Om retorisk medborgerskab og uddannelse i politiske debatter
”Om retorisk medborgerskab og uddannelse i politiske debatter og argumentation” 4. NOS-HS-workshop om nordisk sagprosa: Sagprosa i skolen KU, 7. 11. 2019 Christian Kock Professor emeritus i retorik
18/10/2021 Genstande, monumenter … Visuelle tegn Æstetiske genrer Aristoteles: Retorik snævert defineret: Samfunds-tekster med fokus på (produktion af) argumentation Sagprosa Actio Retorik bredt defineret: Alle ytringer (tekst, billede, … ), betragtet med fokus på funktionel analyse og produktion, som fx i retorikfaget på KU 2 Sagprosa og retorik – hvordan forholder disse begreber sig til hinanden?
18/10/2021 Retorik ikke bare er endnu en “metode” – retorik er det oprindelige samfundsfag Gerard Hauser: paideia … "capacitating" the individual student to lead the life of an active and responsible citizen. … empower students to analyze the ethical dimensions of rhetorical situations. … Without rhetorical competence, citizens are disabled in the public arenas of citizen exchange 3
“Retorisk medborgerskab” Se Kock & Villadsen Aspekter af Rettigheder ”retorisk medborgerskab”: Aktivitet Taleret, ”agency” Reception Brugbart input i det offentlige rum Pligter Normer Kritisk men åben lytning
Retorisk argumentationsforståelse: Practical vs. theoretical argumentation, 1 • Practical pro and con arguments represent advantages and drawbacks of competing policies; they remain valid even if one policy is chosen over another. • Theoretical pro and con arguments are only important by virtue of their probative (or "transitive") force; they are important for what they appear to mean, signify or suggest, not for what they are. • In practical argumentation both pro and con arguments may be relevant simultaneously. • In theoretical argumentation the two opposite states of affairs indicated by the pro arguments and the con arguments, respectively, may not both be real simultaneously.
Practical vs. theoretical argumentation, 2 • In practical argumentation there are no conclusive inferences; all arguments are, in principle, weights among other weights on a pair of scales. • In theoretical argumentation, conclusive inferences do exist, and scholars and scientists are trying to find them all the time. • The strength or weight of arguments in practical argumentation is a matter of degrees. Advantages and drawbacks come in all sizes. Along with this comes the fact that practical argumentation typically persuades by degrees.
Practical vs. theoretical argumentation, 3 • In practical argumentation arguers should have no problem in granting the relevance of their opponents’ arguments • In theoretical argumentation one argument against a thesis may be defeat it. • Opponents in practical argumentation will not necessarily tend towards consensus, let alone reach it, even if they follow all the rules we may devise for responsible and rational discussion. • In theoretical argumentation, prolonged and ruleobeying discussion must eventually or tendentially lead toward consensus.
Practical vs. theoretical argumentation, 4 • In practical argumentation arguers argue in order to persuade individually; what will persuade one individual will not necessarily persuade another. • In theoretical argumentation, by contrast, there is an underlying presumption that whatever is valid for one is valid for all.
18/10/2021 9 At vurdere et argument: en “tre-dimensional”, ikke endimensional norm 3. Er argumentetvægtigt? = hvor stor vægt tillægger du det? Man kan ikke forlange at et argument et “logisk gyldigt”, dvs. at det medfører sin konklusion. Men hvad kan man så forlange? 2. Er argumentet relevant? = har det en “hjemmel”? = trækker det på en “topos” vi anerkender? 1. Er argumentet rigtigt? = er det “retvisende”?
18/10/2021 10 Retorikkens kerne: argumentation om fælles handling Pontoppidan m. fl. ’s liste over topoi: Med disse topoi kan man finde relevante “hjemler” til brug i sin argumentation. I retorisk argumentation er der typisk flere relevante hjemler der taler forskellige konklusioner, kan et enkelt argument ikke medføre sin konklusion – for hvilket argument har mest vægt? ? Man kan også kritisere argumentation ud fra topoi.
