In Enoch's article "Becoming Symbol Wise," she discusses Burke, and his method of debate. This is seen most clearly- and explicitly in Ledbetter and Daniels' article "Forum: Is There a Decline in Literacy?" Enoch explains the point that students do not have to arrive at one final all-encompassing solution. Instead she says- it is better highlight the positions taken and then introduce a "third piece that would transcend questions of 'for' and 'against'." (286). In Ledbetter and Daniels' article, the argumentation of the debate is clearly show, both sides are arguing the "for" and "against" side of the literacy debate. What is not seen clearly, though, is that third transcendent argument. However, I believe by constructing thier arguments in the way that they do-by making their arguments by definition different- the forum reaches that third level implicitly on its own. This allows the article to come to two highly developed positions without having to choose a "right" or "wrong" side in the end.
With election season over, and candidates safely in their seats for another two years, I feel that it is now time to discuss the manor in which political rhetoric reaches (and mainly fails to reach) students. We live in a society where the act of not voting is a a disgrace and shameful, yet we still live in a world where the joke "I had to text my dad to see who to vote for" exists. How on earth, in an age of social media overload, do students still not understand what is involved with voting, the election process, and candidates' platforms? Is it more that they do understand, but do not care? Or that they simply feel lost in the sea of red and blue? I hope to (somehow) figure out a way to penetrate the barrier between government and student life, and how to find a way to make election processes more accessible for students who are not as politically minded as others.
