-->
In the linked article Arnold Kling distinguishes between two
modes of political discourse: persuasion mode versus demonization mode.
In
persuasion mode, we treat people on the other side with respect, we listen to
their logical and factual presentations, and we respond with logical and
factual presentations of our own. In demonization mode, we tell anyone who will
listen that people on the other side are awful human beings.
Later in the article Kling poses the following reasons why
we tend to demonize people who disagree with us politically.
As
individuals, we seek to minimize cognitive dissonance. It troubles me to
believe that there are good reasons for people to disagree with my views. The
dissonance goes away if I can dismiss those who disagree as driven solely by
bad motives.
As
social creatures, we are motivated to demonstrate loyalty to our tribe. Demonizing
people of other tribes is a way of doing this.
Why have we devolved into demonization as our default mode
of discussion? (How about that for alliteration?) Kling thinks its tied to how
the mainstream news media.
As
best I recall, fifty years ago, more of the commentary in newspapers,
magazines, television, and radio was in persuasion mode, and less of it was in
demonization mode. But in recent decades Rush Limbaugh discovered that
demonization could appeal to a mass audience and Paul Krugman discovered that
demonization could appeal to the readers of the New York Times.
While I agree with Kling that despite our ability to reason
objectively we still harbor deep-seated tribal instincts that can challenge or
at times over-ride our objectivity. I would argue that the influence of
postmodern philosophy makes it even harder for some people to maintain their objectivity
or makes it easier for them to succumb to primitive, tribal forces.
What is postmodernism? For a detailed explanation and
analysis please refer to Stephen Hicks Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and
Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault. Based on his study of postmodern writing
he extracts the following summary. Warning: the quoted paragraph is long and
uses philosophical terms but I think it’s worth plowing through it to get to
Hicks’ main points.
Metaphysically,
postmodernism is anti-realist, holding that it is impossible to speak
meaningfully about an independently existing reality. Postmodernism substitutes
instead a social-linguistic, constructionist account of reality. Epistemologically, having rejected the
notion of an independently existing reality, postmodernism denies that reason
or any other method is a means of acquiring objective knowledge of that
reality. Having substituted social-linguistic constructs for that reality,
postmodernism emphasizes the subjectivity, conventionality, and
incommensurability of those constructions. Postmodern accounts of human nature are consistently
collectivist, holding that individuals’ identities are constructed largely by
the social-linguistic groups that they are a part of, those groups varying radically
across the dimensions of sex, race, ethnicity, and wealth. Postmodern accounts
of human nature also consistently emphasize relations of conflict between those
groups; and given the de-emphasized or eliminated role of reason, post-modern
accounts hold that those conflicts are resolved primarily by the use of force,
whether masked or naked; the use of force in turn leads to relations of
dominance, submission, and oppression. Finally, postmodern themes in ethics and politics are characterized by
an identification with and sympathy for the groups perceived to be oppressed in
the conflicts, and a willingness to enter the fray on their behalf.
Let’s see if I can digest Hick’s ideas a bit further. Before
doing that I need to touch on his description of modernism, the philosophical
outlook that preceded postmodernism. Modernism reflects the Enlightenment in
which thinkers agreed that there is an objective reality and that we have the
ability to reason from the facts to sound, objective conclusions that we can
defend and explain.
Postmodernism then fundamentally disagrees with the
modernist, Enlightenment worldview. If, as postmodernists claim, that we can’t
forge objective conclusions about the world then “truth” belongs to the winner
of the inevitable resulting power struggle. And unfortunately that means we’re
free to treat people who disagree with us as sub-human demons because they
threaten our grasp on the reins of power and they’re considered agents
of oppression so it’s OK to ignore or even silence those who disagree.
No comments:
Post a Comment