play devil’s advocate. As a tutor at Oxford makes plain, ‘a good essay
should always consider more than one point of view’.^3
But as soon as we declare our opinion, the search for truth is ended.
There is no need to play devil’s advocate and no need to use this wide
range of cognitive skills. It becomes a debate, in which we merely set
out to defend our own opinion: a convergent, not a divergent, activity.
Witness how one university department describes an essay: ‘an essay
has: an introduction which introduces your viewpoint (thesis or posi-
tion), a body which develops and supports this viewpoint, and a
conclusion which draws together the main lines of the argument
to conclude that your viewpoint is correct’.^4 Everything is contained
within the narrow confines of a simple objective: to convince the reader
of a preconceived opinion.The courtroom analogySome departments even compare it to the adversarial process of a
courtroom, telling their students to think like a lawyer presenting a case- decide on your opinion and then set about defending it. They are
advised that everything in their essay should be directed towards estab-
lishing its validity. Time is spent spelling out the ‘tactics’ you should use
to ‘disarm’ your opponent. If you come across something that conflicts
with your case, you have no obligation to mention it. To do so would
only weaken your case and strengthen your opponent’s. And it’s no
business of yours to make your opponents’ case for them.
Aware of how inconsistent this one-sided courtroom analogy is with
academic work, some departments step back, arguing that the inclu-
sion of opposing ideas actually strengthens your case. Yet, it’s difficult
to see how this could possibly be the case. A defence lawyer knows
only too well that he or she would be foolish to mention something
that conflicts with the defence they and their client have agreed upon,
unless, that is, they can dismiss it convincingly in court and thereby
influence the jury to their advantage. But then this amounts to no more
than a rhetorical device: a deception achieved using the fallacy of the
straw man (Chapter 12), which might work in a courtroom, but rarely
in an academic essay.
The fact is that academic work is not adversarial in this sense of com-
bative one-sided advocacy. It’s a more open endeavour aimed not at
winning a case, but at approximating to the truth by suspending your
judgement and exploring all the issues and evidence available. It does
Getting your Own Ideas Down 179HTW23 7/27/01 8:31 AM Page 179