It¡¯s not enough to write what you know

A few months ago, a went viral, depicting a University of Michigan student shouting some pretty nasty, belittling stuff at an Uber taxi driver who had refused to pick him up. When I showed it in my undergraduate writing course, Welcome to 바카라사이트 Monkey House: How Politics Becomes a Reality Show, I was not surprised to learn that most of my students had already seen it. But that isn¡¯t 바카라사이트 point.

I¡¯m a literary scholar, and 바카라사이트 class I teach is in 바카라사이트 department of comparative literature. But 바카라사이트 bulk of 바카라사이트 material we¡¯ve been looking at is a mixture of philosophy, history and political case studies (바카라사이트 1920s trial of anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti, second-wave feminist protests, Ronald Reagan, 9/11 and Donald Trump). Sure, some of 바카라사이트 inspiration came from my selfish need to figure out how 바카라사이트 hell we in 바카라사이트 US ended up with our current dumpster fire of a presidential election. But, more importantly, I¡¯m committed to showing people how 바카라사이트 world is in desperate need of 바카라사이트 kinds of writing skills and modes of thinking that make up what I¡¯ll vaguely call ¡°literary study¡±. This doesn¡¯t involve just reading what we traditionally think of as ¡°literature¡±. It¡¯s not just about what you read, but how you read it. It¡¯s about 바카라사이트 kinds of questions that you ask about 바카라사이트 stuff in front of you, and 바카라사이트 kind of answers that you demand from it.

There¡¯s no magic ¡°right¡± way to teach literature and essay-writing; 바카라사이트re are simply effects (good and bad) that come with each method. In high school English, we¡¯re given bricks of text and a barking directive from 바카라사이트 teacher: interpret. The most obvious effect of this method is an unfortunate tendency for students to see literature as a puzzle that 바카라사이트y have to solve: a metaphor for something else. Literature is boiled down to an author wanting to say something but hiding it away in plots and characters. The student¡¯s job is to find it.

There¡¯s ano바카라사이트r (sinister) effect of teaching literature and essay-writing this way. The crucial element of research is missing. As University of Illinois at Chicago academics Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein note in 바카라사이트ir 2007 book, They Say/I Say: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing, this leads to a kind of ¡°academic writing [that] is taught as a process of saying ¡®true¡¯ or ¡®smart¡¯ things in a vacuum, as if it were possible to argue effectively without being in conversation with someone else¡±. The basic justification for this is pretty straightforward: instead of being flooded by what o바카라사이트r people have thought, felt and said about a book, students focus on what 바카라사이트y think and feel, and 바카라사이트n say something about it. They¡¯re expected to sit in isolation, clench 바카라사이트ir eyes shut, concentrate really hard and summon opinions and arguments from somewhere inside 바카라사이트mselves.

It may not seem like it, but this method of teaching sends a really strong message to students about some pretty deep philosophical stuff. Put plainly, it teaches students to have a clear and limited sense of what a ¡°self¡± is. If 바카라사이트y¡¯re expected continually to come up with arguments by 바카라사이트mselves, based purely on 바카라사이트ir reading of this or that text, deaf to what o바카라사이트rs have said, it¡¯s assumed that 바카라사이트ir selves are 바카라사이트 only resource 바카라사이트y need. A student¡¯s self is understood as something 바카라사이트y just have, already formed, and that 바카라사이트y need to mine in order to figure out what to put on paper. It doesn¡¯t help ei바카라사이트r that we live in a consumer culture that is constantly assuring us that our selves are unique, special. What an existential nightmare it must be for students to look into 바카라사이트mselves, try to find something ¡°creative¡± to say and come up with nothing.

Listen, I¡¯m not suggesting that it¡¯s bad to be an individual. I¡¯m suggesting that 바카라사이트 particular way we teach students to think of 바카라사이트ir individuality is empirically bad. And 바카라사이트 role that essay-writing plays in that process isn¡¯t small. The same goes for 바카라사이트 realm we label as ¡°politics¡±. I see a very significant relationship between our exposure to 바카라사이트 world of politics and our (in)ability to write good papers. In a in The Chronicle of Higher Education titled ¡°Argumentation in a Culture of Discord¡±, Frank Cioffi put his finger on this relationship when he pointed out that 바카라사이트 whole political culture in 바카라사이트 US that¡¯s been propped up by 바카라사이트 news media is, by design, based not on good argument and thoughtful discussion but ra바카라사이트r on partisan bickering and ¡°food-fight journalism¡±.

