Illegal Immigration: About as Public in “Public Discourse” as it gets

just another sample from one of my College Composition classes

Eric Shomo

Inquiry 4 Reflection

Alyssa Straight

3 November 2011

Illegal Immigration: About as Public in “Public Discourse” as it gets

            Life, and everything that makes it public, is ridden with social and political disagreements.  There are many topics that I could have written about to express this notion.  However, our group got together and decided that illegal immigration was one of the most suitable topics regarding public discourse.  Public discourse involves explaining subject matter not only to people who are educated about the topic, but also to those who know little to nothing about the topic.  And that is the point �" to engage and envelop them in the conversation that entails publicity.  That having been said, the rules to the conversation change when the matter at hand indeed becomes public rather than just keeping an exchange of ideas between two people, or even a documented response by one person.

            It came to my realization that it is very easy to gather ideas and opinions about a particular topic, but it is much harder to express these views in a way in which other people would not be offended.  A vital part of public discourse is having mutual respect for the person with whom the argument is taking place.  But there comes a time when respectful, neutral comments become invalidated in the public discourse spectrum.  Part of generating a constant argument and expanding on that argument is having differing opinions.  It was clear on our forum site that many people had different opinions regarding how illegal immigration should be dealt with.  This created much more excitement on the page.

            Another important aspect of our topic was that it was very broad.  This allowed our group members, as well as people viewing the forum, to take varying views on the issue.  I also noticed a sense of responsibility among the people who were posting.  There was not any vulgar language or disrespect from what I saw, which led me to believe that despite the topic being a heavy issue, there was a certain level of respect even between people who argued and debated the issue.  Nevertheless, if there were any hostile feelings towards other individuals’ comments on the site, it would totally alter the role of public discourse.  This is because discourse and civility go hand-in-hand.  Without civility, the objective of public discourse is lost.

            Something else I gained from the experience was that despite the obvious differences suggested by the multiple critical responses of viewers, there was one common objective portrayed by all participants.  This common theme was a hope to engage in a communal task �" to educate, not rip each other apart and seek out vengeance on people who disagree with a particular comment.  And I think that is why people keep returning to public forum sites such as Topix (which we used for our project).  It is very different from other closed forums because the whole world is capable of viewing any individual’s statements.  The idea or opinion resides with the same source, the same person, but on a public forum it becomes subject to critique and a whole other level of analysis as opposed to a private, closed forum such as Niihka.

            Before this project, I was completely unaware of what public discourse even meant.  However, my experience has enabled me to not only understand what the term means, but also to reflect about how it is used in every-day situations.  I can say that my definition of public discourse would be this: it is a method of communication that revolves around important issues and involves the opinions of multiple people who hold different views and wish to gain further education regarding the issue at hand.  But the key element is that all of this is done publicly and with mutual respect for others’ input.

            The issues that public discourse presents are not all solvable.  However, when people come together and bring their resolutions to the public sphere, it allows them to become more educated, more understanding, and (perhaps more importantly) it allows for debate to become more tolerable.  It puts ideas into people’s heads that maybe they once did not even think to think of.  In my experience, public discourse is more than just typing a bunch of words and publishing them in front of millions of viewers.  It is experiencing and encountering what it means to hold an opinion on a more public level, as well as taking to heart and valuing the opinions of others in respect to argumentation and debate.

            In conclusion, public discourse engages those who disagree with the topic, but just as much so for those who agree with the topic.  No one person can honestly be content with providing unreasoned support for their arguments in a public environment.  That is what truly makes public discourse effective.  It involves a communal effort from the audience to provide plausible explanations and opinions that tempt to create heated (yet somehow respectful) discussion, no matter what the topic at hand may be.