Teaching Persuasion is Unavoidably a Political Act
Know these four modes of argument so that confounding ignorance doesn’t make you insane.
It is always frustrating to see a post on social media from a conservative that reads: “All those liberal teachers who use their classrooms to promote their political views should be fired.” I take my own advice (as you will see) and never respond to these posts. My view is the opposite. The bitter, divisive mess the country now faces is partly the result of educators not sufficiently engaging on political topics. Good civics education and reflective classroom discussions prepare citizens to evaluate sources of information, be skeptical of implausible assertions, and think logically about the issues of the day.
I teach public speaking and composition classes at a community college. Speech ethics, persuasive techniques, logical fallacies, cognitive biases and manipulation detection are all part of the courses. Being overtly political with the examples we use in class is unavoidable. But there is something else going on that the conservatives are afraid of: When an instructor simply teaches these skills on the syllabus, most students on their own come to liberal-leaning conclusions on current societal issues. What does this say about conservative views when analytical thinking and accurate facts lead people to see those positions as self-serving propaganda that maintains wealth and power for a select, mostly white elite?
If we are going to get out of the mess America finds itself currently in, educators will need to be more political, not less. It is the height of hypocrisy for conservatives to have repealed the FCC Fairness Doctrine so that they can use the media to spread misinformation while telling educators that they are not supposed to use accurate information to empower students to think for themselves. An argument can be made that educators are the last line of defense against a totalitarian state in which factions of the population are pitted against one another for reasons that have no basis in reality.
It is inspiring when I see an increasing number of my students become politically engaged. Their generation is realizing that being apolitical is not an option unless they want to be victims. Still, they find it exhausting to “have to be ready to argue with everyone all the time,” as one student put it. Thus, we came up with the following four categories to be able to argue efficiently, preserve one’s energy, and keep from going insane. Perhaps this system will help others.
Debate
When my students and I refer to debate, we mean something very specific. For an argument to qualify as a debate, two conditions must be met.
First, you must have an overall respect for the thinking ability of the person or people you are arguing with (even if at the moment you vigorously disagree with them). The sad truth is that there are people that cannot be argued with because their thinking is too distorted. Because of cognitive issues, fanaticism, group allegiance, resistance to delving into complexity, bigotry, or blinded by self-interest, some people cannot be reached with reason. It is pointless to argue with someone whose thinking you don’t respect. I tell my students to save their energy and not be baited by confused, loud-mouth extremists or toxic comments on social media.
A recent example when I did not follow this advice was when I tried to convince the twentysomething owner of the deli on my street to get vaccinated. He is a hard-working good guy with a tip jar on the counter labeled “college fund” with pictures of his two toddlers. (I have not been able to convince him to open a 529 tax-free college savings account either.) He said he is not getting vaccinated “to be part of the control group.” When I explained why this doesn’t make sense — including that control groups have to be part of a study in which someone collects data — he said the government should pressure people to get the flu shot the same way they are the COVID shot. I said, “Maybe they should, but that’s not a reason not to get the COVID shot.”
He acknowledged that if he got others sick and caused their preventable deaths, that he would be in the wrong. He would feel guilty, he said, but he still won’t get vaccinated. He thinks it is crazy that the government has created sweepstakes to convince people to get the shot. I agreed. “It is crazy, but it is necessary because of people like you.” For him, the incentives are evidence that the government is up to something nefarious pushing vaccinations.
That popping sound you heard was my head exploding. Maybe yours did too. Even when you find someone personable and like them, arguing with someone whose thinking you don’t respect is a waste of time.
The second condition in order to be debating is that you yourself have to be open to considering the ideas you are hearing and willing to modify your views as a result. You may think, No way! — because you are absolutely sure your position is the right one — but truth is, you are the problem. Instead, try to learn from the person whose thinking you respect. You can’t expect them to change their views if you know from the outset you will never change yours.
