Page 117 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 117
f. egglezou ■ debate at the edge of critical pedagogy and rhetorical paideia
logic discussions, inquiries, fora etc., where respect and acceptance of op-
posing views are developed. Also, engagement in debate presupposes the
teaching of essential elements of argumentation theory, regarding the pro-
duction of sound arguments, as well as students’ familiarization with the
evaluative standards of valid arguments. Furthermore, the invention and
use of arguments should express students’ authentic voices and not trivial
ideas, which are transferred or imposed by the teacher-expert in the con-
text of the teaching process. Finally, we would not be exaggerating by stat-
ing that engagement in debate presupposes the existence of an unwritten
contract due to which the participants will be committed to the use of
reasoning and linguistic skills in terms of ethos, logos and pathos intended
for the continuous improvement of themselves and of the world.
Finally, we would support the idea that such an acceptance is not
contrary to basic theoretical principles of critical pedagogy. Freire high-
lights the negative implications of a dialogue, which is reduced to “a sim-
ple exchange of ideas to be ‘consumed’ by the discussants” (Freire, 2000,
p. 89). Also, in The Pedagogy of Hope, he recalls the image of a man, who
before a big auditorium supported his opinion “… speaking in a loud, clear
voice, sure of himself, speaking his lucid speech” (Freire, 1998, p. 18), by
drawing on the strength of his rhetoric. In other words, Freire seems to in-
corporate a latent power to rhetoric as Plato did the same in his Phaedrus,
when “it is harnessed to an idealistic aim and emancipatory ethic that fol-
lows on the heels of dialogical […] inquiry into the nature of the soul”
(Crick, 2016, p. 217). Debate as a central aspect of rhetoric provides the
necessary space for the formation of responsible rhetorical and political
people. It is related to individuals who will not hesitate to raise their voic-
es to support essential human rights and values in that moment of life,
“when true invective is called for, when there comes an absolute necessi-
ty, out of a deep sense of justice, to denounce, mock, vituperate, lash out,
rail at in the strongest possible language” as the Serbo-American poet,
Charles Simic highlights (Tannen, 2009, p. 17).
References
Adorno, Th. (1974) Minima Moralia. Reflections on a Damaged Life. Lon-
don: Verso Editions.
Angelo, Th.A., and Cross, K.P. (1993) Classroom Assessment Techniques: A
Handbook for College Teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Αrendt, H. (1958) The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
115
logic discussions, inquiries, fora etc., where respect and acceptance of op-
posing views are developed. Also, engagement in debate presupposes the
teaching of essential elements of argumentation theory, regarding the pro-
duction of sound arguments, as well as students’ familiarization with the
evaluative standards of valid arguments. Furthermore, the invention and
use of arguments should express students’ authentic voices and not trivial
ideas, which are transferred or imposed by the teacher-expert in the con-
text of the teaching process. Finally, we would not be exaggerating by stat-
ing that engagement in debate presupposes the existence of an unwritten
contract due to which the participants will be committed to the use of
reasoning and linguistic skills in terms of ethos, logos and pathos intended
for the continuous improvement of themselves and of the world.
Finally, we would support the idea that such an acceptance is not
contrary to basic theoretical principles of critical pedagogy. Freire high-
lights the negative implications of a dialogue, which is reduced to “a sim-
ple exchange of ideas to be ‘consumed’ by the discussants” (Freire, 2000,
p. 89). Also, in The Pedagogy of Hope, he recalls the image of a man, who
before a big auditorium supported his opinion “… speaking in a loud, clear
voice, sure of himself, speaking his lucid speech” (Freire, 1998, p. 18), by
drawing on the strength of his rhetoric. In other words, Freire seems to in-
corporate a latent power to rhetoric as Plato did the same in his Phaedrus,
when “it is harnessed to an idealistic aim and emancipatory ethic that fol-
lows on the heels of dialogical […] inquiry into the nature of the soul”
(Crick, 2016, p. 217). Debate as a central aspect of rhetoric provides the
necessary space for the formation of responsible rhetorical and political
people. It is related to individuals who will not hesitate to raise their voic-
es to support essential human rights and values in that moment of life,
“when true invective is called for, when there comes an absolute necessi-
ty, out of a deep sense of justice, to denounce, mock, vituperate, lash out,
rail at in the strongest possible language” as the Serbo-American poet,
Charles Simic highlights (Tannen, 2009, p. 17).
References
Adorno, Th. (1974) Minima Moralia. Reflections on a Damaged Life. Lon-
don: Verso Editions.
Angelo, Th.A., and Cross, K.P. (1993) Classroom Assessment Techniques: A
Handbook for College Teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Αrendt, H. (1958) The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
115
