Booth's obsession with implementing effective Rhet-Ed is intense, especially when he mentions the ideal island in which the very course of a citizen's life is dictated by all things rhetoric. While speaking and writing well (in addition to developing strong LR) are important, the world of education is far from that ideal. Booth himself mentions the "cutting of music and art programs, reduction in physical education opportunities..."(90). While I don't mean to discount the importance of rhetoric, it seems that a society in which physical education and fitness were prized above all else would produce healthier, happier and more productive citizens, even more so than rhetoric. There is too much academia in schools. More music, art, creative expression and yes, engaging rhetoric, would be excellent assets.
It's simply not true that more money will make for better education and schools. While my school district was affluent and recognized as outstanding, I found my school years, elementary through high school, to be what Booth describes as "a meaningless, even hateful imposition of hours in a nasty, over-crowded, pleasure-free environment to be escaped whenever possible"(91). Only when pursuing music, art, physical education or even engaging debates, did school seem tolerable. I ask, then, is it possible to get students excited about the potential of LR? Can a classroom really provide the environment in which to do that? How can we erase the apahy that is so prevalent? Education (standard schooling) has always seemed overrated to me, but ENRICHMENT seems constantly lacking in most school and communities, and it's enrichment that I value most. The best enrichment comes in the form of park district programs and after-school activities.
bell hooks has idealistic ideas as well, though they are reasonably sound and thought-provoking. Just as Booth advocates LR, hooks says "resisting oppression means more than simply reacting against one's oppressors..."(84). Both authors, then, are essentially claiming that people need to listen to one another, and really listen. Doing so will solve a host of problems. When, however, the idea is presented as thinking "OK, so what you're saying is..." images of pre-marriage training come to mind. In my experience, I spent so much energy focusing on remembering what my partner was saying (so I could repeat it as the exercise required) that I wasn't really thinking or engaged in the debate at all. I believe that LR must take place almost subconsciously, in a non-threatening, non-artificial environment. It must be instilled from childhood, presented as a way to handle sibling squabbles, all the way through friendship woes in high school. Instilling this kind of thinking is not easy. Booth and hooks don't provide real concrete answers as far as how to implement their theories. And, quite honestly, "encouraging students to influence the agendas of their classrooms," as hooks says, sounds like a recipe for chaos, in some ways. I asked the question, "then how do you control the bad kids with wise mouths who threaten your authority, the ones who don't want to be there and don't care?" I realize that in asking that question I am assuming my own right to authority as an instructor, and perhaps hooks would answer that I should find ways to engage those students and make them care. Ah, combating apathy! The solution isn't easy. Perhaps the sickening (according to the authors) state of Rhet-Ed is due to apathy. Maybe people don't care enough about issues to engage in effective debate. As is obvious, there are more questions than answers.