Argument Theory: Brockreide, O'Keefe, Rowland, and Tindale

For this post, I am focusing on the RA readings, mostly because I need to grasp the various concepts of how to and not to define argument by more closely looking at the theories next to each other. Rowland suggests that the difficulty of defining argument lies in the polarity of previous attempts to define rhetoric, where some theories look strictly at the argument made in formal argument rather than informal, real life argumentation. O’Keefe and Rowland both begin looking a “argument” by critically analyzing Brockriede’s six characteristics of argument. All authors seem to contend with Brockreide’s first element of argument which is “an inferential leap from existing beliefs to the adoption of a new belief or to the reinforcement of an old one” (10). This, to me, is the end of general consensus between the four authors.

One theme that is approached is looking at whether argument needs to be productive in nature. Brockreide’s second characteristic that argument needs a perceived rationale to support [the inferential] leap” (10) is also reflected in Rowland’s definition of argument [“argumentation is discourse in which people attempt to solve problems rationally by supporting their claim with reason and evidence(83]). O’Keefe and Tindale both break from such theory. O’Keefe states that the focus on the “making of argumentation” overshadows “having the argument” in his characterization of argument. My understanding of O’Keefe’s definition of “having an argument” is informal and unproductive; however, O’Keefe contends that “having an argument” still deserves the attention of argument theory. O’Keefe explains that even a poorly made argument is still an argument and thus informal argumentation also can be analyzed using this second characteristic. Even Tindale discusses Johnson’s assertion that a poorly made argument that is not accepted by an audience cannot be classified as an argument. Thus, he is suggesting that only reasonable and accepted arguments are arguments (Is this referring more to the dialectic?) Although this belongs to the realm of “audience” Johnson makes a distinction between rhetoric (which focuses on effectiveness) and logic (looking for truth) and, Tindale claims, Johnson is putting more emphasis on rationality than effectiveness. In the defining of argument, one clear argument in the field is whether or not argument has to be rationale or persuasive (if anyone is reading this differently, please comment and let me know).

Another difference in defining/characterizing argumentation is looking at
what should lend itself to the study of argumentation. For instance, Tindale questions the distinction between formal and “casual” argumentation. Tindale questions Johnson’s claim that “an arguments is a type of discourse or text” (90) because such a distinction creates a top-down theory of argumentation where formal argumentation is more valued for analysis than “casual participants” (92). This seems to be at the root of O’Keefe’s argument as well; although I don’t remember him making the direct claim using Brockreide, his argument is clearly addressing the value of formal argument to information argument. Rowland addresses this distinction when discussing the debates between traditionalists “propositional discourse” based understanding of argument and theorists such as Willard who (and I’m paraphrasing here) sees defining argument limiting the social interactions that could/should be described as argument (81). This leads Rowland to assert that arguments are only arguments if they can be labeled as such.

Honestly there are so many dimensions to this/these arguments (I acknowledge the singular and plural because I think they could certainly be examined on a macro/micro level) that every time I go back to the text for clarification, I uncover more complexities.

Defining TC Annotations

Knievel, Michael. “What is Humanistic about Computers and Writing? Historical Patterns and Contemporary Possibilities for the Field.” Computers and Composition. 26.2 (2009): 92-106. Science Direct. Web. 5 Sept. 2010.

Knievel traces the history of how scholars in computers and writing have argued for the field to be recognized as humanistic and a necessary component of the Humanities and specifically to English. He suggests that this debate goes back to post-World War II distinctions between the humanities and the sciences (which were better funded). This created a dichotomy where the two areas of scholarship were distinctly different and humanities thought of this distinction as “self-preservation” (94). As new technologies began permeating English studies, they were looked at by non-computers and writing scholars as a threat to the study of humanity (languages, art, literature, culture, etc.); specifically, the fear of stifling creativity, critical thinking, and active learning was the concern of traditional humanities scholars. Knievel explains that computers and writing had to begin forming an understanding of the field by closely aligning the use and study of technology in relation to writing and rhetoric with the values of the English humanities. However, since the turn of the century, computers and writing has begun to assert that the teaching and studying of multiliteracies is indeed a core component to humanities due to the nature of the social engagement and knowledge creating/sharing in online environments. Thus, not only is computers and writing advancing in the humanities for these studies, but English studies needs to begin looking at the field through this lens if they want to remain sustainable in higher education.

Knievel’s argument provides an excellent history of the definition of computers in writing in the sphere of humanities and the various forms in which computers and writing scholars have protected the humanistic nature of the field. In many ways, Knievel shows how important incorporating the humanistic approach is in the defining of the field.

Scott, T. “Writing work, technology, and pedagogy in the era of late capitalism.” Computers and Composition 23.2 (2006): 228-243. Web. Science Direct. 10 Sept. 2010.

Scott observes two camps of technical communication pedagogy. The first camp, “capitalism hope,” believes students in TC will enter the field and make core changes in their positions that in turn will encourage “late capitalism” to be “more humane and ethical” (230). This camp aims at making technical writers critical of technology and their role in the production and distribution of technology so as to avoid mishandling of technology and destruction that can occur due to this mishandling (for instance, Scotts cites Bhopal, Chernobyl, and the Challenger as potential points where such pedagogy, ideally, could eliminate human loss). The second camp however, believes technical communication should prepare students to thrive in the marketplace without pushing the need for influencing ideological changes in the workplace (230). This camp looks to position technical writers so they can be successful within the confines of the new economy [Scott coins this “tactics of survival”] (232). The reasoning behind this pedagogy is that technical writers gain agency in the composition of the work, rather than being “a mere copyeditor/proofreader” (232). Foregrounding with these definitions, Scott argues that “[p]reparing students for writing work in the contemporary economy requires that we account for both the characteristics of this economy and the role that technologies play within it” (235). This does create a paradox between the needs of business versus the role of the academy. Pedagogies must include teaching skills necessary to perform TC duties; however, in the post-industrial economy, TC’s role as a humanistic field must also take into consideration the influence of the new economy on a civic level as well.

This is a very complex article bringing in Reich’s post-industrial categorization of the labor force, technical communicator theorists, and writers looking at the ever changing economy and the role of technology in the new economy; however, by weaving together such ideas, Scott shows the difficulty of defining the position of the technical communicator given the idealist notions of the academy and the demands of the marketplace. For those of us teaching technical communication, this is an important article for looking at how to approach both the practical and theoretical framework of TC education.