Page 114 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 114
šolsko polje, letnik xxx, številka 5–6
propaganda, a dominant subject succeeds the so-called “cultural invasion”
(Freire, 1974, p. 86) and the social injustice.
On the other hand, more moderate opinions support that the rela-
tionship between rhetoric and dialectic is complementary. In particular,
Honnmann (2000), based on Aristotle, supports the idea that there is a
“rhetorical foundation of dialectical reasoning in the audience’s accept-
ance of its premises, and of the dialectical justification of rhetoric by the
corrective interplay of opposing viewpoints” (ibid., p. 233).
Adopting the same stance, we will attempt to reveal why we believe
that debate is useful to be implemented among other dialogic practices
in the context of critical pedagogy, for the formation of future active citi-
zens. Our position consists of an attempt to relate the agonistic examina-
tion of reality with a conscious and cooperative decision-taking about it.
Debate and cultivation of active citizenry
Τhe formation of active citizens is an educational need and priority. As
such, it is related to the cultivation of individuals, who voluntarily and in-
dependently of the possession of positions of power, in the future, will as-
sume roles and responsibilities for the co-formation of the sociopolitical,
cultural and environmental reality in terms of justice, equity and freedom.
The speech development and the exchange of arguments regarding
the view and the vision of the world through collaborative forms of de-
liberation, consists of a necessary prerequisite for the manifestation of de-
sirable actions in public sphere. To achieve this goal as educators, we sup-
port the idea that we should equally encourage students’ participation in
co-operative and agonistic forms of argumentation as well, in an attempt
to form citizens who are not limited to a shallow and narrow imposition
of ideas. On the other hand, we should promote the formation of students
who struggle for the agonistic examination of emerged sociopolitical is-
sues and who strive to ensure the “dialectic of control” (Giddens, 1979, p.
149) and the critique of domination through the analysis and rebuttal of
the “discourse of power” (ibid., p. 92), when it is activated for legalizing
the partial interests of the hegemonic groups (ibid., p. 187).
The basic principles of Hannah Arendt’s political philosophy will
become the main argumentative source for supporting our thesis. The
German-American philosopher seems to embrace rhetorical paideia and
to reconcile deliberation with agonism for achieving a major, diachron-
ic political goal: the avoidance or even the extinction of totalitarianism
(Roberts-Miller, 2002, p. 598).
For Arendt, the formation of active citizens’ political conscience is a
difficult attempt since important challenges arise. We could refer to the
112
propaganda, a dominant subject succeeds the so-called “cultural invasion”
(Freire, 1974, p. 86) and the social injustice.
On the other hand, more moderate opinions support that the rela-
tionship between rhetoric and dialectic is complementary. In particular,
Honnmann (2000), based on Aristotle, supports the idea that there is a
“rhetorical foundation of dialectical reasoning in the audience’s accept-
ance of its premises, and of the dialectical justification of rhetoric by the
corrective interplay of opposing viewpoints” (ibid., p. 233).
Adopting the same stance, we will attempt to reveal why we believe
that debate is useful to be implemented among other dialogic practices
in the context of critical pedagogy, for the formation of future active citi-
zens. Our position consists of an attempt to relate the agonistic examina-
tion of reality with a conscious and cooperative decision-taking about it.
Debate and cultivation of active citizenry
Τhe formation of active citizens is an educational need and priority. As
such, it is related to the cultivation of individuals, who voluntarily and in-
dependently of the possession of positions of power, in the future, will as-
sume roles and responsibilities for the co-formation of the sociopolitical,
cultural and environmental reality in terms of justice, equity and freedom.
The speech development and the exchange of arguments regarding
the view and the vision of the world through collaborative forms of de-
liberation, consists of a necessary prerequisite for the manifestation of de-
sirable actions in public sphere. To achieve this goal as educators, we sup-
port the idea that we should equally encourage students’ participation in
co-operative and agonistic forms of argumentation as well, in an attempt
to form citizens who are not limited to a shallow and narrow imposition
of ideas. On the other hand, we should promote the formation of students
who struggle for the agonistic examination of emerged sociopolitical is-
sues and who strive to ensure the “dialectic of control” (Giddens, 1979, p.
149) and the critique of domination through the analysis and rebuttal of
the “discourse of power” (ibid., p. 92), when it is activated for legalizing
the partial interests of the hegemonic groups (ibid., p. 187).
The basic principles of Hannah Arendt’s political philosophy will
become the main argumentative source for supporting our thesis. The
German-American philosopher seems to embrace rhetorical paideia and
to reconcile deliberation with agonism for achieving a major, diachron-
ic political goal: the avoidance or even the extinction of totalitarianism
(Roberts-Miller, 2002, p. 598).
For Arendt, the formation of active citizens’ political conscience is a
difficult attempt since important challenges arise. We could refer to the
112
