Page 113 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 113
f. egglezou ■ debate at the edge of critical pedagogy and rhetorical paideia
cial violence and injustice. He does not hesitate to compare agonism with
a tool, which intends to impose dominant ideologies, to reiterate violence
and the exclusion of various social groups and opinions and, finally, to re-
duce critical resistance to analogous socio-political pathogenicities (ibid.,
p. xii).
Under this perspective, the argumentative skills of the participants
are used in order to persuade and/or to mislead the audience just for the
victory of the one team over the other, while the exchanged opinions are
restricted to two poles. On the opposite side, for critical pedagogy, open
dialogue is considered the most appropriate pedagogical tool for the res-
olution of problems, the deliberation of actions and the transformation
of deeply rooted convictions due to its polyphonic essence. The confron-
tation, which is observed between dialogue and debate, as pedagogical
practices, reflects the diachronic conflict between rhetoric and dialectic.
In contrast to the superiority of dialectic, which aims to achieve cogni-
tive truth, rhetoric sacrifices truth at the altar of persuasion (Honnman,
2000, p. 223).
The conflict between the opposite opinions does not end at this
point. On the contrary, the efficiency of dialogue, as pedagogical practice,
is questioned (Ellsworth, 1989, p. 298) as well as the achievement of im-
portant communication goals. Under this point of view, it is highlighted
that dialogue must be examined as a situated practice that is formatted by
various parameters such as: who, when, where and how/under which con-
ditions is conducted (Βurbules, 2000, pp. 261–4).
Respectively, the limitation of students’ agonistic spirit is contest-
ed. Agonism though is considered an invaluable asset on facing the inflex-
ible bureaucratic system with which they will have to deal in their future
life. For example, Βizzell points out how it is important for students not to
lose “the value of challenging, opposing and resisting the interplay of so-
cial, cultural and historical forces that structure our lives” (1992, p. 284).
What has been mentioned up to this point reveals not only the con-
frontation between rhetoric and dialectic but that between debate and di-
alogue. The beginning of this conflict is situated in Plato’s era and in his
anti-rhetorical polemic as it is developed in his Gorgias, while it becomes
obvious in Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, where the author highlights
once more that “this dialogical encounter cannot take place between an-
tagonists” (2000, p. 129, note 5) who are exhibiting “oppressor charac-
teristics” (ibid., p. 129). Indeed, rhetoric is condemned as a means of ma-
nipulation and production of empty speech that aims at the monologic
persuasion and the oppression of recipients-objects. In this case, through
111
cial violence and injustice. He does not hesitate to compare agonism with
a tool, which intends to impose dominant ideologies, to reiterate violence
and the exclusion of various social groups and opinions and, finally, to re-
duce critical resistance to analogous socio-political pathogenicities (ibid.,
p. xii).
Under this perspective, the argumentative skills of the participants
are used in order to persuade and/or to mislead the audience just for the
victory of the one team over the other, while the exchanged opinions are
restricted to two poles. On the opposite side, for critical pedagogy, open
dialogue is considered the most appropriate pedagogical tool for the res-
olution of problems, the deliberation of actions and the transformation
of deeply rooted convictions due to its polyphonic essence. The confron-
tation, which is observed between dialogue and debate, as pedagogical
practices, reflects the diachronic conflict between rhetoric and dialectic.
In contrast to the superiority of dialectic, which aims to achieve cogni-
tive truth, rhetoric sacrifices truth at the altar of persuasion (Honnman,
2000, p. 223).
The conflict between the opposite opinions does not end at this
point. On the contrary, the efficiency of dialogue, as pedagogical practice,
is questioned (Ellsworth, 1989, p. 298) as well as the achievement of im-
portant communication goals. Under this point of view, it is highlighted
that dialogue must be examined as a situated practice that is formatted by
various parameters such as: who, when, where and how/under which con-
ditions is conducted (Βurbules, 2000, pp. 261–4).
Respectively, the limitation of students’ agonistic spirit is contest-
ed. Agonism though is considered an invaluable asset on facing the inflex-
ible bureaucratic system with which they will have to deal in their future
life. For example, Βizzell points out how it is important for students not to
lose “the value of challenging, opposing and resisting the interplay of so-
cial, cultural and historical forces that structure our lives” (1992, p. 284).
What has been mentioned up to this point reveals not only the con-
frontation between rhetoric and dialectic but that between debate and di-
alogue. The beginning of this conflict is situated in Plato’s era and in his
anti-rhetorical polemic as it is developed in his Gorgias, while it becomes
obvious in Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, where the author highlights
once more that “this dialogical encounter cannot take place between an-
tagonists” (2000, p. 129, note 5) who are exhibiting “oppressor charac-
teristics” (ibid., p. 129). Indeed, rhetoric is condemned as a means of ma-
nipulation and production of empty speech that aims at the monologic
persuasion and the oppression of recipients-objects. In this case, through
111
