Birdsell, David

Scholarship at UWindsor

University of WindsorScholarship at UWindsorOSSA Conference Archive OSSA 2May 15th, 9:00 AM - May 17th, 5:00 PMCommentary on VorobejDavid BirdsellFollow this and additional works at: http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchivePart of the Philosophy CommonsThis Commentary is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences at Scholarship at UWindsor. It hasbeen accepted for inclusion in OSSA Conference Archive by an authorized conference organizer of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information,please contact scholarship@uwindsor.ca.Birdsell, David, "Commentary on Vorobej" (1997). OSSA Conference Archive. 107.http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA2/papersandcommentaries/107RESPONSE TO MARK VOROBEJ'S "FALLACIES ON FILM"David S. BirdsellSchool of Public AffairsBaruch College, CUNY©1998, David S. Birdsell Mark Vorobej's "Fallacies on Film," can be read in three ways: as a characterization of filmic argument, as anapproach to argumentation pedagogy, and as an expression of an attitude toward argumentation. Each readingsheds light on its counterparts, suggesting ways in which film can serve as a prompt to enrich not only the studyof fallacies, but to situate argumentation in a broader set of pedagogical and interpretive purposes. I will examineeach reading separately, relating one to another toward the close of this discussion. Filmic ArgumentThe first reading is the most obvious, and foregrounds the other two. Less obvious is determining whetherVorobej's notion of "filmic analysis" involves a special case of argument, or an approach to studyingargumentation overall. He says that his "purpose" is not to provide a comprehensive analysis of The Gorgon orof any particular fallacy, "but merely to suggest what is possible, and to encourage others to explore theenormous potential inherent in the filmic analysis of argumentative discourse." This passage strongly suggests thatfilmic analysis is a tool and not a type of argumentative discourse.The method of filmic analysis presented throughout the paper, however, depends on the placement of discoursewithin the confines of an actual film. Though the basic approach is expansive,anything in a film, at any level of presentation—whether it involves dialogue, character development,sound, music, cinematography, lighting, costumes, set design, iconography, special effects, genericconventions—is fair game to be considered, and demonstrated to be relevant to the interpretationof an argumentative exchange,it nonetheless requires that the unit of argumentative discourse to be examined exist within a particular sequenceof dialogue and images in the context of a specific film.1 The notion of filmic argument would appear then toincorporate not only an approach to the study of argumentation, but a site from which to derive examples ofargument.The question is important because it provides some sense of how the techniques described in the paper might bebounded. Could we replicate the conditions necessary for the application of filmic argument as it is described inthis paper by filming students arguing in class and then analyzing the resulting "movie?" Perhaps, but at the veryleast, the repertoire of filmic elements would be much more narrowly delimited. The lighting would be incidental,character development more or less non-existent, iconography haphazard, irrelevant, or impoverished, specialeffects sparse, and generic conventions moot (in any explicitly filmic sense). To tap into the richer interpretivecues discussed in "Fallacies on Film," we would seem to require something that at a minimum more closelyresembles a scripted, staged, commercial film.For working purposes then, filmic analysis of argument refers not only to an assemblage of tools, but a site ofargumentation as well. It involves leveraging the rich interpretive resources of film (and by extension, film theoryand criticism) to avoid grounding an analysis of fallacy on passages "so violently wrenched out of context that itbecomes difficult to believe either that anyone could be stupid enough so as to actually commit an informalfallacy, or that the study of fallacies might have any bearing on one's own life, one's own cognitive deliberations,or one's personal relationships with others." As Vorobej illustrates in the considerable detail of his own analysis,film provides an attractive mid-point between the relatively unbounded quality of real-life argumentative contextand the abstracted excerpts of so many informal logic texts. The narrative is finite but rich, verbal, but informedby images; it participates in a larger family of discursive events that while broad, is nonetheless finite and subjectto generic classifications that are often well understood by film makers and viewers alike.I find Vorobej's discussion of the virtues of film to be quite persuasive as a corrective for deracinatedargumentative analysis. His expansive approach to argumentative analysis can, however, be exploited more fullythan it is here. I would like to raise two cases in which he might have pushed harder on the contextual cues thathe works with elsewhere in the paper: 1) the question of Heitz's expertise, and 2) Namaroff's acknowledgmentof the threat posed by the Gorgon.Vorobej reconstructs a number of reasons why we should be more tolerant of Heitz's thesis about the Gorgonthan we might be were we to base our discussions solely on the kind of evidence presented at the inquest into thedeaths of