The Naked 'Counter'

Harris is uncomfortable with ‘argumentation’ as a means of discussion. Rather than using ‘argumentation,’ he has employed the word ‘countering’ to mean debates and arguments in writing. He has divided this ‘move’ into three steps: arguing the other side (which is also a technique used in public debating), uncovering values, and dissenting. The effective writer is the one who can incorporate these steps into writing. I think this may be one of the reasons why the class did not like Hedges--he did not argue the other side or uncover values, he only dissented. On the other hand, the class liked Carr because he did utilize all these steps. Carr acknowledged other arguments and noted their value while still dissenting.

You’ll have to excuse me while I go off on a tangent. I did not think that Harris’ quote from John Berger’s Ways of Seeing was used appropriately. Although I know what Harris is trying to accomplish—showing an example of arguing the other side—Berger’s quote does not do that. Kenneth Clark, who also wrote Civilisation, has a definite view of what is civilized and what is not—that’s his main theory, that civilization is better than barbarism. The brief quote from him essentially says that nakedness is uncivilized or barbaric while nudity is civilized or artistic. Berger is not arguing the other side but saying that Clark is wrong, civilized nudity is unauthentic, and barbaric nakedness “is being oneself.” A rather Romantic idea, isn’t it? Kenneth Clark is definitely not a follower of Rousseau in this case. Harris writes that Berger is expands Clark’s definition to argue his case that nakedness is more original. I don’t think this is the case; Berger frankly disagrees with Clark’s definition. Although this is a very interesting and fun quote, it doesn’t illustrate what Harris is trying to define.

At the end of the chapter, Harris offers some suggestions on how to counter in a civil manner. He suggests that writers should critique rather than argue and he illustrates his point by using the quote from Berger. I don’t agree with that. If you basically agree with the argument, then it’s a ‘critique,’ if you disagree, then it’s an ‘argument.’ Harris writes that Berger “offers a critique without picking a fight.” That’s not what I thought when reading the quote because I disagree with Berger’s analysis. It is not entirely possible to only critique without arguing because there will always be opposing views.

I know I didn’t exactly discuss how the blogs I’m following use ‘countering’ and instead talked about more abstract uses. Having watched Kenneth Clark’s BBC series, Civilisation, I couldn’t help but say something about that particular quote. I’ll try to cover my blogs in my next post since it’s a continuation of ‘countering.’