Integrating critical and trans-affirming pedagogies in argumentation and debate: A heuristic narrative

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Courses: Storytelling, persuasion, gender and communication, argumentation and debate.Objectives: In this essay, I map a unit-specific activity for an undergraduate class in argumentation and debate. I argue for the integration of a trans-affirming pedagogy as a key rhetorical frame in communication studies courses. Such pedagogical commitments push instructors to integrate a critical communication methodology while challenging structures that continue mitigating trans experiences, embedding critical interrogation of systemic injustice. Borrowing from LeMaster (Discontents of being and becoming fabulous on: Queer criticism in neoliberal times. Women’s Studies in Communication 2015;32:167–186. DOI: 10.1080/07491409.2014.988776), I use trans heuristically, whereby “trans and transgender are not necessarily intended exclusively as identities … In this way, trans and transgender have two functions: as heuristics and as identities” (p. 169). Thus, as a pedagogical approach, a trans sensibility extends instruction methods to consider, criticize, and analyze binaries of thought, mundane performances of identity, and unlikely communicative phenomena that “get at gender in unsuspecting ways” (LeMaster, B., & Mapes, M. Transing priestly performances: Re-reading gender potentiality in Erdrich’s the last report on the miracles at little no horse. In S. Howard (Ed.), Critical articulations of race, gender, and sexual orientation. Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2014, pp. 161–177). Using an activity from the unit “Argumentation with and as Narrative,” I draw on Enke (Enke responds to Nakamura. In V. Muñoz & E. K. Garrison (Eds), Transpedagogies: A roundtable discussion. Women’s Studies Quarterly 2008;36:288–308. DOI: 10.1353/wsq.0.0093) to ask, “How do we engage with the privileged spaces we occupy as trans and nontrans educators as a way to build alliances that are liberatory rather than oppressive to one another?” (p. 303).