Page 115 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 115
f. egglezou ■ debate at the edge of critical pedagogy and rhetorical paideia
persistent attachment to the subjective ‘ego’ that limits and thwarts the
involvement to a commonly delimited action, to the reluctance of many
individuals to undertake responsibilities for public issues or to their as-
similation into the existing systemic power. As a consequence of all of the
above, passivity, compliance and indifference towards the formation of re-
ality arise. All these stances, when they become strengthened more or less
consciously might support totalitarian forms of power, since the individ-
uals who adopt these stances refuse to actively participate and assume re-
sponsibilities – both at a level of speech and action – for the formation of
the sociopolitical and cultural context. In particular, because of the Hol-
ocaust, Hannah Arendt (1978, p. 4) scathes the unexamined facility with
which hundreds of people without anti-Semitic tendencies worked for
the genocide of Jews within the context of their bureaucratic duty in or-
der to avoid points of conflict with their superiors. Also, she remarks the
danger of exclusion of “spontaneous action or outstanding achievement”
(Arendt, 1958, p. 40). Such a peril is generated by the legalization of nu-
merous rules and by the negative political power of assimilation, which of-
ten stems from the rigid attachment to bureaucratic rules and/or by the
assimilation of the citizens’ councils and the loss of dynamics for action
(Arendt, 1958, p. 219).
In these cases, Hannah Arendt, by paying the price of the critique
that emphasizes an internal contradiction to the core of her political the-
ory (Villa, 1996, p. 56), seems to accept the agonistic or even polemical
spirit which is hidden under a controversy. She supports the idea that con-
troversy ensures the necessary space of action and speech as prerequisites
for the involvement in political life and to the fight of each form of total-
itarianism, despite the possible dangers that may be hidden in the process
of debating (Lederman, 2014, p. 329). Opposite to the idea that debate
might stem from personal ambitions or that it might represent elite teams,
Arendt expresses her acceptance of the speakers who because of their “pas-
sion for ideas and politics […] [are] willing to take risks” (Roberts-Miller,
2002, p. 589) for supporting their personal action through their speech
and for expressing overtly to the public sphere their ideas through the use
of sound arguments. As a defender of the truth, Arendt emphasizes the
use of factual arguments (ibid., p. 594), while she highlights the role of val-
ues that have to permeate controversy as, for example, “the spirit of fight-
ing without hatred and ‘without the spirit of revenge” in combination
with “indifference to the material advantages” (Arendt, 1972, p. 167). Un-
der this perspective, rhetoric, in the context of a debate, might effective-
ly serve the development of action in the public sphere. Also, controver-
sy might become a protective shield against totalitarian ideas due to the
113
persistent attachment to the subjective ‘ego’ that limits and thwarts the
involvement to a commonly delimited action, to the reluctance of many
individuals to undertake responsibilities for public issues or to their as-
similation into the existing systemic power. As a consequence of all of the
above, passivity, compliance and indifference towards the formation of re-
ality arise. All these stances, when they become strengthened more or less
consciously might support totalitarian forms of power, since the individ-
uals who adopt these stances refuse to actively participate and assume re-
sponsibilities – both at a level of speech and action – for the formation of
the sociopolitical and cultural context. In particular, because of the Hol-
ocaust, Hannah Arendt (1978, p. 4) scathes the unexamined facility with
which hundreds of people without anti-Semitic tendencies worked for
the genocide of Jews within the context of their bureaucratic duty in or-
der to avoid points of conflict with their superiors. Also, she remarks the
danger of exclusion of “spontaneous action or outstanding achievement”
(Arendt, 1958, p. 40). Such a peril is generated by the legalization of nu-
merous rules and by the negative political power of assimilation, which of-
ten stems from the rigid attachment to bureaucratic rules and/or by the
assimilation of the citizens’ councils and the loss of dynamics for action
(Arendt, 1958, p. 219).
In these cases, Hannah Arendt, by paying the price of the critique
that emphasizes an internal contradiction to the core of her political the-
ory (Villa, 1996, p. 56), seems to accept the agonistic or even polemical
spirit which is hidden under a controversy. She supports the idea that con-
troversy ensures the necessary space of action and speech as prerequisites
for the involvement in political life and to the fight of each form of total-
itarianism, despite the possible dangers that may be hidden in the process
of debating (Lederman, 2014, p. 329). Opposite to the idea that debate
might stem from personal ambitions or that it might represent elite teams,
Arendt expresses her acceptance of the speakers who because of their “pas-
sion for ideas and politics […] [are] willing to take risks” (Roberts-Miller,
2002, p. 589) for supporting their personal action through their speech
and for expressing overtly to the public sphere their ideas through the use
of sound arguments. As a defender of the truth, Arendt emphasizes the
use of factual arguments (ibid., p. 594), while she highlights the role of val-
ues that have to permeate controversy as, for example, “the spirit of fight-
ing without hatred and ‘without the spirit of revenge” in combination
with “indifference to the material advantages” (Arendt, 1972, p. 167). Un-
der this perspective, rhetoric, in the context of a debate, might effective-
ly serve the development of action in the public sphere. Also, controver-
sy might become a protective shield against totalitarian ideas due to the
113
