CHAPTER ONE
DISCUSSION IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETYa
Recently one of us led a discussion that confirmed for us why we value the discussion method so highly. Steve Preskill was teaching a course on educational ethics and had found a newspaper article describing a local school boardâs refusal to honor a âdo not resuscitateâ (DNR) order. A DNR order is issued when a person is gravely ill. It is a legally binding document that is signed by the individualâs next of kin and a supervising physician. They declare that the patientâs medical condition is so fragile and grave that if the patient goes into cardiac arrest, no effort should be made to resuscitate. The article Steve found involved a schoolchild whose parents had signed a DNR order. The school board took the position that human life is unconditionally sacred. Because preserving life takes precedence over everything else, the board claimed, all efforts must be made to save a childâs life, regardless of circumstances or DNR orders.
Steve projected a summary of the article on an overhead screen for the whole class to read. Steve describes the experience in the following vignette.
This vignette demonstrates why we place such store in discussion as a teaching method. As Steveâs experience illustrates, discussion is a valuable and inspiring means for revealing the diversity of opinion that lies just below the surface of almost any complex issue. Although there are many ways to learn, discussion is a particularly wonderful way to explore supposedly settled questions and to develop a fuller appreciation for the multiplicity of human experience and knowledge. To see a topic come alive as diverse and complex views multiply is one of the most powerful experiences we can have as learners and teachers. In a discussion where participants feel their views are valued and welcomed, it is impossible to predict how many contrasting perspectives will emerge or how many unexpected opinions will arise.
In revealing and celebrating the multiplicity of perspectives possible, discussion at its best exemplifies the democratic process. All participants in a democratic discussion have the opportunity to voice a strongly felt view and the obligation to devote every ounce of their attention to each speakerâs words. In this minidemocracy, all have the right to express themselves as well as the responsibility to create spaces that encourage even the most reluctant speaker to participate.
Discussion and democracy are inseparable because both have the same root purposeâto nurture and promote human growth. By growth we mean roughly the same thing as John Dewey (1916) did: the development of an ever-increasing capacity for learning and an appreciation of and sensitivity to learning undertaken by others. Democracy and discussion imply a process of giving and taking, speaking and listening, describing and witnessingâall of which help expand horizons and foster mutual understanding. Discussion is one of the best ways to nurture growth because it is premised on the idea that only through collaboration and cooperation with others can we be exposed to new points of view. This exposure increases our understanding and renews our motivation to continue learning. In the process, our democratic instincts are confirmed: by giving the floor to as many different participants as possible, a collective wisdom emerges that would have been impossible for any of the participants to achieve on their own.
But we do not prize discussion solely because it helps us attain worthy democratic aims. We practice it eagerly simply because itâs so enjoyable and exciting. Unpredictable and risky, it is the pedagogical and educational equivalent of scaling a mountain or shooting dangerous rapids. Never sure what weâll encounter as we push toward the top or as we careen around the next bend, our level of alertness and attentiveness remains high. Indeed, there is an exhilaration that we experience in the best of discussions that is not unlike the thrill we enjoy in the most challenging of outdoor activities. This is why we like teaching democratically. In remaining open to the unexpected, we feel engaged and alive. So our commitment to discussion is not just moral and philosophical but also deeply personal and importantly self-gratifying. Even if we lacked a principled rationale for favoring discussion, we would still keep the conversation going because it gives us so much pleasure.
BLENDING DISCUSSION, DIALOGUE, AND CONVERSATION
Certain authors who agree about the potential of group talk have attempted to make distinctions among conversation, discussion, and dialogue. The philosopher Matthew Lipman (1991) argues that conversation seeks equilibrium, with each person in turn taking opportunities to speak and then listen but where little or no movement occurs. Conversation, Lipman claims, is an exchange of thoughts and feelings in which genial cooperation prevails, whereas dialogue aims at disequilibrium in which âeach argument evokes a counterargument that pushes itself beyond the other and pushes the other beyond itselfâ (p. 232). Dialogue for Lipman is an exploration or inquiry in which the participants view themselves as collaborators intent on expeditiously resolving the problem or issue they face. Educational philosopher Nicholas Burbules (1993), while less inclined than Lipman to distinguish sharply between conversation and dialogue, suggests that conversation is more informal and less structured than dialogue and that dialogue focuses more on inquiry and increasing understanding and tends to be more exploratory and questioning than conversation.
