Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
28
DEBATA.RETORYKADLADEMOKRACJi
(3)teachcriticalandlogicalthinking,
(4)developtheabilitytoengageinasubstantivedialogue.
However,ifthedebateformulaistranslatedintolocalgovernmentmanagementusing
publicconsultation,itcanbeused,forexample,asameanstoillustrateanexistingdispute
inafactualwayortotrytoresolveit.Debatesinthesocialdimensionreflectthestateof
tensionsinsociety,butalsopatternsofbehaviourdrawnfrominstitutional,environmen-
tal,andmediaeducation.Itisreasonabletoassumethattheshapeofthepublicdebate
wouldbeinfluencedbypracticesfromtheeducational-competitivedimension.Ifitwere
assumedthatalargeproportionofyoungpeoplewouldencounterastructureddebateand
managetointernalisegoodpatternsofbehaviour,thiswouldprovideanopportunityto
introduceappropriatecommunicationpracticesintothedebateinthesocialdimension.
Debatingitselfisatendency,acommunicativeabilityacquiredthroughtheeduca-
tionalprocessandparticipationinanenvironmentofmediatiseddeliberation.Itisalso
anexpressionoffreedomofspeechandaparticularlydesirablecivicfreedominstatesys-
temsthathavegaineditaferalongperiodoflackoffreedom.Tisisthesituationapplies,
amongothers,to:PolandandothercountriesofCentralandEasternEurope.Tedevel-
opmentofstandardsforparticipationindebateisanongoingtaskthatrequiresorgani-
sationalreflection.
ItisnoteworthytonotetheemergingsignsofareversetrendinWesterncountriesof
worshippersandoppositiontothepraiseofdebate.IntheworksofDeborahFlick(1998)
andDeborahTannen(1998)wefindadiagnosisofWesternsocietybeingstuckinacul-
tureofdispute.Debateisspokenoftiasadiseaseofdiscourse,whichisresponsiblefor
creatingdysfunctionalcommunicativehabits.Tediseasemetaphor:Cdis-ease)
,ismeant
toindicatethedifcultyofmaintainingthewell-beingofsocialcommunication(Busmek
2009:4-5).Significantly,thattheauthorsdescribethetendencytousedebateinpublic
communicationordebatecultureasasilentandinvisiblekiller(Flick).Teycomparethe
cultureofdebatetoairthatissaturatedwithcarbonmonoxide,odourlessandtasteless.By
namingit,identifyingitschemicalcomposition,anddiscoveringwherethepoisoncomes
from,wewillknowhowtoprotectourselvesfromit.Teviciouscircleofrhetoricalvio-
lencefuelledbytheattack-and-defencementalitygeneratedbythedebatemust,accord-
ingtotheauthors,bestopped(Flick1998:3).
Itisworthnotingthatthisisnotacommonopinion.Typically,researchersdescrib-
ingpubliccommunicationrejectthismetaphor,showingdebateasacooperativerather
thancompetitivephenomenon,involvingcollaborationandcooperation(Ehninger1970,
Muir1993,Busmek2009).AccordingtoZarefsky(2001:193-194),debateisamethod
ofcollectivedecision-making.Andthisisthedirectionthatthinkingaboutthisform
ofdisputeresolutionshouldtake.Tepurposeofdebateistogeneratesocialandpublic
knowledge,nottowinorlose(Busmek2009:22-24).Debateasamethodofdeliberation
makesitpossibletocomparearguments,totesttheirusefulness,toeliminateweakcon-
structsthatarenotresistanttocriticism.Finally,adebateistobeconductedaccordingto
theprincipleofbilateralism.Forittofunctionasanefectivemethodofdeliberation,its
participants(debaters,audiences,organisers,initiators,andmoderators)shouldadhere
totheseprincipleswiththeawarenessofsharingandacceptingeachother)srolesinthe
process.Tepoint,therefore,istoensurethatbadpatterns,suchasthoseoftelevised
