Here is the article RevCat was referring to in class:
http://media.web.britannica.com/ebsco/pdf/644/34641644.pdf
Showing posts with label argue differently. Show all posts
Showing posts with label argue differently. Show all posts
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
The Contentiousness of Dialogue
Dialogue as presented by Bohm, Factor, & Garrett is an interesting proposal, especially when compared to other people's ideas of what dialogue is (ex: Peters - as noted by Cathy), and it seems that dialogue is itself contentious because there seems to be many interpretations of what dialogue is and isn't. First, I found Peter's interpretation of dialogue to be privileged, to embrace and perform white paternalism, and without compassion. So, with that said I am not really a fan of Peter's ideas of dialogue. Mostly because I believe privilege, white paternalism, and lack of compassion to not be qualities of dialogue. And, as I am being reminded of Peter's interpretation of dialogue I am more inclined to appreciate what Bohm, factor, & Garrett are trying to present. Now,I must say that I think they try to set too many boundaries of what is and isn't dialogue (which is inherently problematic), but at the same time they highlight some really important points that I believe do service to conceptualizing what dialogue is, and can be.
A great starting point to conceptualize what dialogue is would be the concept of listening and it being just as important as speaking. Although listening is supposed to be a general component of communication and not necessarily anything special, it seems that daily communication practices may not appreciate listening as much as dialogue does.To focus on listening, and with an empathetic and compassionate ear, may be a place where people can start to really conceptualize dialogue. This may also be an interesting site to explore arguing differently. Although again, listening is something that should be a core component to arguing and even debate, it may not be practiced as much as it should or could be.
A great starting point to conceptualize what dialogue is would be the concept of listening and it being just as important as speaking. Although listening is supposed to be a general component of communication and not necessarily anything special, it seems that daily communication practices may not appreciate listening as much as dialogue does.To focus on listening, and with an empathetic and compassionate ear, may be a place where people can start to really conceptualize dialogue. This may also be an interesting site to explore arguing differently. Although again, listening is something that should be a core component to arguing and even debate, it may not be practiced as much as it should or could be.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Synthesizing also...
This is the first class I take on argumentation, even on rhetoric so lots of things were eye opening for me. In the first book we read, Tannen’s book, I underlined so many pages, put so many stickers around the book. The second, the third… But now as I read Bohm, I feel myself compare and contrast, agree and disagree with him. I believe this is the biggest change in me. I feel the influence of knowledge (cannot be compared to my classmates’) on me, my accepting and not accepting some of the claims.
In addition, I feel like I approach what I hear on TV programs or how I discuss with people differently. Even the most recent one, Bohm’s chapter on assumptions (ch.5) made me reconsider my attitudes in discussions, listening, observing.
Even the class discussions were very useful for me. One day Hayley described an anecdote happened with one of her students and I remember thinking “What I would say if I were that student?”.
As the reading so far, as I stated above the first a few of them were too hard for me to understand but I feel I can get a better grasp of the subjects now. The way people argue has been changing according to needs, culture of the people. The argumentation model that Toulmin has is pretty different than what Aristotle stated. Toulmin and Perelman, though they have some similarities, are different than each other also. The rhetoric model in Asia is different than the ones in West.
In addition, I feel like I approach what I hear on TV programs or how I discuss with people differently. Even the most recent one, Bohm’s chapter on assumptions (ch.5) made me reconsider my attitudes in discussions, listening, observing.
Even the class discussions were very useful for me. One day Hayley described an anecdote happened with one of her students and I remember thinking “What I would say if I were that student?”.
As the reading so far, as I stated above the first a few of them were too hard for me to understand but I feel I can get a better grasp of the subjects now. The way people argue has been changing according to needs, culture of the people. The argumentation model that Toulmin has is pretty different than what Aristotle stated. Toulmin and Perelman, though they have some similarities, are different than each other also. The rhetoric model in Asia is different than the ones in West.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Feelings and arguing differently
I agree with Crowley that feelings can move a person to different directions and make that person say things that s/he does not really believe in. In the past, when the army was going to war the kings were making some moving speeches to the soldiers(I believe the best sample is the Henry V’s speech to the troops), in addition, in Ottoman army there was a orchestra to move the feelings of the soldiers. (Mehter, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_military_band) The role of feelings in arguing differently cannot be ignored. I think today most of the discussions take place in a way that the anchor tries to make the sides really get mad, cause them start yelling and so on; and ultimately increase rating.(I cannot say it is the case for all of the discussion programs but unfortunately it is not uncommon, either).
However, if the discussions are to arrive a conclusion or solutions, this should not be the case. In fact, the interfaith dialog movements have been damaged with these kinds of blames in the past. Muslims, Christians, Jews who believed in interfaith dialog have been accused changing their faith or not being a real believer (Kurucan, 2006). These blames caused different feelings to occur in people and they lost their faith in the religious leaders, or religious leaders stepped back in their efforts in interfaith dialog.
I liked Crowley’s book so far, but I could not really understand where she wants to arrive with the discussions on Apocalyptism. I hope we will discuss about these tonight.
Enjoy the weather outside, we really missed it:)))
However, if the discussions are to arrive a conclusion or solutions, this should not be the case. In fact, the interfaith dialog movements have been damaged with these kinds of blames in the past. Muslims, Christians, Jews who believed in interfaith dialog have been accused changing their faith or not being a real believer (Kurucan, 2006). These blames caused different feelings to occur in people and they lost their faith in the religious leaders, or religious leaders stepped back in their efforts in interfaith dialog.
I liked Crowley’s book so far, but I could not really understand where she wants to arrive with the discussions on Apocalyptism. I hope we will discuss about these tonight.
Enjoy the weather outside, we really missed it:)))
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)