Thursday, February 27, 2014
Letters from Garcia: Extreme Writing Polarizes & Does Little Good
Letters from Garcia: Extreme Writing Polarizes & Does Little Good: Recently I've been a little concern with the kind of extreme verbal fights that are now common in the internet and which often promote t...
Extreme Writing Polarizes & Does Little Good
Recently I've been a little concern with the kind of extreme verbal fights that are now common in the internet and which often promote themselves as discussions or intellectual critiques. Today, anyone, including people who should know better, write in extreme forms, accusing anyone with whom they disagree of somehow being sick, evil, or idiots. These accusations are usually misinformed and very counterproductive.
Now, let me state right off that I am not talking about expressing radical politics or even radical ideas. While those might be seen as extreme most "legitimate" radical ideas have a long history and have been created over a period of time. They might not work and they too might create polarization but for the most part they must be acknowledged to have come out of experience and much thought. But not so extreme writing, which in today's world is usually an accusation, followed by name calling, and then a refusal to entertain a different point of view. Most of the time, this extreme writing is written by frustrated individuals who search the internet for things they disagree with, and who then feel empowered because they can say things from a distance and win their arguments because they bring the argument into their facebook or tweeter space and thus control--including the power to delete--what is said. These people present themselves as rather enlightened and use (self)righteous indignation as a source of authority for their views.
Like calling out "fire" or asking "when did you stop abusing your spouse" the damage is done even before the debate has begun or the evidence has been presented. Neither side of the political divide has a monopoly on this kind of extreme writing but the reality is that most people who engage in this kind of communication rarely ever represent any kind of reasoned or thought out philosophy, political or otherwise.
I consider myself to have once been a strong proponent of the left and I have the history to prove it, but even at the height of my radicalism I did not buy into extreme speech, writing or action. I always saw extreme expression, and still do, as the work of people with small minds who cannot conjure up the words, sentences or actions that express a sane though possibly radical view point.
I remember being involved in a political campaign for a Chicano third-party that was running against entrenched interests. We were in a tight race when a fellow right out of law school joined our community and "our side". I remember driving with him one day to put up some political posters when he jumped out of the car to rip the posters of one of the political opponents. He also had a habit of making disparaging personal remarks about the opposition, and was always critical of those of us who didn't.
We had an underground newspaper which was well-respected in the community. In many ways it provided a more radical assessment of the political situation than was normal in that slightly conservative community, but people respected the well-written and insightful analysis, and because for the most part even our satire had its limits and was in good taste.
This fellow, a friend of some of the older activists, became critical because we did not engage in what he called "chingaderas" which is a vulgar terms for no-holds bar personal attacks.
When I see or hear extreme language I'm always reminded of him because in the end he proved divisive and helped destroyed what had taken us years to develop in terms of community support and respect, activist solidarity and because when the going got tough he simply dropped out and went on to a lucrative law practice, leaving behind a devastated group of community organizers who saw their hard-fought work destroyed by extreme rhetoric and behavior.
Today, we have individuals who are ready to attack anything that they don't agree with, and to make personal attacks even if they don't know the person. The sadder part of this is that even professionals that should know better have taken up this approach to discussion and debates in the public square. This type of attitude is legitimized by television networks that engage in the same type of extreme speech though they might have to clean up the language a bit to be on the air. On the right, you have Fox News and on the left you have MSNBC. Yet, neither of them are really a "radical" voice because they offer no real blueprint for a fairer society, only platitudes for their political side. With few exceptions they simply engage in politic and ideological bomb throwing, thus, we get no real conversations.
Intellectuals and writers should think about what they do when they enter the debate on one side or another. Given their abilities to speak or to write they should make sure they are not sucked into endless lamentations and personal attacks. Any good conservative or leftist should be able to see that this country's political debate is one among high paid elites who despite their rhetoric do very little for the guy and woman at the bottom of the barrel, and who offer no way to resolve our problems or bring our people together.
Being thoughtful and mature in the way we use our words does not mean we compromise on principles or that we are not willing to wage the kind of rhetorical war that sometimes is needed to make change. It simply means that we are open about how we see things, that we acknowledge that the opposition sometimes has some validity in what it says even if they say it in a misguided way or for selfish reasons. When conservatives say that all people receiving government aid are leechers or when liberals says that all poor people are desperately looking to get off welfare, they are both wrong. Those of us who actually live on the ground, who have normal people for friends, and who can walk and chew gum at the same time know that not all people leech but that there are some who do.
