Page 110 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 110
šolsko polje, letnik xxx, številka 5–6
possible interconnections between rhetorical paideia and critical pedago-
gy. At the same time, the above theoretical references aim to reveal the
contribution of rhetorical paideia and debate to the formation of active
thinking citizens within the democratic context of ancient Athens, while
they reveal a deep concern relative to the possibilities of an analogous
modern pedagogical use of debate.
Debate within the context of critical pedagogy
However, a question that arises is whether debate might be implemented
within the context of critical pedagogy. This question becomes even more
challenging if we consider that the cultivation of students’ civic identity
consists of a main goal for both critical pedagogy and rhetorical paideia.
Regarding critical pedagogy, the need for osmosis of education with var-
ious public spheres as the political, economic and cultural (Freire, 1989;
Kincheloe, 2004; McLaren, 2007; Τsiami, 2013, p. 25) is considered im-
perative, firstly, for pointing out social inequities and injustices, and sec-
ondly, for conducting students in terms of praxis to the acquisition of
active citizenship. The assurance of students’ right to controversy, opposi-
tion and resistance (Crawford, 2010, pp. 817–8) through speech is consid-
ered as a necessary condition for the accomplishment of this goal.
Since the notion of conflict plays a crucial role in the context of crit-
ical pedagogy (Buffington and Moneyhun, 1997, p. 4), it would be reason-
able to accept the idea that debate could easily be inserted into it. This po-
sition is strengthened by the assumption that critical pedagogy reflects
a dynamic opposition to the neo-liberal status quo intending to “decon-
struct” the discourse of various modern forms of hegemony and domina-
tion (social, political, economic, educational etc.) by achieving the “social
transformation” (Τherianos, 2014, paragraph 2) within the context of a
challenging debate with sociopolitical dimensions.
As a consequence, we could accept the view that the practice of de-
bate meets essential parameters of critical pedagogy. Among them we
could include some important notions such as the following:
a) dialogue,
b) problem-posing education,
c) codification and de-codification of information,
d) conscientization and critical consciousness (Okazaki, 2005), and fi-
nally,
e) praxis as definition of reflective action (Christiansen and Aldridge,
2013, pp. 7–9).
108
possible interconnections between rhetorical paideia and critical pedago-
gy. At the same time, the above theoretical references aim to reveal the
contribution of rhetorical paideia and debate to the formation of active
thinking citizens within the democratic context of ancient Athens, while
they reveal a deep concern relative to the possibilities of an analogous
modern pedagogical use of debate.
Debate within the context of critical pedagogy
However, a question that arises is whether debate might be implemented
within the context of critical pedagogy. This question becomes even more
challenging if we consider that the cultivation of students’ civic identity
consists of a main goal for both critical pedagogy and rhetorical paideia.
Regarding critical pedagogy, the need for osmosis of education with var-
ious public spheres as the political, economic and cultural (Freire, 1989;
Kincheloe, 2004; McLaren, 2007; Τsiami, 2013, p. 25) is considered im-
perative, firstly, for pointing out social inequities and injustices, and sec-
ondly, for conducting students in terms of praxis to the acquisition of
active citizenship. The assurance of students’ right to controversy, opposi-
tion and resistance (Crawford, 2010, pp. 817–8) through speech is consid-
ered as a necessary condition for the accomplishment of this goal.
Since the notion of conflict plays a crucial role in the context of crit-
ical pedagogy (Buffington and Moneyhun, 1997, p. 4), it would be reason-
able to accept the idea that debate could easily be inserted into it. This po-
sition is strengthened by the assumption that critical pedagogy reflects
a dynamic opposition to the neo-liberal status quo intending to “decon-
struct” the discourse of various modern forms of hegemony and domina-
tion (social, political, economic, educational etc.) by achieving the “social
transformation” (Τherianos, 2014, paragraph 2) within the context of a
challenging debate with sociopolitical dimensions.
As a consequence, we could accept the view that the practice of de-
bate meets essential parameters of critical pedagogy. Among them we
could include some important notions such as the following:
a) dialogue,
b) problem-posing education,
c) codification and de-codification of information,
d) conscientization and critical consciousness (Okazaki, 2005), and fi-
nally,
e) praxis as definition of reflective action (Christiansen and Aldridge,
2013, pp. 7–9).
108
