Summary:In
chapter five, The Fate of Rhetoric in Education, Booth outlines some of
the major arguments in education and how rhetoric, or “Rhet-Ed,” offers
a solution to the assertions that the state of education is in decline.
Booth blends both scholarly and secular people into the debate, while
also calling attention to the political divide and showing his own left
leaning. On of his main concerns is that students are not being taught
to think critically and instead just accept what they hear and read,
especially when spouted by groups, such as political, that they already
agree with rather than challenging the validity of the claims. Instead
of using standardized testing to measure the ability to memorize facts,
Booth calls for a change in the educational system that would include
rhetoric across all disciplines and courses, not just in writing
classes. He then provides three suggestions to teachers before imagining
RHETOPIA, a place where his ideals are placed into reality, and he
conjectures as to their positive consequences. Response:While
I’m not sure how I would like RHETOPIA in reality, as even he points
out that it would infringe on some freedoms, it does sound like an
interesting experiment. One piece of it that I do not think that is
nearly developed in this section is the unintended consequences that
would result from his theorizing. Earlier on he challenges the readers
to believe that it is important for students to learn how to question
what is being told to them, so when reading this imaginative section, I
thought about how that would be applied here. Perhaps he meant it as a
chance for readers like myself to do this, but after reading about the
power of rhetoric leading up to it, I was a bit disappointed that this
concept was so slim in this chapter as it was his chance to embody and
demonstrate all the other benefits of his earlier claims. (I did like
the part about the increase in teachers’ salaries though.) Connections/Questions:In
some ways this piece felt very different from the others we read, but
it does have some intersections. I think Booth and Heidegger would agree
on some areas as they challenge the enframing concepts, or in Booth’s
case, the use of standardized testing. They would probably say that
language (and rhetoric) are bigger than the narrow definitions that are
being used for it now. Booth and Britton might disagree a bit on
specifics, but both seem to have the concern for students and their
education as being paramount, especially as this will influence society
at large. |
Quotations:“[O]ur only hope is to find ways to produce a public that both cares about serious, penetrating, courageous, mutually respectful argument and is trained to conduct that argument productively—whether or not calling it rhetorical education” (90).“Can we really claim that education in America a hundred years ago, when only 3 percent of the population, most of them males graduate from hight school, was better than it is today when almost 85 percent graduate from high school and more graduate from college than in any nation except Japan?” (92). “(1) Don’t pontificate; don’t slap down students you think are on the wrong side… (2) Once you observe two opponents not listening, intrude authoritatively, shouting (pontificating if necessary)…Hey, wait a minute, Sandra. Have you noticed that Sam says you’ve not understood him? Have you understood what he’s arguing for? Can you show him now that you have listened, by putting yourself in his shoes? Pretend that you are Sam, and make his case so well that he’ll say, ‘Yes, that’s what I’m arguing for.’ … (3) Once any group has done a half-decent job of articulating rival positions and has made some effort to understand the rivals, it often works to divide the groups physically… Then have each corner present its case as persuasively as possible, with the debaters shifting locations whenever they feel persuaded” (100–101). |
