The Rhetorical Frame and What Is Possible

In this post, I want to share a crucial section from Deborah Tannen's book on argument.  Tannen might be called an anthropological rhetorician for the way she studies how people talk from within one particular culture (that of the US).  One of her main contentions in this (1998) book is that our tendency to frame the discussion of important political issues in terms of a debate--one side v. another--is what is preventing us from "moving from debate to dialogue" (the subtitle of her book).  In other words, the rhetorical framing is preventing (or at least is one important factor in preventing) us from solving some of our most pressing political problems.

Tannen writes:

“At first blush, I was inclined to agree with those whom [communications researcher Celeste] Condit cites as polarizing the debate, such as a 1985 Newsweek article that proclaimed, ‘Abortion is one of the rare issues that inherently does not admit compromise....it is nearly impossible to imagine the meeting point that would satisfy both.’  But Condit shows that the only reason it seems impossible to imagine a meeting point or compromise is precisely because of the way the issue has been framed: as a fight between two opposing polarized sides.  If the issue were framed as on the one hand, the desire to reduce the number of abortions performed, and, on the other, the desire to give women control of their own bodies and lives, there would be  feasible ways of reconciling and satisfying both.

First, it is well known that making abortion illegal does not prevent abortions from being performed.  That result would more effectively be accomplished by, for example, increasing education about and availability of contraception.  This would also increase women’s control over their bodies and lives.  Neither “side” is getting much of what it wants anyway: Although abortion remains legal in the United States, it is becoming harder and harder for anybody to get one, both because of the legal chipping away of access (for example, by making abortion unavailable at public clinics and military bases or by institution waiting periods and requiring parental consent) and because of de facto erosion: Most American women live too far from a provider to make the trip in a single day; it is difficult to find doctors willing to risk their lives in order to perform abortions; and medical schools rarely teach the procedure.  At the same time, the steady erosion of services and chipping away at legalization, though seeming to represent triumphs for the antiabortion forces, have not changed the fact that there are more abortions performed in the United States than in any other Western nation.

In other words, Condit shows that the tendency to frame discussion of an issue as a debate between two oppositing sides actually shapes policy makers’ attempts to address those issues and solve problems.  In the end, it makes it much harder to see viable solutions and therefore less likely that a solution will be found.”

[Deborah Tannen, The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue. NY: Random House, 1998: pp. 42-3.]

As I'll discuss in an upcoming post, I find this same phenomenon to be true when it comes to the current debate over guns and gun control.  But first I want to highlight the fact that the rhetorician plays a crucial, PUBLIC function here: to highlight how the framing of the discussion (as a debate) is preventing both sides from achieving the goals they most desire: the reduction in the number of unplanned (and often unwanted) pregnancies and the reduction in the number of abortions.  

Thus, some of the most important work that needs to be done right now is the work of the rhetorician: of finding a way through the language and finding a way to open up the discourse so that we can chart new courses towards solutions.  We've been mired in these debates (abortion, gun control, climate policy, gay rights, the welfare state, etc.) for a generation now.  My students need to learn how to un-mire them.