Switch‐SideDebatingMeetsDemand‐DrivenRhetoricofScience
GordonR.Mitchell
ABSTRACT
U.S.governmentagenciesarecollaboratingwithoutsidescholarstountangle
disparatethreadsofknottytechno‐scientificissues,inpartbyintegratingstructured
debatingexercisesintoinstitutionaldecision‐makingprocessessuchasintelligence
assessmentandpublicpolicyplanning.Theseinitiativesdriveupdemandfor
rhetoricianswithskillandexperienceinwhatProtagorascalleddissoilogoi—the
practiceofairingmultiplesidesofvexingquestionsforthepurposeofstimulating
criticalthinking.Inthecontemporarymilieu,dissoilogoireceivesconcrete
expressioninthetraditionofintercollegiate"switch‐sidedebating,"aformof
structuredargumentationcategorizedbysomeasa"culturaltechnology"with
weightyideologicalbaggage.Whatexactlyisthatbaggage,andhowdoesitimplicate
planstoimproveinstitutionaldecision‐makingbydrawingfromrhetoricaltheory
andexpertise?Explorationofhowswitch‐sidedebatingmeetsdemand‐driven
rhetoricofsciencenotonlyshedslightonthisquestion,butcanalsocontributeto
theburgeoningscholarlyliteratureondeliberativedemocracy,inform
argumentationstudies,andsuggestnewavenuesofinquiryinrhetoricaltheoryand
practice.
KEYWORDS:rhetoricofscience,argumentation,evidence,switch‐side
debate,EPA,intelligence,Isocrates.
2
Switch‐SideDebatingMeetsDemand‐DrivenRhetoricofScience
U.S.IntelligenceCommunitydirective205on"AnalyticOutreach,"signedinto
effectbyDirectorofNationalIntelligenceJohnMcConnellinJuly2008,aimsto
improveintelligenceanalysisbyborrowingcoreprinciplesfromthefieldof
rhetoric.Specifically,theoutreachprogramseeksassistancefromexpertsoutside
theintelligencecommunityto"closelyreviewanalyticalassumptions,logicand,
whereappropriate,evidence"inintelligenceassessments.1Thedirectiveindicates
thatoutsideexpertsalsomaybe"commissionedseparatelytoexaminean
alternativevieworapproachtoanissue;toarguetheprosandconstoajudgment
involvinguncertainty,ambiguity,ordebate."2Thisdescriptionevincesamarked
sensitivitytothevalueofrhetoric,sinceasDavidZarefskyobserves,"rhetoric's
responsibilityistoenablepeopletojudgewhetheraclaimisreasonableandjust,"
especiallywhencalled"tomakedecisionsunderconditionsofuncertainty,whenthe
rightcourseofactionisnotself‐evidentbutweneverthelessmustact."3Indeed,it
appearsthattheintelligencecommunityisattemptingtorefurbishitsanalytic
tradecraftbyhitchingitswagonstotheheuristicenginesofrhetoricalpractice.
1JohnMcConnell,"AnalyticOutreach,"IntelligenceCommunityDirective205(July16,2008),
http://www.dni.gov/electronic_reading_room/ICD%20205.pdf,p.2.2McConnell,"AnalyticOutreach,"3.AscyberintelligenceexpertJeffCarrobserves,the
BRIDGEprogram–onecomponentofMcConnell'sAnalyticOutreachinitiative–"providesaplatformfordebatingalternativeviewpointsandcomparingevidenceacrossagencies,specialties,andbordersofallkinds"(JeffCarr,"BuildingBridgeswiththeU.S.IntelligenceCommunity,"O'ReillyRadarweblog,April22,2009,http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/04/building‐bridges‐with‐the‐us‐i.html).Foratypologyofformsofalternativeanalysisinintelligencetradecraft,seeRogerZ.George,"FixingtheProblemofAnalyticalMindsets:AlternativeAnalysis,"inIntelligenceandtheNationalSecurityStrategist:EnduringIssuesandChallenges,ed.RogerZ.GeorgeandRobertD.Kline(Washington,D.C.:NationalDefenseUniversityPress,2004),311‐326
3DavidZarefsky,"TheResponsibilitiesofRhetoric,"inTheResponsibilitiesofRhetoric,ed.MichelleSmithandBarbaraWarnick(LongGrove,IL:WavelandPress,2010),15.ZarefskydevelopsthesegeneralizationsbydrawingontheworkofChaïmPerelmanandLucieOlbrechts‐Tyteca,whoseTheNewRhetoric:ATreatiseonArgumentation(NotreDame,IN:UniversityofNotreDamePress,1969)developsatheoryofrhetoricyokedtoargumentation.ZarefskyalsoforegroundsStephenToulmin'sinfluentialTheUsesofArgument,abookthatformorethanhalfacentury,hascarvedoutspaceforstudyofinformalargumentpatternsinfieldssuchasphilosophy,education,andcommunication(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1958).
3
Sucheffortsarebeingdrivennotonlybyrecommendationsfromexecutive
directives,blue‐ribboncommitteesandlegislativedecrees,4butalsobyscholarly
commentary.ConsiderDouglasHartandStevenSimon’spropositionthatonemajor
causeoftheintelligencecommunity’smisjudgmentsonIraqin2002‐2003was
‘‘poorargumentationandanalysiswithintheintelligencedirectorate.’’Asaremedy,
HartandSimonrecommendthatintelligenceagenciesencourageanalyststoengage
in‘‘structuredargumentsanddialogues’’designedtofacilitate‘‘sharingand
expressionofmultiplepointsofview’’andcultivate‘‘criticalthinkingskills.’’5
TheU.S.intelligencecommunity'sAnalyticOutreachinitiativeimplements
whatRonaldWalterGreeneandDarrinHickscall"switch‐sidedebating"–acritical
thinkingexercisewhereinterlocutorstemporarilysuspendbeliefintheir
convictionstobringforthmultipleanglesofanargument.6DrawingonFoucault,
GreeneandHicksclassifyswitch‐sidesdebatingasa"culturaltechnology,"one
ladenwithideologicalbaggage.Specifically,theyclaimthatswitch‐sidedebatingis
"investedwithethicalsubstance"7andthatparticipationintheactivityinculcates
"ethicalobligationsintrinsictothetechnology,"8includingpoliticalliberalismanda
worldviewcoloredbyAmericanexceptionalism.Onfirstblush,thefactthatadeputy
U.S.directorofnationalintelligenceisattemptingtodeploythisculturaltechnology
tostrengthensecretintelligencetradecraftinsupportofU.S.foreignpolicywould
seemtoqualifyasExhibit"B"insupportofGreeneandHicks'generalthesis.9
4McConnell'sdebateinitiativestemsdirectlyfromrecommendationsbytheSilberman‐Robb
Commission's2005reportonIraqWMDintelligence,whichcallsforimplementationofa"formalsystemforcompetitiveandevenexplicitlycontrariananalysis.Suchgroupsmustbelicensedtobetroublesome"(seeUnitedStates,CommissionontheIntelligenceCapabilitiesoftheUnitedStatesRegardingWeaponsofMassDestruction,ReporttothePresident,March2005,http://www.wmd.gov/report/,170).Section1017oftheIntelligenceReformandTerrorismPreventionActof2004alsocallsforaredoubledcommitmentto‘‘redteam’’competitiveintelligenceanalysisasakeyreformplank.SeeCongressionalRecord,December7,2004,H10930‐H10993.
5DouglasHartandStevenSimon,‘‘ThinkingStraightandTalkingStraight:ProblemsofIntelligenceAnalysis,’’Survival48(Spring2006):50.
6RonaldWalterGreeneandDarrinHicks,"LostConvictions:DebatingBothSidesandtheEthicalSelf‐fashioningofLiberalCitizens,"CulturalStudies19(January2005):100‐126.
