For our final blog post, I chose to focus on Chapter 16, which covers argumentation in government and politics. I chose this chapter because this is the subject I had focused my annotated bibliography around, so I was interested in expanding upon what I had previously learned.
The topic that stuck out to me the most in the chapter was the concept of the public sphere. This likely wouldn't have stuck out as much to other people, but I took a rhetorical theory class last semester that put a lot of emphasis on the importance of the public sphere, and I thought it was cool to see how that concept tied to argumentation.
In my rhetorical theory class, we talked about the public sphere and how it has changed since Plato's time, and before. We talked a lot about the bourgeoisie, who were the "upper class" at the time, and how they would form these "public spheres" to have meetings and make decisions about who society should be run. The circle was selective. However, over time, and into the age of the public screen, which I will discuss a bit later, the "circle" has expanded and arguably had its walls broken down.
Our textbook for this class describes the public sphere in a similar way. They use G. Thomas Goodnight as a reference while describing the term as "a sphere of argument to handle disagreements transcending private and technical disputes... (it) inevitably limits participation to representative spokespersons (and provides) a tradition of argument such that its speakers would employ common language, values, and reasoning so that the disagreement could be settled." (219-220)
As you can see, this directly ties to the understanding of the public sphere that I gained from my other class- a select group of individuals, with things in common (the bourgeoisie shared many commonalities as a group), who gathered to make decisions. Additionally, this group, and whoever led the group directly, did become the "representative spokespersons" for society at the time.
What I found interesting was how just the wording differences made a rhetorical theory subject a subject of argumentation. Before, I was just like, 'oh, they get together and make rules...okay,' but it really was a form of argumentation within the group. They had to argue sides, weigh pros and cons, etc, to put these new rules/ concepts into action in society.
As mentioned before, the public sphere is still relatively prominent, I think that we can see it in our government and other systems of power, but, now, more people can have a say and can be part of the decision making, arguments and conversations, all due to the public screen. Things like phones, tvs and computers have broken down the walls of the public sphere, helping to minimize the "top-down constraints" of power and decision making, and allowed everyone to become a part of the argument.
The topic that stuck out to me the most in the chapter was the concept of the public sphere. This likely wouldn't have stuck out as much to other people, but I took a rhetorical theory class last semester that put a lot of emphasis on the importance of the public sphere, and I thought it was cool to see how that concept tied to argumentation.
In my rhetorical theory class, we talked about the public sphere and how it has changed since Plato's time, and before. We talked a lot about the bourgeoisie, who were the "upper class" at the time, and how they would form these "public spheres" to have meetings and make decisions about who society should be run. The circle was selective. However, over time, and into the age of the public screen, which I will discuss a bit later, the "circle" has expanded and arguably had its walls broken down.
Our textbook for this class describes the public sphere in a similar way. They use G. Thomas Goodnight as a reference while describing the term as "a sphere of argument to handle disagreements transcending private and technical disputes... (it) inevitably limits participation to representative spokespersons (and provides) a tradition of argument such that its speakers would employ common language, values, and reasoning so that the disagreement could be settled." (219-220)
As you can see, this directly ties to the understanding of the public sphere that I gained from my other class- a select group of individuals, with things in common (the bourgeoisie shared many commonalities as a group), who gathered to make decisions. Additionally, this group, and whoever led the group directly, did become the "representative spokespersons" for society at the time.
What I found interesting was how just the wording differences made a rhetorical theory subject a subject of argumentation. Before, I was just like, 'oh, they get together and make rules...okay,' but it really was a form of argumentation within the group. They had to argue sides, weigh pros and cons, etc, to put these new rules/ concepts into action in society.
As mentioned before, the public sphere is still relatively prominent, I think that we can see it in our government and other systems of power, but, now, more people can have a say and can be part of the decision making, arguments and conversations, all due to the public screen. Things like phones, tvs and computers have broken down the walls of the public sphere, helping to minimize the "top-down constraints" of power and decision making, and allowed everyone to become a part of the argument.
I enjoyed reading your post and understand how argumentation tied with the public sphere, and I found it interesting. Moreover, I agree with you that with all the social media things going on, the public sphere wall has been broken now. More and more people can participate in an argument to help to make decisions, one thing I am sure about is this is a good thing. Because I believe the more the group of people who decide to make a decision, the better the decision is. As the group of decision maker getting more diverse, arguments we have are getting boarder, choices we make are getting more thorough. Which helps us from making better decisions, we are not likely to make the perfect decision now, but it's better than bourgeoisie as sphere group making decisions for all.
ReplyDelete