Posted on

The Coarse In Our Discourse

It’s Not Just Unpleasant

One of the areas where we as a people are constantly lowering the bar is in the nature and quality of our discourse. The trend is having a direct and negative impact on the quality of our lives. Whether in person or from afar, whether spoken or in writing, and whether the writing be letters, emails, texts, or tweets, how we communicate with one another is declining before our very eyes and ears.

Whether you’re driving, standing on line at a store, listening to the radio, talking to a friend, or trying to get through a family gathering, it seems to be everywhere: dopey slogans in place of insight; personal insults rather than cogent argument; arrogance teaming up with ignorance (a terrible combination); misleading or misrepresented information; and coarseness or profanity where wit and humor would better serve. Manners, honesty, respect and humility seem in short supply.

All who disagree with me are not just wrong; they’re stupid. And their stupid opinion is typical of people like them. (See “Us vs. Them” post of 2/19/19.) In fact, they’re not just stupid. They’re evil.

What matters, it seems, is not that we arrive at the best possible solution; it’s that my side “win”. Whatever it takes to win is worth it. Here’s the thing about exaggeration, spin, prevarication, selective memory, and outright lies: if we must resort to these, something is wrong with our position. The same is true for corruption, threats, intimidation, coercion and personal attacks.

The Power to Persuade

Few books read in college made as big an impression as Richard Neustadt’s 1960 classic, Presidential Power. So much so that I cite its thesis here decades later. Of all the president’s powers, Neustadt says, the most important is the power to persuade.

One example that particularly resonated was Eisenhower’s sending of federal troops to desegregate schools in Little Rock. On the surface this would seem to be the act of a powerful president. The need for troops actually was an indication of weakness, however; a truly powerful president would have needed no more than phone calls with Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus. (Sidebar: In addition to the book Presidential Power, I recommend the recording “Fables of Faubus” by Charles Mingus.)

In my experience, Neustadt’s point has considerable merit and goes well beyond presidential power. It would be naïve to ignore the impact money and the threat of force can have on decision-making. Over time, however, what matters most is the idea that persuades.

Calling someone an idiot is not persuasive; calling him or her a complete [expletive] idiot is even less so. Never once in my life when two people were arguing a point, and one of them calls the other an idiot, has the other said “You know what? You’re right. I’m wrong. I am an idiot to think that.” No, usually it sounds something like this: “Idiot!” “Moron!” “Jerk!” “Asshole!”….and so on. The two vow never to speak again; at least that’s marginally better than having fisticuffs ensue.

If the energy for name-calling is lacking, it can go more like this: Someone makes an interesting, cogent point and the other party dismisses it with “Whatever!”

The Importance of the Quality of our Rhetoric

I’m puzzled by much of what I hear debated. Take for example the battle between suspicion and embrace of the federal government, which goes back to the founding of our republic. If you think the federal government should take over and run everything, you probably have never worked for the federal government. If on the other hand you believe the federal government has no role to play in anything other than national defense and a couple other very limited and specific things, you have not been paying attention. No one is a bigger supporter of our combination of democracy and capitalism than I, but Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand makes mistakes.

Tens of thousands die in the Civil War to banish slavery’s evil blight from our nation and it takes a hundred years – A HUNDRED YEARS! – of Jim Crow before we begin to get it right. If it weren’t for federal legislation (such as the Civil Rights Act) and US Supreme Court cases (like Brown v Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia) it’s hard to imagine where we’d be.

Here’s the thing, though: Two centuries after declaring that all are created equal and one century after the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the law, we actually began behaving as if we meant what we had said. Our behavior began catching up with our rhetoric. It’s an outrage that it took so long, but note how important it is to get first principles – and their articulation – right. What we say about what we believe matters a great deal.

But Wait: Tearing People Apart Can Be Fun

Especially when they deserve it.

Some of the most effective satire ever written uses invective. This goes back at least to Jonathan Swift and Alexander Pope. Extraordinary skill is required, however. The biggest problem with mere name-calling and profanity is not that it’s naughty, but that it almost always lacks content. It’s something to say while we try to think of something to say. It’s easier than thinking and articulating.

When the greats of satire pile on, by contrast, they do so not only to make a point; generally, it is meticulously constructed to be the point. In his Epistle to Augustus, Pope gives his version of satire’s place amid the strife caused among friends and family by taunts that sting:

Hence, Satire rose, that just the medium hit,

And heals with Morals what it hurts with Wit.

So, when our traveling hero in Gulliver’s Travels is told by the king of the giants in Brobdingnag that he is a member of “the most contemptible race of little odious vermin that nature ever suffered to crawl on the face of the earth”, Swift is unloading on his contemporaries. We know this because the passages setting up this moment consist of Gulliver describing to the king in exquisite detail how his society works. The invective is great, but the set-up is what makes it devastating. The matter-of-fact tone with which humanity’s foibles and the king’s assessment are recounted adds tremendously to the satire’s power.  