7GreeneandHicks,"LostConvictions,"110.8GreeneandHicks,"LostConvictions,"111.9Exhibit"A,"forGreeneandHicks,istheAmericanintercollegiatepolicydebate
community'sprojectofcultivatingundergraduatestudentcitizenshipbyhavingdebatersdebate
4
Yetthepicturegrowsmorecomplexwhenoneconsiderswhatishappening
overattheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA),whereenvironmentalscientist
IbrahimGoodwiniscollaboratingwithJohnW.Davisonaprojectthatusesswitch‐
sidedebatingtocleanupairandwater.InApril2008,thatinitiativebroughttop
intercollegiatedebatersfromfouruniversitiestoWashington,D.C.,foraseriesof
debatesonthetopicofwaterquality,heldforanaudienceofEPAsubjectmatter
expertsworkingoninterstateriverpollutionandbottledwaterissues.AnApril
2009follow‐upeventinHuntingtonBeach,California,yieldedanotherdebate
weighingtherelativemeritsofmonitoringversusremediationasbeachpollution
strategies."Weusenationallyrankedintercollegiatedebateprogramstoresearch
andpresentthearguments,bothproandcon,devoidofspecialinterestinthe
outcome,"explainsDavis."Indoingso,agencyrepresentativesnowremainsquarely
withinthedecision‐makingroletherebyneutralizingoverzealousadvocacythatcan
inhibitlearneddiscourse."10
TheintelligencecommunityandEPAdebatinginitiativesvaryquiteabit
simplybyvirtueofthecontrastingpolicyobjectivespursuedbytheirsponsoring
agencies(foreignpolicyversusenvironmentalprotection).Significantprocess‐level
differencesmarkofftherespectiveinitiativesaswell;theformerprojectentails
largelyone‐wayinteractionsdesignedtosluiceinsightfrom"opensources"to
intelligenceanalystsworkinginclassifiedenvironmentsandproducinglargely
secretassessments.Incontrast,theEPA'sdebatinginitiativeisconductedthrough
publicforumsinapolicyprocessrequiredbylawtobetransparent.Thisgranularity
troublesGreeneandHicks'deterministicframingofswitch‐sidedebateasan
ideologicallysmoothandconsistentculturaltechnology.Inanalternativeapproach,
bothsidesofthe1954collegedebatetopicontheU.S.recognitionofCommunistChina.ForcommentaryonGreeneandHicks'claimsregardingthispoint,seeEricEnglish,CarlyWoods,StevenLlano,GordonR.Mitchell,CatherineE.Morrison,andJohnRief,"DebateasaWeaponofMassDestruction,"Communication&Critical/CulturalStudies,4(2007):222‐226.GreeneandHicksrespondto"DebateasaWeaponofMassDestruction"inapaper,"ConscientiousObjections:DebatingBothSidesandtheCulturesofDemocracy,"presentedattheSixteenthNCA/AFAConferenceonArgumentationheldinAlta,UT,July30‐August2,2009.
10JohnW.Davis,"UsingIntercollegiateDebatetoInformEnvironmentalPolicyDiscourseinAmerica,"ConcurrentSessionProgramDescription,U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyCommunityInvolvementTrainingConference,Seattle,Washington,August18‐20,2009.
5
thisessaypositionsdebateasamalleablemethodofdecision‐making,oneutilized
bydifferentactorsinmyriadwaystopursuevariouspurposes.Bybringingforththe
textureinherentintheassociatedmessy"mangleofpractice"11suchanapproach
haspotentialtodeepenourunderstandingofdebateasadynamicandcontingent,
ratherthanstaticformofrhetoricalperformance.
JuxtapositionoftheintelligencecommunityandEPAdebatinginitiatives
illuminatesadditionalavenuesofinquiry,onesthattakeoverlappingelementsof
thetwoprojectsaspointsofdeparture.Bothtacklecomplex,multifacetedand
technicaltopicsthatdonotlendthemselvestoreductionist,formalanalysis,and
bothtapintothecreativeenergylatentinwhatProtagorasofAbderacalleddissoi
logoi,theprocessoflearningaboutacontroversialorunresolvedissuebyairing
opposingviewpoints.12Inshort,theseinstitutionsareemployingdebateasatoolof
deliberation,seekingoutsideexpertisetohelpaccomplishtheiraims.Suchtrends
provideanoccasiontorevisitapresumptioncommonlyheldamongtheoristsof
deliberativedemocracythatdebateanddeliberationarefundamentallyopposed
practices,astheintelligencecommunity'sAnalyticOutreachprogramandEPA
debatinginitiativesrepresentexampleswheredebatingexercisesaredesignedto
facilitate,notfrustratedeliberativegoals.
Themovebytherespectiveinstitutionstotapoutsideresourcesforsupport
alsoimplicatesthelong‐simmeringtheoreticaldiscussioninrhetoricofscience
circles,whereDilipGaonkarchargesthatscholarssuchasJohnCampbell,Lawrence
Prelli,andAlanGrosserrbyutilizingconceptsfromclassicalGreekrhetoricasa
hermeneuticmetadiscourseforinterpretingscientifictexts.13InGaonkar'stelling,
the"hegemonic"projectto"globalize"rhetoricbybringingalltextualartifacts(even
11AndrewPickering,TheMangleofPractice:Time,AgencyandScience(Chicago:University
ofChicagoPress,1995).12RosamondKent,Sprague,ed.,TheOlderSophists,2ded.(Indianapolis:Hackett,2001);see
alsoJohnPoulakos,"RhetoricandCivicEducation:FromtheSophiststoIsocrates,"inIsocratesandCivicEducation,ed.TakisPoulakosandDavidJ.Depew(Austin:UniversityofTexasPress,2004),81‐82;andEdwardSchiappa,ProtagorasandLogos:AStudyinGreekPhilosophyandRhetoric(Columbia,SC:UniversityofSouthCarolinaPress,1991).
13DilipParameshwarGaonkar,"TheIdeaofRhetoricintheRhetoricofScience,"inRhetoricalHermeneutics,ed.AlanG.GrossandWilliamM.Keith(Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1997),25‐85.
6
hardscience)underitsscopeisanill‐fatedexerciseinsupply‐sideepistemology.Yet
theintelligencecommunity'sAnalyticOutreachprojectandtheEPA'sdebating
initiativesentaildemand‐drivenrhetoricofscience,whereinstitutionalactorsseek
enlistmentofrhetoric'sexpertisetotackletechnicalproblems.Ratherthanrhetoric
pushingitsepistemologyonscience,herewehavesciencepullingrhetoricintoits
interdisciplinaryorbit.14Coulditbethatthe"thinness"oftheproductivistclassical
Greeklexicon,forGaonkaraliabilityinrhetoricalcriticism,herebecomesastrength
supportingthetypeofpractice‐orientedscholarshipthatZarefskyenvisioned
growingoutofhistheoryofargumentationas"hypothesistesting"?15Thefollowing
analysis,whichconsidersinturntheintelligencecommunityandEPAdebating
initiatives,engagesthisquestion.
EvidenceandArgumentFieldsinIntelligenceCommunityDeliberations
"Theaxiomofallrhetoricistheprincipleofinsufficientreason,"saysHans
Blumenberg.16Inthisformulation,whenapressingsituationcallsforaction,butall
thefactsarenotyetin,rhetoriclendspracticalguidancetothoseseekingtonavigate
unchartedwaters.InLloydBitzer'sshopwornterminology,such"rhetorical
situations"aremeaningvacuumsthatinvite,even"call"discoursetothesceneas
"fitting"remediesforthe"imperfect"stateofaffairs.17Yetthecurrenteraof
14Foraprogrammaticanalysisexploringpossiblecontoursofanappliedresearchprogram
inrhetoricofscienceutilizingapublicdebatemethodology,seeGordonR.MitchellandMarcusParoske,"Fact,Friction,andPoliticalConvictioninSciencePolicyControversies,"SocialEpistemology14(2000):89‐108.Paroske's"DeliberatingInternationalSciencePolicyControversies:UncertaintyandAIDSinSouthAfrica"illustrateshowthisresearchapproachcanalsobeextendedinextendedcasestudies(seeQuarterlyJournalofSpeech95[2009]:148‐170).
15SeeDavidZarefsky,"ArgumentasHypothesis‐testing,"inDavidA.Thomas,ed.,AdvancedDebate:ReadingsinTheory,PracticeandTeaching(Skokie,Illinois:NationalTextbookCompany,1979),427‐437.
16HansBlumenberg,"AnAnthropologicalApproachtotheContemporarySignificanceofRhetoric,"inAfterPhilosophy?:EndorTransformation?,ed.KennethBaynes,JamesBohmanandThomasMcCarthy;trans.RobertM.Wallace(Cambridge:MITPress,1987),447.
17LloydF.Bitzer,“TheRhetoricalSituation,”PhilosophyandRhetoric1(1968):1‐14;seealsoRichardE.Vatz,“TheMythoftheRhetoricalSituation,”PhilosophyandRhetoric6(1973):154‐161;ScottConsigny,“RhetoricanditsSituations,”PhilosophyandRhetoric7(1974):175‐185;andKathleenM.HallJamieson,“GenericConstraintsandtheRhetoricalSituation,”PhilosophyandRhetoric6(1973):162‐170.
7
"contentabundance"18seemstoinvertthiscommonlyheldsenseoftherhetorical
situation,aswestruggletostayafloatinthewakeofnewwavesoffacts,figures,and
testimonychurnedoutbytoday'sproliferatingsitesofknowledgeproduction.19
AccordingtoRichardLanham,"we'redrowning"inthisendemicstateofsurplus
information,strugglingtomarshalsufficientattentionneededtomakesenseofit
all.20Tocapturethissenseofinundation,DamienPfistercoinstheterm
"hyperpublicity"todescribethe"massiveexpansioninthecapacityofpersonal
mediatorecord,archive,andmakesearchablethoughts,events,andinteractionsin
publiclyaccessibledatabases."21Inthismeaning‐saturatedenvironment,whichhas
"doublepotentialtoenrichandthreatenpubliclife,"22thechallengehaslesstodo
withfiguringouthowtomakepracticaldecisionsbasedonscarceshredsof
evidence(rhetoricfillingalack);andmoretodowithsortingthroughever‐
expandingmoundsofevidencewhoserelevancetopressingdecisionsmaynotbe
immediatelyapparent(rhetoricrespondingtoasurplus).
