Reading Response 1

1
University of Waterloo
Reading Response #1
COMMST 111 (003)

2
As per, “Ancient Rhetorics: Their Differences and The Differences They Make” by Sharon Crowley
and Debra Hawhee, we have reached a time in our society where disagreements amount to disrespect.
As such, we have lost a fundamental aspect of democracy – rhetoric which “is now thought of as empty
words, or as fancy language used to distort the truth or to tell lies” (Crowley & Hawhee, 1). Hence, I
believe the three key issues plaguing our society today are the lack of discourse, the personality
judgement and division.
To start, the reading highlights how the basis of democracy is the pursuit of consensus. This
begins with rhetoric because, as the reading puts it, rhetoric is “the power of finding the available
arguments suited to a given situation” and it is used “to make decisions, resolve disputes, and to
mediate public discussion of important issues” (Crowley & Hawhee, 1). However, in our current society,
disagreeing with someone on societal matters is considered bad manners. I’ve experienced this myself
several times, but one that really comes to mind is when in grade 12, I had two teachers who had
opinions most wouldn’t. While one of them, Mr. A shared some of his thoughts, but kept himself
restrained, the other, Mr. B, often went on tangents about his opinions. While they both encouraged
discussion, no one was willing to engage because there was one socially acceptable opinion and the two
were straying from it. I found that a lot of students felt Mr. A could work on his etiquette, but the vast
majority of students disliked Mr. B because they felt that he was rude. This goes to show that a variety of
arguments are no longer valued or accepted, and the simple existence of your unpopular opinions can
have you labelled as insolent. This can largely be attributed to our society’s inability to detach opinions
from identity.
As a teacher, Mr. B excelled because he was able to capture his student’s attention and ensure
that he was always ready with a helping hand when they needed it. However, this attribute was eclipsed
by his unfavoured opinions because as the reading mentions, “we tend to link people’s opinions to their
identities” (Crowley & Hawhee, 2). The students viewed him as having an identity that fundamentally did
3
not share the same morals as them and this made them lose respect for him. Personally, this didn’t make
sense to me because I had faced a shift in opinions numerous times. The reading also gives an example
by stating that “if Jane got her opinion about abortion from somebody she knows or something she read,
she can modify her opinion when she hears a different opinion from somebody else” (Crowley &
Hawhee, 10). Not only that, but more importantly, because the class had never taken on the challenge of
engaging in discourse with Mr. B, no one knew for a fact why he had the opinions he did. After all, the
same morals with different reasonings can lead to completely different opinions. Alas, this is not a notion
that is widely considered by the masses which leads to individuals becoming social pariahs solely on the
surface-level basis of a voiced opinion with no context.
The utter intolerance of opposing opinions and disagreements has led to major divisions
between people in our society. The reading highlights that “people who are afraid of airing their
differences tend to keep silent when those with whom they disagree are speaking and tend to associate
only with those who agree with them” (Crowley & Hawhee, 3). I observed this when the student
population in my grade split into two. One didn’t mind the teacher’s opinions and might’ve even agreed
with them to a certain extent. The second absolutely despised the teachers and had completely
contradicting opinions. While in our small school this division didn’t have a huge impact on social
dynamics, the same can’t be said when divisions occur on a larger scale. For example, this intolerance for
discussion has led to a rise in victims of “cancel culture” on social media. Celebrities such as Pete
Davidson, a comedian, were boycotted for as little as joking about his substance abuse because some felt
that he was minimizing the dangers of drugs. This divide only grows fiercer when the issue at hand is
social in nature and the lack of dialogue is dangerous because as the reading says, “the fact that rhetoric
originates in disagreement is ultimately a good thing, since its use allows people to make important
choices without resorting to less peaceful means of persuasion such as coercion or violence” (Crowley &
Hawhee, 2). The impact can be seen in the growing presence of violent extremist groups on social media.
4
Ergo, the division of different opinions in society not only stunts the growth of humanity, but also leads
to resentment which eventually presents itself as aggression.
Ultimately, I learned that open minded debates are the basis of democracy and crucial in
ensuring a productive society. Failing to do so can result in steep consequences such as individuals being
isolated for questioning the status quo, and entire populations being divided and hostile towards one
another.
5
Works Cited
Crowley, S., & Hawhee, D. (2012). Ancient rhetorics for contemporary

students. Pearson.
(Crowley & Hawhee)

Reading Response 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reading Response 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reading Response 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

COMMST 111 (003)

judgement and division.

surface-level basis of a voiced opinion with no context.

to resentment which eventually presents itself as aggression.

Crowley, S., & Hawhee, D. (2012). Ancient rhetorics for contemporary

(Crowley & Hawhee)

You might also like