this kind of polarized talking past each other, and 'at' each other,
instead of 'to' each other, is not unique to Virginia <ahem>
Or is this another example of same?
Nancy
-------
I was never lost, but I was bewildered once for three days.
--Daniel Boone
On Feb 26, 2007, at 8:42 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> In my experience, liberals as well as conservatives have
> generated "buzz" from hot-button, emotional issues. My
> conservative friends make precisely the same kind of
> accusation about the motives and tactics of their opponents as
> do my liberal friends--they just point to different anecdotes
> and different examples.
>
> I think that numerous contributers to this particular
> discussion have indulged in various kinds of rhetorical
> fallacies, including sweeping generalizations, straw man
> arguments, and ad hominem attacks. This kind of rhetoric is
> incompatible with civil, not to mention civic discourse. It
> does, however, mirror and mimic the rhetoric of much of the
> Virginian public sphere prevalent today. Who can blame the
> people who argue irresponsibly here, given that they are
> simply replicating the dubious strategies of public discourse
> modelled in so many other places in Virginia?
>
> It seems to me that in Virginia, a lot of what passes for
> public political discourse consists of groups of likeminded
> people complaining to folk who are in fundamental agreement
> with them about what wicked, mean-spirited people those are
> who disagree. Whether its liberal bloggers talking to other
> liberal bloggers, or conservatives complaining on talk radio
> to other conservatives, the function of the conversation is to
> firm up boundaries, and to demonize enemies, rather than to
> advance any kind of civic compromise. Isn't this the kind of
> thing that the Founders talked about, when they worried about
> the evils of faction? Would anyone now be willing to defend
> Madison's optimistic diagnosis for the ills of faction that he
> defended in Federalist 10 and 51?
>
> The conservative University of Virginia sociologist James
> Davison Hunter has analyzed the "culture wars" of the 1980s
> and 1990s in two superb books: Before the Shooting Begins
> (1994) and Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America
> (1991). Taken together, they remain hair-raising analyses of
> the importance of sustaining a civil civic discourse. As
> Hunter notes, a necessary precondition for civil violence is
> the widespread willingness of one faction to demonize those
> thom they ascribe as "other." When we walk into a
> conversation expecting that those liberal (or conservative)
> "lying liars" will once again be seeking opportunities to
> distort the truth in favor of their illegitimate and wicked
> agendas, it is very hard to have any sort of constructive
> discourse. There has been way too much demonization going on
> in this conversation.
>
> I have suggested in an earlier post that the
> self-righteousness inherent in that kind of conversation is,
> by the standards of reformed Christianity, deeply suspect. I
> do not doubt the sincerity of those who have posted on this
> topic, but I do question the prudence of much of their
> rhetoric. The civic disfunction that our country is currently
> undergoing should be disturbing to everyone on this list-serv.
> What possible good can come of bringing that disfunction to
> this conversation?
>
> All best,
> Kevin
> Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
> Department of History
> James Madison University
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