18/10/2021 Frirummet – en ny debatform De frie skoler, støttet af Tryg-Fonden 11
18/10/2021 Eksempel på “Frirums-debat”, Frirummets fællesdag 30. 10. 2019 • Sørine Gotfredsen, indvandringsskeptisk og nationalsindet præst og debattør, og Anne Sofie Allarp, liberal/venstreorienteret forfatter, skribent, foredragsholder og jurist, debatterede emnet ” Er dansk kultur truet? ” 1. runde, ”Fronter”: • SG mente ja, og derfor må man gennemføre ekstraordinære forholdsregler, som fx burka-forbudet. • ASA: Man må aldrig slække på almene frihedsrettigheder. 12
18/10/2021 13 2. runde, ”Refleksioner”: De skulle bytte plads og blev spurgt om den andens stærkeste argument. SG: Det er et argument at man ”filer” på almene retsprinccipper ASA: Det er utrygt at mennesker ikke kan kende eller genkende det samfund de lever i. Hvad er du i tvivl om? ASA: Er i tvivl om hvor konsekvent man skal være. SG: I tvivl om 2 ting: 1) Vil vi komme ud på en glidebane ved at foeretage visse af den slags indgreb? 2) Tvivler på om flertallet i værdidebatten deler min stærke fædrelandskærlighed, hvor er balancen? 3. runde, ”Initiativer”: Bl. a. : at debatter i medierne skal indeholde krav til debattørerne om disse to trin
18/10/2021 Deutschland spricht cf. Uenige sammen, My Country Talks 14
18/10/2021 15 Om “Sam. Pak” (bundling) Mirko, a a right-leaning machine operator, and Jochen, a liberal journalist, are paired by an algorithm after having answered five politcalquestions very differently. • Mirko “says he can't support Merkel's conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) either, because of its refugee policies, but also due to the party's rejection of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. He's also not pleased with the center-left Social Democratic Party's handling of the issue. "They aren't doing enough to push for it. " In the ZEIT ONLINE questionnaire, we had both expressed the view that homosexuals should be granted full marriage rights. "What bugs me is all this beating around the bush over Christian values, " he says. Mirko was never baptized. … We both agree that it is becoming increasingly difficult for parties to fulfill their most important mission: that of bundling the political views of large segments of the population. “
Context matters 18/10/2021 16 Mühlhoff and Helgers meet at a café. Mühlhoff, 40, has been a policeman for 20 years. He doesn't believe Germany has taken in too many refugees. Helgers, 55, is an agricultural engineer. She disagrees with him on the refugee issue. Mühlhoff is against same-sex marriage, Helgers for it. Opinion bundles refuted Helgers: I ask myself: How does our society change as a result of refugees? Asking for And has your work as a police officer changed since the refugees have information arrived? Mühlhoff: Personally, nothing has changed at all. The events of new years' eve (2015) have changed something, but that isn't a refugee issue per se. It was a particular subset of people within the refugees. Helgers: I'm very impressed by how our civil society functioned during this period. I think it's important that people in emergency situations are helped Nuance and am happy that the borders were opened. But at the same time, I see that it's not a solution to keep these borders open. There is no unlimited potential. Mühlhoff: For me, the only potential solution is for similar situations to be created on both sides as a result of osmosis. Exploratory Helgers: But an osmosis leads to a leveling, which means. . . Mühlhoff: . . . that we are not able to maintain our standard of living as it is Problemnow. solving Helgers: I am very willing to give something up. The highest good is to be able live in peace. That would make me happier than having all the world's wealth behind wire fences. But the question that I ask myself is this: How do we succeed in ensuring that the refugees get work? Work ultimately makes people peaceful.
18/10/2021 Eberly om “classrooms as protopublic spaces” 17 … letters to the editor, newsgroups, oncampus events, and other venues where citizen critics might be published and where citizen criticism might be performed. … getting students to begin to imagine themselves as participants in, even rhetorical agents of, local public discourse. … students who can themselves be and form deliberating bodies.
18/10/2021 18 Keith, Mountford, Steffensmeier on “Teaching Argument Through Relationships” civil discourse … defines a relationship that is capable of sustaining argumentation…: Respectful engagement: Respectful engagement is the ability to validate a person while simultaneously disagreeing with or criticizing their positions … Deep (empathetic) listening: Deep listening requires going beyond paying attention to what has been said and instead attempting to sympathetically enter into a belief system and even a form of life that may be foreign or obnoxious to you … Humility: Humility is a contingent commitment to the rightness or universal character of one’s own beliefs and practices … Managing multiple interpretations: Most complex arguments involve multiple accounts, or theories, of the “same” set of facts or events …
18/10/2021 19 Prøv dette som undervisning i politisk debat Lad eleverne se en tv-debat og nedskrive deres kommentarer imens Lad dem samle kommentarerne og uddrage konklusioner Eksempel: “Topmøde” En TV-debat før folketingsvalget juni 2015 Helle Thorning-Schmidt (HTS) Socialdemokrat, statsminister Cecilie Beck (CB), Ordstyrer Lars Løkke Rasmussen (LLR), partileder, Venstre, Danmarks Liberale Parti, tidl. statsminister 23 højskoleelever (gennemsnitsalder 20, 6) nedskrev deres kommentarer mens de så debatten (en form for’Protocol Analysis’).
