[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: Manufacturing Consensus



On Mon, 26 May 1997, Sean Upton wrote:

> 
> So, my question, then, is: why is is so bad to reify theory into practice 
> as long as we are able to recognize what we are doing?  

Because we are a critical community.  Our educational project is to 
questions things.  We may recognize what we are doing, and we may 
recognize the great reasons we have for forming a consensus, but those 
who simply inherit the consensus do not.

> It's almost like 
> Ken is saying that any level of convention would be damaging to the 
> objectifity of our activity.  

The key words there are "almost" and "like."  I am of course not arguing 
that any level of convention is bad.  That would be absurd.  I also never 
mention or support any idea like 'objectivity.'  That appears here only 
because it seems to be something Sean wants to refute.  In arguing 
against received consensus on matters of theory, I would if anything be 
arguing AGAINST  objectivity.  

> That's certainly not true for two reasons: 
> there is not objetivity in our activity, and secondly, we shouldn't fool 
> ourselves into believing in the tabula rasa myth or even an 
> aproximation.  

This has no relation to the discussion, but the MYTH here is the 
suggestion that ANY published advocate of tabula rasa EVER described it 
as an absence of predisposition or an ability to suspend all beliefs.  
Four times on this listserve I have loudly called bullshit on this 
persistent strawperson of Walter Ulrich's theory.  Never has anyone 
responded defending the idea that "tabula rasa" actually matches the 
stereotype created for ease in refutation.  

But this has nothing to do with my argument against received consensus. 

> Theory is necessary in our activity, but unfortunately 
> gets rather hegemonic in its intrusions into the round -- dominating 
> content of the debate.  

What is content?  I tell my chair/dean/president that this activity 
teaches argumentation.  The CONTENT of that discipline relates to 
theoretical questions of advocacy, logic, support, etc.  The question of 
the conditions of counterplan comparison is infinitely more related to 
the CONTENT of the discipline we teach than is the question of Clinton's 
popularity.  Argumentation IS content.

> So, to me it seems like a middle ground IS, in 
> fact, creating consensus.  We do it all the time, and to reject ALL 
> consensus wholesale is to entirely forget the audience dimension of 
> debate: we have to communicate BY creating consensus with our audience 
> when we debate, and this certainly requires some level of PREVIOUS shared 
> conceptions.

Right, some shared conception is necessary for communication.  My point 
was that consensus becomes reified when it is offered (as it explicitly 
was) as an alternate to in-round discussion, e.g., 'lets settle this 
here, so we don't have to have those confusing debates.'

> 
> Consensus ain't all that bad,

But when it replaces debate, it ain't all that good.


> 
> Sean
> Utah Debate
> 

Ken Broda-Bahm
Towson Debate
Follow-Ups: References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page