Quinn Hecker

Professor Markwardt

WRT 205

6/10/18

Unit 1 Paper

Reflecting on the essays I now have a better understanding of different views and ways of

expressing civil discourse through writing. Examining various aspects of language and practices

in civil discourse, I am “coming to terms” with their arguments, which will enable me to engage

in future constructive conversations.

Before discussing civic discourse, it needs to be defined. In David Cooper’s “Is Civic

Discourse Alive?,” he states civic discourse is “that mode of collective democratic

counsel” (Cooper 2007, 158). It is the way that citizens talk about political issues. However,

Cooper believes discourse does not have a distinct definition; it varies based on the topic,

importance level, speaker and audience. Cooper implies that civic discourse comes from

disagreements among groups of people. Civic discourse is the output of democracy. In Susan

Wells’ “Rogue Cops and Healthcare,” she claims that civic discourse is a conversation - not a

standalone statement. Wells says that civic discourse exists in ‘the public sphere.’ She claims

that the public sphere doesn’t just happen, it can be created, destroyed and can exist anywhere,

any time. In Paula Mathieu and Diana George’s “Not Going It Alone,” they state that civic

discourse is an “individual act, an expression of “personally responsible citizenship" (Johanek

and Puckett 142)” (Mathieu and George 2009,131). Mathieu and George believe we should

teach students that networks of collaboration and community are the key to successful public
writing. I define civic discourse as citizens having intelligent and open minded, two-way

discussions.

Now that civic discourse has been defined, it is easier to discover the possibilities of

participation. Cooper believes if facilitated properly, citizens could participate in civic discourse

at “public institutions - schools, libraries, neighborhood centers, and especially

museums” (Cooper 2007, 163). He claims it is really difficult to participate in civic discourse

because there aren’t enough platforms, and the few are not facilitated properly. Wells believes

scholars and writing teachers need to build this space so that students can learn to take on the

role of a writer. She claims that civic discourse begins in the classroom. Mathieu and George,

on the other hand, believe the outlets already exist; they claim we can participate in civic

discourse through “the alternative press” and “independent public media outlets.” Successful

circulation is achieved through networks of relationships; successful public writing relies on

networks of collaboration and community. A written work will end as such if it is not publicized

through the proper medium. I believe civic discourse can occur anywhere. There are an

unlimited number of platforms for meaningful conversations, many of them are just not used

productively. How can we participate in civic discourse? Have an open mind.

Cooper states the purpose of civic discourse is to enable citizens to involve themselves in

democracy. “We have a problem. We need to talk about it” (Cooper 2007, 158). Cooper believes

that talking about our problems will help us solve them. Wells indicates the purpose of civic

discourse is to speak our mind; she says if we want a public sphere in which to speak our mind,

we must create it. Mathieu and George’s opinion is that the purpose of civic discourse is to

discuss local issues, create meaningful public rhetoric, create a “responsive public” (Mathieu and
George 2009, 130) and so that the “ordinary” are not powerless. I believe that the purpose of

civic discourse is communication, open-mindedness, compromise, and mutual respect. This

concept is the base of democracy. The goal is so an informed citizen can participate in politics

and vote regularly.

Although this concept sounds like a good plan, it is very difficult to achieve. Cooper says

citizens do not understand where opportunities to practice civic discourses can be found. Cooper

asks, “Where can citizens find good opportunities to practice civic discourses and conduct the

work of reasoning together?” (Cooper 2007) However, I believe we are surrounded by the

answer. In the high speed technological world in which we live, we have an infinite amount of

technologically based information sources at our fingertips. The real problem is that we do not

use these resources in a productive manner. Calling a place a ‘democratic state’ is not enough to

keep civic discourse alive; civic discourse will not survive if people are not involved or are

uneducated. Civic discourse requires empathy and transparency to survive. Separately, Cooper

states our public institutions do not properly facilitate civic discourses. Wells, on the other hand,

believes civic discourse is difficult to achieve because teachers don’t see that “the classroom

itself can be seen as a version of the public” (Wells 1996, 338). Similarly, Mathieu and George

think “most writing teachers [have] a lack of "contextual/historical understanding" of public

writing” (131). Teachers often focus solely on the composing and not on the delivery.

Separately, they believe civic discourse is difficult to achieve because the media is saturated with

“fake news” and it is often difficult to decipher the difference. I believe people think they want

free speech, but they only want free speech if it confirms the ideas they already have. Everyone

thinks that they are open-minded. However, if people are only open-minded to those with the
same view as their own, they are not engaging in intelligent and open minded, two-way

discussions. What I believe social media is lacking as a potential media for civic discourse and

community engagement is participation. As aforementioned, there are so many platforms for

meaningful conversations, yet they are not used productively. Social media could be used for

civil discourse, yet comments are made without thoughtful contemplation and are also often

anonymous. Although civic discourse is the result of democracy, it is not the sole ingredient;

there must be a standard of intelligence, understanding and interest in the community.

Calling America a democratic state does not mean the nation is purely democratic or that

all people have a voice. There are various significant topics we should be debating - however we

are more interested in pop culture. For example, the top five trending stories, news headlines

and viral stories on June 3rd 2018 are 1 - “Why newscasters across the US are all obsessed with

the same $20 dress”, 2 - “What to watch on Netflix right now: Best movies and TV shows this

month”, 3 - “This Detroit mansion is the most insane house you'll ever see — and it's for sale”, 4

- “Here are 5 things you might not know about Mister Rogers” and 5 - “Tom Cruise feels the

need to tell us that a ‘Top Gun’ sequel is finally happening.” The nation could be purely

democratic if all people took part in meaningful civic discourse. The unfortunate reality is that

the majority of citizens do not engage in this behavior.

Above, I defined civic discourse as citizens having intelligent and open minded, two-way

discussions. It can happen anywhere. There are an unlimited number of platforms for

meaningful conversations, which could be used productively if people could be taught how to

properly do so. I believe I learn the most about myself through hearing someone else’s point of

view. There is immense value in being open to hearing different perspectives.

 Works Cited

Cooper, David. “Is Civic Discourse Still Alive?” Museums & Social Issues, vol. 2, no. 2, 2007,

pp. 157–163., doi:10.1179/msi.2007.2.2.157.

Mathieu, Paula, and Diana George. “"Not" Going It Alone: Public Writing, Independent Media,

and the Circulation of Homeless Advocacy.” College Composition and Communication

61.1 (2009): 130-149. Print.

“Trending.” TODAY.com, Msnbc.com Contributor, www.today.com/trending.

Wells, Susan. “Rogue Cops and Health Care: What Do We Want from Public Writing?” College

Composition and Communication, vol. 47, no. 3, 1996, p. 325., doi:10.2307/358292.