David Bridges (1988) claims that discussion is different from conversation and other forms of group talk by its âconcern with the development of knowledge, understanding or judgement among those taking parâ (p. 17). He believes that discussion is more serious than conversation in that it requires the participants to be both âmutually responsiveâ to the different views expressed and disposed to be âaffected by opinions one way or another in so far as (on some criteria) they merit acceptance or approvalâ (p. 15). Similarly, James Dillon (1994) argues that whereas conversation is aimless, carefree, and effortless, discussion, in his view, is highly âdisciplined and concerted talkâ (p. 13) in which people come together to resolve some issue or problem that is important to them.
Other observers prefer the word conversation, meaning something a little less formal and structured than what Lipman, Burbules, Bridges, and Dillon call dialogue or discussion. The neopragmatist philosopher Richard Rorty (1979) thinks of philosophy itself as a stimulus to a great and continuing conversation. For Rorty, keeping the conversation going is the most important thing. As long as conversation lasts, he remarks, there is hope âfor agreement, or, at least, exciting and fruitful disagreementâ (p. 318). Bringing people together in conversation and challenging them to use their imaginations to create new meanings and move toward greater human inclusiveness is, for Rorty (1989), a moral endeavor. To him, conversation extends our sense of ââweâ to people whom we have previously thought as âtheyââ (p. 192) and provides a forum for acting on our obligation to achieve solidarity with others.
A major influence on Rorty is the English philosopher Michael Oakeshott (1962), who characterizes group talk as an âunrehearsed intellectual adventureâ (p. 198) in which as many participants as possible are invited to speak and acknowledge one another. Despite the inevitable and irreconcilable differences between them, the act of conversation allows them to emerge from the experience broadened and enriched. For Oakeshott, participation in conversation is a distinctively human activity. Becoming skillful at this involves us in discerning how each voice reflects a different set of human interests. Through the process of discernment one becomes more sensitized to neglected or discounted voices and to finding room for them to air their views. In Oakeshottâs view, conversation is one of the most important ways for human beings to make meaning, to construct a worldview, and to provide a âmeetingplace of various modes of imaginingâ (p. 206). While each person who contributes should have the serious intention of engaging others, the best conversations maintain a tension between seriousness and playfulness. âAs with children, who are great conversationalists,â Oakeshott offers, âthe playfulness is serious and the seriousness in the end is only playâ (p. 202).
Although we use the term discussion to explore the theory and practice of group talk, we are actually blending or synthesizing the descriptions of discussion, dialogue, and conversation put forward by Lipman, Burbules, Bridges, Dillon, Rorty, and Oakeshott. Our understanding of discussion incorporates reciprocity and movement, exchange and inquiry, cooperation and collaboration, formality and informality. We acknowledge that much can be said for a simple exchange of views that does not oblige the participants to critique one anotherâs opinions. Simply to understand more fully the thoughts and feelings of another increases our capacity to empathize and renews our appreciation for the variety of human experience. We also know that discussion that primarily entertains has merit and is an important part of human experience and education. However, in general we define discussion as an alternately serious and playful effort by a group of two or more to share views and engage in mutual and reciprocal critique. The purposes of discussion are fourfold: (1) to help participants reach a more critically informed understanding about the topic or topics under consideration, (2) to enhance participantsâ self-awareness and their capacity for self-critique, (3) to foster an appreciation among participants for the diversity of opinion that invariably emerges when viewpoints are exchanged openly and honestly, and (4) to act as a catalyst to helping people take informed action in the world. Discussion is an important way for people to affiliate with one another, to develop the sympathies and skills that make participatory democracy possible. It is, as James Dillon (1994) has said, âa good way for us to be togetherâ (p. 112) so that we can share personal stories of triumph and trouble and stretch our capacity for empathizing with others. In telling our stories, we employ different forms of speech to stimulate and move others, to emote and express strong feelings, and simply to celebrate the joys of coming together.