Passages both before and after also enhance the episode’s impact. The change of scale and perspective from the first voyage encountering the tiny, and small-minded, Lilliputians to the second one visiting the giant Brobdingnagians is loaded with content well beyond the children’s adventure story the book is sometimes taken to be. Swift is not done lambasting the human race at this point of the book, either. The (less remembered) final voyage, comparing the crude, human-like Yahoos to the vastly superior horse-like Houyhnhnms, is even more scathing.

Where does this leave us when it comes to letting deserving targets have it?

  1. Those of us who are the modern Jonathan Swifts, assuming there are any: go for it.
  2. Even for the satiric greats, though, invective is just one of their techniques, and not usually the most effective. Their most telling points are generally made more subtly and artfully with wit and brilliant juxtaposition of circumstance.
  3. While using humor well can be very effective, those of us not in Swift’s class as writers would be better served skipping ad hominem attacks and focusing on the merits of the issues.

Conclusion

Communication is difficult enough when we are trying hard to do it well. We must first have an idea or feeling worth transmitting and turn that content into gesture, language and sound. Then it must be received by the other and transformed into the content intended by the sender. Much can go wrong along the way, under the best of circumstances.

The coarsening of our discourse makes for extraordinarily ineffective communication. When the discussion needed is about really important matters, this is a big deal.

To be clear, this is not about us all being “nice” (although Rodney King’s quote after viewing the horrendous carnage that followed his beating – “I just want to say…can we all get along?” – has always struck me as a hallmark of lucidity and wisdom). Above all, it is not about “giving in” or abandoning beliefs and principles.

To spell out a few suggested takeaways:

  1. If we care about our issues as much as we pretend, we should be willing to discuss them on the merits, rather than taking the lazy way out so prevalent in our current discourse.
  2. If we care about each other, we should want to discuss important matters with respect for each other and some humility regarding ourselves.
  3. Ruined Thanksgiving dinners and broken friendships are bad enough, but there is enough at stake with the issues that polarize, and the next election looming, for us to insist that we all do better.

Now, I can’t believe I’m putting this in writing and then posting it for all to read, but sometimes I’m actually wrong about something – or someone. Sometimes I learn from listening to someone with whom I disagree. More subtly, sometimes my position strengthens or gains in nuance for having recognized that the other side has a point. Sometimes my supposed adversary and I realize that our interests are not diametrically opposed in a zero-sum game (4/2/19 post).

Woe to any candidate for any office who has no sense of this, who wants to win for the sake of winning, and who has too little regard for us (or the office in question) to bother seeking our support through persuasion.

Ken Bossong

© 2019 Kenneth J. Bossong

Posted on

Us vs. Them

It’s those people; you know, Them. They’re the problem.

Something said as often as this – indeed, sometimes simply assumed without saying – is worth examining. Of course, we’re really motivated to think about it when the speaker is pointing a finger in our faces and saying “It’s you people. You’re the problem.”

It’s Us versus Them. While divisiveness is becoming our national pastime, it’s nothing new. Worse, perhaps, but not new. We seek to be part of an Us, and there must be a Them for there to be an Us. It’s less fun on the receiving end, being one of Them.

Collaboration

Let’s start with what the issue is not: collaboration. Human beings combine efforts to accomplish things, including survival. Whether a team, a community, a movement in the arts, a profession, or any number of other undertakings, being a contributing part of something greater than oneself can be a highlight of one’s life.

Obviously, there is nothing wrong with like-minded individuals gathering to pursue common interests (unless there is something wrong with those common interests, of course). Indeed, it’s how things get done and, every now and then, how greatness is achieved.

It does not have to be the ’27 Yankees or John Coltrane’s Classic Quartet for greatness to be within reach, either. We recognize the kind of Us we admire in a community group raising enough money for a child to receive necessary treatment, a team of fire fighters saving lives, or a staff keeping a business afloat despite adverse circumstances through hard work and skill.

Competition

As a fan of all the major sports, and not just at the professional level (high school basketball is one of the great entertainment bargains anywhere), I’m not the one to decry competition. Healthy, spirited competition pushes participants to greater heights. And, in general, no one better appreciates the effort it takes to strive to be the best than the similarly motivated opponent. Fans are sometimes surprised when intense rivals end up friends, but they needn’t be.

