The Rhetoric and Ideology Project
Reflection
Rhetoric and ideology--two words that I definitely did not have the knowledge to define before participating in this project. The aptly-named Rhetoric and Ideology Project was an examination of the role of rhetorical discourse in our democracy. We started out by learning about rhetoric--what it is, how it works, and where it comes from--and other tools of writing, such as Aristotelian appeals and Rogerian argumentation. We also examined the political divide in America, and how polarizing politics can be. Then, we looked at how rhetoric has impacted history in a number of ways, and how today’s rhetoric is changing our society. The culminating product was a piece of rhetorical discourse that used Rogerian argumentation to present a solution to a political topic, with an accompanying visual element. This could be in whatever form you wanted--an Op-Ed, open letter, or even a video. We ended the project with a two-part exhibition: one part was presenting our final products, and the second part was participating in a Socratic Seminar that discussed how to bridge the political divide in America.
I did my project on the protests in the NFL; I examined the opinion that kneeling is disrespectful to the flag, as well as the opinion that it’s the players’ constitutional right to kneel. I think my project turned out very well (see my Op-Ed below), and presenting it at the exhibition also went well. The Socratic Seminar part of the exhibition was very interesting because it involved students, parents, and community members discussing controversial political ideas. There was one time during the seminar where I had to yell over some adults and remind them to look for the commonalities between their viewpoints, rather than argue. However, it was an engaging discussion, and it exposed the norms that govern talking about politics in our society.
One significant thing I learned from this project is the need for politicians and citizens that are willing to “reach across the aisle.” We started this project by reading an article titled Willing to be Disturbed by Margaret Wheatley. The main idea of this writing piece is that the key to advancing our society is listening to and understanding each other's perspectives, even when they are in opposition to our own. I absolutely love this idea, yet I have also realized how uncommon it is in our society. People are married to their own perspectives, and they like to associate themselves with people that think the same way as them. This tends to lead to animosity between groups that have differing opinions. America is supposed to be a democracy, or at least a democratic republic. If we refuse to recognize others’ ideas, we will always be at a stalemate and never be able to make decisions as a society. It is imperative that we stop to consider opinions other than our own, and try to find common ground between perspectives that seem to be in disagreement. If I strongly believe that cats are better, and you strongly believe that dogs are better, then we can probably both agree that all animals are pretty neat. We can write legislation together to protect animals in general--rather than me fighting for legislation that only protects cats and you fighting for legislation that only protects dogs. Rather than entirely opposing each other, we found common ground that benefits all. A “willingness to be disturbed,” or a willingness to hear and understand each other’s opinions, is essential. Unfortunately, this principle isn’t evident to many of our lawmakers, who are unlikely to concede their own agendas in order to build consensus. I have been considering a career in politics for a little while now, and learning about this idea has increased my interest because I feel that I have a duty to bring my “willingness to be disturbed” to the political arena. I hope that I can continue to grow into a public servant who is willing to be disturbed and willing to reach across the aisle to hear opinions other than my own.
As a result of this project, I already see that I am more open to hearing the opinions of others. It has made me distinctly aware of the fact that I am not always right; in fact, I am rarely right. Knowing this makes me eager to hear the opinions of others. In the past, I have avoided discussing politics with my uncle. He has a degree in political science, which is the degree I think I want to pursue, but I know that he tends to be more conservative while I am more liberal. So, I try to stay away from conversations where our clashing viewpoints will become exposed and cause tension. During the project, I interviewed him about his opinions on the NFL. I didn’t argue with him; I didn’t cringe at his answers to my questions. I simply listened. It made me feel more empathetic to his perspective, and it opened a door for conversation in the future. Now, he knows that I respect him, and I know that he respects me. In this sense, my political views have changed in this project. Not necessarily a view on any one topic, yet my approach to politics in general. I now see that there are dozens of correct opinions; any opinion is a correct opinion. The true secret to politics is finding common ground.
