A2 Framework



Download 234,04 Kb.
Page1/14
Date conversion16.08.2018
Size234,04 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   14

MGW 2010 A2 Framework

Gottbreht/Thomas


A2 Framework




A2 Framework 1

Framework = Exclusion and that's Bad (1) 2

Framework = Exclusion and that's Bad (2) 3

Framework = Exclusion and that's Bad (3) 4

A2 Definitions 5

Ground 6


Limits 7

Education (1) 8

Education (2) 9

Rules Bad (1) 10

Rules Bad (2) 11

A2 Shivley 12

Switchside Debate Bad 13

Ontology Good 14

Epistemology Good (1) 15

Epistemology Good (2) 16

Epistemology Good (3) 17

A2 Objectivity/ Truth/ Science (1) 18

A2 Objectivity/ Truth/ Science (2) 19

Policy Making Bad (1) 20

Policy Making Bad (2) 21

Role Playing Bad (1) 22

Role Playing Bad (2) 23

Role Playing Bad (3) 24

Role Playing Bad (4) 25

Role Playing Bad (5) 26

State Bad 27

Deliberative Democracy Bad 28

Sex-Based Criticism (1) 29

Sex-Based Criticism (2) 30




Framework = Exclusion and that's Bad (1)



Frameworks Open To Alternative Arguments/Viewpoints Are Key To Break Down Patriarchy and Systems of Dominance

Foss and Griffen 1995 (Sonja, associate professor of Communication Studies at Ohio State, Cindy, assistant professor of Speech Communication at Colorado State, “Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for Invitational Rhetoric, Communication Monographs, March)Professor of Speech Communication, University of Denver, HC)

The introduction of invitational rhetoric to the array of rhetorical forms available also serves a greater heuristic, inventive function than rhetoric previously has allowed. Traditional theories of rhetoric occur within preimposed or preconceived frameworks that are reflexive and reinforce the vocabularies and tenets of those frameworks. In rhetoric in which the rhetor seeks to impose change on others, an idea is adapted to the audience or is presented in ways that will be most persuasive to the audience; as a result, the idea stays lodged within the confines of the rhetorical system in which it was framed. Other may challenge the idea but only within the confines of the framework of the dispute already established. The inventive potential of rhetoric is restricted as the interaction converts the idea to the experience required by the framework. Invitational rhetoric, on the other hand, aims at converting experience “to one of the many views which are indeterminately possible” (Holmberg, 1977, p. 237). As a result, much is open in invitational rhetoric that is not in traditional rhetorics—the potential of the audiences to contribute to the generation of ideas is enhanced, the means used to present ideas are not those that limit the ideas to what is most persuasive for the audience, the view of the kind of environment that can be created in the interaction is expanded, and the ideas that can be considered multiply. The privileging of inventions in invitational rhetoric allows for the development of interpretations, perspectives, courses of actions, and solutions to problems different from those allowed in traditional models of rhetoric. Rather than the discovery of how to make a case, invitational rhetoric employs invention to discover more cases, a process Daly (1984) describes as one of creating “an atmosphere in which further creativity may flourish … [w]e become breathers/creators of free space. We are windy, stirring the stagnant spaces with life” (p. 18). The inclusion of an invitational rhetoric in the array of rhetorics available suggests the need to revise and expand rhetorical constructs of various kinds to take into account the nature and function of this form. Invitational rhetoric suggests, for example, that the traditional view of the audience as an opponent ought to be questioned. It challenges the traditional conception of the notion of rhetorical strategies as means to particular ends in that in invitational rhetoric, the means constitute the ends. It suggests the need for a new schema of ethics to fit interactional goals other than inducement of others to adherence to the rhetor’s own beliefs. Finally, invitational rhetoric provides a mode of communication for women and other marginalized groups to use in their efforts to transform systems of domination and oppression. At first glance, invitational rhetoric may seem to be incapable of resisting and transforming oppressive systems such as patriarchy because the most it seems able to do is to create a space in which representatives of an oppressive system understand a different—in this case, a feminist—perspective but do not adopt it. Although invitational rhetoric is not designed to create a specific change, such as the transformation of systems of oppression into ones that value and nurture individuals, it may produce such an outcome. Invitational rhetoric may resist an oppressive system simply because it models an alternative to the system by being “itself an Other way of thinking/speaking” (Daly, 1978, p. xiii)—it presents an alternative feminist vision rooted in affirmation and respect and thus shows how an alternative looks and works. Invitational rhetoric thus may transform an oppressive system precisely because it does not engage that system on its own terms, using arguments developed from the system’s framework or orientation. Such arguments usually are co-opted by the dominant system (Ferguson, 1984) and provide the impetus “to strengthen, refine, and embellish the original edifice,” entrenching the system further (Johnson, 1989, pp. 16-17). Invitational rhetoric, in contrast, enables rhetors to disengage from the dominance and mastery so common to a system of oppression and to create a reality of equality and mutuality in its place, allowing for options and possibilities not available within the familiar, dominant framework.

Your interpretation creates a system of exclusion in which certain discourses become “Truth” foreclosing all other truths.

Bleiker, 2003. (Roland, Professor of International Relations Harvard and Cambridge, Discourse

and Human Agency, Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. p. 27-28)

It is within discourse,’ one of Foucault’s much rehearsed passages (1976, 133) notes, ‘that power and knowledge articulate each other.’ The work of the French historian and philosopher epitomizes what is at stake in questions of discourse and agency. For Foucault, discourses are subtle mechanisms that frame our thinking process. They determine the limits of what can be thought, talked and written in a normal and rational way. In every society the production of discourses is controlled, selected, organized and diffused by certain procedures. This process creates systems of exclusion in which one group of discourses is elevated to a hegemonic status, while others are condemned to exile. Discourses give rise to social rules that decide which statements most people recognize as valid, as debatable or as undoubtedly false. They guide the selection process that ascertains which propositions from previous periods or foreign cultures are retained, imported, valued, and which are forgotten or neglected (see Foucault, 1969, 1971, 1991, 59–60). Not everything is discourse, but everything is in discourse. Things exist independently of discourses, but we can only assess them through the lenses of discourse, through the practices of knowing, perceiving and sensing, which we have acquired over time. Discourses render social practices intelligible and rational and by doing so mask the ways in which they have been constituted and framed. Systems of domination gradually become accepted as normal and silently penetrate every aspect of society. They cling to the most remote corners of our mind, for, as Nietzsche (1983, 17) once expressed it, ‘all things that live long are gradually so saturated with reason that their emergence out of unreason thereby becomes improbable.’

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   14


The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2016
send message

    Main page