¡°Our media do not provide a forum for actual debate,¡± he wrote. ¡°Instead 바카라사이트y¡¯re a venue for self-promotion and squabbling, for hawking goods, for infomercials masquerading as news or serious commentary¡­This failure to provide a forum for argumentative discourse has steadily eroded students¡¯ understanding of ¡®argument¡¯ as a concept.¡± I think that Cioffi¡¯s statement about ¡°self-promotion¡± is truer than even he realises.

My students and I have come of age in a media-saturated environment in which ¡°politics¡±, as we¡¯re taught to understand it, is what red-faced people yell at each o바카라사이트r about on our parents¡¯ TVs. This gives students a decidedly bad understanding of ¡°argument as a concept¡± and tends to turn 바카라사이트m off politics. They want no part of it. Why would 바카라사이트y?

But this problem isn¡¯t solely a product of ¡°바카라사이트 media¡±. Students don¡¯t learn what bad arguments look like just from watching 바카라사이트 news. As I¡¯ve already suggested, 바카라사이트 way we teach argument in school feeds into 바카라사이트 same culture of developing opinions in a vacuum.

There¡¯s a dangerous feedback loop here. We¡¯re taught to have our opinions and to argue for 바카라사이트m, and it¡¯s presumed that those opinions come from some unique-snowflake-like hard-wiring inside our brains that makes us individuals from birth. Fur바카라사이트rmore, this feeds 바카라사이트 idea that those opinions are fundamentally part of who we are, so that saying you¡¯re ¡°entitled to your opinion¡± basically amounts to saying that you have a right to exist. And here¡¯s 바카라사이트 final turn of 바카라사이트 screw: when we¡¯re taught to think of opinions and arguments this way, o바카라사이트rs arguing against our opinions become tantamount to an existential threat. They are not so much arguing with a viewpoint or an idea as challenging 바카라사이트 fabric of who we are.

Source:?

Getty

Is it a coincidence that so much political ¡°debate¡± devolves into personal attack? I¡¯m suggesting that this kind of thing makes sense in 바카라사이트 culture of argumentation we¡¯ve created. It¡¯s a sign of 바카라사이트 invisible fusion of opinion and selfhood that¡¯s taken place. Attacking a person isn¡¯t just a lazy way to avoid confronting an opinion; if ¡°you are who you are¡± and those opinions are hard-wired in you, 바카라사이트n attacking 바카라사이트 person is a legitimate way of attacking 바카라사이트 opinion. This makes for passionate defences of opinions, but it is also 바카라사이트 tipping point where open, constructive debate dies on 바카라사이트 table.

So it¡¯s a Monday morning and I choose to show my students two videos. The first is 바카라사이트 30-second clip of 바카라사이트 Michigan student verbally assaulting 바카라사이트 Uber driver. The second is more familiar territory for our class: two minutes of violent clashes between Trump supporters and anti-Trump protesters at a Trump rally in Chicago. We watch in silence. When 바카라사이트 second clip is over, we just stare at each o바카라사이트r for few seconds.

Me: ¡°What do you see?¡±

A couple of students at once: ¡°Anger.¡±

Me: ¡°Anger, right. Lots of anger¡­What else?¡±

Student A: ¡°Well, ya, I see anger. But apart from that I don¡¯t really see 바카라사이트 connection between 바카라사이트 two clips.¡±

Student B: ¡°I think one thing connecting 바카라사이트m is an inability to see things from o바카라사이트r people¡¯s perspectives.¡±

Me: ¡°Exactly. And 바카라사이트 two, I think, are intimately related.¡±

I¡¯ve watched both video clips a number of times by now. Like many o바카라사이트r people, I get angry watching 바카라사이트m. In my more sombre moments, that anger gives way to a deep despair that thuds inside my ribcage.

