i remember when Dennis Miller had a show on HBO. eventually, it was supplanted by Bill Maher’s show, which presented a more reliably liberal perspective than Miller’s show, which reflected his more explicitly rightward shift after 9/11. the show’s central feature was Miller’s weekly Rant, a monologue on a single topic that he would always begin by saying, “Now I don’t want to get off on a rant here…,” an ironic catchphrase that alerted the audience that he was about to begin his rant. while presented a bit more like stand-up comedy, Miller’s Rant is a pretty clear forerunner of similar ironic/sincere/comedy/commentary segments in current comedy shows that comment on current issues.

Miller’s rants were always exhilarating, extended riffs on topics like conservatism, liberalism, animal rights, customer service, etc.. though they were certainly written by a team of writers, they always retained Miller’s signature flippant, pop-culture literate, allusion-heavy voice. after making your head spin with his carefully arranged, intimidatingly cosmopolitan perspective, Miller ended every Rant by conceding “Of course, that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.” even though he always said this, it was facetious, as he seemed pretty sure of himself.

righteous indignation is always pretty cathartic, and i was very enamored of the idea of the rant. the certainty, the conviction, the glibness that those things invite. the allure of the mic drop. i liked the idea of knowing things, of letting fools know what time it is.

this is before i became, in a lot of ways, defined by suspicion of ‘knowing things’ and a deep uneasiness with all those who claim to be Knowers of Things. a rant issues from someone who is sure of him or herself, who is comfortable letting it rip, going big instead of going home. i am not this person, and, consequently, i don’t rant.

my truth is my truth, of course (and it’s awesome, of course), but a rant (as defined by our culture, following Dennis Miller’s lead) proceeds from the assumption that one’s truth is the truth, that one’s personal philosophy is not so much a ‘personal philosophy’ as much as it is ‘common sense.’ that those who don’t understand this truth are deserving of derision, if not outright scorn. i’m not comfortable with this, though. there’s really only one belief i have that i feel this confident in, and that’s the conviction that i don’t trust anyone who’s that confident in their perspective. being sure you’re right makes it okay for you to be glib, condescending, impatient, even belligerent, because it’s the fucking truth, and anyone who somehow doesn’t get it is clearly an idiot who needs to be smacked upside the head. the only rant i can imagine giving in one challenging the very idea of rants, and even then i’m not sure what i would be hoping to accomplish.

because rants aren’t intended to persuade or present an alternative perspective. they don’t speak, in a constructive way, to anyone who doesn’t already agree with what they say, because they don’t care to. they’re like a greatest hits collection for the fans, a big loud flashing applause sign for a self-selecting audience. let’s all high-five because we’re not stupid. i’m not breaking news here, and it’s not like this sort of thing has no utility. it is cathartic, and it certainly helps one more fully think through and/or refine their world view. but i just feel uncomfortable with it. it encourages one to become more sure of their own truth by shutting out the possibility of other reasonable perspectives. i’m not feeling that.

at the beginning of the semester, i asked my comp 2 students to deliver an informal ‘rant’ to the class on a subject of their own choosing. i’ve taught this curriculum before, and i like the assignment, as the class asks them to pick a single issue that they are passionate about and explore that issue and the different people engaged with it in detail throughout the course of the semester, and this low-stakes, simple assignment gives them a chance to briefly explain the issue and why they care about it as a way to get started. but i think i need to revise how i refer to the assignment, because calling it a ‘rant’ sends the entirely wrong message, and i have to spend too much of the preparation time insisting that they shouldn’t use the whole speech to argue for their position. most of them still argue, anyway, and they’d probably argue no matter what i call the task, because that’s what we do. the whole class is structured to force them to delay arguing, to wait to try to talk to an audience that disagrees with them until they learn about that audience by reading about them, their perspective, what’s important to them. the first two major projects explicitly tell them not to argue, and the third project, when they finally are allowed to make their case, asks them to use the understanding of a particular audience they’ve developed to create an argument that speaks to that audience’s specific concerns and values. many of them, however, make the same argument that they would have made on the first day of class, which is, essentially a rant. they show the reader how stupid one would have to be not to agree with them. they don’t support any claims they make, because The Truth~ don’t need no support. they style on these fools. the argument is, basically, one big rhetorical flex. they don’t betray any hint of being concerned whether the reader understands or appreciates what they’re saying, i guess because that’s not their problem; if you don’t get it then you’re the one that’s got work to do, not them. ketchup.

i’m always deflated when i read these arguments (and the previous two projects, which contain tons of arguing even though they explicitly forbid it), but i remind myself that this is not their fault. they’ve never been trained to do anything besides report facts and argue. they’ve certainly never been trained to engage with the perspectives of others in a thoughtful way. they’ve always been presented with a picture of argument as a zero-sum battle where the goal is to pummel the other side into submission, not to understand them. listening is for lames. i remind myself that this is the start for them, that my job is basically to push them in the right direction. or, at least, what i think the right direction is.

of course, that’s just my opinion, i could be wrong.