TheofficialU.S.intelligencecommunityroutinelyfacessuchinverted
rhetoricalsituationswhenitiscalledupontodeliverconsensusjudgmentssuchas
NationalIntelligenceEstimates.Toreachsuchjudgments,analystsmustcomb
throughterabytesofdigitaldatafromSIGINT(signalsintelligencegatheredfrom
satellitesandothermonitoringdevices),HUMINT(humanintelligencedrawnfrom
informantsandagents),aswellasaburgeoningsupplyof"opensource"intelligence
(datainthepublicdomain).Asthecommunityiscomposedofsixteenseparate
18MichaelJensen,"ScholarlyAuthorityintheAgeofAbundance:RetainingRelevancewithin
theNewLandscape,"KeynoteAddressattheJSTORannualParticipatingPublisher'sConference,NewYork,NewYork,May13,2008,http://www.nap.edu/staff/mjensen/jstor.htm.
19DamienPfister,"TowardaGrammaroftheBlogosphere:RhetoricandAttentionintheNetworkedImaginary"(Ph.D.diss.,UniversityofPittsburgh,2009).Todevelopthispointfurther,Pfister("TowardAGrammar,"39)pointstoHerbertSimon's“DesigningOrganizationsforanInformation‐RichWorld,”whichsuggests"awealthofinformationcreatesapovertyofattention,andaneedtoallocatethatattentionefficientlyamongtheoverabundanceofinformationsourcesthatmightconsumeit"inComputers,Communication,andthePublicInterest,ed.MartinGreenberger(Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversity,1971),41.
20RichardLanham,TheEconomicsofAttention:StyleandSubstanceintheInformationAge(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2006),xi.
21Pfister,"GrammaroftheBlogosphere,"384.22Pfister,"GrammaroftheBlogosphere,"384.
8
agenciesandentitiesthateachservedifferentcustomersandpursuedistinct
approachestointelligenceanalysis,heterogeneousperspectivesoftencomplicate
theprocessofsortingtheproverbialwheatfromthechaff.AsSimonandHart
explain,"thebasicproblemstemsfrommovingknowledgecreatedusingevidence
andanalysisinonegroupororganisationintoanother.Thisisnotatrivial
undertaking,becausetheprocess,languageandultimatepurposeofthecreated
knowledgeoftendifferradicallybetweentheoriginatingandreceiving
organisations."23Asaresult,"analysesinvolvingjihadistperceptionsortechnical
detailsconcerningchemical,biologicalornuclearweaponscanoftengenerate
interpretiveorsemanticdifferencesbetweenoriginatingandreceiving
organisationsastowhataword,measurementoroutcomeactuallymeans."24Here,
centrifugalforcesofprofessionalspecializationandhorizontalknowledgediffusion
scatterthepooluponwhichanalystsdrawdata.Simultaneously,centripetalforces
obligethesesameanalyststosynthesizevastsumsofdiverseinformationand
rendercoherentargumentsoncomplexandmultifacetedissues.Thischallenge
stemsfromatensionbornefromthepushbroughtaboutbythesplinteringofthe
intelligencecommunityintodisparateagencies,ontheonehand,andthepullof
institutionaldirectivesrequiringco‐ordinationofintelligenceproducts,onthe
other.
Surmountingthiscomplexepistemologicaldilemmarequiresmorethan
sheerinformationprocessingpower;itdemandsformsofcommunicativedexterity
thatenabletranslationofideasacrossdifferencesandfacilitateco‐operativework
byinterlocutorsfromheterogeneousbackgrounds.Howcansuchcommunicative
dexteritybecultivated?HartandSimonseestructuredargumentationasa
promisingtoolinthisregard.Intheirview,theuniquevirtueofrigorousdebatesis
thatthey"supportdiversepointsofviewwhileencouragingconsensusformation."
Thisdualfunctionofargumentationprovides"bothintelligenceproducersand
policyconsumerswithaviewintothemethodologiesandassociatedevidenceused
23HartandSimon,"ThinkingStraight,"46.24HartandSimon,"ThinkingStraight,"47.
9
toproduceanalyticalproduct,effectivelycreatingacommonlanguagethatmight
helpmoveknowledgeacrossorganisationalbarrierswithoutlossofaccuracyor
relevance."25HartandSimon'sinsights,coupledwiththepreviouslymentioned
institutionalinitiativespromotingswitch‐sidedebatingintheintelligence
community,carveoutanewzoneofrelevancewhereargumentationtheory's
salienceispronouncedandgrowing.Giventhecentralityofevidentiaryanalysisin
thiszone,itisusefultorevisithowargumentationscholarshavetheorizedways
evidencefunctionsindebatingcontexts.
InthewordsofAustinFreeley,"evidenceistherawmaterialof
argumentation.Itconsistsoffacts,opinionsandobjectsthatareusedtogenerate
proof."26Here,evidencebecomesthe"factualfoundationfortheclaimsofthe
advocates."27Whenaninterlocutorattemptstoforwardclaimsbasedondata,"the
processofadvancingfromevidencetoconclusionisargument."28Whatarethe
differenttypesofevidence?Whicharemostpersuasiveincertainsituations?How
canevidencebemisused?Whatdoesn'tcountaslegitimateevidence?Inthefieldof
argumentation,scholarshavelonggrappledwiththesequestions,oftenby
developingidiosyncratictaxonomiesofevidenceusage.29So,forexample,one
textbookbreaksdowntypesofevidenceintothreecategories:examples,statistics
andauthority;andthreesources:original,hearsay,written.30Anearliereffort
identifiesthree"formsofdatathatprovideproofforaclaim"asunwritten,ordinary,
25HartandSimon,"ThinkingStraight,"53.Onrhetoric'sroleasamediumoftranslationinmedicalresearch,seeGordonR.MitchellandKathleenM.McTigue,"PromotingTranslationalResearchinMedicinethroughDeliberation,"paperpresentedatthe“Justification,Reason,andAction"ConferenceinHonorofProfessorDavidZarefsky,NorthwesternUniversiy,Evanston,IL,May29&30,2009.
26AustinJ.Freeley,ArgumentationandDebate:CriticalThinkingforReasonedDecisionMaking,9thed.(Belmont:Wadsworth,1996),107;seealsoJamesH.McBurney,JamesM.O'NeillandGlenE.Mills,ArgumentationandDebate:TechniquesofaFreeSociety(NewYork:Macmillan,1951),73.
27DavidL.Vancil,RhetoricandArgumentation(Boston:AllynandBacon,1993),48.28A.CraigBaird,Argumentation,DiscussionandDebate(NewYork:McGraw‐Hill,1950),90.29Forareviewoftheliteratureonempiricaldimensionsofevidence'sroleinargument,
especiallyregardingperceptionsofevidencestrengthbyinterlocutors,seeRodneyA.ReynoldsandJ.LynnReynolds,"Evidence,"inThePersuasionHandbook:DevelopmentsinTheoryandPractice,ed.JamesPriceDillardandMichaelPfau(ThousandOaks,CA:Sage,2002),427‐444.
30TrischaGoodnowKnappandLawrenceA.Galizio,ElementsofParliamentaryDebate:AGuidetoPublicArgument(NewYork:Longman,1999),17‐18.
10
andexpert.31Inablisteringcritique,DaleHamplequestionstheusefulnessofthese
projects:"Thetypologies—forindeedtheyareplural—differfromtextbookto
textbookandhaveneverbeendefendedashavinganyphenomenalrealityfor
anyonenottakinganargumentationexam."32Onefactoraccountingforthelimited
conceptualappealoftheseevidencetaxonomiesisthatsuchschemesaretiedtightly
tothepracticalactivityassociatedwiththeirdevelopment—intercollegiate
debating.SinceasDeanFadelypointsout,the"bedrockofcontestdebate"is
evidence,33itisonlynaturalthatmanyofthesetaxonomicaleffortsaredesignedto
supportstudentclassroomwork.Forexample,theprefacetoRobertandDale
Newman's1969Evidenceexplains,"Thisbookisdesignedprimarilyforstudentsof
exposition,discussion,persuasion,andargumentwhomustbuttresstheirspeeches
oressayswithevidence."34Suchapedagogicalorientationunderwritesthepractical
dimensionofevidencestudies,wheretheemphasisrestsoncultivatinginvention
skillssufficienttoenablestudentstoresearch,deployanddefendevidencedclaims
inargumentativesituations.35
Arelatedstrandofscholarshipconcernsthemobilizationofargumentation
theorytocritiqueevidentiarypracticesusedintheconductofpublicaffairs.This
criticalorientationisalsomanifestinNewmanandNewman's1969Evidencetext,
whichfeaturesanalysesoftheauthenticity,credibility,andfactualgroundingof
evidenceprovidedbygovernmentofficials,journalists,andexpertsdiscussing
publicpolicyissues.Later,RobertNewman'sarticle‘‘CommunicationPathologiesof
IntelligenceSystems,’’woulddeploythissameframeworktoshowhowintelligence
failuresrangingfromtheBayofPigstoVietnamwererootedinsystematic
31Baird,Argumentation,DiscussionandDebate,95.32DaleHample,Arguing:ExchangingReasonsFacetoFace(Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum
Associates,2005),200.33DeanFadely,Advocacy:TheEssentialsofArgumentationandDebate(Dubuque,IA:
KendallHunt,1994),55.34RobertP.NewmanandDaleR.Newman,Evidence(NewYork:Houghton‐Mifflin,1969),
vii.35Onthegeneraltopicofhowthecommunicationfield'spedagogicalrootsinflect
communicationtheory,seeRichardGraffandMichaelLeff,"RevisionistHistoriographyandRhetoricalTradition(s),"inTheViabilityoftheRhetoricalTradition,ed.RichardGraff,ArthurE.Walzer,andJanetM.Atwill(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2005),11‐30.
