Second is the difficult issue of shutting up the dominating students. We had
long, long discussions of this last semester in the context of teaching ESL.
Many students from non-Western cultures have real practical and ethical
problems with just learning the 'voice', even as a survival tool. I try to
address this in my group discussion course as a matter of inclusion, and I
thing that's the issue Dewey faces in an intro to physics for non-majors.
After all, the inability of the public to enter the discussion is what creates
some of the difficulties in civic discourse around such issues as nuclear
power, genetic engineering etc. So, the point is really to discover a way of
modifying the rules of public discourse such that technical expertise does not
dominate all other elements of credibility and proof.
Which brings me to Dewey's point; the question is not merely how to equalize
the academic playing field. I don't think there's much question, in terms of
rhetorical theory, that Western political and civic discourse is still grounded
in the rationalism and objectivism of Enlightenment sciencism. Conversely,
critical and feminist theorists are making good progress in describing an
alternative, which is used in "private" discourse and by non-Western cultures,
but is still unacceptable for "public" situations. Until the shift is made
(and rhetorical change is not in the least bit comfortable) we will face having
to balance teaching the voice and silencing it.
Regards, Dale Cyphert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
dxc20 who-is-at psuvm.psu.edu/Department of Speech Communication/Penn State Univ