2008 Woodie Awards
Zarefsky speaks of proper argumentation
Cynthia Marts
Issue date: 3/25/08 Section: Campus News
The phrase "Why do you say that?" can be taken to mean a variety of implications, depending on how it is said. The meanings of the question can change, depending on the tone, inflections, or expressions used during the asking. This year's Harriet Elliott lecture series, which began last week, uses this phrase to focus on how different forms of communication affect and shape our culture.
The first speaker of this series was David Zarefsky, professor of Communication Studies at Northwestern University. His lecture was based on the idea of arguments and how it affects individuals, along with the society as a whole.
Sophomore Lindsey Fox attended the lecture with an interest in argumentation, and with some incentive from her Communication class. She said she thought that the lecture was interesting, and left with more than a page of well-written notes.
"He brought up some good points about stuff that I've learned in class," Fox commented after the lecture.
Zarefsky pressed the importance of arguing, especially about topics involving people's ideas and values.
"Why do people not like to argue about values?" he asked in his speech. "Why is is hard?"
Zarefsky suggests that one of the problems people have with the idea of arguing or debating is that we as a society misunderstand what argument is, or should be. According to him, our culture has too many negative connotations about argumentation, when an argument of values actually "should be prized, not condemned."
"I thought he gave a lot of really good examples," continued Fox. "I liked when he was talking about the ways to argue about values when you establish and choose them, and then gave the six examples."
Zarefsky says that without arguments, "there is no way to resolve conflicts without force." Based on his ideas, true and productive debates should help people solve their problems successfully, without having to experience or feel the need for violence.
"I think that we face loads and loads of controversies that involve a lot of differences in value," commented Zarefsky, "And many, many people are really not prepared to deal with them. So, as I said at the beginning, I think what often happens is a kind of culture of indifference, and that that really doesn't prepare people very well to be responsible citizens, and that hurts our society."
With a clear voice and an important topic, Zarefsky expressed his ideas strongly and encouraged audience members to see argumentation in a different light than in which it is portrayed: to see an argument as a productive, possibly even helpful, form of communication, instead of useless and taboo battle of intentions.
"Arguing, as I've tried to describe it, is a good thing, not a bad thing. Not something to be avoided, but something to be engaged in to help us figure out what we personally believe, as well as to influence others."
The first speaker of this series was David Zarefsky, professor of Communication Studies at Northwestern University. His lecture was based on the idea of arguments and how it affects individuals, along with the society as a whole.
Sophomore Lindsey Fox attended the lecture with an interest in argumentation, and with some incentive from her Communication class. She said she thought that the lecture was interesting, and left with more than a page of well-written notes.
"He brought up some good points about stuff that I've learned in class," Fox commented after the lecture.
Zarefsky pressed the importance of arguing, especially about topics involving people's ideas and values.
"Why do people not like to argue about values?" he asked in his speech. "Why is is hard?"
Zarefsky suggests that one of the problems people have with the idea of arguing or debating is that we as a society misunderstand what argument is, or should be. According to him, our culture has too many negative connotations about argumentation, when an argument of values actually "should be prized, not condemned."
"I thought he gave a lot of really good examples," continued Fox. "I liked when he was talking about the ways to argue about values when you establish and choose them, and then gave the six examples."
Zarefsky says that without arguments, "there is no way to resolve conflicts without force." Based on his ideas, true and productive debates should help people solve their problems successfully, without having to experience or feel the need for violence.
"I think that we face loads and loads of controversies that involve a lot of differences in value," commented Zarefsky, "And many, many people are really not prepared to deal with them. So, as I said at the beginning, I think what often happens is a kind of culture of indifference, and that that really doesn't prepare people very well to be responsible citizens, and that hurts our society."
With a clear voice and an important topic, Zarefsky expressed his ideas strongly and encouraged audience members to see argumentation in a different light than in which it is portrayed: to see an argument as a productive, possibly even helpful, form of communication, instead of useless and taboo battle of intentions.
"Arguing, as I've tried to describe it, is a good thing, not a bad thing. Not something to be avoided, but something to be engaged in to help us figure out what we personally believe, as well as to influence others."
Be the first to comment on this story