Rhetoric and ideology--two words that I definitely did not have the knowledge to define before participating in this project. The aptly-named Rhetoric and Ideology Project was an examination of the role of rhetorical discourse in our democracy. We started out by learning about rhetoric--what it is, how it works, and where it comes from--and other tools of writing, such as Aristotelian appeals and Rogerian argumentation. We also examined the political divide in America, and how polarizing politics can be. Then, we looked at how rhetoric has impacted history in a number of ways, and how today’s rhetoric is changing our society. The culminating product was a piece of rhetorical discourse that used Rogerian argumentation to present a solution to a political topic, with an accompanying visual element. This could be in whatever form you wanted--an Op-Ed, open letter, or even a video. We ended the project with a two-part exhibition: one part was presenting our final products, and the second part was participating in a Socratic Seminar that discussed how to bridge the political divide in America.
I did my project on the protests in the NFL; I examined the opinion that kneeling is disrespectful to the flag, as well as the opinion that it’s the players’ constitutional right to kneel. I think my project turned out very well (see my Op-Ed below), and presenting it at the exhibition also went well. The Socratic Seminar part of the exhibition was very interesting because it involved students, parents, and community members discussing controversial political ideas. There was one time during the seminar where I had to yell over some adults and remind them to look for the commonalities between their viewpoints, rather than argue. However, it was an engaging discussion, and it exposed the norms that govern talking about politics in our society.
One significant thing I learned from this project is the need for politicians and citizens that are willing to “reach across the aisle.” We started this project by reading an article titled Willing to be Disturbed by Margaret Wheatley. The main idea of this writing piece is that the key to advancing our society is listening to and understanding each other's perspectives, even when they are in opposition to our own. I absolutely love this idea, yet I have also realized how uncommon it is in our society. People are married to their own perspectives, and they like to associate themselves with people that think the same way as them. This tends to lead to animosity between groups that have differing opinions. America is supposed to be a democracy, or at least a democratic republic. If we refuse to recognize others’ ideas, we will always be at a stalemate and never be able to make decisions as a society. It is imperative that we stop to consider opinions other than our own, and try to find common ground between perspectives that seem to be in disagreement. If I strongly believe that cats are better, and you strongly believe that dogs are better, then we can probably both agree that all animals are pretty neat. We can write legislation together to protect animals in general--rather than me fighting for legislation that only protects cats and you fighting for legislation that only protects dogs. Rather than entirely opposing each other, we found common ground that benefits all. A “willingness to be disturbed,” or a willingness to hear and understand each other’s opinions, is essential. Unfortunately, this principle isn’t evident to many of our lawmakers, who are unlikely to concede their own agendas in order to build consensus. I have been considering a career in politics for a little while now, and learning about this idea has increased my interest because I feel that I have a duty to bring my “willingness to be disturbed” to the political arena. I hope that I can continue to grow into a public servant who is willing to be disturbed and willing to reach across the aisle to hear opinions other than my own.
As a result of this project, I already see that I am more open to hearing the opinions of others. It has made me distinctly aware of the fact that I am not always right; in fact, I am rarely right. Knowing this makes me eager to hear the opinions of others. In the past, I have avoided discussing politics with my uncle. He has a degree in political science, which is the degree I think I want to pursue, but I know that he tends to be more conservative while I am more liberal. So, I try to stay away from conversations where our clashing viewpoints will become exposed and cause tension. During the project, I interviewed him about his opinions on the NFL. I didn’t argue with him; I didn’t cringe at his answers to my questions. I simply listened. It made me feel more empathetic to his perspective, and it opened a door for conversation in the future. Now, he knows that I respect him, and I know that he respects me. In this sense, my political views have changed in this project. Not necessarily a view on any one topic, yet my approach to politics in general. I now see that there are dozens of correct opinions; any opinion is a correct opinion. The true secret to politics is finding common ground.