http://us.ent4.yimg.com/tv.yahoo.com/images/he/photo/tv_pix/fox/house_photos/hugh_laurie/house4.jpg∞
Dr. House says "Everybody Lies"
Despite being rhetors who continually compose and respond to information that carries multiple meanings in ways that are sometimes difficult to control, we live in a culture that is often uncomfortable with this plenitude. The Bible, for example, is simultaneously deemed
literally true∞ by a large percentage of the US population and available in
at least 25 different versions online.∞ Discuss what it would mean for a document to be "literally true" and subject to divergent and even contradictory interpretations. Consider, for example, Jesus's
use∞ and
discussion of parable∞. Can parable be "literally true"?
We can become somewhat more comfortable with such multiple interpretations by remembering that they can emerge out of dialogue - listening as well as assertion, and claims that are bundled with reasons. Here's an email a teacher, Analog:MitoChondriac, received from a student, as teaching and learning became a two way dialogue:
"From: Jessica Bunnell <jdb388@psu.edu>
To: rmd12@psu.edu
Date: Jul 27, 2005 10:19 PM
Subject: Post article
Here's
that article from the Post I mentioned∞. It's interesting the way the
article was written, like the comparison to Napster, making the spread of
public information seem like a renegade idea. Maybe I am naive, but it seems
to me that pressure from lobbyists is a sorry excuse to not be able to write
unbiased reports. And worrying about liability, or about stepping on someone's
copyrighted toes, to the point that the best solution seems to be denying
people of information altogether is equally lame (or something slightly more
articulate).
At least the website seems like a neat resource...
Jess"
"Thanks Jess! I will add it immediately, along with your email, to my course for teaching instructors how to use wikis to teach writing...Phew, that's a mouthful, but if you are not ok with the reproduction of your email on the wiki, please let me know. Here it is:
http://pbl.ist.psu.edu/cgi-bin/analog.pl?SeptemberTwelth∞
We can remove your name if you like also. But thanks for the tip - this will be a very helpful teaching tool. If you have any other ideas about how to teach rhetoric to undergraduates or anybody else, feel free to add them to the wiki.
Was great to see you the other day, and I will keep my eyes open for job listings. You did the right thing!
Rich"
The Fundamentals of Dialogue:
- Address your interlocuter where they are. These does not mean you should talk "down" to them or "up" to them. Instead, forge a connection.
- Listen with eyes and ears.
- Be generous with your interpretation of Analog:premises. Query premises. How does dialogue differ from debate?
Assignment:
- Have your IM name posted to OurAIMs by Wednesday at 11 AM.
Back to
CourseSyllabus
