Feb. 28, 2022

     It is almost impossible to participate in a conversation without it getting heated or someone being offended. American society has fallen quickly (within the past two decades, at the very least) into the ‘right or wrong’ mindset. Open-mindedness is almost nonexistent anymore. We aren’t doing the future citizens of our society any favors if we cannot find a way to teach them – effectively – to discuss topics in a friendly and respectful manner that encourages an increase in knowledge for all involved.

     We’ve spent decades teaching college freshmen how to perfect the 5-paragraph argumentative essay: introduce your topic and state your thesis, support your thesis with three pieces of evidence, restate your thesis and summarize your evidence. Nowhere in this formula is there an invitation to the reader to counter the evidence with their own. This type of essay is simply a “This is what I have to say and I know I’m right in saying it. Take it or leave it.”

     In reading about a new form of rhetoric proposed by Foss and Griffin, I think it’s time we prepare our students for the real world in a different manner. Will the rest of society meet them on the same “playing field’? Probably not; however, in teaching our students how to discuss topics in a more invitational and respectful manner, we are teaching them to “take the high road.”

     Foss and Griffin have taken three principles from feminism and applied them as key features to what they call invitational rhetoric: equality, immanent value, and self-determination. First and foremost among the features of the proposed invitational rhetoric “is a commitment to the creation of relationships of equality and to the elimination of dominance” (4). In traditional rhetoric, there is no equal ground between the writer/speaker and the reader/listener. The writer assumes that he/she is more knowledgeable of the issue at hand and therefore asserts his/her dominance over the reader. Foss and Griffin wish to create a balance between the two and encourage developing relationships of equality. Another key feature of invitational rhetoric that I am currently trying to foster in my Composition I class is immanent value. The idea is that each individual has worth simply because they are a living, breathing part of the universe, regardless of what ideologies he or she may have or what position they may take on an issue. A pop-culture phrase that clearly touts this concept is “You be you.” [My students currently need constant reminding of this concept due to the nature of the topic they are writing about for the remainder of the semester (that they voted on): reproductive rights.] The final feature present in Foss and Griffin’s proposed invitation rhetoric is the idea of self-determination. This is recognition that both the speaker/writer and the audience make decisions regarding their own lives and neither are to fault the other if the decisions made don’t coincide with what we believe is right.

     Obviously, changing the way we teach college freshmen in our composition classes will take time. However, while it may seem that we have all the time in the world, in fact, we don’t. I have 15 short weeks to ingrain in my students that: they need to treat each other as equals regardless of their academic or social status, that we all are worthy to be known by each other regardless of our differences of opinions, and finally that we need to respect the decisions we make in our lives because we are all simply doing the best we can right now. How and where do I even begin?

     I start my semester by asking my students to think about their position on a variety of topics. I usually highlight two that I know we won’t discuss this semester (i.e artificial intelligence and gun control). I remind them that we all come from different walks of life and that we need to be respectful of our peers, their cultures, and our academic space. Then we share our thoughts openly in a circular discussion. I do have one student who voices his opinion louder than others and I often have to remind him to use his ‘inside voice’. We then discuss the differences of opinion that some of my international students have versus my students from the New York City area (I teach at a small community college in western New York). 

     Now that we have gotten to know one another and it is nearing the middle of the semester, I only have to remind them on occasion to be respectful of each other and our academic space. Will it be enough that I’ve focused on these principles? Will they carry over into the remainder of my students’ lives? I can only hope so. Students that I had last semester in Composition I and have chosen to take my section of Composition II will certainly hear these principles repeated. So, will 30 weeks of listening to me encourage equality, immanent value, and self-determination be enough to encourage them to continue thinking along these lines into their futures? I can only hope.

 

Foss, Sonja K., and Cindy L. Griffin. “Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric.” Communication Monographs, vol. 62, no. 1, Mar. 1995, pp. 2–18.