You
often hear complaints about the rising cost of higher education and the crippling
debt that is left in its wake. The conversation usually focuses on how this
generation of students is paying significantly higher tuition rates than the
previous generation. For example, the AASCU’s January 2013 policy brief
reported that “since 1987, tuition and fees at public four-year universities have
doubled, while state funding for higher education has decreased by one-third.”
(3) While this may be shocking for many, it is often shrugged off as someone
else’s problem and less important than more immediate threats to the American
way of life.
In my
reading for this week I encountered an article by Ferguson and Stewart that
reframes the issue into one not only about equitable access to education, but a
matter of global economic competition. Equality is a topoi that we frequently
encounter in democratic rhetoric, but it is easily subjugated for the more
immediate concerns of economic stability and national security. By reframing
the discussion on student debt, the authors are appealing to a public more
concerned about economic competition than they are about equality. This seems
to be what Simmons and Grabill are calling for when they discuss the public’s
ability to invent and perform as an avenue of participation (433). The public
does not have the technical knowledge to overcome all exclusions, but a key
weapon in their arsenal is the ability to reframe the conversation and ask “the
right questions.” (Simmons and Grabill, 440)
The
question asked of the Ferguson/ Stewart audience is not whether everyone should
be able to afford education, but whether the nation can afford to deny
education to the populace?
"Top
10 Higher Education State Policy Issues for 2013." American Association of
State Colleges and Universities, n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2013.
<http://www.aascu.org/policy/publications/policy-matters/topten2013.pdf>.
Ferguson
Jr., Roger W., and Debra W. Stewart. "The student loan debt perfect
storm." Politico 28 Jun 2013.
<http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/the-student-loan-debt-perfect-storm-93517.html>.
(Accessed 06/28/2013)
Simmons,
W. Michele, and Jeffrey T. Grabill. "Toward a Civic Rhetoric for Technologically
and Scientifically Complex Places: Invention, Performance, and
Participation." CCC. 58.3 (2007): 419-448. Print.
Heather – I like you point about reframing, and certainly think that’s often the failing in ineffective arguments. In thinking about this I began to wonder if, to some extent, one might image poor framing as rhetoric that fails to properly consider audience. With this in mind, what strikes me about the article you cite is the way in which seems to represent a public that might otherwise have been thought outside the discourse. One obviously thinks about students, or taxpayers (who subsidize education to some degree) or the colleges themselves (which are supposed to do… something, usually in line with the political ideal of whoever is talking), or about investors (the supposed “student loan bubble” that some have attempted to equate with the housing bubble). [Though there are problematic elements to this last comparison, primarily that cheap credit was supposed to be the source of the first, but high costs the source of the second—so are they suggesting students need to pay higher interest rates, and thus pay more in loans, in order to prevent paying so much in loans? One wonders about the goals or models behind such arguments, but that’s just my little rant.] Your article presents a particularly nationalist perspective, which is quite different from the others. This reminds me of Simmons’ comments in the third chapter of her book, in which she points out how the Army was suspicious and dismissive of publics who didn’t fit their preconceptions. So here we are, back at the beginning, trying to figure out who can legitimately be involved in a public, and facing not just many voices, but many publics, each with many voices. I suppose this doesn’t really clear anything up (not that I could if I wanted to), but I was just struck by this when reading your post.
ReplyDeleteThis is Steve's comment, by the way.
DeleteThank you for the comment Steve. You raise an interesting point about reframing in ways that exclude certain audiences. I definitely think that in some cases this could be due to ineffective argumentation, but I do not think that this is always the case.
ReplyDeleteSome arguments may frame a discussion that excludes potential audience members intentionally. I think this could be an example of what Simmons and Grabill referred to in last week's readings as indirect exclusions. Authors may choose to write in a way that prevents universal participation, either using overly-technical language, or by asking questions that distract, or confuse potential audiences. In this case, the audience is not excluded out of neglect; rather, they are excluded because the author does not value their opinion on the matter.
This last point relates to this week's reading by Simmons. She makes the point that all participation is not equal. In her discussion of EISs, she points out that they are often overly technical and wordy, which decreases the likelihood that non-experts can effectively participate. This appears to be intentional herding of the conversation toward a particular segment of the public.
I like Simmons' approach of looking to activist organizations to determine the counterpublics that emerge around an issue. According to Cintron (and others we have read), a public is formed when a group recognizes their exclusion from the mainstream. Since activist groups form around perceived exclusions, I think this is an avenue that I need to explore. It is very difficult to pin down the public that surrounds high costs of higher education, so hopefully this exercise will give me a better idea of which publics are mobilizing around this issue. A lot to think about here...