We don’t have this willingness to learn from each other in our politics, especially at the national level. Hopefully, it still exists among people in their personal connections — with friends, colleagues and significant others. If married couples are not debating, as defined here, when they are arguing there really is no point for them to stay married.
Negotiation
When a person is negotiating, respect for the other party’s thinking is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that the other party holds the power to grant what you seek and your mission is to find a way to get it. This could be a raise from the manager or permission to use a neighbor’s empty driveway.
It is important to be aware of what a negotiation is, and not be fooled into thinking a business or labor negotiation is some sort of meeting of the minds in which the parties work together to come up with win-win solutions. Those who think that way are destined to lose. This is why I have always been skeptical of conflict resolution mediation in the workplace. The HR rep trying to mend a dispute between two co-workers may have the best of intentions, but chances are, the two parties at odds have no desire for a cooperative solution. If they did, they would not be in this situation in the first place. Mostly likely, there is some combination of deep seeded ill will, ambition, competition, territoriality and defensiveness at work in the dispute, and no starry-eyed pep talk is going to change that.
When you are negotiating, what matters is your power and your vulnerability. Having a just cause only matters for the messaging to the public. This often frustrates labor unions. They feel being right — because they are seeking to maintain livable wages and decent health care for theirs workers — should matter. It doesn’t. Only power matters.
Equally important is knowing when a situation shouldn’t be a negotiation. If negotiation is how a person navigates through most or all of their personal relationships — putting the objective at hand before the interpersonal connection — then perhaps some reflection on one’s priorities is in order.
Education
When educating, you are broadening the knowledge on a subject and developing the thinking abilities of the people you are teaching. These people could be actual students, like mine, or a person’s children. They also could be neighbors or friends or strangers at a meeting who are willing to give you a chance to edify them. Your goal is to develop the abilities of these people to understand the subject and make decisions for themselves.
This is why it is different from debating. You are not trying to convince them to see things your way. Rather, you are helping to guide them to come to good decisions on their own. Even if the conclusions they reach are different from your own, you have done your job if their reasoning process is coherent and logical. Chances are, sound thinking will lead to similar conclusions much of the time.
What matters most is helping them process information and be discerning about misinformation. In the classroom setting, I have the responsibility to make sure false information such as intelligent design, Q-anon lies, anti-vax propaganda, and election-theft conspiracies are put in their place — the trash.
When I am in the educating mode of persuading, I am simply making sure the students have accurate facts and monitoring their logic. The conclusions they come to are their own. There is no way for me to change that and I wouldn’t want to.
It is actually a relief to know it is not my responsibility to get them to the “right” conclusions but to cultivate the mechanisms for them to get to those conclusions for themselves. For example, my students are very committed to recycling, but a large group of them consistently admit they litter and don’t think it’s a big deal. If I thought my charge was to change their minds and behaviors, I’d go insane.
Campaign
The final mode of arguing is campaigning. Here, like with negotiating, getting people to do (or not do) something matters more than having them agree with your views (though that is always welcomed). Whether it is voting a certain way, signing a petition, getting vaccinated, leaving a smaller carbon footprint, it is the action that matters. Thinking this way enables concerned citizens to be more efficient as they seek to persuade. Time is better spent writing an article, making a video, and speaking to many people at a festival than it is arguing with one neighbor, getting upset with misguided family members or responding to trolls. And yes, I do campaign in the classroom, as my academic freedom allows. Too much is at stake for my students not to have my views — clearly separate from the course material that they will be graded on — to inform their thinking as they develop and refine their own.
Being apolitical in education like every other aspect of life is not a viable option. We are all interconnected and affected by each others’ choices. When it comes to issues such as vaccination, climate change, access to the ballot, health care, livable wages, just to name a few, “to each his own” is not an option. Now more than ever, live and let live is live and let die.
Politically-minded students appreciate having this clear delineation of approaches to argument. They say it has saved them from wasting energy and occasionally losing friendships. Hopefully, it will help others argue effectively today and still be willing and energized to keep persuading tomorrow.