11
institutionalpressuresthatdistortedcommunicationbetweenintelligenceanalysts
andpolicy‐makers,causingthemtomishandleevidence.36
Asonetracestheevolutionofevidencestudiesbeyondthedebatecontest
roundcontext,ahostofotherargument‐informedanalysescomeintoview.Someof
theseprojectsmeasureempiricallythepsychologicaldimensionofevidenceuptake
byaudiences,37whileothers,oftenworkingunderthebanner"informallogic,"
explorethe"fielddependency"ofevidencenorms.Whereanalyticaltreatmentsby
logicalempiricistssuchasCarlHempelsoughttodevelopuniversalaccountsof
evidencethatwouldholdfastacrossobjectdomains,argumentationscholars,ledby
StephenToulmin,havepositedthatthedomainsinwhichargumenttakesplace
structureexpectationsandnormsregardingevidence.38Thus,answerstoquestions
like"whichtypeofevidenceismostpersuasive"pivotdependingontheargument
fieldinwhichtheargumenttakesplace.Hearsaytestimony,forinstance,maybe
persuasiveevidenceforajournalistworkingonastoryaboutarecentcrime.Yet
thatsametestimonywilllikelyreceivelesssympathetictreatmentinacourtroom
trialwhereaprosecutorattemptstopresentitasevidenceagainstasuspect
accusedofcommittingthecrime.Thesedimensionsofcontingencyand
interpretationarelargelyabsentinformallogic,where"fieldinvariant"rulesgovern
connectionsbetweenclaimsandtheirsupportingevidence.AsChaimPerelmanand
LucieOlbrechts‐TytecashowinTheNewRhetoric,theconceptualscaffoldingof
argumentationiswellequippedtoshedlightonpreciselythosesituationswhere
deductiveformsofreasoningandformallogicfailtodeliver.39
The"fielddependent"approachtothestudyofevidenceisstraightforward
wheninventionandcritiqueareapproachedwithinthehorizonofadistinctfield.
Onefirstdiscernsthelocalnormsgoverningevidenceintheparticularfieldinwhich
36RobertP.Newman,‘‘CommunicationPathologiesofIntelligenceSystems,’’Speech
Monographs42(1975):273‐90.37DaleHample,“TestingaModelofValueArgumentandEvidence,”Communication
Monographs44(1977):106‐120;andHansHoeken,"Anecdotal,StatisticalandCausalEvidence:TheirPerceivedandActualPersuasiveness,”Argumentation15(2001):425‐437.
38CarlG.Hempel,"APurelySyntacticalDefinitionofConfirmation,"JournalofSymbolicLogic8(1943):122‐143;Toulmin,UsesofArgument.
39PerelmanandOlbrechts‐Tyteca,TheNewRhetoric.
12
anargumenttakesplace,thenappliesthosenormstothetaskathand,whetheritbe
creationofnovelargumentationoranalysisofextantargumentsalreadyonrecord.
Yetthingsgrowcomplicatedwhenthediscursivemilieuspanstwoormore
argumentfields,especiallywhenthosefieldsfeatureincompatibleconventions
regardingevidence.ConsiderthattheCentralIntelligenceAgency(CIA's)
prioritizationofthewarningfunctioninintelligenceanalysispredisposesCIA
analyststodeploydifferentevidencestandardsthantheStateDepartment'sBureau
ofIntelligenceandResearch,whereanalystsaretrainedtoprioritizeaccurate
predictionoverthreatwarning.40Onefactoraccountingfortheintelligencefailure
priortothe2003IraqWarwasaninabilitybyintelligenceanalystsandpolicy‐
makerstofullyappreciatehowthedisparateassessmentsregardingSaddam
Hussein'sarsenalofunconventionalweaponrycouldbeunderstoodasproductsof
thedistinctargumentfieldsproducingtheassessments.
Someofthespecificprojectsunderwayintheintelligencecommunitythat
giveDirectorMcConnell'sAnalyticOutreachinitiativeconcreteexpressionshow
howtheleadershipisbankingontheprocessofargumentationtohelppreventa
repeatofthe2003IraqWarintelligencefailure.41Forinstance,DanDoney,oneof
McConnell'sdeputies,isspearheadingaprojectnamedBRIDGEthat"providesa
platformfordebatingalternativeviewpointsandcomparingevidenceacross
agencies,specialties,andbordersofallkinds."42AsDoneyexplains,"BRIDGEis
designedtoenablecrowd‐sourcingofintelligenceapplications–followingthe
iPhoneAppStoremodel–byprovidingalowbarrier‐to‐entryplatformtostimulate
innovationandenableanalyststodiscovernextgenerationcapabilitiesthathave
valuetotheirmission."43OnecannothelpbutrecallGreeneandHicks'formulation
ofdebatingasatechnologyafterreadingasummaryofthefirstwaveofapplications
40GregThielmann,"IntelligenceinPreventiveMilitaryStrategies,"inHittingFirst:
PreventiveForceinU.S.SecurityStrategy,ed.WilliamW.KellerandGordonR.Mitchell(Pittsburgh:UniversityofPittsburghPress,2006),153‐174.
41JohnA.Kringen,‘‘HowWe’veImprovedIntelligence;MinimizingtheRiskof‘Groupthink’,’’WashingtonPost,April3,2006,p.A19.
42Carr,"BuildingBridges."43DanDoney,quotedinCarr,"BuildingBridges."
13
featuredintheBRIDGEprogram.ThefirstWeb‐based"App,"named"Collaborative
AnalysisofCompetingHypotheses,"enablesanalysts"togatherevidence
collaborativelyandthinkmorecriticallyabouttheplausiblescenarios,mitigating
bias"and"honeinondifferences,makingdebatemoreconstructiveand
encouragingdeeperreasoning."44AnotheronlineApp,"HotGrinds,"supports
"semanticsearch,expertiseidentification,andmanagementoverviewsofdebate"
that"providegreatercollectiveawarenessandenhancedcollaboration."45Thekey
premiseunderlyingspecificdesignfeaturesofthissoftwareisthatthroughonline
connectivity,analystswillbeempoweredtoredoubletheircapacityfor
collaborativedeliberation.
Thewatchwordsfortheintelligencecommunity'sdebatinginitiative–
collaboration,criticalthinking,collectiveawareness–resonatewithkeyterms
anchoringthestudyofdeliberativedemocracy,oneofthecommunicationfield's
hottestresearchareas.Inamajornewtext,JohnGastildefinesdeliberationasa
processwherebypeople"carefullyexamineaproblemandarriveatawell‐reasoned
solutionafteraperiodofinclusive,respectfulconsiderationofdiversepointsof
view."46GastilandhiscolleaguesinorganizationssuchastheKetteringFoundation
andtheNationalCoalitionforDialogueandDeliberationarepursuinganexciting
researchprogramthatforegroundsthedemocratictelosofdeliberativeprocesses.
Workinthisareafeaturesablendofconcreteinterventionsandstudiesofcitizen
empowerment.47Notably,akeythemeinmuchofthisliteratureconcernsthe
relationshipbetweendeliberationanddebate,withthelattertermoftenloaded
withpejorativebaggageandworkingasanegativefoiltohighlightthepositive
qualitiesofdeliberation.48"Mostpoliticaldiscussions,however,aredebates.Stories
44Carr,"BuildingBridges."45Carr,"BuildingBridges."46JohnGastil,PoliticalCommunicationandDeliberation(ThousandOaks,CA:Sage,2008),8.47Foranilluminatingcollectionofcasestudiesinthisburgeoningareaofscholarship,see
JohnGastilandPeterLevine,ed.,TheDeliberativeDemocracyHandbook(SanFrancisco,Jossey‐Bass,2005).
48OnenotableexceptionisChristopherF.KarpowitzandJaneMasbridge'schapter,"DisagreementandConsensus:TheImportanceofDynamicUpdatinginPublicDeliberation,"inTheDeliberativeDemocracyHandbook,237‐253.