his son and Sacha Kass. The Professor is indeed educated, articulate, restrained, and acknowledgedeven by his antagonists to be a respected member of the academy. We learn a good deal more, however,through some of the cinematic side-conversations to which we would never be party were we encountering Heitzthrough some medium other than film. In a scene based at the University of Berlin, for example, we learn thatHeitz is not merely knowledgeable about mythology, he understands myth deeply. Even more telling with respectto locating Megera in Vandorf is Heitz's familiarity with a book, The Vandorf Legend, that we see him readingin his dead son's house. Heitz is not leaping to bizarre explanations on a whim; he is drawing conclusions basedon apparently extensive study of specific local circumstances, an expertise that is never offered as proper"evidence" in his own statements, but which is made plain enough in the larger context of the film.Similarly, I have to question Vorobej's characterization of Namaroff's skepticism about the Gorgon based on thecharacter's readily identifiable expressions and behaviors throughout the first half of the film. During the meetingwith Heitz that Vorobej transcribes, Namaroff spends most of his time looking away from Heitz, but toward thecamera. We see that he is deeply discomfited by Heitz's allegations, and that they come to him as no surprise.Namaroff says that he cannot help, but he does not explicitly deny Heitz's theories. He denies a belief in "ghostsor evil spirits," but Megera is much more than that for him; he is largely convinced that Megera has a flesh-and-blood manifestation in his beloved.We see Namaroff examining gorgonized bodies and behaving both protectively and mysteriously toward KarlaHoffman, the Gorgon's vessel. His attitude is, in scene after scene, an index of complicity unmistakable in thehorror genre. He knows what is happening. He seeks not to disprove the Gorgon thesis, but to find a way tosave his beloved's life. He knows that if Heitz or Professor Meister were to confront and kill the Gorgon, that itwould mean Karla's death as well as the monster's.In the cases of both Heitz's superior knowledge and Namaroff's involvement in the secret of Megera, we rely onthe omniscient perspective afforded us as viewers (happily, we do not turn to stone), and easy interpretiveopportunities framed by the genre. These are faculties afforded us by film that would be difficult to replicate inanother medium. Verbal narrative could provide us with the genre, and still images with important visualevidence, but they achieve in tandem a richness of interpretive possibility that they could not by themselves. Argumentation PedagogyIt goes without saying that this sort of analysis opens up the study of argumentation to a range of signs andsignifications that are more difficult to establish than the semantic and grammatical patterns many of us find souseful. The virtue of those snippets of poor reasoning that populate the textbooks is that most of them illustratetheir points without requiring the student (or the instructor) to sift through the complicating details ofcircumstance, incomplete locution, and possibly fractured interpretations of genre. We can then focus neatly onthe "rules" of reasoning rather than sorting through the faint trail of argumentation in discourse devoted—at leaston the surface—to other pursuits.The clean, surgical character of a pedagogy based on these argumentative excerpts sacrifices (at least somedegree of) verisimilitude for legibility. If Vorobej is right in his assertion that many if not all deracinated fallaciesare inherently laughable, then perhaps our students learn the wrong things from them. They learn not to avoidfallacy, but to avoid having their fallacies stand out, clearly marked for ridicule.Vorobej's expansive approach has much to recommend it. Properly executed, it is also very demanding. Itrequires that students be prepared to make sophisticated arguments about difficult critical constructs. Forexample, in my minor quarrel over Namaroff's complicity, I rely on what I take to be hallmark gestures in thehorror genre. Am I right? Have I placed the film in the proper tradition? I feel fairly confident about my assertionsabout The Gorgon, but other films are much more challenging. Film makers such as David Lynch and Jean-Jacques Beineix purposely play with the genres of horror and mystery in a way that profoundly decentersorganizing narratives. An instructor using film in the argumentation course would have to be prepared to leadstudents through not only the scenes represented on-screen, but the meta-critique of film making itself that issometimes embodied in contemporary cinema.In the process, it is probably necessary, to fully exploit the use of film in the classroom, to talk about theuniqueness of film. As Vorobej makes clear, genre is only one of many frames that can be built around filmicinterpretation. Technical considerations (when is lighting truly noir?), dialogic conceits (how does one read banterin screwball comedy?), and special effects (does the plasticity of a morphed character make an argument aboutits soul?) pose difficult questions for interpretation.Which leads again to the question of what makes film a better vehicle for exploring argumentation than books,short stories, plays, or television sitcoms. Vorobej's case here is quite ambitious, relying on film's abilityto fully engage a student's entire being, and allow her to integrate her visceral, emotional, moral, andpossibly