INVITING CONSTRUCTIVE ARGUMENT.

• Author: Mallin, Irwin

Argument theories are often expressions of our highest hopes, embodiments of our dreams for a better world (Willard, 1989, p. 6).

University courses in argumentation appeal to students and administrators because of a two-fold promise. They are said to equip students to advocate in the "real world," and they purport to teach all-important (if often ill-defined) "critical thinking skills." Too often, however, students and educators have found that classroom practice fails to prepare students for the demands they face outside the classroom. While the skills taught in argumentation and debate classes are useful, few individuals find themselves in situations that call for a courtroom style of advocacy, since often they find themselves needing to bridge opposition and negotiate for solutions to shared problems. These responses to conflict typically are eschewed in argumentation classes because they fail to fit within the traditional mode of "debate." Instead, students are more likely to encounter strategies for compromise and problem-solving in interpersonal and group communication courses. Not only does this omission do students a disservice , it also unnecessarily limits the development of new argumentation styles and strategies.

A brief examination of textbooks for argumentation and debate classes reveals that despite recent challenges from feminist, rhetorical, and social scientific theory, current argumentation pedagogy is not much different from what always has been taught in communication classes. Tindell's (1999) review of argumentation and debate textbooks places them in three categories: those emphasizing logic/critical thinking, those emphasizing academic debate, and those balancing critical thinking/logic and academic debate. The approach to argument represented in the texts Tindell (1999) examines is one in which arguers are cast either as opponents or as critical consumers of public discourse. To be an exemplary arguer is to use logic strategically, avoid fallacious reasoning, and win over one's audience. Although some texts begin to challenge dominant conceptualizations of argument, alternative notions often are undertheorized and pragmatic tips for classroom incorporation are omitted. Kells's (1999) review of Emmel, Resc h, and Tenney's (1996) Argument Revisited: Argument Redefined: Negotiating Meaning in the Composition Classroom notes that although the authors present a feminist notion of argument characterized by self inquiry, the "distinguishing features" of this "proposal for a new feminist approach to argument remain largely undefined [and] undeveloped" (p. 194).

This essay examines current trends in communication scholarship which suggest that cooperative or collaborative modes of argumentation should be more explicitly included in argument pedagogy. We develop the notion of "constructive argument" for both theoretical and pedagogic purposes. By broadening the theoretical understanding of what argument is, or can be, we lay the foundation for teaching argumentation in new and useful ways.

Argumentation often is characterized as an adversarial activity governed by war metaphors and infused with a win-lose ideology (Annas & Tenney, 1996; Fulkerson, 1996; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Palczewski, 1996; Wolf, 1993). Although much critical ground has been covered in honing competitive techniques of argumentation, scholars also have long been preoccupied with crafting cooperative or collaborative notions of argument that cast arguers in the role of partners rather than combatants (Brockriede, 1972; Burke, 1969; Fulkerson, 1996, and works cited therein; Johannesen, 1971). The partnership model of argument has garnered scholarly attention, but has not been absorbed into the classroom as readily as has the competitive debate model. The discussion about which modes of argument are most productive has been revived recently in response to an essay by Foss and Griffin (1995), in which the authors propose an invitational model of rhetoric as an alternative to patriarchal modes of persuasion that have informed an d governed rhetorical studies since the classical era.

Despite the interest in collaboration expressed by scholars in various fields, many critics of argumentation in the field of communication have been reluctant to endorse Foss and Griffin's (1995) proposal for an invitational rhetoric. Communication scholars have objected to Foss and Griffin (1995) on at least two levels. Some resist what they characterize as a tendency for Foss and Griffin (1995) to bifurcate rhetorical strategies into gendered categories, reifying dichotomization (Bruner, 1996; Palczewski, 1996). Others object to what they perceive to be Foss and Griffin's (1995) rejection of argumentation as a viable or ethical rhetorical tool (Fulkerson, 1996; Palczewski, 1996). Careful review of Foss and Griffin (1995) and their critics reveals, however, that in many respects they are all attempting to answer the same question: how can we envision collaborative modes of argument that avoid bifurcation and domination? More can be gained by examining what each position shares than by highlighting minor fla ws or internal contradictions.

