Page 183 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 183
book reviews
the discourse of contemporary global education in America, and define
the ambiguous roles American college students are expected to adopt as
global citizens.
Minnix contends that the prevalent attitude towards global edu-
cation/citizenship tends to naturalise a discourse that creates untenable
affinities between stakeholders as disparate as “academia, the corporate
world, the intelligence industry, and the military” (ibid., p. 38), inevita-
bly defining students (as global citizens) in contradictory and conflicting
ways: as individuals who promote the spirit of general respect and cosmo-
politan tolerance, but also as individuals acting as economic ambassadors
of the USA and safeguarding conspicuously American political interests.
He warns against this authority of ethics over politics in global education
because it
runs the risk of both being easily co-opted by other discourses and ob-
scuring concrete strategies of political education, including rhetorical
education2 (ibid., p. 44).
In the Cold War period, students and scholars were supposed to “export
democracy” (ibid., p. 47), while the post 9/11 climate has given impetus to
more nationalist conceptions of global education.
One of Minnix’ most notable contentions is indebted to Judith But-
ler’s insights into the blind spots of multiculturalism (and, by extension,
global citizenship), in particular to her understanding of interdependen-
cy and precarity. Echoing her reasoning, he argues that “global higher ed-
ucation can be and has been framed by frames of war and frames of cap-
ital that create rather than ameliorate conditions of global precarity or
‘precarious life’.” (ibid., p. 39) And here lies the challenge and opportuni-
ty of rhetorical education: it can teach people how to critique these exclu-
sionary frames. The author suggests that such a shift in global education
programmes would, appropriately, direct attention to the conditions of
power that determine visions (and forms) of citizenship, questioning the
political motives behind them.
Conscious of the fact that access to participation in public discourse
alone does not build rhetorical competence and agency, Minnix argues for
a robust rhetorical education. Relying on a vast body of relevant research
and legacy of eminent intellectuals (such as, for instance, Atwill, Arendt,
Butler, Foucault, Giroux, Negri, Spivak), his discussion of transnation-
al rhetorical education in a globalised world is anything but under-the-
2 In the subchapter “DreamersAdrift and the Awkwardness of Citizenship” he provides
most telling examples of how exclusivity of normative citizenship can be perpetuated by
discourses of inclusivity and political awareness (ibid., pp. 116–123).
181
the discourse of contemporary global education in America, and define
the ambiguous roles American college students are expected to adopt as
global citizens.
Minnix contends that the prevalent attitude towards global edu-
cation/citizenship tends to naturalise a discourse that creates untenable
affinities between stakeholders as disparate as “academia, the corporate
world, the intelligence industry, and the military” (ibid., p. 38), inevita-
bly defining students (as global citizens) in contradictory and conflicting
ways: as individuals who promote the spirit of general respect and cosmo-
politan tolerance, but also as individuals acting as economic ambassadors
of the USA and safeguarding conspicuously American political interests.
He warns against this authority of ethics over politics in global education
because it
runs the risk of both being easily co-opted by other discourses and ob-
scuring concrete strategies of political education, including rhetorical
education2 (ibid., p. 44).
In the Cold War period, students and scholars were supposed to “export
democracy” (ibid., p. 47), while the post 9/11 climate has given impetus to
more nationalist conceptions of global education.
One of Minnix’ most notable contentions is indebted to Judith But-
ler’s insights into the blind spots of multiculturalism (and, by extension,
global citizenship), in particular to her understanding of interdependen-
cy and precarity. Echoing her reasoning, he argues that “global higher ed-
ucation can be and has been framed by frames of war and frames of cap-
ital that create rather than ameliorate conditions of global precarity or
‘precarious life’.” (ibid., p. 39) And here lies the challenge and opportuni-
ty of rhetorical education: it can teach people how to critique these exclu-
sionary frames. The author suggests that such a shift in global education
programmes would, appropriately, direct attention to the conditions of
power that determine visions (and forms) of citizenship, questioning the
political motives behind them.
Conscious of the fact that access to participation in public discourse
alone does not build rhetorical competence and agency, Minnix argues for
a robust rhetorical education. Relying on a vast body of relevant research
and legacy of eminent intellectuals (such as, for instance, Atwill, Arendt,
Butler, Foucault, Giroux, Negri, Spivak), his discussion of transnation-
al rhetorical education in a globalised world is anything but under-the-
2 In the subchapter “DreamersAdrift and the Awkwardness of Citizenship” he provides
most telling examples of how exclusivity of normative citizenship can be perpetuated by
discourses of inclusivity and political awareness (ibid., pp. 116–123).
181