18/10/2021 20 Eksempel: en elevs nedskrevne kommentarer
Uddrag af ”Topmøde”-debatten med samtidige kommentarer nedskrevet af 23 højskoleelever
18/10/2021 22 Retorisk medborgerskab Tekster af Christian Kock og Lisa Villadsen 2008. ”Retorik: Mediet for medborgerskab”. I Ideer vi lever på: Humanistisk viden i videnssamfundet. red. Finn Collin; Jan Faye. København : Akademisk Forlag, 2008. s. 132 -152. 2012. Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation. red. Christian Kock; Lisa Villadsen. University Park : Pennsylvania State University Press. (Rhetoric and Democratic Deliberation, Bind 3). Heri ”Introduction : Citizenship as a Rhetorical Practice”, s. 1 -10 https: //staticcuris. ku. dk/portal/files/40849978/Introduction_final. pdf 2015. Contemporary Rhetorical Citizenship. red. Christian Kock; Lisa Storm Villadsen. Leiden : Leiden University Press. Heri ”Rhetorical Citizenship as a Conceptual Frame: What We Talk about When We Talk about Rhetorical Citizenship”, s. 9 -26. 2017. “Rhetorical Citizenship : Studying the Discursive Crafting and Enactment of Citizenship”. Citizenship Studies 21, 5, 570 -587.
18/10/2021 23 Argumentation og debat Udvalgte tekster af Christian Kock 2007. “Norms of legitimate dissensus”. Informal Logic , 27 (2), 179 -196. https: //informallogic. ca/index. php/informal_logic/article/view/474 2008. ”Fornuftig uenighed”. Rhetorica Scandinavica 48, 64 -83. 2012. ”A Tool for Rhetorical Citizenship: Generalizing the Status System”. I Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation. red. / Christian Kock; Lisa Villadsen. University Park : Pennsylvania State University Press, 2012. s. 279 -295 (Rhetoric and Democratic Deliberation, Bind 3). https: //staticcuris. ku. dk/portal/files/40878400/Kock_A_Tool. pdf 2012. ”Retoriske uskikke i offentlig debat - illustreret med eksempler fra prostitutionsdebatten”. Rhetorica Scandinavica 59, 2012, 94 -107. 2013. “Defining Rhetorical Argumentation”. Philosophy and Rhetoric 46, 4, 437 -464. 2013. De svarer ikke. Fordummende uskikke i den politiske debat (udvidet og opdateret udg. ). København: Gyldendal. 2014. ”Hvordan kan vi undervise i argumentation og debat? ” Anglo. Files 171, 45 -56. https: //curis. ku. dk/admin/files/102645628/Anglo. Files_2014. pdf 2015. (Sammen med Magnus Boding Hansen. ) De lytter ikke. Politikernes udenomssnak – spot den, stop den. København: Hans Reitzel. 2015. ”Retorik – det oprindelige samfundsfag”. I Retorik och lärande: Kunskap - Bildning - Ansvar. red. / Anders Sigrell; Sofi Qvarnström. Lund : Lund University Press, 2015. s. 19 -38 (Studia Rhetorica Lundensia, Bind 1). https: //static-curis. ku. dk/portal/files/188753508/Retorik_det_oprindelige_samfundsfag. pdf 2017. Deliberative Rhetoric: Arguing about Doing. (Windsor Studies in Argumentation. ) Windsor: Open Monograph Press. Open online access: https: //windsor. scholarsportal. info/omp/index. php/wsia/catalog/book/19 2018. “For deliberative disagreement: Its venues, varieties and values”. Paradigmi 36, 3, 477 -498. https: //komm. ku. dk/ansatte/? pure=da%2 Fpublications%2 Ffor-deliberative-disagreement(e 20 f 45 f 3 -8515 -4950 b 003 -2 c 672 b 472659). html
18/10/2021 24 Uddannelse i politiske debatter og argumentation Crick, Bernard. 1998. Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools. Final report of the Advisory Group on Citizenship. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Eberly, Rosa A. 1999. “From readers, audiences, and communities to publics: Classrooms as protopublic spaces”. Rhetoric Review 18: 165– 178. Hauser, Gerard A. 2004. ”Teaching rhetoric. Or why rhetoric isn’t just another kind of philosophy or literary criticism”. Rhetoric Society Quarterly nr 34, s. 39– 53. Keith, William, and Roxanne Mountford. 2014. “The Mt. Oread manifesto on rhetorical education”. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 44: 1– 4. Keith, W. , Mountford, R. , & Steffensmeier, T. 2020. “Teaching Argument Through Relationships”. Argumentation , 1 -15. Online https: //link. springer. com/article/10. 1007/s 10503 -019 -09506 -x Pontoppidan, C. , Gabrielsen, J. & Jønch-Clausen, H. , 2010. Topik: et retorisk bidrag til den kritiske journalistik. NORDICOM - Information 32, 1, 47 -59 Ratcliffe, Krista. 2005. Rhetorical listening: Identification, gender, whiteness. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP.
- Slides: 24