space for nonadversarial

we cannot avoid arguing why an idea is wrong. Yet even in my position

on Iraq, there is, in fact, some space for nonadversarial argument. I can

talk about the advantages of not invading Iraq—and not try to refute for

invasion. In this way, I would increase the chances of my opponent

actually hearing my arguments.

The general principle is this: If all I have to offer are negative reasons

why the other person’s idea is bad, I’ll probably make less progress than if

I can give some positive reasons for my alternative idea—and even

acknowledge why the other person might favor her idea. (For more on

nonadversarial argument, see my “Introduction” xviii-xxiii.)

I can end by glancing back at the inkblots. Arguments that look

conflicting might both be somehow valid or right. They might need to be

articulated better or seen from a larger view—a view the disputants

haven’t yet figured out. I may be convinced that someone else’s idea is

dead wrong, but if I’m willing to play the believing game with it, I will not

only set a good example, I may even be able to see how we are both

on the right track. Nonadversarial argument and the believing game

help us work out larger frames of reference and better ideas.

Works Cited

Elbow, Peter. “Appendix Essay. The Doubting Game and the Believing

Game: An Analysis of the Intellectual Process.” In Writing Without

Teachers. Oxford University Press, 1973. 147-91.

—. “Bringing the Rhetoric of Assent and The Believing Game Together–

and into the Classroom.” College English 67.4 (March 2005): 388-99.

—. Introduction. Everyone Can Write: Essays Toward a Hopeful Theory of

Writing and Teaching Writing. NY: Oxford University Press, 2000.

—. “Methodological Doubting and Believing: Contraries in Inquiry.” In

Embracing Contraries: Explorations in Learning and Teaching.

Oxford University Press, 1986. 254-300.

Graff, Gerald. Clueless in Academe: How Schooling Obscures the Life of

the Mind. New Haven: Yale UP, 2003.

Lippman, Walter. “The Indispensable Opposition.” Atlantic Monthly

(August 1939). It’s notable that this essay is canonized in many

editions of The Norton Reader (e.g., in the 6th edition, pages 850-55).

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. London, Dent, 1951.

25

Rogers, Carl. “Communication: Its Blocking and Its Facilitation.” On

Becoming a Person. NY: Houghton Mifflin, 1961.

Tannen, Deborah. The Argument Culture: Moving From Debate to

Dialogue. Random House, 1998