When I began writing I said that I would try to write from the ground up, that I would admit when my politics and ideals were wrong or did not work, and that I would articulate a message that people understood even if they disagreed with. I was going to allow life to actually complicate my writing and thinking and to teach me something I did not already know.
While often critical and sometimes petty I have also been willing to swallow my pride and admit publicly when I'm wrong because I have set out to be like the people I grew up admiring who knew how to own up to their mistakes. I also learned a great lesson while young and that was to listen to your elders, respect those who have more experience and training, but be willing to pushback when you think they are wrong. But first listen and respect. Today, many of the internet vipers are usually young who think they know much, or old who still think they are young intellectuals. Most are naïve, idealistic but with a critical strain and most are disappointingly quite self-righteous. They don't listen to arguments but only "detect" words and phrases that automatically trigger a response, and they are good at demonizing those with whom they disagree, calling them "idiots" or some other derogatory name.
The "scholarly and intellectual community" has helped create these creatures by becoming excessively "deconstructionist" and obsessively into conclusions even when the jury is still out on a matter. I'm reminded of the Chicano intellectual Octavio Romano who use to say that academic scholars were mostly "mercenaries" who marginalized people by constantly pointing out their flaws. They were the ones who often dichotomize people branding some of them good and others as not so good.
Don't get me wrong, I believe there is a lot of nonsense that is paraded around as in depth and serious thinking, and sometimes it is a temptation to push back, but to do so at every instance and immediately after reading every disagreeable post is to engage in what is an illusional discussion with no ground rules and too much personal capital involved. It is a snake pit where there is little possibility of escaping with dignity.
I lament that we cannot disagree without being disagreeable and that we cannot see beyond our ideologies, religion, personal quirks or politics. I am distraught by our unwillingness to listen, to asses an argument, and rebut the bad points while acknowledging that there are things that we have overlooked or have not dealt with adequately. I know that civility can often create asymmetric ground rules to the advantage of the status quo, but nonetheless a good argument can often expose the fallacy of those whose thinking is murky and unwise. We may not win the debate but our well chosen words can leave a testament to what is wrong with the other side's views that eventually others will pick up to carry on the battle.
The internet has the possibility of creating a real democratic public square where even the lowliest of us can participate, but so often it simply creates a forum for the most extreme, arrogant and unwise voices in our society.
Now, let me state right off that I am not talking about expressing radical politics or even radical ideas. While those might be seen as extreme most "legitimate" radical ideas have a long history and have been created over a period of time. They might not work and they too might create polarization but for the most part they must be acknowledged to have come out of experience and much thought. But not so extreme writing, which in today's world is usually an accusation, followed by name calling, and then a refusal to entertain a different point of view. Most of the time, this extreme writing is written by frustrated individuals who search the internet for things they disagree with, and who then feel empowered because they can say things from a distance and win their arguments because they bring the argument into their facebook or tweeter space and thus control--including the power to delete--what is said. These people present themselves as rather enlightened and use (self)righteous indignation as a source of authority for their views.
Like calling out "fire" or asking "when did you stop abusing your spouse" the damage is done even before the debate has begun or the evidence has been presented. Neither side of the political divide has a monopoly on this kind of extreme writing but the reality is that most people who engage in this kind of communication rarely ever represent any kind of reasoned or thought out philosophy, political or otherwise.
I consider myself to have once been a strong proponent of the left and I have the history to prove it, but even at the height of my radicalism I did not buy into extreme speech, writing or action. I always saw extreme expression, and still do, as the work of people with small minds who cannot conjure up the words, sentences or actions that express a sane though possibly radical view point.
I remember being involved in a political campaign for a Chicano third-party that was running against entrenched interests. We were in a tight race when a fellow right out of law school joined our community and "our side". I remember driving with him one day to put up some political posters when he jumped out of the car to rip the posters of one of the political opponents. He also had a habit of making disparaging personal remarks about the opposition, and was always critical of those of us who didn't.
We had an underground newspaper which was well-respected in the community. In many ways it provided a more radical assessment of the political situation than was normal in that slightly conservative community, but people respected the well-written and insightful analysis, and because for the most part even our satire had its limits and was in good taste.