Urban blues reached some of its highest heights in the Blues clubs of ’50s and ’60s Chicago. A bit of Social Darwinism was involved on so-called Blue Monday; bands competed onstage Monday night, and the fans present decided who played there the rest of the week. The losers had to scramble for work, but the brilliance honed by the best of the best made for essential listening in its own right, and inspired rock ‘n’ roll and its “British invasion”.

One of the pillars of capitalism is the idea that competition in the marketplace tends to improve the quality, quantity and price of goods and services, to society’s general benefit. While recognizing it is not perfect, I support our system, but note with chagrin that an area of law called Antitrust is fading away. You may have heard of it. Younger readers, ask your parents or check it out; it’s fascinating.

The problem with Us vs. Them is not in the “versus”, as such.

Where the Problems Lie

Real problems arise in how and why we form the Us and, especially, how the members of each Us regard the Them.

Who is Us and how we form the Us

Consider the sheer number of the kinds of Us each person represents. Within any given conversation, it may be easy to say which group is Us and which is Them. The categories that provide an Us to belong to, however, are limitless, including one’s: ethnic background, religion, race, gender, family, political party, neighborhood, marital status, health, profession, socioeconomic class, education, personality traits, body habitus, lifestyle, and tastes and preferences in just about anything. Any difference will do.

As mentioned above, every Us needs a Them, and all these categories in which we differ are available.

How an Us regards a Them

A critically harmful error often occurs in how the members of an Us regard the Them. Follow the “reasoning” here:
(a) Something must distinguish Us from Them; there is a difference.
(b) If we’re not the same, one must be superior, and that’s gotta be Us.
(c) If we’re not the same, one must be inferior, and that’s gotta be Them.
(d) So, of course, those people are the problem; them. They’re inferior. What do you expect?

In the extreme cases, where humanity runs completely off the rails, it gets worse and goes like this: “They are so inferior, they are barely human…As a matter of a fact, they are not fully human.”

This is no stretch when one contemplates:
(a) the sickeningly effective representation, in the movie Cabaret, of Germany’s descent into evil madness when it became “entertaining” under the Nazis to depict Jews as apes; or
(b) the existence of slavery while the words “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….” were written.

Why we form the Us – and the Them

Even in the less extreme cases, why do we seem to need a Them? Are we so insecure in our self-worth that we need someone, anyone, to feel superior to? (“At least we’re not [_______]!”) Do we need someone to dislike, or blame, or even hate?

There are also economic incentives for devaluing others. It escapes me why, but somehow it is considered more palatable to steal from “inferior” beings. What, they deserve it? Maybe it’s just easier.

Science Fiction and Other Thoughts

Here is an exercise I find helpful: Consider as many individuals as is manageable – those on your block, in your town, in your state, in the country, or in the world. From the dozens to the billions of people, each complex, multi-faceted human being is a bundle of beliefs, experiences and aspirations and a member of any number and kind of Usses. Very few are members of exactly the same Us. (Indeed, it may not be possible.) Again, every Us has a Them, and there is a dizzying array of each.

The dizzying array

To state the obvious, all members of every Them we identify consider themselves an Us superior to our Them.

Everyone is a member of countless Usses and Thems. Which of these categorical differences really matter? It is intriguing how many science fiction books and movies are built on the following premise: The one thing that would bring human beings together is having hostile aliens as a common enemy. Those [_________] people aren’t so bad if we need ’em to have a shot at defeating invading Martians. I suspect the theme endures from The Day the Earth Stood Still to Independence Day and so on, because we recognize some rueful truth in it.

There’s another complication. Many people are going to be part of not only the Thems we must oppose for some categories, but also in at least one Us in which we must get along and work together. So, it is possible to collaborate with some of those people. Kind of. But if she’s one of Them, how can she be one of Us? Who’s keeping score?

Furthermore, if each member of every Us and Them knows their group is superior, who is correct? How can we tell? Who decides? Actually, the answers are easy: each of us decides. Our perspective is the correct one. Our group is not only right, but more worthwhile as well. The one trait universally shared, apparently, is hubris. As something to build on, this does not seem promising.

Pause

Amid celebration of our obvious superiority, a pause for some introspection might be in order. I’ve noticed, for example, that I am wrong sometimes. It’s a shocking revelation, I know, but I make mistakes. Perfection completely, persistently, and maddeningly eludes me. Maybe if you are different than I, you can help me muddle through. And vice versa. Just saying.

How’s that perceived need for Us vs. Them been working out for us all, anyway? From centuries past right up to the present, a tragic combination of economic incentive and the need to assert superiority has fostered war, tribalism, pogroms, and humanitarian crises. Conflict is inevitable, I suppose, and even some wars must be fought (e.g. the Allies in WW II), but who needs Us vs. Them as an approach to life’s interactions? It’s wrong. It’s destructive. It’s lunacy.