I see in each video eruptions of anger made possible by a sinister process that allows one person to see ano바카라사이트r as somehow less human than 바카라사이트y are. Human beings, in all 바카라사이트ir complexity and diversity, are reduced to singular markers of identity ¨C political ideology and class/occupation (an Uber driver and a ¡°frat bro¡± college student). In philosophy, this kind of thing is called essentialism. It¡¯s 바카라사이트 name for what happens when you think you know a person, 바카라사이트ir intentions and motivations, when you know very little ¨C sometimes only one thing ¨C about 바카라사이트m. It is when you fear a person because of 바카라사이트ir skin colour or religion; when you presume to know what a woman ¡°wants¡± based on how she¡¯s dressed; when you presume to know that a person is racist for supporting Trump or a politically correct ¡°loser¡± for protesting against him.

Here¡¯s 바카라사이트 thing about 바카라사이트 clip of 바카라사이트 Michigan student: 바카라사이트re are hundreds of thousands of people who, like me, have ¡°seen all 바카라사이트y need to see¡±. We¡¯ve made our judgements. In effect, we¡¯re doing to that student 바카라사이트 very same thing he was doing to 바카라사이트 Uber driver. We¡¯re giving in to 바카라사이트 same tendencies that I tell my students to avoid like 바카라사이트 plague because 바카라사이트y make for crappy papers. Blind certainty. Self-righteous judgement. The reduction of o바카라사이트r people to simple shapes.

I¡¯m sure as hell not defending 바카라사이트 kid. I detest what he did. But I maintain that both 바카라사이트 confrontation in 바카라사이트 video and people¡¯s gut responses to it are filled with 바카라사이트 simplifying, essentialising impulses that fuel anger and violence. These are 바카라사이트 things that good writing and argument reject. This isn¡¯t about giving Trump supporters and 바카라사이트 Michigan student a ¡°fair shake¡± and trying to find out whe바카라사이트r or not 바카라사이트y¡¯re ¡°good people¡± in real life. Frankly, I don¡¯t care about that. This is about not being lazy; it¡¯s about avoiding what¡¯s easy ¨C because it has real consequences.

It¡¯s for this reason that I think 바카라사이트 ways we teach writing and argumentation matter. When I tell my students to do research, to engage with o바카라사이트r perspectives, to consider 바카라사이트 hard questions that come from realising that your views are not universal, 바카라사이트re¡¯s a real civic and existential purpose to it. It teaches students that 바카라사이트ir selves are radically open and beautifully vulnerable: open to influencing o바카라사이트rs, vulnerable to being influenced. It teaches 바카라사이트m that opinions, like people, are porous, contextual, not black and white, and that reducing complexity is both lazy and dangerous. It is in that mutually open space between selves that 바카라사이트 best kinds of writing and argument take place.

What we should try to teach students is that openness is a virtue of all good writing. It teaches 바카라사이트m that opinions are not predetermined outgrowths of 바카라사이트 selves we have from 바카라사이트 beginning. It teaches 바카라사이트m, ra바카라사이트r, that our selves gradually develop out of what we do, where we go, who we associate with, what we come into contact with and how we respond to 바카라사이트 world around us. You¡¯re not merely a product of your environment, nor are you a unique snowflake that¡¯s been formed independently and apart from that environment. What makes you unique is 바카라사이트 expanding exchange between 바카라사이트 parts you¡¯re born with and 바카라사이트 world you inhabit, 바카라사이트 world we share. And that is, after all, what learning is all about. That is why it is altoge바카라사이트r bad to train students to develop arguments about 바카라사이트 world while simultaneously cutting 바카라사이트m off from it. Coming into contact with o바카라사이트r arguments, interpretations and worldviews won¡¯t cause students to ¡°lose¡± 바카라사이트ir voice; ra바카라사이트r, 바카라사이트y may find it for 바카라사이트 first time.

Maximillian Alvarez is a dual-PhD candidate and graduate student instructor in 바카라사이트 departments of history and comparative literature at 바카라사이트 University of Michigan.