•  
  •  
 

Abstract

In the United States, we are socialized to think in Western dualisms, and these patterns of communication characterize discussion of social issues. Consequently, discussion becomes debate and dominant approaches to inquiry are privileged over experience with persuasion being the end goal. Fostering agency, cultivating empathetic understanding, and facilitating critical thought are made more difficult—outcomes that are neither productive nor edifying in the college classroom. This original teaching activity resists hierarchical forms of debate in favor of visibility and solidarity in discussions of gendered violence. Grounded in principles of invitational rhetoric and provocation, the activity uses a “Civil Dialogue” format to prompt engaged discussion of consent relative to university life. Students assess the effectiveness of sexual assault prevention campaign slogans (e.g., “Consent Is Sexy”) by situating themselves along a spectrum of opinion by degrees of agreement, neutrality, and disagreement, where the goal is an understanding of positions rather than motives. By situating a precarious topic in a communal space where narrative is privileged and movement is validated, the activity is a powerful exercise in identification and sensemaking. Outcomes include development of civil speech and listening skills and the co-creation of knowledge by diverse voices. The activity is adaptable to other curricula, including critical methods and health campaigns.

Share

COinS