OK….So? The Merits Beckon

Is the point that nothing is ever better than anything else? Of course not. Some ideas are nutty; some are brilliant. Is there right and wrong? Of course. Honesty is right; lying and stealing are wrong – and we know it.

We also know what distinguishes the quest for excellence from the arrogant and mistaken assumption of categorical superiority: the merits. One of the most striking parts of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Dream is for his children – that they one day “live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” This is one of history’s greatest speeches not only for its eloquence and its aspirations, but also for its wisdom.

Time To Move On

So, it should not be Us vs. Them, after all. Let’s move on, even as we continue to strive for excellence in all endeavors, alone or in groups. If the need to be “the best” (or first, or whatever) motivates someone to cure cancer, great. We cannot find our self-worth in the denigration of others, however; quite the contrary. As we look elsewhere, we can make ourselves and our groups the best we can be. We can enjoy our rivalries, and play the Super Bowl, the stock market, or a game of Yahtzee, to win.

No, it’s not “Us vs. Them”.

It is “We”. You know, “the People”. Why do We, the People, need to await the arrival of aliens to finally get it right? It’s time to catch up to the wisdom of our cherished rhetoric.

Ken Bossong

© 2019 Kenneth J. Bossong


Posted on

What’s The Matter?

Admit it. You dread reading or watching the news, avoid discussing politics with most people, and will do almost anything to escape conversation on any topic with some people. If not, you are probably one of those folks everyone else is avoiding.

It seems nearly everyone is either angry, upset, incredulous, or disengaged. Some are all of these, and more. Institutions to which we traditionally turn seem to be weakening, if not crumbling. Life has become satire, as if we were Yossarian living out the book Catch 22 every day. I’ve got to stop saying “You can’t make this stuff up”, because I’ve been saying it nearly constantly for quite a while, and it’s getting old.

What The Problem Is Not

Oddly, it occurs to me that the problem is not that everyone is acting in their own interest. First, as human beings, it seems to me, we have little choice. Self preservation is in our nature. Second, and getting closer to the point, doing well puts us in position to do more good. There’s a reason why the airlines tell us to get our own oxygen masks on before helping others in an emergency.

No, the problem is not people acting in their self interest. It’s just that we are so often wrong about what is in our best interest – and increasingly so – with consequences that range from frustrating to tragic to catastrophic.

It’s closer to the truth, actually, that what’s wrong with us is that we are NOT acting in our true best interests as human beings, when behaving badly, whether acting alone or in groups.

Individually

We make these mistakes as individuals in countless roles in various settings. Among them are as citizens, workers, neighbors, family members, lovers, friends, leaders, officials, public figures, thinkers, artists, writers, and other creators.

We err in big decisions and in small; in private or on the world’s stage; often or once in a while.

Collectively

One would hope that collective wisdom would help us get it right when it comes to discerning our true best interests. Herd mentality often sends the stampede in the wrong direction, though. Such mistakes are made, again, in any number of settings, as within neighborhoods, towns, counties, states, and countries; professions and occupations; religions; races and ethnicities; genders; clubs and associations; socioeconomic groups; and political parties.

Recurring Mistakes

So, what are we talking about here? What “mistakes”? What are we wrong about? There is no point pretending that the list is short, if we were to get into all the nutty stuff we human beings do, but there are some real killers worth exploring, as we will in future posts. Among them are these:

The perceived need for Us versus Them (If you’re not just like me, you must be inferior; the need for enemies.)

Regarding all interactions and relationships as zero-sum games (Since the good in the world is finite, you must do poorly for me to do well.)

Racism and other systematized, irrational hatreds (That it’s morally wrong is a given; the extent of the irrationality involved is staggering.)

Not dealing with people or issues on the merits (Making decisions on the merits requires hard work; alas, we are often lazy, at least.)

Where We Are

I have lost count of the number of people who have told me stories about incidents that have happened to them or someone they know that go something like this: “I can’t (be your friend, talk to you, work with you, etc.) if you (believe in, voted for, like, etc.) (fill in a the name of a person, an attitude, a belief, etc.).” While we’re busy creating the largest possible divides between us with name-calling, insults and the recitation of brainless slogans, genuinely and significantly bad stuff is happening in our communities, our country and our world. Raise your hand if you think any of this is in our best interest. I thought so.

But, enough about the Congress and the White House.

You don’t have to be a cynic or even a skeptic to notice that the unacceptable has become the expected. That is the biggest mistake of all, and we’re all complicit in this one. It’s time to call out the unacceptable for what it is and behave accordingly. Like Yossarian, I hate stewed tomatoes (my favorite line in the book).

Ken Bossong

© 2019 Kenneth J. Bossong