Deborah Tannen, "The Roots of Debate in Education and the Hope
of Dialogue" and:
For more assignment ideas involving this essay,
please visit the Tannen
link-o-mat.
Deborah Tannen
Examine the relationships between the themes of agonistic training, intellectual pursuit, gender divisions, and today's cultural "alienation." Note how Tannen discusses these issues. How productive do you find Tannen's argument? In what ways does her essay reflect some of the agonistic strategies she hopes to reduce? In what ways does her essay exemplify the transformation she advocates?
Imagine the traditional academic response/evaluation of Tannen's essay, its similarities as well as differences to assumptions found within this writing assignment, and the ideal reception Tannen would want for her essay. What insights (and conclusions) can you make about Tannen's essay and higher education based upon your exploration of this paper assignment and your experiences as a student trained via an agonistic method?
Carl Nelson, Rutgers University, Spring 2005
Back to top
Faludi and Tannen: Gender and Learning
In your last essay, I asked you to demonstrate whether or not a culture's
traditions had some inherent right to exist. In Susan Faludi's "The
Naked Citadel," we saw the Citadel's controversial fourth-class system
as a means of breaking cadets before rebuilding them, and the conflicts
raised when women were introduced into that environment. She claims that
"[W]e are at a psychic and economic crisis point for manhood,"
both in confronting the traditions of the Citadel and on a larger scale.
Deborah Tannen goes beyond tradition as well to the roots of learning
in Western culture, and there finds what could be the same roots for the
violence at the Citadel. Tannen sees Western education as being based
in a system of confrontation and aggressive argument, and proposes a compromise
between debate and dialogue which would involve less the questions of
"wrong" and "right", and more the possibility for
constructive agreement and disagreement. She claims that the current
system is based in a militaristic model that is also responsible for the
exclusion of women in certain academic arenas.
For your next essay, I would like you to consider the following question:
How might a shift in the way we think about learning change the way
we think about masculinity? As you write, you may also consider the
following questions: Why do you believe that an agressive, militaristic
model of education has perservered for so long? Would the Citadel be
able to exist in a revised system like Tannen's, or would its traditions
be destroyed? Finally, a question which could potentially stir controversy:
Do you agree with Tannen? Is such a change really necessary? Remember
to use at least three quotations per author (one per support; six quotations).
Megan Heller, Rutgers University, Summer 2002
From Learning, Altruism, and Violence.
In the previous assignment, I asked you how Tannen's essay would be interpreted within a standard academic community--and how the assumptions behind my initial paper question factored into this scenario. Now, I want you to consider Tannen's observations about adversarial training/education within the context of Faludi's discussion of the Citadel. This task requires more than a simple compare-and-contrast method. Although you will find many elements in Faludi complementing Tannen's claims, Faludi's discussion also significantly complicates Tannen's views.
Examine the ways communication, debate, and alienation (gender bias) operate in the agonistic environment of the Citadel. To what extent would the incorporation of Tannen's concept of dialogue improve learning and communication at the Citadel? To what degree would these alterations impair conditioning that the Citadel deems necessary? How would a compromise work? Is a compromise possible? What can you conclude about gender discrimination and education in this context?
Carl Nelson, Rutgers University, Spring 2005
Back to top
Deborah Tannen and Amy Chua
Could a change of our "adversarial culture" into a "culture of dialogue" (with a concomitant change in political discourse) generate wider transformations in the economical, cultural, and political conduct of the USA? Would this shift in the model of interrelating lessen the amount of resentment other countries feel towards the USA as a "global economical minority" and how? Drawing closely on the work of Deborah Tannen and Amy Chua, please develop your own argument concerning this issue.
Sanja Bahun, Rutgers University, Spring 2005
Back to top
Deborah Tannen and Malcolm Gladwell
Writing assignment:
Drawing closely on the work of Deborah Tannen and Malcolm Gladwell, please respond to the following assignment question: could "small changes in context" (Gladwell) influence a wider transformation of an adversarial culture into one of dialogue (Tannen)? If yes-how? If no-why not?
Food for thought:
Think about Gladwell's concepts of the Law of the Few, the Stickness Factor, the Tipping Point, and the Power of the Context. How can these be utilized in conjunction with Tannen's plea for a "dialogized" culture? Which of them belong to the realm of debate and which are representative of the dialogue? If the "context-changes" can indeed impact the overall transformation of culture, what is to be gained by this shift? Refer to the writers and to your independent opinion.
