reflections on "democratic classroom"

The panel discussion in last nights class was helpful in bringing to light some new insight into pedagogy and classroom dynamics. (I would be interested in hearing a critique of democracy as an ideal for a classroom, there is bound to be one out there?) My thoughts focused around the idea of apathy and the meaning of silence in the classroom. Julie proposed that silence in response to the teachers questions, may be related to socialized apathy that American students grow up into. While I would agree that this is a distinct possibility, I would add that I think there is also a sense of overwhelming that happens when asked a question (especially a broad open-ended one) by a faculty member. In our current info-glut culture, which is getting more obese by globalization it might be hard to say anything that trivializes or does justice to the topic discussed. The best word I can think of for this is cacophony. Wikipedia defines it this way:

(from the Greek word kakophonia - kakos (bad) + phoni (voice, sound)) refers to sound that is harsh and unpleasant-sounding. The opposite of cacophony is euphony, meaning musical and pleasant. The closely related term dissonance implies a combination of sounds which clash; its antonym, harmony, suggests sounds that fit together well. Dissonance and harmony have musical connotations whereas cacophony and euphony more often refer to speech.

This seems to accurately describe what it is like to be a student (even for me as a grad student, not to mention college freshman and sophomores). It seems that part of what a democratic classroom is points to cacophony as a good tool for learning. This may be the case, but I wonder where does the music come from? Or, is there any possibility of coherence, for students to actually make sense of the world, rather than just being asked to inhabit a space that is forever contested? Some of the responses Matt is hearing that sound unoriginal seem to be students mechanism to cope with the cacophony of mass media, current politics, and their worldviews that have developed up to that point. It seems harsh (even "violence to the other") to ask students to abandon a place to stand, even if a critique of that place can be made.
Added to this is Garrison's idea of democratic listening which says that we can't help but stand somewhere. Each place has its own sort of biases, prejudices and assumptions, but it is a real place, rather that the "no place" (utopia) that is the pursuit of objectivity. So, in a true Gandhian sense, how do we bring about a classroom that is non-violent while also allowing each person to be respected, heard, critiqued, and questioned?
On a final note, my response to Katrina is mostly silence. I would hope that this is not socialized apathy. Rather I think that it goes to my sense of the magnitude of a reality that is bigger than the language I have at my disposal. It is likely to turn something big into a small problem that can be solved mentally and stored away (This is the sort of response you get in the headline news- Hotel Rwanda and Ben Harper's song "Please Don't Talk About Murder While I'm Eating" speak well to this). A great example of this is Kanye West's national response that "Bush hates black people." While this may be the case, it in someway trivializes and invalidate those that have experience Katrina first hand. It does more violence, rather than trying to work toward healing and restoration. Maybe apathy, stoicism, and numbness are the only real responses to the cacophony of the world we live in. I hope not, but I understand it- it is part of the milieu that I move through on a daily basis. The democratic classroom ought to be a place where we find out how things connect, how to make sense of the fragments that we are left holding. If not, then maybe the only human response is-----silence.