Deliberate Conflict: Argument, Political Theory, and Composition Classes

by Patricia Roberts-Miller

In Deliberate Argument, Political Theory, and Composition Classes, Patricia Roberts-Miller argues that much current discourse about argument pedagogy is hampered by fundamental unspoken disagreements over what democratic public discourse should look like. The book’s pivotal question In what kind of public discourse do we want our students to engage? To answer this, the text provides a taxonomy, discussion, and evaluation of political theories underpinning democratic discourse, highlighting the relationship between various models of the public sphere and rhetorical theory. Roberts-Miller seeks to diffuse student antagonism toward argumentation by increasing instructors’ awareness of different models of democracy in argument pedagogy. She provides a range of theories, discussing the major features and rhetorical applicability of the liberal, the interest-based, the communitarian, and the deliberative models of the public domain. Deliberate Conflict cogently advocates reintegrating instruction in argumentation into the composition curriculum. By linking effective argumentation in the public sphere with the ability to affect social change, Roberts-Miller pushes compositionists beyond a simplistic Aristotelian conception of how argumentation works and offers a means by which to prepare students for active participation in public discourse.

280 pages, Hardcover

First published June 9, 2004

Reviews

[Eric · Rating 5 out of 5]

In Deliberate Conflict, Roberts-Miller examines a variety of political theories--liberal, technocratic, communitarian, agonistic--as well as the models of the public sphere associated with those theories. She specifically connects those various theories with different approaches to the teaching of college composition. She points out, for example, that expressivist pedagogy is in many ways dependent on a liberal model privileging an irenic model of discourse that aims at consensus (12). She associates communitarian approaches to argument, on the other hand, with social constructivist pedagogies, positing the latter as both significantly flawed, given antifoundational theories’ potential to dead-end in political quietism (170), and the best of the predominant options (the others being current-traditionalism and expressivism) at the time of the book’s publication in 2004 (172). Roberts-Miller instead posits an agonistic approach that draws heavily on the later work of Habermas and requires deliberators to both listen carefully to parties with whom they disagree--not for the purposes of irenic expression, however, but for the purposes of informed argumentation aimed at continuing deliberation rather than synthesizing consensus. In this model, argument is a constitutive part of political discourse rather than an aberration to be avoided or minimized. For Roberts-Miller, this connects back to many composition instructors’ resistance to teaching public argument. She argues that this resistance is due to the broader political assumptions instructors operate under. For instance, an instructor who holds--even implicitly--to a liberal theory of politics and discourse might see irenic expression as more desirable and appropriate than agonistic argument, seeing the latter as bound up in an unsavory interest-based approach to politics and discourse (223).

In the end, Roberts-Miller is careful not to ask her readers and fellow teachers to agree unequivocally with her arguments, but to enter into arguments about argument and its role in composition classrooms, hoping that “identifying the disagreements regarding the public sphere will help … instructors understand that they can reject specific models of public argument without rejecting argument altogether” (227).

[Bill · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had read parts of this book before, but I decided to teach the whole book for my graduate seminar in teaching argument. It was interesting to go through it with the lens of trying to figure out how much the students will understand. Roberts-Miller demonstrates the breadth of her knowledge throughout the book. There were times she did not explain her references as well as she could have for a group of graduate students who do not have much exposure to political theory or the history of rhetoric. I think her terminology may have confused some students, as the distinctions she was making were not obvious. Yet, I kept thinking as I read through just how much students needed to read this book. Her perspective is not one that we expose students to in practicum or elsewhere. Students have not theorized argument nor have they contextualized it in western philosophy. I know most of my students will not get everything she is trying to say. However, they will take away enough. I think Deliberate Conflict will impact them.

I spotted some redundancies that I didn't stumble across before, and I disagreed with her on some points. She refused to talk about research, especially the impact of propaganda on argument. I would have liked to have seen more about the influence of capitalism on democracy, as that has been theorized, and the concomitant influence on argument. Otherwise, I really enjoyed this book. It's a must read for anyone who teaches composition.

[Cynthia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thought I could use this to support my research on the corporatization of higher education and the role of rhet/comp in the resisting such a campaign. Turns out, not so much. This book does explore (and does so pretty well) the role/importance of teaching argumentation, or deliberative discourse, rhet/comp.

[Eric · Rating 5 out of 5]

170 pages of 'You're doing it wrong' regarding using argument and conflict in composition classes. And then 30-some pages of the more constructive, beneficial and inclusive way to approach these issues so that minority or disagreeing voices do not get silenced.