Last Friday I taught one of my favorite articles: Sirlin’s “Play to Win.” The class was learning arguments for position and had read the corresponding chapter in our Faigley rhetoric. The essay, which I found years ago, argues that when playing competitive games, players should be competitive. Sounds difficult, right? Well in gaming circles it can be difficult to convince players to “play to win” -- a lot more difficult than it sounds; but Sirlin handles the matter effectively. His article became so popular amongst the niche gaming culture that he was given a book deal. Before going further, here is the link to the first part of his argument (the only part we read in class):
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html
I preface the article with brief information on the world of competitive gaming (big LAN tournaments, cash prizes, team sponsors, etc.) and also show them this YouTube clip to get them whet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7cW2nMf1gk
The clip shows a full parry (trust me, it is more impressive than most people realize) in a 2004 Street Fighter tournament. A packed crowd that erupts to the outcome of a video game helps alleviate any doubt about the veracity of my preface for students unfamiliar with the world of competitive gaming. Sirlin’s position is relevant even to non-gamers. I draw parallels to sports and board games; and because nearly everyone, at some point or another in their lives, has undertaken some competitive venture, they can relate.
Now, I could talk at length about why I like the article and how it matches suitably with teaching argument, but that is not what today’s particular blog entry is about. As the title indicates, utilitarianism is the focus here. My readers have probably gleaned my direction already: the article is not too popular amongst the females in the class. However, the males absolutely love it. I get more discussion out of the guys in the class period I teach this article than the entire rest of the year combined.
So that brings me to my question: Is it wise to practice utilitarianism in the classroom? Is alienating the females to entice the other gender to discuss the topic conscionable? Will men only participate when they’ve been given something they’re intimate with? Don’t misunderstand: in my mind, there is no reason for the women not to discuss Sirlin’s position; and this is not to say no females do discuss (or that males never discuss other topics), because they do; but rather, for the most part, the women remain silent while their counterparts come alive.
My female students are generally more talkative (in the interactive, discussion, good way) than my males, so I don’t feel too sore about serving a dish suited mainly to the menfolk once a semester. But I’m curious to hear feedback from my readers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Cody, as long as later in the semester, your class discusses the addiction of shopping or the current fashion wars, I do not see a problem with using this material. :) No, seriously, I do not think this is a big issue. As a mother of two sons who dislike writing, I would be thrilled to have them in your class excited by the example you are presenting. As a female, I just am not interested in that gaming world though I love to play board games. But I do not mind listening to guys expound on it. Now if this is the only topic of a paper I had to write in your class, I would be upset. But you are just giving an example of how to argue a position. I say- go for it! You cannot please everyone all the time.
ReplyDeleteIt might be interesting to have a follow-up discussion in which the class focuses on how this YouTube is targeted to a particular audience. The women in class would likely get a kick out of this focus, but more importantly, this activity might be an effective way to analyze and acknowledge what happened during the class session on Sirlin’s “Play to Win.”
ReplyDelete