For the record, yes I will (and do) take every opportunity to make one of my courses overlap with the others.
I thought Lamb's and Lessner's essays on feminism and argumentation raised important issues. However, I wasn't sure what to make of Lassner's determination on Rogerian argument. When she mentions her students who hate Rogerian argument, dubbing it "masculinist and denialist" and noting "it leaves no space to be persuasive with anger…because for women to be recognized, everyone needs to know how they feel" (407).
Are the students saying that women are unjustly categorized as overly emotional? Or are they arguing that women are overly emotional? It seemed like the latter to me. It all smacks of those 18th century writings on whether a woman should be a rational creature or an emotional one. Yeah, 18th century. Good thing we worked that problem out, right?
I feel (ha...) the more effective counterargument to Rogerian argument is the one we raised in class: why does he not consider the opposing side? Practice what you preach, Mr. Rogers!
Anyway, I would have thought Rogerian argument could appeal to any egalitarian approach to teaching, but maybe Lassner's students were not egalitarian feminists. Although I do agree that minorities of gender, ethnicity, class status, sexuality, and age all have been "coerced into accepting the claims of traditional rhetorical forms," not to mention social norms, but let's allow that this is just about rhetoric for right now (409). This seems to relate back to Leta's post on body rhetoric: emotionally charged rhetoric works, but is it fair? If a marginalized person is allowed to get angry, will others buy the argument or will they just write this person off as another raving hysteric? (For the record, yes I am using "hysteric" in the 18th century medical sense.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I was troubled by the way Lassner linked emotion and feminism, as well. Further more, I found it hard to accept her argument that the Rogerian method cannot be used because when people argue, they are too emotionally and personally invested in their positions to express an opposing viewpoint. Yes, I agree that in response to some issues (the debate over abortion for instance), men and women seem to make only emotional arguments. However, what about the debate over whether Alfred Hitchcock is a scholar or how John Milton presents Satan in "Paradise Lost"? Should we abandon the Rogerian method in these debates because we are too emotionally invested?
Post a Comment