Critical Symbolism

There really is no such thing as coincidence, so we shouldn't be surprised at the confluence of two headlines. One, the release of a study showing that students don't learn much in college; the other, the symbolic vote in the House to repeal the health law. Each informs the other, in rhetorically revealing ways.

Despite protestations, the Republican vote was only symbolic. The repeal bill will die in the Senate and would otherwise be vetoed by the President. Even the name indicated its symbolism: "The Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." By any objective measure, such a name - misnomer - does the Ministry of Truth proud, ranking up there with "ignorance is strength" as an example of "words... used in a consciously dishonest way." It is symbolic because, again despite posturing, opposition to the bill is declining and support for its major provisions is rising - and this among Republicans. It is symbolic because, as Paul Krugman points out (http://nyti.ms/fxiPAh), "Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs like veterans' care already pay significantly more American medical bills than private insurance." So the "capitalism - socialism" argument is false to begin with. Its symbolic because nobody really knows what to call the whole thing: is the debate about health insurance or health care? They're not the same. Do we call it Romneycare, since the whole thing is modeled on Massachusetts, or Obamacare? And if Medicare is good, then what about Obamacare - we shouldn't care for the sick?

But if the Republican newspeak lockstep is only symbolic, it should not be dismissed as just an empty gesture. It was a powerful move rhetorically. It was meant to coalesce its audience, to demark boundaries, to define "us versus them." It was, in short, a demonstration. And demonstrations are just a mass performance of demonstrative rhetoric.

Demonstrative rhetoric, as my friend Jay Heinrichs points out in Thank You For Arguing, is not the rhetoric of argument; it's the rhetoric of feeling. Demonstrative rhetoric persuades us by making us feel good - or angry. It's the language of the present tense and of values. It is the least critical of the rhetorical modes: Analyzing cause and effect, determining facts (the past tense-forensic mode) requires a rigorous application of logic and attention to the details of data. At least, if such an inquiry is to be honest or accurate, it does. Determining the cost or benefit of a policy (the future tense-deliberative mode) also requires critical thinking - the ability to see relationships, to reason from analogy with precision, to consider variables and alternatives, etc.

This brings us to the second headline, the not-so-startling (at least to those involved in higher education) conclusion that "45 percent of students show no significant improvement in the key measures of critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing by the end of their sophomore years." According to the findings reported in Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, students aren't asked to do much. "Half of students did not take a single course requiring 20 pages of writing during their prior semester, and one-third did not take a single course requiring even 40 pages of reading per week." The main problem seems to be a lack of rigor: where teachers demand intellectual engagement and accountability, students demonstrate (!) complex critical thinking skills, the ability to reason (argue) in writing.

In other words, it's not that students - and, truly, the American people - can't reason well. We only need to listen to conversations in sports bars - or the like - to see deep critical analysis in action. But students, like the American public, respond to expectations. And if the expectations only match the in-the-moment, carpe diem demand of the student (child, customer, voter), then the argument never gets started, because the conversation never gets out of the demonstrative.

Demonstrative rhetoric is critical. It's the starting point. It states values and declares needs. (Sometimes, quite dramatically. Children cry for a reason.) But if those charged with leading the discussion - with analyzing causes and deliberating choices - satisfy themselves with the symbolic (I guess even politicians need instant gratification) then, rather than "truth emerging from argument among friends," public discourse, non-critical and demonstrative, will be reduced to "the defence of the indefensible."