14
inthemediaturnpoliticsintoanever‐endingseriesofcontests.Peoplegetswept
intotakingsides;theirenergygoesintofiguringoutwhoorwhatthey'reforor
against,"saysKetteringpresidentDavidMathewsandcoauthorNoelleMcAfee.
"Deliberationisdifferent.Itisneitherapartisanargumentwhereopposingsidestry
towinnoracasualconversationconductedwithpolitecivility.Publicdeliberationis
ameansbywhichcitizensmaketoughchoicesaboutbasicpurposesanddirections
fortheircommunitiesandtheircountry.Itisawayofreasoningandtalking
together."49MathewsandMcAfee'sdistrustaboutthedebateprocessisalmost
paradigmaticamongsttheoristsandpractitionersofKettering‐styledeliberative
democracy.
Oneconceptualmechanismforreinforcingthisdebate‐deliberation
oppositionischaracterizationofdebateasaprocessinimicaltodeliberativeaims,
withdebatersadoptingdogmaticandfixedpositionsthatfrustratethedeliberative
objectiveof"choicework."Inthisregister,EmilyRobertsonobserves,"unlike
deliberators,debatersaretypicallynotopentothepossibilityofbeingshown
wrong....Debatersarenottryingtofindthebestsolutionbykeepinganopenmind
abouttheopponent'spointofview."50Similarly,foundingdocumentsfromthe
UniversityofHouston‐Downtown'sUniversityofHouston‐DowntownCenterfor
PublicDeliberationstate,"Publicdeliberationisaboutchoicework,whichis
differentfromadialogueoradebate.Indialogue,peopleoftenlooktorelatetoeach
other,tounderstandeachother,andtotalkaboutmoreinformalissues.Indebate,
therearegenerallytwopositionsandpeoplearegenerallylookingto'win'their
side."51Debate,casthereasthetheoreticalscapegoat,providesaconvenient,low‐
waterbenchmarkforexplaininghowotherformsofdeliberativeinteractionbetter
promotecooperative"choicework."
49DavidMathewsandNoelleMcAfee,MakingChoicesTogether:ThePowerofPublic
Deliberation(Dayton,OH:KetteringFoundation,2003),10.50EmilyRobertson,"TeacherEducationinaDemocraticSociety:LearningandTeachingthe
PracticesofDemocraticParticipaton,"inTheHandbookofResearchonTeacherEducation,ed.MarilynCochran‐Smith,SharonFreiman‐Nemser,andD.JohnMcIntyre(London:Routledge,2008),32.
51UniversityofHouston‐DowntownCenterforPublicDeliberation,"WhatisPublicDeliberation,"http://www.dt.uh.edu/academic/colleges/humanities/uhd_cpd/what_is.html#.
15
TheKettering‐inspiredframeworkreceivessupportfromperversionsofthe
debateprocesssuchasvapidpresidentialdebatesandverbalpyrotechnicsfoundon
Crossfire‐styletelevisionshows.Incontrast,theintelligencecommunity'sdebating
initiativestandsasanettlesomeanomalyforthesetheoreticalframeworks,with
debateserving,ratherthanfrustrating,theendsofdeliberation.Thepresenceof
suchananomalywouldseemtopointtothewisdomoffashioningatheoretical
orientationthatframesthedebate‐deliberationconnectionincontingent,rather
thanstaticterms,withtherelationshipbetweenthecategoriesshiftingalongwith
thevariouscontextsinwhichtheymanifestinpractice.52Suchanapproachgestures
towardtheimportanceofrhetoricallyinformedcriticalworkonmultiplelevels.
First,thecontingencyofsituatedpracticeinvitesanalysisgearedtoassess,in
particularcases,theextenttowhichdebatepracticesenableand/orconstrain
deliberativeobjectives.Regardingtheintelligencecommunity'sdebatinginitiative,
suchananalyticalperspectivehighlights,forexample,thetightconnectionbetween
thedeliberativegoalsestablishedbyintelligenceofficialsandthe"cultural
technology"manifestintheBRDIGEproject'sonlinedebatingapplicationssuchas
"HotGrinds."
Anadditionaldimensionofnuanceemergingfromthisavenueofanalysis
pertainstotheprecisenatureofthedeliberativegoalsmadeaspartofBRIDGE.
ProgramdescriptionsnotablyeschewKettering‐stylereferencestodemocratic
citizenempowerment,yetfeaturedeliberationprominentlyaskeyingredientof
strongintelligencetradecraft.Thiscaveatisespeciallysalienttoconsiderwhenit
comestothesecondcategoryofrhetoricallyinformedcriticalworkinvitedbythe
contingentaspectofspecificdebateinitiatives.Tograspthislayeritisusefulto
appreciatehowthenameoftheBRIDGEprojectconstitutesaninvitationforthose
outsidetheintelligencecommunitytoparticipateintheanalyticoutreacheffort.
52Thislineofthinkingisintendedtoendorseneithercompleteerasureofthetheoretical
differencesbetweendebateanddeliberation,nordenigrationofdeliberationonitsownterms.Rather,itsignalsreceptivitytotheoreticalframeworks,suchasJamesCrosswhite's"rhetoricofreason,"thatforegroundthemultifaceteddimensionsofargumentativepractice,somewhicharemoreconsistentwithdeliberativeobjectivesthanothers—seehisTheRhetoricofReason:WritingandtheAttractionsofArgument(Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress,1996).
16
AccordingtoDoney,BRIDGE"providesanenvironmentforAnalyticOutreach‐‐a
placewhereICanalystscanreachouttoexpertiseelsewhereinfederal,state,and
localgovernment,inacademia,andindustry.Newcommunitiesofinterestcanform
quicklyinBRIDGEthroughthe'weboftrust'accesscontrolmodel‐‐accesstominds
outsidetheintelligencecommunitycreatesananalyticforcemultiplier."53This
presentsamomentofchoiceforacademicscholarsinapositiontorespondto
Doney'sinvitation;itisanopportunitytoconvertscholarlyexpertiseintoan
"analyticforcemultiplier."
Inreflexivelyponderingthisinvitation,itmaybevaluableforscholarsto
bearinmindLangdonWinner'smaximthat"technologicalartifactshavepolitics,"54
sinceifGreeneandHicks'propositionthatswitch‐sidedebatingshouldbeviewedas
aculturaltechnology,thendebateinitiativesalsocarrypoliticalentailments.Inthe
caseofBRIDGE,thosepoliticalentailmentsarecoloredbythehistoryofintelligence
communitypoliciesandpractices.CommenterThomasLordputsthispointinhigh
reliefinapostofferedinresponsetoanewsstoryonthetopic:"Whyshouldthis
thing('BRIDGE')be?...[Theintelligencecommunity]ontheonehandsometimes
providesusefulinformationtothemilitaryortothecivilianbranchesandonthe
otherhanditisadangerous,outofcontrol,relicthatbyallexternalappearancesis
nottheslightestbitreformed,otherthansuperficially,fromsuchexcessesas
becameexposedintheCOINTELPROandMKULTRAhearingsofthe1970s."55A
debatescholarneednotagreewithLord'sfull‐throatedcriticismoftheintelligence
community(hegoesontoobservethatitbearsanalarmingresemblanceto
organizedcrime)tounderstandthatparticipationinthecommunity'sAnalytic
Outreachprogrammayservetheendsofdeliberation,butnotnecessarily
democracy,orevenadefensiblepolitics.Demand‐drivenrhetoricofscience
necessarilyraisesquestionsaboutwhat'sdrivingthedemand,questionsthat
scholarswithrelevantexpertisewoulddowelltopondercarefullybefore
53DanDoney,quotedinCarr,"BuildingBridges."54LangdonWinner,TheWhaleandtheReactor:ASearchforLimitsinanAgeofHigh
Technology(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1986),1955ThomasLord,commentonCarr,"BuildingBridges,"April22,2009.
17
embracinginvitationstocontributetheirargumentativeexpertisetodeliberative
projects.Bythesametoken,itwouldbeprudenttobearinmindthatthe
technologicaldeterminismaboutswitch‐sidedebateendorsedbyGreeneandHicks
maytendtoflattenreflexiveassessmentsregardingthewisdomofsupportinga
givendebateinitiative—asthenextsectionillustrates,manifestdifferencesamong
initiativeswarrantcontext‐sensitivejudgmentsregardingthenormativepolitical
dimensionsfeaturedineachcase.
PublicDebatesintheEPAPolicyProcess
TheprecedinganalysisofU.S.intelligencecommunitydebatinginitiatives
highlightedhowanalystsarechallengedtodiscursivelynavigatetheheteroglossia
ofvastamountsofdifferentkindsofdataflowingthroughintelligencestreams.
