view of argumentation. I begin this project by specifying certaIn assumptions in basic argumentation texts and argumentation pedagogy literature as representative of basic argumentation pedagogy. I then revisit these ideas from the lens of rhetoric as epistemic to shape an existential view of argumentation. From this re-vision of argumentation, I conclude by outlining some ideas for teaching argumentation that might represent existential argumentation pedagogy. Existentialism, as a starting point, is not argumentation's panacea. It is also not the only way that we might reconsider argumentation. However, existentialism is particularly appropriate to this project as it seeks to unseat rationalism and foundationalism without losing sight of reasoning and ethics. Both Scott and Nietzsche are excellent examples of existentialists who continue to embrace reasoning and to struggle with questions of ethics while recognizing rhetoric's epistemic function and the contingency of human knowledge. Trends and Tendencies in Argumentation Pedagogy Omar Swartz notes a gap between rhetorical theory and basic communication course pedagogy ("Interdisciplinary" 130). Edward Schiappa similarly notes that while rhetorical theory proliferates, there is only a minimal attempt to explore its pedagogical implications (145). Both Schiappa and Swartz call upon communication educators to "ponder the connection between their theoretical insights and their classroom habits" (Schiappa 146). My dissatisfaction with my own teaching practice led me to collect journal essays on argumentation pedagogy and basic argumentation and debate textbooks (Corcoran; Freeley; Hollihan and Baaske; Infante; Perella; Rieke and Sillars; Rybacki and Rybacki; Winebrenner). Looking to these sources for a way to revise my own pedagogical practices, I found four common premises in my practice and argumentation pedagogy more generally that disturbed me. First, argumentation texts favor a particular logical model of reasoning: a Western linear mode of logic. Second, there is an implicit assumption of the need to know the truth before engaging in argument. Third, these texts approach argumentation and debate from an oppositional model. …