Inviting Constructive Argument

Argument theories are often expressions of our highest hopes, embodiments of our dreams for a better world (Willard, 1989, p. 6). University courses in argumentation appeal to students and administrators because of a two-fold promise. They are said to equip students to advocate in the "real world," and they purport to teach all-important (if often ill-defined) "critical thinking skills." Too often, however, students and educators have found that classroom practice fails to prepare students for the demands they face outside the classroom. While the skills taught in argumentation and debate classes are useful, few individuals find themselves in situations that call for a courtroom style of advocacy, since often they find themselves needing to bridge opposition and negotiate for solutions to shared problems. These responses to conflict typically are eschewed in argumentation classes because they fail to fit within the traditional mode of "debate." Instead, students are more likely to encounter strategies for compromise and problem-solving in interpersonal and group communication courses. Not only does this omission do students a disservice , it also unnecessarily limits the development of new argumentation styles and strategies. A brief examination of textbooks for argumentation and debate classes reveals that despite recent challenges from feminist, rhetorical, and social scientific theory, current argumentation pedagogy is not much different from what always has been taught in communication classes. Tindell's (1999) review of argumentation and debate textbooks places them in three categories: those emphasizing logic/critical thinking, those emphasizing academic debate, and those balancing critical thinking/logic and academic debate. The approach to argument represented in the texts Tindell (1999) examines is one in which arguers are cast either as opponents or as critical consumers of public discourse. To be an exemplary arguer is to use logic strategically, avoid fallacious reasoning, and win over one's audience. Although some texts begin to challenge dominant conceptualizations of argument, alternative notions often are undertheorized and pragmatic tips for classroom incorporation are omitted. Kells's (1999) review of Emmel, Resc h, and Tenney's (1996) Argument Revisited: Argument Redefined: Negotiating Meaning in the Composition Classroom notes that although the authors present a feminist notion of argument characterized by self inquiry, the "distinguishing features" of this "proposal for a new feminist approach to argument remain largely undefined [and] undeveloped" (p. 194). This essay examines current trends in communication scholarship which suggest that cooperative or collaborative modes of argumentation should be more explicitly included in argument pedagogy. We develop the notion of "constructive argument" for both theoretical and pedagogic purposes. By broadening the theoretical understanding of what argument is, or can be, we lay the foundation for teaching argumentation in new and useful ways. Argumentation often is characterized as an adversarial activity governed by war metaphors and infused with a win-lose ideology (Annas & Tenney, 1996; Fulkerson, 1996; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Palczewski, 1996; Wolf, 1993). Although much critical ground has been covered in honing competitive techniques of argumentation, scholars also have long been preoccupied with crafting cooperative or collaborative notions of argument that cast arguers in the role of partners rather than combatants (Brockriede, 1972; Burke, 1969; Fulkerson, 1996, and works cited therein; Johannesen, 1971). The partnership model of argument has garnered scholarly attention, but has not been absorbed into the classroom as readily as has the competitive debate model. The discussion about which modes of argument are most productive has been revived recently in response to an essay by Foss and Griffin (1995), in which the authors propose an invitational model of rhetoric as an alternative to patriarchal modes of persuasion that have informed an d governed rhetorical studies since the classical era. …