Page 112 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 112
šolsko polje, letnik xxx, številka 5–6
b) general social issues (e.g. The large inflow of refugees causes the unem-
ployment of a country’s inhabitants), and
c) scientific issues (e.g. DNA mapping must be forbidden).
According to the Shor’s taxonomy (1992), we could assign the follow-
ing categories of topics to:
a) generative issues which stem from everyday life,
b) topical issues that derive from reality and
c) academic issues relative to various sciences (ibid., pp. 55, 58, 73).
Αlso, we could support the idea that through the exchange of argu-
ments, all the members of the debating teams and the audience partici-
pate in the codification of the information that forms an enlarged picture
of the examined topic. At the same time, independently of the position
that each group supports, both the participants and the audience get in-
volved with the de-codification of the new knowledge which has been ac-
quired through the critical thinking and the identification with the pro-
vided argumentation (Ford, 2017, p. 3).
Furthermore, the controversy among the participants and the mu-
tual critical test of ideas contributes to a more efficient conscientization
(Freire, 2005, p. 15) of important cultural ideas and socio-political practic-
es through their intense impeachment. Within this context, participants
are often called to argue against the convictions that compose their indi-
vidual identity. At the same time, critical awareness is developed (Freire,
2005, p. 15) in association with the creation of reasonable and critical de-
cisions, which may lead to social changes and to the formation of a new
social, economic, political and cultural reality. Within this new context,
individual actions may be redefined cultivating the rhetoric and the ped-
agogy of hope (Freire, 1998). Αlso, debating provides participants with the
possibility of resistance through discourse to an imposed status quo and
of refutation of stereotypes and dogmatic ways of thinking. Last but not
least, participation in a debate may reveal the relationships of power and
dominance, which are related to the argumentation process as interactive
practice in the classroom, in a family, in a job, in politics as well as in every
aspect of social life.
Despite the common ground that seems to relate debate to critical
pedagogy, its agonistic character might be considered as an οbstacle to its
use within the classroom. Following the same line as Theodor W. Ador-
no (1974), Colaguori (2012, p. vii) cauterizes the cultural rationalism of
agon, as he directly correlates it to the problem of the universal domina-
tion of capitalism and to the imposition of ‘truths’, which reproduce so-
110
b) general social issues (e.g. The large inflow of refugees causes the unem-
ployment of a country’s inhabitants), and
c) scientific issues (e.g. DNA mapping must be forbidden).
According to the Shor’s taxonomy (1992), we could assign the follow-
ing categories of topics to:
a) generative issues which stem from everyday life,
b) topical issues that derive from reality and
c) academic issues relative to various sciences (ibid., pp. 55, 58, 73).
Αlso, we could support the idea that through the exchange of argu-
ments, all the members of the debating teams and the audience partici-
pate in the codification of the information that forms an enlarged picture
of the examined topic. At the same time, independently of the position
that each group supports, both the participants and the audience get in-
volved with the de-codification of the new knowledge which has been ac-
quired through the critical thinking and the identification with the pro-
vided argumentation (Ford, 2017, p. 3).
Furthermore, the controversy among the participants and the mu-
tual critical test of ideas contributes to a more efficient conscientization
(Freire, 2005, p. 15) of important cultural ideas and socio-political practic-
es through their intense impeachment. Within this context, participants
are often called to argue against the convictions that compose their indi-
vidual identity. At the same time, critical awareness is developed (Freire,
2005, p. 15) in association with the creation of reasonable and critical de-
cisions, which may lead to social changes and to the formation of a new
social, economic, political and cultural reality. Within this new context,
individual actions may be redefined cultivating the rhetoric and the ped-
agogy of hope (Freire, 1998). Αlso, debating provides participants with the
possibility of resistance through discourse to an imposed status quo and
of refutation of stereotypes and dogmatic ways of thinking. Last but not
least, participation in a debate may reveal the relationships of power and
dominance, which are related to the argumentation process as interactive
practice in the classroom, in a family, in a job, in politics as well as in every
aspect of social life.
Despite the common ground that seems to relate debate to critical
pedagogy, its agonistic character might be considered as an οbstacle to its
use within the classroom. Following the same line as Theodor W. Ador-
no (1974), Colaguori (2012, p. vii) cauterizes the cultural rationalism of
agon, as he directly correlates it to the problem of the universal domina-
tion of capitalism and to the imposition of ‘truths’, which reproduce so-
110