MAKING DISCUSSION CRITICAL
Whether labeled âdiscussion,â âdialogue,â or âconversation,â the liveliest interactions are critical. When participants take a critical stance, they are committed to questioning and exploring even the most widely accepted ideas and beliefs. Conversing critically implies an openness to rethinking cherished assumptions and to subjecting those assumptions to a continuous round of questioning, argument, and counterargument. One of the defining characteristics of critical discussion is that participants are willing to enter the conversation with open minds. This requires people to be flexible enough to adjust their views in the light of persuasive, well-supported arguments and confident enough to retain their original opinions when rebuttals fall short. Although agreement may sometimes be desirable, it is by no means a necessity. Indeed, continued disagreement may be a productive outcome of conversation, particularly if some explanation for those differences can be found. An airing of differences can stimulate additional discussion and offer an opportunity to clarify oneâs own view in relation to anotherâs.
Henry Giroux (1987) offers a view of critical discussion in which teachers become transformative intellectuals who engage and empower their students to probe the contradictions and injustices of the larger society. Building on the tradition of ideology critique in the Frankfurt School of critical social theory, he argues that classrooms are sites where students and teachers converge to make meaning by âinterrogating different languages or ideological discourses as they are developed in an assortment of textsâ (p. 119). Conceived this way, discussion discloses the ways in which different linguistic, cultural, and philosophical traditions can silence voices. A critical posture leads people to analyze these traditions to understand how they have kept entire groups out of the conversation. Teachers and students probe their own taken-for-granted beliefs and assumptions to uncover the ways these serve dominant interests. This kind of critical discussion helps people see how their choices can either perpetuate injustice and continue silence or contribute to growth and even emancipation.
Autobiographically grounded critical discussion allows discussants to discern the connection between what C. Wright Mills (1959) called private troubles and public issues. By reinterpreting personal difficulties as dimensions of broader social and political trends, we realize that our problems are not always idiosyncratic and due to our personal failings. Also, we are better able to generate strategies for counteracting the most dehumanizing, alienating, and oppressive tendencies of modern society. Discussion, in this sense, not only provides people with opportunities to share their experiences and express concern for one another but can also lead to more effective and more humane action.
PRACTICING THE DISPOSITIONS OF DEMOCRATIC DISCUSSION
If discussion-based classrooms are to be crucibles for democratic processes and mutual growth, students and teachers need to practice certain dispositions. In our own classes, we encourage students to name and learn these dispositions, and we try to model them in our teaching. Our efforts at getting students to approximate these ideals have been mixed at best, but even naming them is useful in helping students become more collaborative and respectful participants in discussion. There are many such dispositions worth considering. Those that are particularly important for us are hospitality, participation, mindfulness, humility, mutuality, deliberation, appreciation, hope, and autonomy.
HOSPITALITY
Parker Palmer writes about hospitality as one of the foundations for good dialogue in his book To Know as We Are Known (1993). By hospitality he means an atmosphere in which people feel invited to participate. The conviviality and congeniality that prevail encourage people to take risks and to reveal strongly held opinions. We try to create a hospitable atmosphere in our classes by devoting a good part of the first class or two to giving students opportunities to talk and write autobiographically and by suggesting (while trying hard not to be too intrusive) that they share something important about themselves. It is essential, by the way, that we do everything that we ask the students to do. We therefore spend some class time relating our own personal histories. We also devote one of the initial classes to a presentation of some of our own views on key educational issues and follow this presentation with a critique of these views. We hope to show in this way that every view is subject to criticism but that this can be done with respect and dignity.
Hospitality implies a mutual receptivity to new ideas and perspectives and a willingness to question even the most widely accepted assumptions. There is nothing soft about hospitality. It does not mean that stand...