We believe that Foss and Griffin's (1995) invitational approach to communication can lead to an enhanced, more productive conceptualization of argumentation. Consequently, the discussion of invitational rhetoric should continue. We begin by considering the two previously mentioned critiques of invitational rhetoric, and offer possible responses that could allay some of the critics' concerns while, at the same time, keeping intact the invitational impulse. This essay answers Bile's (1995) call for further research to "understand how argumentation theory can extend the proposal for an invitational rhetoric" (p. 63). We develop a constructive notion of argument informed by the principles of invitational rhetoric, but our discussion of invitational rhetoric also is an effort to more broadly examine how critics from other scholarly arenas have explored different argumentative strategies that could be considered "cooperative," "collaborative," or "invitational." While other studies have compared feminist work to t hat done by more traditional argumentation scholars (Bile, 1995; Crenshaw, 1995; Foss & Griffin, 1992; Fulkerson, 1996), or have synthesized social scientific and interpretive and/or critical approaches to argument (Fritz, 1995; Willard, 1989), few attempt to bring the sometimes disparate literatures of feminist argumentation theory, traditional argumentation theory, rhetorical criticism, conflict theory, and interpersonal communication into dialogue. This essay weaves together impulses toward constructive argument emerging from each of these areas.

Our theoretical aim is to elaborate a notion of constructive argument, but also to demonstrate the utility of constructive argument by enacting it in our criticism. In what follows, then, we do not emphasize the weaknesses or contradictions in the work we examine. Instead, we take what is most productive from existing criticism and build upon it in a way that seeks to continue the scholarly discussion (rather than "win" the critical debate). Our aim is to frame this discussion about the uses of argument not as a debate between opposing sides, but as a problem to be solved by participants who all have an interest in facilitating the development of more cooperative modes of argument, but who work within traditions historically hostile (or indifferent) to one another. We enact this convergence by 1) demonstrating the utility of invitational rhetoric for argumentation theory, 2) pointing to areas of convergence between the work of feminist critics and that of social scientific communication scholars, rhetorical critics, and conflict theorists, 3) elaborating our own notion of constructive argument, and 4) considering the implications of our proposal, emphasizing its potential contributions to argumentation pedagogy.

THE IMPORT OF INVITATION

The purpose of Foss and Griffin's 1995 essay "Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric" is to challenge the assumption that using rhetoric to change and dominate other people is a laudable goal, a skill that should be honed. Their view problematizes the assumptions underlying many courses in argumentation, where the ability to "bury" an opponent is prized. Foss and Griffin (1995) offer other aims of rhetoric such as promoting mutual understanding and imparting value upon people. The "invitation" of invitational rhetoric is to move toward "understanding as a means to create a relationship rooted in equality, immanent value, and self-determination" (p. 5). Their proposal is presented as a feminist alternative to patriarchal versions of rhetoric, which foster "values of change, competition, and domination" (Foss & Griffin, 1995, p. 4).

The notion of an "invitational rhetoric" is controversial not just because it is so different from traditional rhetorical theory, but also because Foss and Griffin's (1995) theory contains what some view as significant flaws. Many poststructuralists are resistant to critical moves that dichotomize (Biesecker, 1992), hence, Foss and Griffin's (1995) identification of "patriarchal" and "feminist" rhetorical strategies has concerned a number of critics. Bruner (1996) charges that "gender dichotomizations" such as those invoked by Foss and Griffin (1995) "reify the very kinds of gender stereotypes that tend to disempower women" (p. 187). Palczewski (1996) argues that the critical practice of linking rhetorical strategies to sex is "problematic" (p. 166), and encourages critics to work toward "recognizing alternatives in a dualistic world" (p. 167).

But the terms "feminist" and "patriarchal" need not reify gendered stereotypes. When Foss and Griffin (1995) employ those labels, their goal is not to align "feminist" strategies with the practices of women and "patriarchal"...