In McDonald’s I Agree,
But…, he explains sociotechnical controversies by saying, “Sociotechnical controversies, that is,
those pertaining to society, science, and technology, seem to occupy a
particularly important place in the contemporary public sphere and are the
subject of numerous analyses in various disciplines, including rhetoric”
(McDonald 201). Although people may not have the credibility to truly understand,
their ideas can still be beneficial if they can be formed in an appropriate
manner. “The value of public deliberation on sociotechnical issues and of
citizens participating actively and rhetorically is therefore clear, as the
deliberation exposes both experts and citizens to solutions they have may
overlooked” (McDonald 201). Everyday citizens would not normally be welcomed
into these discussions, but the fact that certain issues affect individual’s everyday
lives makes it a public issue.
McDonald defines public deliberation as, “The aim of public
deliberation therefore need not be to consolidate different points of view but
rather to learn, understand, and test a party’s beliefs about an issue by
juxtaposing them with those of an opposing party. Thus deliberation has the
potential to generate new ways of interpreting a controversy, even when the
parties do not arrive at an agreement” (McDonald 200).
Both Kaufer and McDonald’s articles support the idea that everyday
citizens participation in public forms is important to help deliberate
solutions to current issues. “They suggest that, for a rhetorical democracy to
flourish, controversies should be welcomed, encouraged, stimulated and even organized
in order to implicate ordinary citizens in government decision making”
(McDonald 201). While both articles say that public deliberation is not always
a way to achieve an answer, sometimes it can be left undetermined.
In Kaufer’s A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments, he
defines stock issues by saying, “Stock issues are
points of disagreement that recur regularly when people deliberate on questions
of justice or public policy” (Kaufer 57). The article is stating that students
need to be taught how to correctly write a policy argument. Stock issues are
commonly addressed by people in today’s society, especially with the growth of
the internet. Kaufer writes that in classical times rhetoricians understood why
this was an important concept to teach. “They knew that stock issues (1) aid
invention by helping speakers single out from the list of stock issues those
obtaining in the immediate case; (2) aid organization (or arrangement) by
insuring speakers against omitting information needed to marshal a
comprehensive argument; (3) aid adaptation of speech to audiences by guiding
speakers to include the points audiences expected them to address” (Kaufer 57).
Kaufer begins his way of teaching this subject
by asking the question, what causes a policy conflict? This comes with what he
calls five levels. “It is designed to help students arrive at their own policy
arguments once they have carefully assessed the arguments of others” (Kaufer
58). The levels provide different ways for a student to look at this policy and
decide whether they agree with it or not. The first two levels ask if there was
a misunderstanding on the frame or reference of certain statements. The third
level asks if the article has conflicting evidence. The last two levels ask if
the article has conflicting local or global values. After both sides of the
argument is read, the students can then use these levels to develop their own
argument about the topic. By knowing both sides of the argument and having
these levels to decide what way their argument will go, students can then form
a hypothesis that they can easily validate or contradict. I believe that
McDonald’s Wind Energy section most
relates to having conflicting evidence. McDonald explains that, “it can seem
paradoxical that HQ, which was promoting natural gas plant, voiced no objection
to a green energy source that many consider a better alterative” (McDonald
206).
In McDonald’s article, he states
that according to Govier, “controversies have the following characteristics:
the individuals who discuss issues are in disagreement with other individuals
or groups that discuss the same issues; there is a minimum of two opposing
views on these issues; and the parties do not simply express their opposing
points of view but argue about the issues in a process of deliberation”
(McDonald 200). None of those characteristics say anything about being a
scientist or technologically inclined. As long as people who enter a public
discussion have opinions and ideas, they should be included in these arguments.
“In a constitutive perspective, public deliberation is a practice by which each
party is exposed to the knowledge and interpretations of its adversaries”
(McDonald 200).
Public
deliberation is a complicated idea because it involves a variety of people with
different ideas. Both authors support the idea that if the issue involves the
public, they should have a say in those issues. While controversies can be
taken out of hand, if the two parties arguing can be professional about it, I
believe it can be a good way to generate new ideas for all individuals.
Kaufer, David S. "A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments." College Composition and Communication. 35.1 (Feb. 1984): 57-70. Web.
McDonald, James.
"I Agree, But...Finding Alternatives to Controversial Projects Through
Public Deliberation."Rhetoric and Public Deliberation. 199-217.
Web.
