Page 184 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 184
šolsko polje, letnik xxx, številka 5–6
orised. He also gives due consideration to criticism from the political
right. However, focused on a meticulous, in-depth analysis, he succumbs
at times to excessive repetitiveness: leading up to already sufficiently de-
veloped conclusions, he sometimes addresses virtually the same issues, re-
peating virtually the same arguments.
Another element of Minnix’s writing that calls for a critical response
has to do with the pedagogical aspects of the project: he either avoids
them or addresses them rather superficially. His concept of transnation-
al rhetorical citizenship presupposes rhetorical educators who are capable
of both analysing normative visions of (global) citizenship and providing
their students with the knowledge, tools and tactics to do the same. On
the other hand, he is well aware of the problem of non-existent methodol-
ogy and in touch with his own insecurities as a rhetorical educator, and he
manages to turn these weaknesses into challenges by assuming an attitude
of categorical openness: rather than encouraging the pursuit of ideal mod-
els, he employs different compensatory moves, adopting critical approach-
es to different features of transnational rhetorical education:
– He suggests that rhetorical educators should “claim space in the
global curriculum” together with communication and composition
studies teachers and researchers, for the three fields share sufficient
overlap to make joining forces effective.
– He defines more specific goals of rhetorical education for trans-
national rhetorical citizenship (ibid., p. 95, 96), juxtaposing them
against vaguely defined communication skills in the context of glob-
al higher education (ibid., p. 94).
– Throughout the book, he draws our attention to relevant/critical
questions that should guide the process of designing rhetorical edu-
cation programmes.
– The last three chapters in particular present a few courses/projects
that provided students with opportunities to learn about specific,
politically engaged, rhetorical practices. Admittedly, these examples
do not make much difference at the level of broad curricular chang-
es, but they are, nevertheless, the invaluable inspiration for rhetori-
cal educators.
– He dives into the issues of rhetorical ethics and rhetorical ecologies.
Along the same lines, Chapter 4 scrutinizes digital media and glob-
al images (of human suffering), wondering about how to teach civic par-
ticipation to digital natives/cosmopolitans, who appreciate international
connectivity but lack an understanding of ways in which (digital) media
shape our sensitivities and perceptions, and of how what Butler calls per-
182
orised. He also gives due consideration to criticism from the political
right. However, focused on a meticulous, in-depth analysis, he succumbs
at times to excessive repetitiveness: leading up to already sufficiently de-
veloped conclusions, he sometimes addresses virtually the same issues, re-
peating virtually the same arguments.
Another element of Minnix’s writing that calls for a critical response
has to do with the pedagogical aspects of the project: he either avoids
them or addresses them rather superficially. His concept of transnation-
al rhetorical citizenship presupposes rhetorical educators who are capable
of both analysing normative visions of (global) citizenship and providing
their students with the knowledge, tools and tactics to do the same. On
the other hand, he is well aware of the problem of non-existent methodol-
ogy and in touch with his own insecurities as a rhetorical educator, and he
manages to turn these weaknesses into challenges by assuming an attitude
of categorical openness: rather than encouraging the pursuit of ideal mod-
els, he employs different compensatory moves, adopting critical approach-
es to different features of transnational rhetorical education:
– He suggests that rhetorical educators should “claim space in the
global curriculum” together with communication and composition
studies teachers and researchers, for the three fields share sufficient
overlap to make joining forces effective.
– He defines more specific goals of rhetorical education for trans-
national rhetorical citizenship (ibid., p. 95, 96), juxtaposing them
against vaguely defined communication skills in the context of glob-
al higher education (ibid., p. 94).
– Throughout the book, he draws our attention to relevant/critical
questions that should guide the process of designing rhetorical edu-
cation programmes.
– The last three chapters in particular present a few courses/projects
that provided students with opportunities to learn about specific,
politically engaged, rhetorical practices. Admittedly, these examples
do not make much difference at the level of broad curricular chang-
es, but they are, nevertheless, the invaluable inspiration for rhetori-
cal educators.
– He dives into the issues of rhetorical ethics and rhetorical ecologies.
Along the same lines, Chapter 4 scrutinizes digital media and glob-
al images (of human suffering), wondering about how to teach civic par-
ticipation to digital natives/cosmopolitans, who appreciate international
connectivity but lack an understanding of ways in which (digital) media
shape our sensitivities and perceptions, and of how what Butler calls per-
182
