Page 108 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 108
šolsko polje, letnik xxx, številka 5–6
ing conditions (economic, political, social, cultural etc.) and to converse
with them if the main aim of this civic discussion was the progress of the
polis.
The above conception of rhetorical paideia presents obvious simi-
larities with critical pedagogy and, especially with the excoriation of the
banking system of education, as presented by Paulo Freire, the leading ex-
ponent critical scholar in his book, The Pedagogy of the Oppressed (2000,
p. 72). Both rhetoric and critical pedagogy, forcefully deny the idea that
students may be parallelized to empty vessels, which have to be filled by
their teacher who is keen to provide them with trivial knowledge (Shor,
1992, p. 32).
In contrast to the above mechanistic and non-humanistic approach
of education for rhetorical paideia, the instruction of individuals who are
getting awareness of their civic identity presupposes, among others, prac-
tices-processes, such as:
a) posing questions,
b) forming judgments, and
c) negotiating opposite interests.
Through this creative and dialectic interaction, isegoria is guaran-
teed as the quality of freedom of speech for every participant in equal
terms (Boniolo, 2012, p. 54). In antiquity, it was accepted that debate pro-
vided the fertile ground for the display of these processes.
Debate, as official pedagogic practice, started with the Sophistic
Movement of the 5th century B.C. and, in particular, with the dissoi logoi
of Protagoras (D. L. 9.8.53). Dissoi logoi were placed in the center of rhetor-
ical paideia shading it in tones of agonism (Ong, 2002, p. 108). Also, it was
commonly accepted that dissoi logoi could contribute to the formation of
individuals, capable of examining and managing effectively personal and
civic issues due to the enhancement of their argumentative skills in logos
and anti-logos, that is of their capacity to invent arguments for and against
an issue.
Μoreover, in antiquity the practice of debate was revealing the so-
phistic view concerning the relativity of knowledge and the subjectivity
of the so-called ‘truth’. As a result, within dissoi logoi each thesis could be
heard and, simultaneously, could be submitted to critical scrutiny devel-
oping tolerance towards the plurality of opinions (Μielczarski, s. a.) and
towards otherness. Concluding, we could underline that debate was con-
sidered a deeply democratic practice that allowed the development of po-
lyphony, the juxtaposition of arguments for a civic issue with arguments
against the same issue. In this way, debate was conducting the audience,
106
ing conditions (economic, political, social, cultural etc.) and to converse
with them if the main aim of this civic discussion was the progress of the
polis.
The above conception of rhetorical paideia presents obvious simi-
larities with critical pedagogy and, especially with the excoriation of the
banking system of education, as presented by Paulo Freire, the leading ex-
ponent critical scholar in his book, The Pedagogy of the Oppressed (2000,
p. 72). Both rhetoric and critical pedagogy, forcefully deny the idea that
students may be parallelized to empty vessels, which have to be filled by
their teacher who is keen to provide them with trivial knowledge (Shor,
1992, p. 32).
In contrast to the above mechanistic and non-humanistic approach
of education for rhetorical paideia, the instruction of individuals who are
getting awareness of their civic identity presupposes, among others, prac-
tices-processes, such as:
a) posing questions,
b) forming judgments, and
c) negotiating opposite interests.
Through this creative and dialectic interaction, isegoria is guaran-
teed as the quality of freedom of speech for every participant in equal
terms (Boniolo, 2012, p. 54). In antiquity, it was accepted that debate pro-
vided the fertile ground for the display of these processes.
Debate, as official pedagogic practice, started with the Sophistic
Movement of the 5th century B.C. and, in particular, with the dissoi logoi
of Protagoras (D. L. 9.8.53). Dissoi logoi were placed in the center of rhetor-
ical paideia shading it in tones of agonism (Ong, 2002, p. 108). Also, it was
commonly accepted that dissoi logoi could contribute to the formation of
individuals, capable of examining and managing effectively personal and
civic issues due to the enhancement of their argumentative skills in logos
and anti-logos, that is of their capacity to invent arguments for and against
an issue.
Μoreover, in antiquity the practice of debate was revealing the so-
phistic view concerning the relativity of knowledge and the subjectivity
of the so-called ‘truth’. As a result, within dissoi logoi each thesis could be
heard and, simultaneously, could be submitted to critical scrutiny devel-
oping tolerance towards the plurality of opinions (Μielczarski, s. a.) and
towards otherness. Concluding, we could underline that debate was con-
sidered a deeply democratic practice that allowed the development of po-
lyphony, the juxtaposition of arguments for a civic issue with arguments
against the same issue. In this way, debate was conducting the audience,
106