I agree with the point you made about public deliberation being a complicated concept because it involves a multitude of people as well as conflicting ideas. However, bringing multiple world views to the discussion table can be beneficial in the long run, because it brings forth new ideas allowing all parties the chance to collaborate in order to form more informative action plans, as seen in McDonalds example of public deliberation over the sociotechnical controversies regarding SuroÎt, a natural gas-fired electrical plant, that was intended to form in Montreal. But was abandoned after extensive public deliberation concluded that Quebec would instead continue to work towards developing more green efficient energy sources. This form of public deliberation is utilitarian because in todays society, where we all posses the freedom of speech, we should be able to present personal knowledge and views in connection with topics that are especially important to us and public deliberation or rather rhetorical democracy is a organized and useful way of doing so. “The rhetorical practice of accepting the key arguments of opponents” can be especially beneficial because you can establish common grounds in order to move on and deliberate over ways in which to develop new alternatives to the issues relating to the controversy at large (McDonald 213). Considering both Kaufer and McDonald’s text as you did in relation to McDonald’s Wind Energy section containing conflicting evidence. Do you think public deliberation is more productive then policy arguments? Or do you think they should be used to supplement one another?
ReplyDeleteMcDonald, James. "I Agree, But...Finding Alternatives to Controversial Projects Through Public Deliberation."Rhetoric and Public Deliberation. 199-217. Web.
After reading Should the Public Have an Opinion, I think my views of the articles that we read are very similar to the views that were discussed in this blog. I would just like to add a slightly different perspective on the observations that I took away from the articles. McDonald’s article set out to change the face of public deliberation and like a artist that paints in layers McDonald layered his argument to create a in depth photo of his views of public deliberation.
ReplyDeleteMcDonald states in his second paragraph of the first page “Public deliberation receives bad press”(199). The reason public deliberation receives bad press because from the outside looking in public deliberation looks like civil war between two parties, everyone has their mind up and no one is going to budge. Before the reader can dismiss public deliberation with a bad reputation McDonald says “not so”. It takes McDonalds layers to argue his point but he later redefines the beauty in public deliberation to state, “Public deliberation is not only about persuasive strategies but also about developing a better comprehension of important issues and modifying ones initial opinion”(215). McDonald is trying to let his readers know it’s about more than two parties trying to convince each other their right. What it is about is getting to heart of the issues and coming to a common agreement.
How in the world is that achievable you may ask? McDonald spends the whole chapter explaining it through a case of natural gas plant in Canada. MacDonald’s main answer to this question is “accepting key points of the adversaries…”(214). When two parties in a public deliberation can put this into place, McDonald feels its one of the strongest rhetorical tools someone can use. McDonald repeats serial times through out the chapter, by using the rhetorical tool of acceptance it makes the party using the tool creditable.
McDonald’s argument is one that can be confirmed by others in academics such as David Kaufer. Kaufer touched on using the same rhetorical tool his article A plan for teaching the development of original policy arguments. Where McDonald places his artistic touch on the situation is when he shows how this can apply to a specific field, which is “Sociotechnical controversies”. Sociotechnical controversies are controversies where people are at disagreeance with the technological group or action that is to take place. McDonald really try’s to drive home to his readers if we took this simple rhetorical tool and applied it to this field of sociotechnical maybe we could have good relations amongst people and science.
McDonald also argues using the rhetorical tool of acknowledgment is when we become citizens of rhetoric. A citizen of rhetoric is such a strong concept because when people become citizens together they become equals. It makes finding a common ground on this situation slightly easier and equal. When one group or person acts as the authority on the situation then it be little’s the other group or person. When everyone thinks of themselves as common citizens it forces everyone to come to a common ground.
I think it is very interesting and compelling that you and McDonald both agree that citizens need to be a part of public issues that affect their daily lives and that there is a value in exposing these issues through public deliberation. Honestly, I didn’t fully comprehend what public deliberation was until you clearly explained McDonald’s definition. I now see that through the juxtaposition of two opposing parties an issue becomes more apparent in that both parties are able to understand each other’s viewpoints (and that this understanding enables a solution to result from the juxtaposing viewpoints). With contributions from the public, it then becomes clear to both Kaufer and McDonald that input from citizens helps to feed the controversy in order to help output a solution to the issues at hand.
ReplyDeleteAfter you explain Kaufer’s levels of conflict, it became clear to me that in order for effective and relevant input to be made, people, especially students, need to know how to categorize the issues at hand. Without first knowing what level the issues are at, it is hard to determine the solution to the conflict. I also find that McDonald’s characteristics of controversies factor into these categorizations that Kaufer explains; without defining the controversy, it makes it nearly impossible to categorize the conflict. I agree with you when you say that “None of those characteristics say anything about being a scientist or technologically incline. As long as people enter a public discussion, have opinions and ideas, they should be included in these arguments.” This statement is completely true and is what invites the public into these forums and allows them to better understand the arguments presented by their adversaries. Ultimately I agree with you, McDonald, and Kaufer in that two opposing parties can most definitely generate new ideas and solutions for all individuals involved in a controversial discussion, especially with the influence from citizens’ inputs.