Deborah Tannen, "The Roots of Debate in Education and the Hope of Dialogue"

Questions for Making Connections within the Reading:  

1. In the course of her argument Deborah Tannen refers to "our adversarial culture," "the culture of critique," and to maleness, logic, formalism, and polarization. She refers as well to the customs and discourses of Western religion and science, and to contemporary educational practices. Define these terms and explain how they fit together. What is the relation between logic and aggression, religion and science, and ancient Greece and the education offered by our universities?  

2. In what ways has the "boot camp" model shaped your own educational experience? In an actual boot camp, is it the drill sergeant alone who creates the tension, or does everyone collaborate in creating and sustaining an atmosphere of rivalry and violence? How about in the case of schooling: In what ways do the students themselves actively collaborate in making the classroom into a "camp"? In what ways does the system-the culture and the institutions of schooling-reinforce these behaviors?  

3. In the section entitled "Getting Beyond Dualism," Tannen describes the dynamics of three Japanese television programs, which she offers as examples of a less agonistic style of public discussion. What features distinguish these programs from comparable discussions in the U.S. media and in places like the classroom? Does disagreement have a different significance in the context of Japanese culture? When people disagree in Western settings, what might be at stake? What values and outcomes matter the most? In the Japanese context, what values and outcomes are most significant? How might an American misunderstand the Japanese programs?  

Questions for Writing:  

1. University professors routinely study communities and institutions outside the university, and they are often quite critical of what they discover there, but the university itself is seldom the object of comparable scrutiny. In what ways-if any-does the culture of critique stifle inquiry and thwart constructive change within the university itself? If Tannen is correct in her estimations, then would it be fair to say that the advancement of knowledge is only one of the university's many goals and perhaps not even the most important one? What might the other goals be?  

2. The university in the United States is a unique institution in many ways. For one thing, all faculty above the level of assistant professor have lifetime employment and cannot be dismissed except for gross dereliction of duty. Most public universities receive automatic funding from state coffers. Many private universities have enormous endowments, sometimes in the billions of dollars. And most professors are shielded from any assessment of their effectiveness as teachers, except through course evaluations. In what ways does the university's unique situation contribute to the persistence of the culture of critique? What about the media? Do the media also contribute to the persistence of this culture?  

Questions for Making Connections Between Readings:  

1. Was the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon an act of war or a crime? What difference does the choice of words make in describing this-or any other-act of violence? Drawing on the work of Tannen and Mary Kaldor, discuss the relationship between the terms we use to describe acts of violence and the ways we elect to respond to acts of violence. Would changing the words we use and the ways we use them create new options for responding to violence, or are such concerns a luxury during times of great danger?  

2. How does Malcolm Gladwell's discussion of the dynamics of social change confirm, contradict, or complicate Tannen's argument? Does Gladwell's account suggest that social change is decided by the strongest argument? Does debate even play a significant role? If public debate and rational deliberation have a marginal influence, why does the university place so high a premium on them? Have professors depicted the social world in ways that are flattering to themselves? In what ways is this depiction both accurate and inaccurate?

More Tannen assignments...