In McDonald’s chapter of Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation he defines an individual’s place in the public sphere: “individuals become citizens by discursively - and thus rhetorically - engaging one another in the public sphere” (McDonald 199). McDonald explains how citizens are involved in these academic sociotechnical controversies when he says, “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 and the sociology of science and technology” (McDonald 201). Ordinary citizens are usually not welcomed into contributing to sociotechnical controversies because they typically lack expertise in these fields; however, the presence of these controversies in the public sphere gives credibility to these lay audiences whose public lives revolve around sociotechnical stock issues.
In “A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments” David S. Kaufer defines stock issues: “Stock issues are points of disagreement that recur regularly when people deliberate on questions of justice or public policy” (Kaufer 57). Stock issues are widely addressed among individual citizens, especially in today’s digital world where they can discuss and respond to stock issues on public forums like blogs or social media. In the article, Kaufer says, “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). In this instance, Kaufer is referring directly to students learning how to write about public policy but these aims of raising and discussing stock issues can also apply to individual citizens who interact with these stock issues outside the classroom.
Both Kaufer and McDonald support the role of the individual citizen’s participation in these issues. Kaufer explains the role of the student - which can also be applied to individual citizens in general - when he says, “Instead of urging or opposing legal judgments, student policy writers urge or oppose actions…They are the judge because they are finally responsible for deciding the greater merit of one side over the other. They are the advocates because they must try to maximize the possibility that their decision has been informed, even if not equally influenced by, the analogies of both sides” (Kaufer 62). McDonald also takes a stance on individual citizens being beneficial to the deliberation process saying, “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 200).
Sociotechnical issues are often not seen as issues that the general public is knowledgeable about. In his chapter, McDonald says, “The main particularity of these controversies is their heterogeneity: the issues come from several registers, from ethics to economics, from psychology to atomic physics. As Lyne affirms, ‘science and technology controversies are not just about science and technology. They are also about our culture, our comfort, and our metaphysics’” (McDonald 201). This is, therefore, why the public is not often involved in the deliberation of these issues. McDonald, however, recognizes that the public should be involved in contributing to discussions and solutions of these issues because sociotechnical issues are about more than just science and technology at academic levels.
Individual citizens clearly have a place in the deliberation of stock issues or sociotechnical controversies, but what are the benefits of their involvement? McDonald defines public deliberation for us: “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). Allowing individual citizens to involve themselves in issues of public deliberation can be beneficial in resolving these issues because they are members of the general public who experience, relate to, respond to, or maybe sometimes even cause these issues. In his chapter, McDonald recognizes this important role of these individual citizens saying, “Remy and Callon, Lascoumes, and Barthe have shown that ordinary citizens, when discussing technical issues, can think of solutions to complex scientific problems that have been overlooked by experts” (McDonald 201).
These texts also both address that public deliberation does not always lead to one conclusion or solution. McDonald says, “This suggests that public deliberation is not only about persuasive strategies but also about developing a better comprehension of important issues and consequently modifying one’s initial opinion” (McDonald 215). This clearly suggests that the point of public deliberation is not always to achieve clearly outlined answers. Public deliberation is complex and because it involves so many audiences and contributors. Endless ideas and rhetorical situations can be created and each member of the public deliberation can learn something new or view an idea from a new perspective.
- Christina Morgan
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment