Saturday, November 27, 2004
Putting the course back in discourse
In his piece "The Age of the Essay," noted computer programmer and essayist Paul Graham argues against the traditional pick-a-position-and-defend-it style of essay:
Defending a position may be a necessary evil in a legal dispute, but it's not the best way to get at the truth, as I think lawyers would be the first to admit. It's not just that you miss subtleties this way. The real problem is that you can't change the question.
[...]
And yet this principle is built into the very structure of the things they teach you to write in high school. The topic sentence is your thesis, chosen in advance, the supporting paragraphs the blows you strike in the conflict, and the conclusion-- uh, what is the conclusion? I was never sure about that in high school.
[...]
To understand what a real essay is, we have to reach back into history again, though this time not so far. To Michel de Montaigne, who in 1580 published a book of what he called "essais." He was doing something quite different from what lawyers do, and the difference is embodied in the name. Essayer is the French verb meaning "to try" and an essai is an attempt. An essay is something you write to try to figure something out.
Figure out what? You don't know yet. And so you can't begin with a thesis, because you don't have one, and may never have one. An essay doesn't begin with a statement, but with a question. In a real essay, you don't take a position and defend it. You notice a door that's ajar, and you open it and walk in to see what's inside.
I would problematize Graham's case in several ways, but he presents an interesting point. I don't see an inherent problem in leading with a thesis, on the condition that you're open to changing it if the evidence supports a different conclusion. Thesis provide structure to arguments -- no more can you begin to seek "the truth" blindly than a scientist can just perform an experiment and develop a hypothesis from the results.
However, Graham's argument has an intruiging implication on public discourse. Substantive debate is a rarity in our culture, as what would normally be productive disagreement so often devolves into mindless screaming matches. There seems to be little room for synthesis and compromise, despite the fact that synthesis and compromise are the best tools of policymaking.
Why such hostility towards open-mindedness? Perhaps some of it stems from the way we are taught to make arguments -- lead with a thesis, defend it at all costs. Implicit in that paradigm is a corollary which says that if logic and evidence disproves your thesis, you need to modify it, but the majority of people don't take that second step. As a result, we have a standoff before words are even spoken. I'll assemble some hard facts to back this up at a later date, but just apply this theory to debates over gun control, gay marriage or the death penalty and there is endless anecdotal and empirical evidence.
If you don't think that thesis-and-defend is a prevalent socializing factor, consider the following: Newspaper editorials and letters to the editor, television pundits (political, sports and otherwise), formal debate and forensics teams in H.S. and college, essays throughout the education system (including standarized tests), etc., etc., etc. It is drilled into our heads that this is the way you make an argument and debate it. Given that background, is it so surprising that instead of discourse we have dissention?
There is another way, of course. It's assumed that thesis-and-defend is natural, but as Graham points out:
What you tell [the reader] doesn't matter, so long as it's interesting. I'm sometimes accused of meandering. In defend-a-position writing that would be a flaw. There you're not concerned with truth. You already know where you're going, and you want to go straight there, blustering through obstacles, and hand-waving your way across swampy ground. But that's not what you're trying to do in an essay. An essay is supposed to be a search for truth. It would be suspicious if it didn't meander.
Though Graham is speaking of written essays and not oral discourse, the principles hold largely the same. Envision a great debate where positions were staked but malleable, where ideas flowed freely and filtered through the lens of intellect and reason. Truly, that is the milieu in which great works will be done.
-Elliot
P.S. I'm undertaking a new project to ask a lot of the question "Why?" We take the underpinnings of our society largely for granted, and perhaps we don't challenge them enough. I'm enough of a moderate to believe that a great deal of what exists is functional (which is why although I quote Graham heavily I disagree with one of his main assertions regarding the efficacy of the thesis), but at the same time there are fundamental aspects of society that could be improved with great benefit that aren't even being looked at. That, I'm hoping to change. I seek that great debate, and I think perhaps "Why?" is as good a road as any.
Related Link
