Potential course in rhetoric of politics and argumentation
Occasionally a writing assignment comes to me and it is SO GREAT OMG I LOVE IT and then I wonder how, exactly, I’m going to justify it in an ENGLISH class. Especially when my lighting bolt is about politics, and I do not teach political science, or American studies, or anything of that ilk. But English isn’t a bad place to bring those ideas in, since their ideologic complexity and the expression of it is essentially what we do in composition.
The main idea
So here’s the idea I had today. After I put enough thought into the class in order to devise a pedagogical justification for it, I would divide the class into two, or maybe three if we’re feeling generous, political parties and ask students in each group to collaboratively come up with a figure they would like to see elected president. What positions, issues, background, education, experience, etc. would they want to see in their elected official?
But where it gets interesting would be to ask them to weigh idealism with pragmatism: what do they wish to see, but what would they be willing to accommodate — or, heaven forbid, actually compromise on — in order for the candidate to be electable?
Collaboration
I think the collaborative part of this assignment is the best part because students will have to grapple with the way idealism and cynicism collide when it comes to politics, and to me that is one of the toughest things to figure out: what is sacred, what is necessary, what is effective — and what isn’t. Groups, to me, are the best place to tussle with these issues because there is real dialogue, as opposed to what you often see and read.
Even better, students would have to dig deeply into issues that we encounter every day, but there’d be little room — if devised correctly — for them to keep to shallow preconceptions. Especially in a group. At the very least, they’d have to consider candidates’ stances on abortion, immigration, the environment, energy, entitlements, defense spending, education, crime, poverty, jobs — I could go on.
Breaking it down
I suppose that if I did this assignment over a quarter, there would be three main writing assignments. First, students could do early, individual papers on those issues mentioned above that they in turn share with the group at large as it collaborates on creating its ideal candidate. Students would need to be well informed on the issues in order to decide how to position their candidate, so if each student (approx. 13 students per group, so 13 issues covered) researches and writes a paper laying out the national conversation on, say, abortion, and presents the various sides of the debate, the group could use that paper — and each of the 13 papers — to become better informed as they make their choices.
The second assignment would be the collaborative, and hopefully creative and multimodal, presentation of their ideal candidate. Would they have a man or woman, old or young, conservative or liberal; would the candidate be a member of a minority group; what experience, background, and qualifications would help this candidate succeed; and most of all, what positions would this candidate take, and what positions would s/he be willing to compromise on in order to be elected? Students could actually create a candidate (like a doll, or an image), and would turn in a collaborative paper and/or portfolio laying out the stances on important issues this candidate takes. Perhaps a student in the group could even play the role of the candidate and give a speech in class. Students could design campaign ads and bumper stickers (using rhetorical moves learned in class) to include in the portfolio….
One of the troubles with this assignment is that students may disagree with the group in terms of what stance they believe their candidate should take. For example, a student may be ardently anti-abortion and have qualms over collaborating in a group with a pro-choice candidate. This final writing assignment is where the student reflects on the process whereby the group arrived at its candidate, and, if s/he felt it necessary, explain his/her position(s) that deviate(s) from the group. I would probably also have students talk about what they learned about rhetoric and persuasion. It is not my mission indoctrinate my students into my political beliefs; it is my mission to have students carefully consider issues and write about them thoughtfully. And there is no field better suited to the study of rhetoric than politics.
Optional activities and assignments:
- Political debate between the two (or three) candidates
- Class (or wider) election
- Research opportunities including surveys and focus groups
- Students could make new parties rather than keeping the traditional Democrat/Republican model
Constraints
Here are my current constraints, and there are many more I haven’t even had time to consider:
- I will teach ENGL 122, which is essentially argumentation. …This curriculum seems well suited toward argumentation, actually — I kept thinking of obstacles but they seem surmountable. But is it fair to ask all my students — a couple of whom are not even U.S. citizens — to spend all quarter on a political theme? Especially in a world already supersaturated with campaigns — although isn’t understanding that world part of what an education is about? Plus the inclusion of rhetorical analysis is well suited to political rhetoric….
- I also teach similar classes in a penitentiary where my students’ do not currently have (and for some, will never have) the right to vote, so this curriculum would be useless there.
- The amount of time the collaborative part of this project would take seems prohibitive. I could easily see two or three weeks of the quarter disappearing down a rabbit hole while students self-democratize to get the collaborative part done. We might need an online (or Google Docs) forum for students to collaborate in their own time.
- Honestly, are traditionally aged college freshman going to be interested enough to keep up a full head of steam on this project for an entire quarter?