Argument And Mediation

Catherine E. Lamb’s discussion of argumentation brings many interesting points. Again rhetoric turns to us with its different angle and new side. Particularly I am interested in distinctions between argument and mediation made by the author: “I advocated mediation and negotiation as alternatives to argument as it is often taught and practiced, in which the goal is to win, making confrontation virtually inevitable” (157-8). This passage links to a metaphor of an argument as a war that we meet quite frequently. Argument suggests hierarchy and win/lose thinking. Mediation, therefore, appears as a way out from these limitations of traditional argument.

The article raises a question of argument’s purpose. Lamb points out that “argument as it is usually taught has its place at the beginning of the process, not the end…” (158). We speak a lot about thesis and evidence, and means of persuasion. Classroom offers modeled situations, but in reality final decision is not less or even more important than discussion itself. When I planned class discussions I thought more about process than result; and finding final solution, that would satisfy all opponents, was not in my goals. Now I think it is important not only teach students to give good evidence but also look for solution. For example, we may have the unending discussion on a law case and give evidence on whether an accused is guilty or not; in class the goal is mostly discussion, but in reality nothing is more crucial than the result of it.

In Lassner’s piece I liked the emphasis on importance of personal voice in argumentation opposed to neutral attitude. Traditionally neutrality implies objectivity, which is good in many cases. Yet it limits the possibility of expressing Self. I approve personal attitude when a writer finds his/her topic “interesting.” In general, I think both approaches are equally important.