This fellow, a friend of some of the older activists, became critical because we did not engage in what he called "chingaderas" which is a vulgar terms for no-holds bar personal attacks.
When I see or hear extreme language I'm always reminded of him because in the end he proved divisive and helped destroyed what had taken us years to develop in terms of community support and respect, activist solidarity and because when the going got tough he simply dropped out and went on to a lucrative law practice, leaving behind a devastated group of community organizers who saw their hard-fought work destroyed by extreme rhetoric and behavior.
Today, we have individuals who are ready to attack anything that they don't agree with, and to make personal attacks even if they don't know the person. The sadder part of this is that even professionals that should know better have taken up this approach to discussion and debates in the public square. This type of attitude is legitimized by television networks that engage in the same type of extreme speech though they might have to clean up the language a bit to be on the air. On the right, you have Fox News and on the left you have MSNBC. Yet, neither of them are really a "radical" voice because they offer no real blueprint for a fairer society, only platitudes for their political side. With few exceptions they simply engage in politic and ideological bomb throwing, thus, we get no real conversations.
Intellectuals and writers should think about what they do when they enter the debate on one side or another. Given their abilities to speak or to write they should make sure they are not sucked into endless lamentations and personal attacks. Any good conservative or leftist should be able to see that this country's political debate is one among high paid elites who despite their rhetoric do very little for the guy and woman at the bottom of the barrel, and who offer no way to resolve our problems or bring our people together.
Being thoughtful and mature in the way we use our words does not mean we compromise on principles or that we are not willing to wage the kind of rhetorical war that sometimes is needed to make change. It simply means that we are open about how we see things, that we acknowledge that the opposition sometimes has some validity in what it says even if they say it in a misguided way or for selfish reasons. When conservatives say that all people receiving government aid are leechers or when liberals says that all poor people are desperately looking to get off welfare, they are both wrong. Those of us who actually live on the ground, who have normal people for friends, and who can walk and chew gum at the same time know that not all people leech but that there are some who do.
When I began writing I said that I would try to write from the ground up, that I would admit when my politics and ideals were wrong or did not work, and that I would articulate a message that people understood even if they disagreed with. I was going to allow life to actually complicate my writing and thinking and to teach me something I did not already know.
While often critical and sometimes petty I have also been willing to swallow my pride and admit publicly when I'm wrong because I have set out to be like the people I grew up admiring who knew how to own up to their mistakes. I also learned a great lesson while young and that was to listen to your elders, respect those who have more experience and training, but be willing to pushback when you think they are wrong. But first listen and respect. Today, many of the internet vipers are usually young who think they know much, or old who still think they are young intellectuals. Most are naïve, idealistic but with a critical strain and most are disappointingly quite self-righteous. They don't listen to arguments but only "detect" words and phrases that automatically trigger a response, and they are good at demonizing those with whom they disagree, calling them "idiots" or some other derogatory name.
The "scholarly and intellectual community" has helped create these creatures by becoming excessively "deconstructionist" and obsessively into conclusions even when the jury is still out on a matter. I'm reminded of the Chicano intellectual Octavio Romano who use to say that academic scholars were mostly "mercenaries" who marginalized people by constantly pointing out their flaws. They were the ones who often dichotomize people branding some of them good and others as not so good.
Don't get me wrong, I believe there is a lot of nonsense that is paraded around as in depth and serious thinking, and sometimes it is a temptation to push back, but to do so at every instance and immediately after reading every disagreeable post is to engage in what is an illusional discussion with no ground rules and too much personal capital involved. It is a snake pit where there is little possibility of escaping with dignity.
I lament that we cannot disagree without being disagreeable and that we cannot see beyond our ideologies, religion, personal quirks or politics. I am distraught by our unwillingness to listen, to asses an argument, and rebut the bad points while acknowledging that there are things that we have overlooked or have not dealt with adequately. I know that civility can often create asymmetric ground rules to the advantage of the status quo, but nonetheless a good argument can often expose the fallacy of those whose thinking is murky and unwise. We may not win the debate but our well chosen words can leave a testament to what is wrong with the other side's views that eventually others will pick up to carry on the battle.
The internet has the possibility of creating a real democratic public square where even the lowliest of us can participate, but so often it simply creates a forum for the most extreme, arrogant and unwise voices in our society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)