On the Ascendance of Argument: A Critique of the Assumptions of Academe's Dominant Form

For at least the last several decades, argumentative writing has been of central importance in secondary and higher education, and this emphasis has been heightened by argumentation's designation as a "cornerstone" of the Common Core State Standards. Moreover, this focus on argumentation has been encouraged by extensive scholarship that investigates how argumentation is learned and deployed in various settings and how the teaching of argumentation might be improved. However, far less attention has been paid to determining why so many literacy educators, researchers, and policy makers believe that privileging argumentative writing is justified. Using a methodology that combines ethnographic case study of writing pedagogy in an urban high school with theoretical analysis of scholarly writings that endorse argumentation, in this essay I demonstrate that the prominence of argumentation is underwritten by three commonly held assumptions: (I) that argumentative writing promotes clear and critical thinking, (2) that it provides training in the rational deliberation that is essential for a democratic citizenry, and (3) that it imparts to students a form of cultural capital that facilitates their upward academic and socioeconomic mobility. My findings are that these assumptions are unwarranted and that schools' overemphasis on argumentation imposes severe limits on what counts as valid thought, legitimate political subjectivity, and a feasible strategy for addressing economic inequality. This study's implication is that educators should reassess the value of argumentation and revise ELA curricula to include more diverse genres and discursive modes.