Publicpolicyplannersaretestedinlikemannerwhentheyattempttostitch
togetherinstitutionalargumentsfromvariousandsundryinputsrangingfrom
experttestimony,historicalprecedent,andpubliccomment.Justasintelligence
managersfindthatalgorithmic,formalmethodsofanalysisoftendon'tworkwhenit
comestothetaskofinterpretingandsynthesizingcopiousamountsofdisparate
data,publicpolicyplannersencountersimilarchallenges.
Infact,the"argumentativeturn"inpublicpolicyplanningelaboratesan
approachtopublicpolicyanalysisthatforegroundsdeliberativeinterchangeand
criticalthinkingasalternativesto"decisionism,"theformulaicapplicationof
"objective"decisionalgorithmstothepublicpolicyprocess.56Statingthematter
plainly,Majonesuggests,"whetherinwrittenororalform,argumentiscentralinall
stagesofthepolicyprocess."57Accordingly,henotes,"wemissagreatdealifwetry
tounderstandpolicy‐makingsolelyintermsofpower,influence,andbargaining,to
theexclusionofdebateandargument."58Onecanseesimilarrationalesdriving
GoodwinandDavis'sEPAdebatingproject,wheredebatersareinvitedtoconduct
56GiandomenicoMajone,Evidence,Argument,&PersuasioninthePolicyProcess(New
Haven:YaleUniversityPress,1989),12‐20.57Majone,Evidence,ArgumentandPersuasion,5.58Majone,Evidence,ArgumentandPersuasion,2.
18
on‐sitepublicdebatescoveringresolutionscraftedtoreflectkeypointsofstasisin
theEPAdecision‐makingprocess.Forexample,inthe2008"WaterWars"debates
heldatEPAheadquartersinWashington,D.C.,resolutionswerecraftedtofocus
attentiononthetopicofwaterpollution,withoneresolutionfocusingon
downstreamstates'authoritytocontrolupstreamstates’dischargesandsourcesof
pollutants;andasecondresolutionexploringthepolicymeritsofbottledwaterand
toiletpapertaxesasrevenuesourcestofundfinancewaterinfrastructureprojects.
Inthefirstdebateoninterstateriverpollution,theteamofSethGannonand
SeungwonChungfromWakeForestUniversityarguedinfavorofdownstreamstate
control,withtheMichiganStateUniversityteamofCarlyWunderlichandGarrett
Abelkopprovidingopposition.Intheseconddebateontaxationpolicy,Kevin
KallmyerandMatthewStruthfromMaryWashingtonUniversitydefendedtaxeson
bottledwaterandtoiletpaper,whiletheiropponentsfromHowardUniversity,
DominiqueScottandJarredMcKee,arguedagainstthisproposal.Reflectingonthe
project,Goodwinnotedhowtheintercollegiatedebaters'abilitytoactas"honest
brokers"inthepolicyargumentscontributedpositivelytointernalEPAdeliberation
onbothissues.59Davisobservedthatsincetheinviteddebaters"didn'thaveadogin
thefight,"theywereabletogivevoicetopreviouslyburiedargumentsthatsome
EPAsubjectmatterexpertsfeltreticenttoelucidate,becauseoftheirinstitutional
affiliations.60
Suchfindingsareconsistentwiththeviewsofpolicyanalystsadvocatingthe
"argumentativeturn"inpolicyplanning.AsMajoneclaims,"dialectical
confrontationbetweengeneralistsandexpertsoftensucceedsinbringingout
unstatedassumptions,conflictinginterpretationsofthefacts,andtherisksposedby
newprojects."61FrankFischergoesevenfurtherinthiscontext,explicitly
59IbrahimGoodwin,personalcorrespondencewithGordonMitchell,July21,2009.60JohnDavis,personalcorrespondencewithGordonMitchell,June7,2009.Inpersonal
correspondencewithGordonMitchellonAugust4,2009,debaterSethGannonreinforcedthisnotion:"OurEPAaudienceexpressedgreatthanksforadebateonthemeritsoftheirpoliciesthatwasinvestedonlyinthedebateprocessandnotanyparticularinterests."
61Majone,Evidence,ArgumentandPersuasion,5.
19
appropriatingrhetoricalscholarCharlesWillard'sconceptofargumentative
"epistemics"tofleshouthisvisionforpolicystudies:
Uncoveringtheepistemicdynamicsofpubliccontroversieswould
allowforamoreenlightenedunderstandingofwhatisatstakeina
particulardispute,makingpossibleasophisticatedevaluationofthe
variousviewpointsandmeritsofdifferentpolicyoptions.Insodoing,
thediffering,oftentacitlyheldcontextualperspectivesandvalues
couldbejuxtaposed;theviewpointsanddemandsofexperts,special
interestgroups,andthewiderpubliccouldbedirectlycompared;and
thedynamicsamongtheparticipantscouldbescrutizined.Thiswould
bynomeanssidelineorevenexcludescientificassessment;itwould
onlysituateitwithintheframeworkofamorecomprehensive
evaluation.62
AsDavisnotes,institutionalconstraintspresentwithintheEPA
communicativemilieucancomplicateeffortstoprovideafullairingofallrelevant
argumentspertainingtoagivenregulatoryissue.Thus,intercollegiatedebaterscan
playkeyrolesinretrievingandamplifyingpositionsthatmightotherwiseremain
sedimentedinthepolicyprocess.Thedynamicsentailedinthissymbiotic
relationshipareunderscoredbydeliberativeplannerJohnForester,whoobserves,
"Ifplannersandpublicadministratorsaretomakedemocraticpoliticaldebateand
argumentpossible,theywillneedstrategicallylocatedalliestoavoidbeingfully
thwartedbythecharacteristicself‐protectingbehaviorsoftheplanning
62FrankFischer,Citizens,ExpertsandtheEnvironment:ThePoliticsofLocalKnowledge
(Durham:DukeUniversityPress,2000),257;CharlesArthurWillard,LiberalismandtheProblemofKnowledge:ANewRhetoricforModernDemocracy(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1996).Fischergoesontospelloutoneimplicationflowingfromthislineofthinking,thatpolicyanalysts"mustdevelopaquitedifferentsetofskills....Beyondacompetentgraspofempirical‐analyticskills,heorsherequiresaswelltheabilitytoeffectivelyshareandconveyinformationtothelargerpublic.Inthissense,theanalystisasmuchaneducatorasasubstantivepolicyexpert.Thepedagogicaltaskistohelppeopleseeandteaseouttheassumptionsandconflictsunderlyingparticularpolicypositions,aswellastheconsequencesofresolvingtheminonewayoranother"(Fischer,Citizens,ExpertsandtheEnvironment,261).Forrelatedanalysisofthisthemeinthecontextofaprogrammaticefforttointegrateargumentationtheorywithsciencestudies,seeWilliamRehg,CogentScienceinContext:TheScienceWars,ArgumentationTheory,andHabermas(Cambridge,MA:MITPress,2009).
20
organizationsandbureaucracieswithinwhichtheywork."63Here,aninstitution's
needfor"strategicallylocatedallies"tosupportdeliberativepracticeconstitutesthe
demandforrhetoricallyinformedexpertise,settingupwhatcanbeconsidered
"demand‐driven"rhetoricofscience.Asaninstanceofrhetoricofscience
scholarship,thistypeof"switch‐sidepublicdebate"64differsbothfrominsular
contesttournamentdebating,wherethemainfocusisonthepedagogicalbenefitfor
studentparticipants,andfirst‐generationrhetoricofsciencescholarship,where
criticsconcentratedonunmaskingtherhetoricityofscientificartifactscirculatingin
whatmanyperceivedtobepurelytechnicalspheresofknowledgeproduction.65As
aformofdemand‐drivenrhetoricofscience,switch‐sidesdebatingconnects
directlywiththecommunicationfield'sperformativetraditionofargumentative
engagementinpubliccontroversy—adifferentrouteoftheoreticalgroundingthan
rhetoricalcriticism'stendencytolocateitsfoundationsintheEnglishfield's
traditionofliterarycriticismandtextualanalysis.66
Giventhisgeneaology,itisnotsurprisingtolearnhowDavis'responsetothe
EPA'sinstitutionalneedforrhetoricalexpertisetooktheformofapublicdebate
proposal,shapedbyDavis'dualbackgroundasapractitionerandhistorianof
intercollegiatedebate.Daviscompetedasanundergraduatepolicydebaterfor
63JohnForester,CriticalTheory,PublicPolicy,andPlanningPractice:TowardaCriticalPragmatism(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1993),59.Specifically,inCriticalTheory,Forestersuggests"spreadingdesignresponsibility"and"promotingcriticallyconstructivedesignandpolicycriticism"asmechanismsforpolicyplannerstoincorporateargumentationintotheirprofessionalpractices(29).Inthecontextofscientificinquiry,SteveFullermakessimilarpointsinhisbooksSocialEpistemology(Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1991);andTheGovernanceofScience:IdeologyandtheFutureoftheOpenSociety(Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress,2000).
