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