spiritual responses to the argumentative context, along with her cognitive appraisal of it.Leaving aside the question of whether these other forms are capable of producing such engagement, it seemsclear that the central impetus is quite different from the textbook author's goal of carving away "extraneous"material and showing the argumentative quality by itself. Vorobej wants to reintegrate not only the case understudy, but the students' full participation as human beings. I will discuss this broad purpose below underVorobej's overall approach to argumentation.Before leaving the matter of pedagogy per se, however, I have a set of very practical questions about the extentto which it might be possible to keep the level of engagement high while exploring the nitty-gritty details ofargumentation necessary to discharge our roles as instructors in the field. This is famously not a problem forargumentation alone, but any discipline in which a compelling form—literature, theatre, music—must be broughtto a standstill for critical analysis. The professor is always in the position of having to schematize in some fashionto make the material digestible for classroom purposes. Given that such paring is necessary, how rich does theprompt material have to be? Might there be some virtue in the narrower frame provided by leaner contexts?I strongly favor Vorobej's approach. Yes, professors will always have to impose some limits on the range(s) ofsignification to be argued in class, but with richer sources, they can choose from among a wide range, adapting toparticular lessons and particular students as they see fit. Further, the very fact that there are so many differentkinds of prompts in a single film makes it more likely that reticent, uninvolved, or confused students could find away into the discourse of the classroom. It is somewhat messier, to be sure, but it is also more flexible. Attitude Toward ArgumentationIn advancing the notion that the study of fallacies should engage a student's "entire being," Vorobej sketches anintegrated agenda for argumentation pedagogy. In his classroom, students should do more than understand whata fallacy is, or even learn to recognize one in a complex, synoptic context. Professor Vorobej wants tolead students away from a stark, binary, formulaic approach to the study of fallacies . . . to a moremature and more nuanced understanding of fallacies as argumentative moves which, like life itself,are full of grey areas, ambiguities, and reasonable temptations."Practicing this approach students become "more likely to respond to the fallacious inferences of others in acharitable and judicious manner."Argumentation studies would be seen then not as a way to expose and avoid error, but a way to encounter otherpeople as well as to understand more about the self. Vorobej writes,Fallacies must be understood holistically as a reflection of the troubled and tortured nature of thehuman condition. Each of us partakes of this condition, and if the horror genre teaches us torecognize the alien (the enemy) within, informal logic, when properly taught, should sensitize each ofus to our own logical vulnerabilities, and to appreciate the rich repertoire of fallacies that lurk andthrive within.Here we find a darker side to the prior depiction of fallacy as "reasonable temptation." Argumentation pedagogyprovides self-knowledge at the same time that it endeavors to improve that same self. In order to do so, it mustengage more than cognitive activity, it must consider as well the circumstances that lead us to flesh out a givenlocution in a given way, as well as to the desires that force our conclusions past our reason.Reframing his argument somewhat: for Vorobej, fallacies are an index to at least a species of motive. A focus onmotive joins his notions of the acceptable and transgressive impulses that underlie this argumentative pathology.His approach suggests that fallacies are more than errors, that they are rather the residue of something importantthat deserves attention in its own right. A fuller discussion of the ways in which fallacy can be used to work withquestions of this sort points the way toward use of argumentative pedagogy in a wide range of disciplinary (andeven therapeutic?) contexts. Taken in this way, Vorobej's approach can be read as a complement to WayneBrockriede's work on the relationships between and among interlocutors.2"Fallacies on Film" is, in this sense, less about film per se than about a) the need to engage students in b) apractice that is wider than chasing error if c) they are to learn more about themselves and d) others. I very muchlook forward to Vorobej's further meditation on these issues; every aspect deserves considerable amplification.At this early stage, it is a great pleasure to see such a profoundly humane approach to argumentation studies. Notes1. Most of the qualities of film discussed here could be extended to videotape and to other motion videotechnologies as well. Generic considerations and image quality, however, can vary considerably from medium tomedium. These issues are well worth exploring in some detail, but I will confine this discussion to film per se. 2. "Arguers as Lovers," Philosophy and Rhetoric, 5 (1972), 1-11.  View Paper by M. VorobejView Index of Papers and CommentariesReturn to Main Menu

Commentary on Vorobej

http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1954&context=ossaarchive

Commentary on Vorobej

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Scholarship at UWindsor