Page 111 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 111
f. egglezou ■ debate at the edge of critical pedagogy and rhetorical paideia
Introducing the point of dialogue, for Freire (1978, pp. 192–3), criti-
cal dialogue in the classroom as well as in society consists of an essential
educational strategy for the students’ liberation and emancipation. The
exchange of thoughts and convictions concerning various social prob-
lems helps students to better comprehend these issues through their dis-
cursive interaction. At this point, we could support the idea that despite
its regulatory framework, debate still consists of a sort of dialogic pro-
cess. Independent the fact that debate takes the form of a formally or-
ganized dialogue, which is based on rules (e.g. defined number of partic-
ipants, specific time for the exchange of arguments, number of questions
etc.), it creates the necessary space for ensuring the equality of expression
of each argumentative side within the context of mutual respect between
the participants of the two teams.
Through the dialogic form of debate participants may still use dis-
course in order to define or, more precisely, “name the world” (Freire,
2000, p. 18), to acquire extended and deeper knowledge of social issues
that face in everyday life, to critically reconsider them and to become con-
scious of the possibility of social change that their action might bring.
In other words, debate consists of the dialogic sharing of an experience
which is based upon a circular process of: a) reasoning, b) expansion of the
way of thinking, c) active listening, and d) discursive interaction, that po-
tentially might lead to the transformation of practices relative to the ex-
amined social reality by ensuring the accordance of the audience. In oth-
er words, we accept the idea that debate consists of a praxis in which the
power of transubstantiation of a pedagogical idea to a social practice with-
in real life is hidden.
Furthermore, debate may be inserted into the frame of “prob-
lem-posing education” (Freire, 1985, p. 22; Shor, 1992; Dewey, 1916). Τhe
exchange of arguments is fired by the examination of an ambivalent issue,
which may be parallelized to Freire’s “limit situations” (1997, p. 80), that
come out within a specific historical and cultural context. Therefore, de-
bate problematizes students on various topics that may seem familiar to
them (that’s the way things are) but in fact may not be. The deeper exami-
nation of such topics leads students to a re-familiarization with them. It is
about the process that Ira Shor describes as “extraordinarily re-experienc-
ing the ordinary” (1980, p. 93). For example, the topic of the debate may
be related to:
a) personal experiences of the students (e.g. The state provides all stu-
dents with equal educational possibilities),
109
Introducing the point of dialogue, for Freire (1978, pp. 192–3), criti-
cal dialogue in the classroom as well as in society consists of an essential
educational strategy for the students’ liberation and emancipation. The
exchange of thoughts and convictions concerning various social prob-
lems helps students to better comprehend these issues through their dis-
cursive interaction. At this point, we could support the idea that despite
its regulatory framework, debate still consists of a sort of dialogic pro-
cess. Independent the fact that debate takes the form of a formally or-
ganized dialogue, which is based on rules (e.g. defined number of partic-
ipants, specific time for the exchange of arguments, number of questions
etc.), it creates the necessary space for ensuring the equality of expression
of each argumentative side within the context of mutual respect between
the participants of the two teams.
Through the dialogic form of debate participants may still use dis-
course in order to define or, more precisely, “name the world” (Freire,
2000, p. 18), to acquire extended and deeper knowledge of social issues
that face in everyday life, to critically reconsider them and to become con-
scious of the possibility of social change that their action might bring.
In other words, debate consists of the dialogic sharing of an experience
which is based upon a circular process of: a) reasoning, b) expansion of the
way of thinking, c) active listening, and d) discursive interaction, that po-
tentially might lead to the transformation of practices relative to the ex-
amined social reality by ensuring the accordance of the audience. In oth-
er words, we accept the idea that debate consists of a praxis in which the
power of transubstantiation of a pedagogical idea to a social practice with-
in real life is hidden.
Furthermore, debate may be inserted into the frame of “prob-
lem-posing education” (Freire, 1985, p. 22; Shor, 1992; Dewey, 1916). Τhe
exchange of arguments is fired by the examination of an ambivalent issue,
which may be parallelized to Freire’s “limit situations” (1997, p. 80), that
come out within a specific historical and cultural context. Therefore, de-
bate problematizes students on various topics that may seem familiar to
them (that’s the way things are) but in fact may not be. The deeper exami-
nation of such topics leads students to a re-familiarization with them. It is
about the process that Ira Shor describes as “extraordinarily re-experienc-
ing the ordinary” (1980, p. 93). For example, the topic of the debate may
be related to:
a) personal experiences of the students (e.g. The state provides all stu-
dents with equal educational possibilities),
109
