Page 48 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 5-6: Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity, eds. Mitja Sardoč and Tomaž Deželan
P. 48
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 5–6
held power over blacks, and when there was an explicit isolationist stance
by the country. It further underpins more Christian fundamentalist per-
spectives, commonly interwoven with Far Right policies, that commonly
advocate for social conservative policies on aspects of reproductive rights
and women’s rights. Conversely, if we look to the key phrases espoused
by Malcolm X, you can note the rise of African American rights, but dif-
ferent from Martin Luther King Junior. In this way, the phrases provid-
ed a call to action, and sometimes justified use of force. One such slogan
by Malcom X: “I don’t even call it violence when it’s in self-defense; I call
it intelligence”, provides the justification of violence and one’s credibil-
ity. On this view, to not defend oneself suggests a weakness, and a lack
of judgment or discretion to not take action. Violence is justified under
the guise of self-defense, and is linked to the greater cause of the rights of
African Americans.
By unpacking the language that is commonly seen on t-shirts, pro-
test marches, speeches, songs, and so forth, the intent is to build the ca-
pacity of students to engage in civil discourse. Paula McAvoy and Diana
Hess (2013) note how one teacher captures this sentiment aptly, by stating:
I think students should be able to carry out an intelligent conversation
using civil discourse to express themselves and not to be simply a politi-
cal pundit… and express themselves in an appropriate manner and have
honest, genuine discussions with one another about these issues. I think
what they see a lot of times, in the media today, it is not really modelling
civil discourse. (p. 15).
The aim is that by deliberating through these issues, such as rhetoric
and slogan, it can create more political engagement. Furthermore, Diana
Mutz (2006) contends that not only does talking across political spec-
trums build civic discourse – a term she coins ‘cross-cutting political talk’
– the process itself creates more political tolerance among those from di-
verse perspectives. When a classroom creates such a learning environment
that invites respectful dialogue and deliberation, students may better be
equipped to develop dispositions that weigh the evidence, understand the
diversity of values and beliefs at play, and be more apt to listen and con-
sider alternative perspectives. And while they may not shift their view or
change their perspective, they may have a bit more empathy, understand-
ing or tolerance to the different perspective. It opens up the ability to
think beyond the limited narrow view of oneself and their own perspec-
tive, and rather consider that all views do not hold an ‘absolute truth’, but
are located in a particular time and place, and highly contextual. This dis-
ruption and interruption of an absolute, narrow perspective compromises
46
held power over blacks, and when there was an explicit isolationist stance
by the country. It further underpins more Christian fundamentalist per-
spectives, commonly interwoven with Far Right policies, that commonly
advocate for social conservative policies on aspects of reproductive rights
and women’s rights. Conversely, if we look to the key phrases espoused
by Malcolm X, you can note the rise of African American rights, but dif-
ferent from Martin Luther King Junior. In this way, the phrases provid-
ed a call to action, and sometimes justified use of force. One such slogan
by Malcom X: “I don’t even call it violence when it’s in self-defense; I call
it intelligence”, provides the justification of violence and one’s credibil-
ity. On this view, to not defend oneself suggests a weakness, and a lack
of judgment or discretion to not take action. Violence is justified under
the guise of self-defense, and is linked to the greater cause of the rights of
African Americans.
By unpacking the language that is commonly seen on t-shirts, pro-
test marches, speeches, songs, and so forth, the intent is to build the ca-
pacity of students to engage in civil discourse. Paula McAvoy and Diana
Hess (2013) note how one teacher captures this sentiment aptly, by stating:
I think students should be able to carry out an intelligent conversation
using civil discourse to express themselves and not to be simply a politi-
cal pundit… and express themselves in an appropriate manner and have
honest, genuine discussions with one another about these issues. I think
what they see a lot of times, in the media today, it is not really modelling
civil discourse. (p. 15).
The aim is that by deliberating through these issues, such as rhetoric
and slogan, it can create more political engagement. Furthermore, Diana
Mutz (2006) contends that not only does talking across political spec-
trums build civic discourse – a term she coins ‘cross-cutting political talk’
– the process itself creates more political tolerance among those from di-
verse perspectives. When a classroom creates such a learning environment
that invites respectful dialogue and deliberation, students may better be
equipped to develop dispositions that weigh the evidence, understand the
diversity of values and beliefs at play, and be more apt to listen and con-
sider alternative perspectives. And while they may not shift their view or
change their perspective, they may have a bit more empathy, understand-
ing or tolerance to the different perspective. It opens up the ability to
think beyond the limited narrow view of oneself and their own perspec-
tive, and rather consider that all views do not hold an ‘absolute truth’, but
are located in a particular time and place, and highly contextual. This dis-
ruption and interruption of an absolute, narrow perspective compromises
46
