For close to six years I’ve been a teacher. When I accepted my newest group of students I was quite concerned, for I knew many of them would not be good students. All, save one or two, did not participate in class, never brought their books, stared at the floor, and played with whatever gadgets they had. Of course they weren’t prisoners, but many were in my class not by choice but because they felt required by family, friends, or conscience. I’d already proved to be quite a capable teacher, but to help me improve this classes’ reputation I studied some of the teaching methods of classes even more successful than my own. The result was adapting my lessons to use a series of props and visual aids that, by themselves, had nothing to do with my lesson; however, through a series of antics and games I was able to tie them into each aspect of their lessons. Though there are still a few less actives in class, these lessons have made remarkable improvement to the majority of the class.
One day, after class had ended and I was cleaning up my props, several gentlemen whom I didn’t know but had seen on occasion entered for they intended to use my classroom for a meeting. The first two men complemented me on the props I was using, wishing that they could have sat in on my lesson. However the third gentleman politely informed me that I must cease immediately my teaching style and teach strictly from the book without any outside sources. He was even so kind as to point out this rule to me in a book he happened to have on him. This was the issue in one of my most recent arguments. Was my teaching style inappropriate? Did I need to revert to by the book teaching? I didn’t think so, and this occasion, like so many other arguments, confirms that I prefer a consensual style or argument.
Rather than contend with this man on the right or wrong of his opinion toward my teaching, I thanked him for his opinion and left. Arguing with him would accomplish nothing, he was not my superior and I have had experience with plenty of by the book types before. I went instead to my direct superior and to my superior’s superior for confirmation. I explained to them both what had happened, not revealing the identity of gentlemen, and explained peacefully how I believed my methods were improving the class. Fortunately they agreed with me, encouraged me to continue teaching as I saw fit, and for my part the issue was resolved.
This is indeed my typical style of my argument. I prefer a casual conversation with the open minded, such as my superior, rather than a yay or nay bash with someone already set in their way, as this gentleman was. In matters where a course of action is required, I prefer to go straight to the final authority rather than present the same argument over and over again to different audiences.
I believe what has influenced my method of argument most is my father. Surely a majority of sons have had arguments with their fathers. I lost many of these due to the harsh words and the volume he employed, the occasional usage of physical force, and quite commonly due to the wisdom of “Because I said so” with I of course meaning: the all powerful and knowing one. At an early age I recognized the flawed manner in which he tried to argue. Sure he won many of the arguments, but only temporarily, and would just have to argue again anywhere from minutes to years later. I remember once reading a text, it may have been by Sun Tzu but I cannot quite remember, that stated something along the lines of: The best way to defeat your opponents is to make them see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place. Though this source was speaking of war, the same principle, I believe, can be applied to argument. Adversarial argument only diminishes people’s willingness to conflict with you in the moment; it does not change their perception of an issue, and after a brief rest bit they’ll return to argue their point again. Only through consensual argument can each side reach an understanding if not an agreement, and through understanding we can avoid the extreme emotions and decisions which give argument the negative connotation it has. This is what I like the most about consensual argument.
My senior year of high school introduced a new teacher to campus and I happened to have him for first period. His name was Dudditch and he taught me among the more important principles of successful conversation that I still practice today. He often reminded us about how important it was to wait until someone has finished speaking. Most of us are guilty, when having discussions, of answering questions or interrupting, with commentary or correction, the person who is speaking. Mr. Dudditch was respectful at all times, listened to what was said, asked questions and provided feedback.
I believe the consensual style of argument to be more prudent and successful. Politicians tend to be adversarial arguers and I submit that Congressmen are no exception to this. When was the last time you heard of a politician accomplishing something? Not supporting something or striking something down, but actually accomplishing something? In 1787, the men of the Continental Congress were deadlocked on several issues, but perhaps none more famous than how many seats each state would have in Congress. Some favored equal representation for each state and others demanded representation determined by population. This issue threatened the whole convention with failure, until a compromise was proposed that both sides could agree on. And so we can see that adversarial argument endangered, were consensual argument allowed for the creation of arguably the most important document ever conceived by man. Ask yourself: where would we as a nation be if not for consensual argument?
No comments:
Post a Comment