Page 106 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 106
šolsko polje, letnik xxx, številka 5–6
lowing the same line of thinking, Tannen stands in favour of the exam-
ination of more than two sides of a topic and proposes the cultivation of
alternative dialogic ways of “expressing opposition and negotiating disa-
greement” (ibid., p. 627).
This critical stance towards debate imposes its further examination
as pedagogical practice within the educational community. This need is
underlined by the extended use of debate in social and political reality,
beside the competitive debates (Εdwards, 2008) that occur within the
school and/or academic framework. More specifically, debate consists of a
usual communication practice, which is largely exercised in a more or less
formal form in various instances of the everyday professional, academic,
social and political life for decision taking (e.g. in the courts, in scientif-
ic inquiries, in the administrative and political arena etc.) with signifi-
cant influences not only to the sociopolitical life of smaller or larger social
groups, but also to the political formation of states, which are governed by
modern democratic principles where debate may influence even by taking
the form of a referendum.
Additionally, to the preoccupations, which have been expressed up
to this point, it is worthwhile to share the concern of scholars who empha-
size the importance of the audience (Perelman, 1982) in each rhetorical sit-
uation. Indeed, during the debating process an audience of students par-
ticipates in it, both as a receiver of the produced messages and as a judge
of the validity and soundness of the exchanged arguments. It is support-
ed that the argumentation provided before an audience is not only limited
nor characterized by its informative function, which is to communicate
to the audience information on the examined topic. Mainly, the exchange
of arguments before an audience reflects the power of changing the world
(Tindale, 1990, p. 84), since it depends on the final decision of the audi-
ence concerning which action will be chosen and followed regarding var-
ious topics and practices (policy debates). Therefore, under the prism of
critical pedagogy, we could support the idea that debate cultivates equal-
ly to the participants as well as to the audience, “the language of critique”
and “the language of possibility” (Giroux, 1997, p. x).
As it easily becomes clear, the cognitive dissonance, which stems
from the afore-mentioned oppositional views, consists of the necessary
ground on which we will attempt to carry out our theoretical research
about the role of debate – and consequently of rhetorical paideia – to the
intended intellectual, social, political emancipation of students, as future
active citizens as well as about the debate’s relation to critical pedagogy. As
a result, interesting questions are derived from this oppositional approach
of debate such as:
104
lowing the same line of thinking, Tannen stands in favour of the exam-
ination of more than two sides of a topic and proposes the cultivation of
alternative dialogic ways of “expressing opposition and negotiating disa-
greement” (ibid., p. 627).
This critical stance towards debate imposes its further examination
as pedagogical practice within the educational community. This need is
underlined by the extended use of debate in social and political reality,
beside the competitive debates (Εdwards, 2008) that occur within the
school and/or academic framework. More specifically, debate consists of a
usual communication practice, which is largely exercised in a more or less
formal form in various instances of the everyday professional, academic,
social and political life for decision taking (e.g. in the courts, in scientif-
ic inquiries, in the administrative and political arena etc.) with signifi-
cant influences not only to the sociopolitical life of smaller or larger social
groups, but also to the political formation of states, which are governed by
modern democratic principles where debate may influence even by taking
the form of a referendum.
Additionally, to the preoccupations, which have been expressed up
to this point, it is worthwhile to share the concern of scholars who empha-
size the importance of the audience (Perelman, 1982) in each rhetorical sit-
uation. Indeed, during the debating process an audience of students par-
ticipates in it, both as a receiver of the produced messages and as a judge
of the validity and soundness of the exchanged arguments. It is support-
ed that the argumentation provided before an audience is not only limited
nor characterized by its informative function, which is to communicate
to the audience information on the examined topic. Mainly, the exchange
of arguments before an audience reflects the power of changing the world
(Tindale, 1990, p. 84), since it depends on the final decision of the audi-
ence concerning which action will be chosen and followed regarding var-
ious topics and practices (policy debates). Therefore, under the prism of
critical pedagogy, we could support the idea that debate cultivates equal-
ly to the participants as well as to the audience, “the language of critique”
and “the language of possibility” (Giroux, 1997, p. x).
As it easily becomes clear, the cognitive dissonance, which stems
from the afore-mentioned oppositional views, consists of the necessary
ground on which we will attempt to carry out our theoretical research
about the role of debate – and consequently of rhetorical paideia – to the
intended intellectual, social, political emancipation of students, as future
active citizens as well as about the debate’s relation to critical pedagogy. As
a result, interesting questions are derived from this oppositional approach
of debate such as:
104
