Page 105 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 105
f. egglezou ■ debate at the edge of critical pedagogy and rhetorical paideia
nance within the context of the existing status quo through the empower-
ment and emancipation of the oppressed (Kincheloe, 2004).
Despite all of the above assumptions, the theoretical research of the
topic reveals that in the framework of critical pedagogy, debate as peda-
gogical practice is a questionable one, as it will be shown below. The con-
testation of debate stems from epistemic, ideological and/or political rea-
sons, while its use discerns critical pedagogy from the critical thinking
movement. As a result, debate is accepted as an educational strategy, es-
sential in cultivating critical thinking (Freeley and Steinberg, 2009, p. 3).
For this reason, Protagoras’ dissoi logoi have been re-casted as modern ed-
ucational practices. For example, we may recall the “believing game” and
the “doubting game” of Peter Elbow (1986) that aim to cultivate students’
argumentation for the truth of a topic, only to doubt it at a second level.
In the same vein, Angelo and Cross (1993) use a pro/con grid in order to
shortly analyze students’ existing perceptions of a topic just by examining
both sides of it.
On the contrary, the neo-marxist point of departure of critical peda-
gogy (Porfilio and Ford, 2015, p. xvi) as well as the emphasis which it plac-
es on the elimination of neo-capitalist dominant ways of thinking (such
as the unequal distribution of power) and of fake social convictions (such
as the conviction of equal possibility and meritocracy) – being in accord-
ance to the basic principles and positions of the Frankfurt School – distin-
guish critical pedagogy from the critical thinking movement. The latter is
considered as a critical approach which aims mainly at the cultivation and
evolution of individual thought without a guarantee of its positive contri-
bution to the (re)formulation of social becoming (Paul and Elder, 2002).
In this conflictual context, debate, through the lens of critical ped-
agogy, is considered as a tool which reproduces forms of power and ra-
tionality that represent and incorporate a systemic and trivial way of per-
ceiving reality, because of “the antagonistic interests” (Adorno, 1974, p.
17) that agonism cultivates. As a consequence, debate strays far from the
framework of critical pedagogy, while the pre-mentioned approaches are
examined as distinct or even opposite aspects of the so-called trend of crit-
ical teaching (Burbules and Berk, 1999).
Furthermore, within the same context of discordance, the agonistic
nature of debate is decried. Specifically, it is supported that the extended
use of debate consists of an important cause for the formation of a deep-
ly polarized, conflictual or/and polemical argumentative culture (Tan-
nen, 1999), which has to be overcome (Tannen, 2006, p. 616) both at the
level of knowledge acquisition as well as at the level of ideas’ exploration
through the viewing of more than two oppositional poles of ideas. Fol-
103
nance within the context of the existing status quo through the empower-
ment and emancipation of the oppressed (Kincheloe, 2004).
Despite all of the above assumptions, the theoretical research of the
topic reveals that in the framework of critical pedagogy, debate as peda-
gogical practice is a questionable one, as it will be shown below. The con-
testation of debate stems from epistemic, ideological and/or political rea-
sons, while its use discerns critical pedagogy from the critical thinking
movement. As a result, debate is accepted as an educational strategy, es-
sential in cultivating critical thinking (Freeley and Steinberg, 2009, p. 3).
For this reason, Protagoras’ dissoi logoi have been re-casted as modern ed-
ucational practices. For example, we may recall the “believing game” and
the “doubting game” of Peter Elbow (1986) that aim to cultivate students’
argumentation for the truth of a topic, only to doubt it at a second level.
In the same vein, Angelo and Cross (1993) use a pro/con grid in order to
shortly analyze students’ existing perceptions of a topic just by examining
both sides of it.
On the contrary, the neo-marxist point of departure of critical peda-
gogy (Porfilio and Ford, 2015, p. xvi) as well as the emphasis which it plac-
es on the elimination of neo-capitalist dominant ways of thinking (such
as the unequal distribution of power) and of fake social convictions (such
as the conviction of equal possibility and meritocracy) – being in accord-
ance to the basic principles and positions of the Frankfurt School – distin-
guish critical pedagogy from the critical thinking movement. The latter is
considered as a critical approach which aims mainly at the cultivation and
evolution of individual thought without a guarantee of its positive contri-
bution to the (re)formulation of social becoming (Paul and Elder, 2002).
In this conflictual context, debate, through the lens of critical ped-
agogy, is considered as a tool which reproduces forms of power and ra-
tionality that represent and incorporate a systemic and trivial way of per-
ceiving reality, because of “the antagonistic interests” (Adorno, 1974, p.
17) that agonism cultivates. As a consequence, debate strays far from the
framework of critical pedagogy, while the pre-mentioned approaches are
examined as distinct or even opposite aspects of the so-called trend of crit-
ical teaching (Burbules and Berk, 1999).
Furthermore, within the same context of discordance, the agonistic
nature of debate is decried. Specifically, it is supported that the extended
use of debate consists of an important cause for the formation of a deep-
ly polarized, conflictual or/and polemical argumentative culture (Tan-
nen, 1999), which has to be overcome (Tannen, 2006, p. 616) both at the
level of knowledge acquisition as well as at the level of ideas’ exploration
through the viewing of more than two oppositional poles of ideas. Fol-
103