Sanja Bahun, Rutgers University, Spring 2005
Back to top
Defining Truth (Assignment 3)
In “The Roots of Debate” Deborah Tannen states , “If you limit your view of a problem to choosing between two sides, you inevitably reject much that is true, and you narrow your field of vision to the limits of those two sides, making it unlikely you’ll pull back, widen your field of vision and discover the paradigm shift that will permit truly new understanding.” Tannen continues, “We need to use our imaginations and ingenuity to find different ways to seek truth and gain knowledge,” so that as students and readers, our understanding extends beyond the simple, dualistic, “only two sides to a question” method of debate.
In the three assigned essays, by what means have Tim O’Brien, Susan Faludi, or Deborah Tannen attempted to use their “imaginations or ingenuity to find different ways to seek truth and gain knowledge?” If you believe that any of the three authors was significantly more successful in helping you, the reader, to “seek truth and gain knowledge,” explain why, relying on specific examples of the author’s language and content to support your preference. If you believe that any of the three authors was significantly LESS successful in helping you, the reader, to “seek truth and gain knowledge,” explain why, pointing to specific aspects of the author’s language and content that you believe may have impeded his or her message.
Mary J. Oltarzewski, Rutgers University, Fall 2005
Back to top
Reconciliation (Assignment 2)
Context:
- Robert Thurman writes about the tendency of one “self” to think of itself as pitted against another self, or even more dangerously, one self believing that it must fight to survive against Them--all the rest of the selves in the world.
- Deborah Tannen is also concerned about the “I vs. I” or the “Us vs. Them” way of thinking.
- One way to look at “reconciliation” is as the art and process of getting beyond the “vs.” in human relations.
- Many important 20th and 21st century thinkers, including the post-apartheid South African commission, believe that one of the keys to reconciliation is “truth.” We must discover, reveal, and speak the whole truth – or as much of it as we can uncover—before we can hope to reconcile differences and move on.
Assignment Question: What can Thurman’s ideas suggest to us about the roots of the argument culture in Western society?
Questions to Prime the Pump:
- What truth can Thurman’s ideas about self offer us to understand and begin to reconcile the oppositional forces Tannen describes?
- What happens to the search for truth and reconciliation when knowledge (as Deborah Tannen claims) is seen as forming “warring camps”?
- What is the relationship between the “basic assumption” Tannen asks us to question and the basic Western assumptions Thurman questions?
- Tannen’s chapter includes a section on “The Cost in Human Spirit.” Could Thurman’s article have a similarly titled section? Where? In what way?
- Tannen suggests the benefits of getting beyond “dualism” by which she means the “absolute and irreconcilable principles continually at war.” Does Thurman make a similar claim? What do the two authors together suggest those benefits might be?
Karen Kalteissen, Rutgers University, Fall 2005
Back to top
Reconciliation (Assignment 3)
Context:
- The “Us. vs. Them” or “I vs. You” antagonism that we have studied in Thurman and Tannen rears perhaps its ugliest head in Beth Lofredda’s study of Matt Shepard’s murder in Laramie.
- Both Tannen and Lofredda express disappointment in their academic colleagues, both for what they do and what they fail to do. The academic establishment may illustrate, for them, Abba Eban’s famous quip about groups that never fail to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
- The core purpose of “reconciliation” as it was conceived in post-apartheid South Africa was to halt the cycle of violence and allow both victim and victimizer to get on with the business of making human life better.
Assignment Question: Can Tannen and Thurman help us understand the causes of homophobia and its violent expression? Can this understanding provide any guidelines for reconciliation between gay and homophobic Americans, “to break the cycle of violence and get on with the business of making life better”?
Questions to Prime the Pump:
- What are the roles of fear, anger, sadness, vilification, and untruth in Lofredda? In Thurman? In Tannen?
- What are the consequences of “dehumanizing” the “other,” as Lofredda suggests that Henderson, McKinney, and some CSU students did? What happens when the second “I” (in Thurman’s “I vs. I”) becomes nonhuman, invisible, nothing?
- When Lofredda looks at the response in Laramie in the first days after the attack, she identifies the widespread reaction of “outrage” among some but the relatively limited commitment to the “hard, slow work of social justice” (437). How would Tannen and Thurman explain these responses? How would you explain their roles in reconciliation?
- What is the difference between what Thurman describes as the “relative self” and what Lofredda describes as the “dehumanized” self of the Other?
Karen Kalteissen, Rutgers University, Fall 2005
Back to top
|
