In Preparation for Kaufer and McDonald...

In Preparation for Kaufer and McDonald...
Response to: http://cmorganfall2014.blogspot.com/ 

According to McDonald in his text, Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation, people become citizens rhetorically by engaging with each other on public topics. Average citizens are not usually a part of the contribution to socialtechnical controversies because they lack expert knowledge. However, these controversies give credibility to this type of audience in particular whose public lives are influenced by sociotechnical stock issues.

McDonald selected Le Suroit, the gas-fired power plant, as a case study in his text because it is a perfect example of when public opinion got in the way of a new technology being introduced into society, regardless of their lack of knowledge of the issue. This was a controversial issue that was highly supported by individuals, such as the government and scientists, who have expert knowledge of the technology. However, the public was very critical of the Suroit project and asked that it be discussed, and was eventually turned down because of their disapproval. In this particular case, “deliberation” and “citizenship” because "this case has all of the characteristics of a socialtechnical controversy" (McDonald 204).

McDonald's "inductive, rhetorical approach is similar to Kaufer's "Levels of Policy Conflict Analysis" in that they both organize their texts in a way that the audience can follow chronologically. Meaning, Kaufer and McDonald write out their texts in a sequence of events that a controversy would naturally go through in reality. The difference between the two is that McDonald is focused on educating public citizens to deliberate effectively, whereas the purpose of Kaufer's work is to teach his audience how to develop policy arguments.

McDonald's justification for why there is a need to deliberate better is that it allows individuals with conflicting ideas to realize that they share common views, and that both had valid arguments that needed to be discussed. By doing so, many groups are able to find common ground. The Suroit case is an example of when rhetorical democracy existed. It's all about accepting what adversaries have to say because it brings common points from differing parties to the forefront. "Thus, through public deliberation over the heterogeneous topics that are an integral part of sociotechnical controversies, parties initially opposed realize that their opinion differ less than they first thought" (McDonald 214). This acceptance of what the other party believes enables all individuals involved to find common points and possibly even a solution that everyone supports.

"Stock issues are points of disagreement that recur regularly when people deliberate on questions of justice or public policy" (Kaufer 57). Stock issues are not enough because in order for an issue to be fully addressed, there needs to be expert information concerning both sides, not just opinions that arise among public citizens. 

https://campus.fsu.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-6800550-dt-content-rid-38255100_2/courses/ENC4404-0001.fa14/kaufer.pdf

https://campus.fsu.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-6800548-dt-content-rid-38255099_2/courses/ENC4404-0001.fa14/mcdonald_i_agree_but.pdf