64AsJaneMunksgaardandDamienPfisterobserve,whenpursuedinthecontextofpublicdebate,"switch‐sidesdebatingrepresentstheultimateconsiderationofvariousperspectives.Studentsmustdointensiveresearchandreadingtoinformthemselvesofvarioussidesofanissue...crediblyadvancethoseviewsasadvocates,andrebuildtheirpositionsthroughcross‐examinationandrebuttal.Switch‐sidesdebatingdisplaysthepossibilitiesofintellectualengagementasaprocessofunderstanding,notcombat.Carefulconsiderationofothers'opinionsreshapesthemetaphorofargumentaswarintoametaphorofcollaboration"(seetheiressay,"ThePublicDebater'sRoleinAdvancingDeliberation:TowardsSwitch‐SidesPublicDebate,"inCriticalProblemsinArgumentation,ed.CharlesWillard,[Washington,D.C.:NCA,2003],506).
65SeeHarris,LandmarkEssays.66SuchgroundingmayhelpeasedisciplinaryanxietiesraisedbycommentatorssuchasLeah
Ceccarelli,whopaintsadimpictureregardingrhetoricofscience'spotentialforscholarlyandpolicyimpactbeyondthefieldofcommunication;seeher“AHardLookatOurselves:AReceptionStudyofRhetoricofScience,"TechnicalCommunicationQuarterly,14(2005):257‐65.
21
HowardUniversityinthe1970s,andthenwentonenjoysubstantialsuccessas
coachoftheHowardteaminthenewmillennium.Inanessayreviewingthebroad
sweepofdebatinghistory,Davisnotes,"Academicdebatebeganatleast2,400years
agowhenthescholarProtagorasofAbdera(481‐411B.C.),knownasthefatherof
debate,conducteddebatesamonghisstudentsinAthens."67AsJohnPoulakospoints
out,"older"SophistssuchasProtagorastaughtGreekstudentsthevalueofdissoi
logoi,orpullingapartcomplexquestionsbydebatingtwosidesofanissue.68The
fewsurvivingfragmentsofProtagoras'worksuggestthathisnotionofdissoilogoi
stoodfortheprinciplethat"twoaccounts[logoi]arepresentaboutevery'thing,'
opposedtoeachother,"69andfurther,thathumanscould"measure"70therelative
soundnessofknowledgeclaimsbyengagingingive‐and‐takewherepartieswould
makethe"weakerargumentstronger"toactivatethegenerativeaspectofrhetorical
practice,akeyelementoftheSophisticaltradition.71
FollowinginProtagoras'wake,Isocrateswouldcomplementthiscentrifugal
pushwiththepullofsynerchésthé,acentripetalexerciseof"comingtogether
deliberatively"tolisten,respond,andformcommonsocialbonds.72Isocrates
incorporatedProtagoreandissoilogoiintosynerchésthé("comingtogether
deliberately"),abroaderconceptthatheusedflexiblytoexpressinterlockingsenses
of1)inquiry,asingroupsconveningtosearchforanswerstocommonquestions
throughdiscussion;732)deliberation,withinterlocutorsgatheringinapolitical
settingtodeliberateaboutproposedcoursesofaction;74and3)allianceformation,a
67JohnW.Davis,"WordsasWeapons,"DebateSolutionswebsite,December5,2007,
http://www.debatesolutions.com.68Sprague,ed.,TheOlderSophists,2ded.;seealsoJohnPoulakos,"RhetoricandCivic
Education,"81‐82.69Schiappa,ProtagorasanLogos,100.70Schiappa,ProtagorasandLogos,117‐133.71Schiappa,ProtagorasandLogos,103‐116.72EkaterinaHaskins,LogosandPowerinIsocratesandAristotle(Columbia,SC:Universityof
SouthCarolinaPress,1997),88.73Isocrates,Panathenaicus,trans.GeorgeNorlin,vol.2,LoebClassicalLibrary(London:
WilliamHeinemann,1929),14,76.74Isocrates,Nicocles,19,OnthePeace,trans.GeorgeNorlin,LoebClassicalLibrary,vol.2
(London:WilliamHeinemann,1929),2,9.
22
formofcollectiveactiontypicalatfestivals,75orintheexchangeofpledgesthat
deepensocialties.76
ReturningonceagaintotheKettering‐informedsharpdistinctionbetween
debateanddeliberation,oneseesinIsocraticsynerchésthé,aswellastheEPA
debatinginitiative,afusionofdebatewithdeliberativefunctions.Echoingatheme
raisedinthisessay'searlierdiscussionofintelligencetradecraft,suchafusion
troublescategoricalattemptstoclassifydebateanddeliberationasfundamentally
opposedactivities.Thesignificanceofsuchafindingisamplifiedbythefrequencyof
attemptsinthedeliberativedemocracyliteraturetoinsistonthetheoretical
bifurcationofdebateanddeliberationasanarticleoftheoreticalfaith.
TandemanalysisoftheEPAandintelligencecommunitydebatinginitiatives
alsobringstolightdimensionsofcontrastatthethirdlevelofIsocratic
synerchésthé,allianceformation.Theintelligencecommunity'sAnalyticOutreach
initiativeinviteslargelyone‐waycommunicationflowingfromoutsideexpertsinto
theblackboxofclassifiedintelligenceanalysis.Onthecontrary,theEPAdebating
programgesturestowardamoreexpansiveprojectofdeliberativealliancebuilding.
Inthisvein,HowardUniversity'sparticipationinthe2008EPA"WaterWars"
debatescanbeseenastheharbingerofatrendbyHistoricallyBlackCollegesand
Universities(HBCUs)tocatalyzetheirdebateprogramsinastrategythatevinces
Davis'dual‐focusvision.Ontheonehand,DavisaimstorecuperateWileyCollege's
traditionofcompetitiveexcellenceinintercollegiatedebatedepictedsopowerfully
inthefeaturefilmTheGreatDebaters,bystartingawaveofnewdebateprograms
housedinHBCUsacrossthenation.77Ontheotherhand,Davisseespotentialfor
75Isocrates,Panathenaicus,146,Panegyricus,trans.GeorgeNorlin,vol.1,LoebClassical
Library(London:WilliamHeinemann,1928),81.76Isocrates,Panegyricus,43,Helen,trans.LarueVanHook,vol.3,LoebClassicalLibrary
(London:WilliamHeinemann,1945),40,AgainstCallimachus,trans.LarueVanHook,vol.3,LoebClassicalLibrary(London:WilliamHeinemann,1945),45;seealsoTakisPoulakos,SpeakingforthePolis:Isocrates'RhetoricalEducation(Columbia,SC:UniversityofSouthCarolinaPress,1997),19;Haskins,LogosandPower,8;andKathleenE.Welch,ElectricRhetoric:ClassicalRhetoric,OralismandaNewLiteracy(Cambridge,MA:MITPress,1999).
77TheGreatDebaters(Chicago:HarperProductions,2007).TimothyM.O'Donnellprovidesinsightfulcommentaryonthehistoricalandprospectivesignificanceofthisfilmin"'TheGreatDebaters':AChallengetoHigherEducation,"hisJanuary7,2008articleforInsideHigherEducation,http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2008/01/07/odonnell;aswellashis"ThePittsburgh
23
thesenewprogramstocomplementtheircompetitivedebateprogrammingwith
participationintheEPA'spublicdebatinginitiative.Thisdual‐focusvisionrecalls
DouglasEhningerandWayneBrockriede'svisionof"total"debateprogramsthat
blendswitch‐sidesintercollegiatetournamentdebatingwithformsofpublicdebate
designedtocontributetowidercommunitiesbeyondthetournamentsetting.78
WhilethepoliticaltelosanimatingDavis'dual‐focusvisioncertainlyembraces
backgroundassumptionsthatGreeneandHickswouldfinddisconcerting(e.g.
notionsofliberalpoliticalagency,theideaofdebateusing"wordsasweapons"),79
thereislittledoubtthattheprojectofpursuingenvironmentalprotectionby
tappingthecreativeenergyofHBCU‐leverageddissoilogoidifferssignificantlyfrom
theintelligencecommunity'sefforttoimproveitstradecraftthroughonlinedigital
debateprogramming.SuchdifferenceisespeciallyevidentinlightoftheEPA's
commitmenttoextenddebatestopublicrealms,withtheattendantpossible
benefitsunpackedbyJaneMunksgaardandDamienPfister:
Havingapublicdebaterargueagainsttheirconvictions,orconfess
theirindecisiononasubjectandsubsequentembraceofargumentas
awaytoseekclarity,couldshakeuptheprevailingviewofdebateasa
warofwords.Publicuptakeofthepossibilityofswitch‐sidesdebate
mayhelplessenthepolarizationofissuesinherentinprevailing
debateformatsbecausestudentsarenolongerseenasweddedto
theirarguments.Thiscouldtransformpublicdebatefromatussle
betweenadvocates,witheachpublicdebatertryingtoconvincethe
audienceinaManicheanstruggleaboutthetruthoftheirside,toa
Debaters,"anarticlepublishedinThePittsburghPost‐Gazette,December30,2007,http://www.post‐gazette.com/pg/07364/845125‐109.stm.
78DouglasEhningerandWayneBrockriede,DecisionbyDebate(NewYork:Dodd,Mead&Co.,1963).Forrelatedcommentaryontheentwinementofdebatetournamentcompetitionandpublicdebating,seeGordonR.MitchellandTakeshiSuzuki,"Beyondthe'DailyMe':ArgumentationinanAgeofEnclaveDeliberation,"inArgumentationandSocialCognition,ed.TakeshiSuzuki,YoshiroYano,andTakayukiKato(Tokyo,JapanDebateAssociation,2004),160‐166;andJoeMiller,Cross‐X(NewYork:Farrar,StraussandGiroux,2006),470‐478.
79SeeDavis,"WordsasWeapons."
24
moreinvitingexchangefocusedonthecontentoftheother's
argumentationandtheprocessofdeliberativeexchange.80
ReflectionontheEPAdebatinginitiativerevealsastrikingconvergence
betweentheexpressedneedfordissoilogoibygovernmentagencyofficials
wrestlingwiththechallengesofinvertedrhetoricalsituations;theoreticalclaimsby
scholarsregardingthecentralityofargumentationinthepublicpolicyprocess;and
thepracticalwherewithalofintercollegiatedebaterstotailorpublicswitch‐side
debatingperformancesinspecificwaysrequestedbyagencycollaborators.These
pointsofconvergenceunderscorepreviouslyarticulatedtheoreticalassertions
regardingtherelationshipofdebatetodeliberation,aswellasdeepen
understandingofthepoliticalroleofdeliberationininstitutionaldecision‐making.
Buttheyalsosuggesthowdecisionsbyrhetoricalscholarsaboutwhetherto
contributeswitch‐sidedebatingacumentomeetdemand‐drivenrhetoricofscience
initiativesoughttoinvolvecarefulreflection.Suchanapproachmirrorstheway
policyplanninginthe"argumentativeturn"isdesignedtorespondtothe
weaknessesofformal,decisionisticparadigmsofpolicyplanningwithsituated,
contingentjudgmentsinformedbyreflectivedeliberation.
Conclusion
DilipGaonkar'scriticismoffirst‐generationrhetoricofsciencescholarship
restsonakeyclaimregardingwhatheseesastheinherent"thinness"oftheancient
Greekrhetoricallexicon.81Thatlexicon,byvirtueofthefactthatitwasinvented
primarilytoteachrhetoricalperformance,isill‐equippedtosupportthekindof
nuanceddiscriminationsrequiredforeffectiveinterpretationandcritiqueof
rhetoricaltexts.WhileGaonkarisolatesrhetoricofscienceasamaintargetofthis
critique,hischoiceofsubjectmatterpositionshimtotogglebackandforthbetween
specificengagementwithrhetoricofsciencescholarshipanddiscussionofbroader
80MunksgaardandPfister,"PublicDebater'sRole,"507.81Gaonkar,"TheIdeaofRhetoric."Forasurveyofearlyrhetoricofsciencescholarship,see
RandyAllenHarris,ed.,LandmarkEssaysonRhetoricofScience:CaseStudies(Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,1997).
25
themestouchingonthemeta‐theoreticalcontroversyoverrhetoric'sproperscope
asafieldofinquiry(theso‐called"big"vs."little"rhetoricdispute).82Gaonkar's
familiarrefraininbothcontextsisawarningaboutthedangersof"universalizing"
or"globalizing"rhetoricalinquiry,especiallyinattemptsthat"stretch"theclassical
Greekrhetoricalvocabularyintoahermeneuticmetadiscourse,onepressedinto
serviceasamasterkeyforinterpretationofanyandalltypesofcommunicative
artifacts.Inotherwords,Gaonkarwarnsagainstthedangersofrhetoricians
pursuingwhatmightbecalled"supply‐sideepistemology,"rhetoric'sprojectof
pushingforgreaterdisciplinaryrelevancebyattemptingtoextenditsreachintofar‐
flungareasofinquirysuchasthehardsciences.
Yetthisessayhighlightshowrhetoricalscholarship'srelevancecanbe
crediblyestablishedbyoutsiders,whoseekaccesstothecreativeenergyflowing
fromtheclassicalGreekrhetoricallexiconinitsnativemode,thatisasatoolof
inventiondesignedtospurandhonerhetoricalperformance.Analysisofthe
intelligencecommunityandEPAdebatinginitiativesshowshowthisisthecase,
withgovernmentagenciescallingforassistancetoanimaterhetoricalprocesses
suchasdissoilogoi(debatingdifferentsides)andsynérchesthé,theperformative
taskofcomingtogetherdeliberatelyforthepurposeofjointinquiry,collective
choice‐making,andrenewalofcommunicativebonds.Thisdemand‐driven
epistemologyisdifferentinkindfromthe"globalization"projectsoroundly
criticizedbyGaonkar.Ratherthanrhetoricventuringoutfromitsownacademic
hometoproselytizeaboutitsepistemologicaluniversalityforallknowers,instead
herewehaveactorsnotformallytrainedintherhetoricaltraditionarticulatinghow
theirowndeliberativeobjectivescallforincorporationofrhetoricalpractice,and
evenrecruitmentof"strategicallylocatedallies"83toassistintheprocess.Sincethe
productivistcontentintheclassicalGreekvocabularyservesasacriticalresource
82EdwardSchiappa,"SecondThoughtsontheCritiquesofBigRhetoric,"Philosophyand
Rhetoric34(2001):260‐274;seealsotheessaysinHerbertW.Simons'seditedvolume,TheRhetoricalTurn:InventionandPersuasionintheConductofInquiry(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1990).
83Forester,CriticalTheory,59.
26
forjointcollaborationinthisregard,demand‐drivenrhetoricofscienceturns
Gaonkar'soriginalcritiqueonitshead.
InfairnesstoGaonkar,itshouldbestipulatedthathis1993intervention
challengedthewayrhetoricofsciencehadbeendonetodate,nottheuniverseof
waysrhetoricofsciencemightbedoneinthefuture.Andtohispartialcredit(hedid
thisinafootnote),Gaonkardidacknowledgethepromiseofaperformance‐oriented
rhetoricofscience,especiallyoneinformedbyclassicalthinkersotherthan
Aristotle.84InhisPh.D.dissertationon"AspectsofSophisticPedagogy,"85Gaonkar
documentshowtheancientsophistswere"thegreatestchampions"of"socially
useful"science,86andalsohowthesophistsessentiallypracticedtheartofrhetoric
inatranslational,performativeregister:
Thesophistscouldnotblithelygoabouttheirbusinessofmaking
scienceuseful,whilescienceitselfstoodstillduetolackofcommunal
supportandrecognition.Besides,sophisticpedagogywasbecoming
increasinglydependentonthefindingsofcontemporaryspeculation
inphilosophyandscience.Takeforinstance,theeminentlypractical
artofrhetoric.Astaughtbythebestofthesophists,itwasnotsimply
ahandbookofrecipeswhichanyonecouldmechanicallyemploytohis
advantage.Onthecontrary,thestrengthandvitalityofsophistic
rhetoriccamefromtheirabilitytoincorporatetherelevant
informationobtainedfromtheon‐goingresearchinotherfields.87
Ofcoursedeeptrans‐historicaldifferencesmakeuncriticalappropriationof
classicalGreekrhetoricforcontemporaryuseafool'serrand.Buttogaugefrom
RobertHariman'srecentreflectionsontheenduringsalienceofIsocrates,"timely,
suitable,andelegantappropriations"canhelpuspost‐moderns"forgeanew
politicallanguage"suitableforaddressingthecomplexraftofintertwinedproblems
84Gaonkar,"TheIdeaofRhetoric,"note3,78.85DilipParameshwarGaonkar,"AspectsofSophisticPedagogy,"unpublishedPh.D.diss.,
UniversityofPittsburgh,Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania,1984.86Gaonkar,"AspectsofSophisticPedagogy,"121.87Gaonkar,"AspectsofSophisticPedagogy,"248,emphasisadded.
27
facingglobalsociety.88Suchretrospectionislongoverdue,saysHariman,as"the
history,literature,philosophy,oratory,art,andpoliticalthoughtofGreeceand
Romehaveneverbeenmoreaccessibleorlessappreciated."89
Thisessayhasexploredwaysthatsomeofthemostvenerableelementsof
theancientGreekrhetoricaltradition—thosedealingwithdebateand
deliberation—canberetrievedandadaptedtoanswercallsinthecontemporary
milieufor"culturaltechnologies"capableofdealingwithoneofourtime'smost
dauntingchallenges.Thischallengeinvolvesfindingmeaningininvertedrhetorical
situationscharacterizedbyanendemicsurplusofheterogeneouscontent.
88RobertHariman,"CivicEducation,ClassicalImitation,andDemocraticPolity,"inIsocrates
andCivicEducation,228.89Hariman,"CivicEducation,"217.