I've been taking part in an interesting (to me at least) exchange over at "anemic volunteer":
http://anemicvolunteer.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-low-in-norwich.html
The anonymous anti-Alison May slogans were the spark for this exchange. As the discourse has developed, a familiar theme has emerged: How to participate "safely" in the public sphere.
This theme was echoed at Town Eating Day as people there discussed how disrespect and faction are disincentives to civic participation. One proposal floated would have the selectboard meet in open session, but without public comment, so the selectboard could engage with one another in a "safe" environment. The sincerity of that proposal speaks volumes to the state of public discourse in this town.
The "Anyone but Alison" sign author (AKA "Anemic Volunteer") articulates these concerns more personally:
The problem with "rational discourse" is that it is susceptible to being derailed by one party pretending not to understand what the other person says in order to derail the debate. It is the discursive analog to the old union trick of "working to rule." It happens all the time in dysfunctional families - and it happens in small town politics, and it happens at the national level as well. Reasonable discussion depends on good faith. But good faith is not always present.
Good faith is not always present, true enough. Worse, good faith is a fragile state, easily poisoned by even a hint of bad faith.
"Faith" is the operative term. Do we have faith in the good will of our neighbors sufficient to sustain us through their occasional bouts of ill will expressed out of frustration, impatience, or a loss of faith?
Anemic Volunteer suggests -- without meaning to offend -- that I have faith in public discourse because that discourse "works" for me:
Watt seems to think that I should have worked within the system, which is a natural perspective for those for whom the system works, and enjoy working it.
Without wishing to offend, I have to say statements such as these dumbfound me.
Where is this "system?" What am I doing that suggests I work effectively within it, or that it works for me?
This system is us, our legal authority to determine our own collective fate guaranteed by an exceptional Constitution and an enlightened state. What we do with that authority -- how we engage one another within those parameters -- is a rich and varied drama. At its best, it forces us to face our own provinciality as we learn to see other perspectives on an issue. At its worst, it forces us to face our own provinciality as we find we're unable or uninterested in seeing other perspectives. There is no end point, just the journey, because democracy must perpetually renew itself or lapse into something else. The journey is the reward. Faith in that journey, in the renewing capacity of engaging others with humility and respect, becomes good faith because there's really no other choice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Sorry, bad formatting on the last comment. I'll try again:
This system is us, our legal authority to determine our own collective fate guaranteed by an exceptional Constitution and an enlightened state.
That is one of many systems (and one that is dear to me) but not the system that I was referring to.
The modern world we live in is composed of multiple simultaneous systems, complexes, games, and muddles all of which operate simultaneously at different levels. It makes it difficult to talk about any 'thing' that is supposedly going on.
The outcome of many social contests depends on the definition of the situation and a good deal of the disagreement often boils down to who gets to determine which definition applies. This sort of "situational arbitrage" is a normal and healthy aspect of human interaction and we all engage in it constantly. We can hardly do otherwise, because reason is not all that it is cracked up to be. An attentive study of any so-called "line of argument" will generally reveal a haphazard trajectory that jumps from hummock to hummock across murky depths of swampy opinion and prejudice. A talented and graceful performance creates a sensation of reason in auditors who happen to share the speakers prejudices and assumptions, not to mention that fact they may even overlook the irregularities in the speaker's arguments because they agree with his conclusions, but such a sensation should not be confused with a proof. We are in the realm of politics, not mathematics.
I'm not complaining about your lack of consistency, mind you, but I would point out that nobody is disputing my legal right to put up "Anybody but Alison" signs. Instead, you suggest that the act, while legal, was deleterious to the political and social health of the community. But you haven't presented a shred of evidence to support that claim beyond a private and subjective sense of revulsion. I sympathize with your sentiments, but I construed the situation and its attendant ethical stakes quite differently.
I think there is a "system" operating here that may be playing a bigger role in this discussion than the constitution/legal or even the subjective/ethical. It is interesting to note that all of the public comments on the negative campaign signs have been critical. I am the only person in Norwich defending them. Do you really suppose this is because I am the only person in Norwich who thinks they were acceptable? Or could it be that, for some reason, it isn't safe to defend them - perhaps because a set of dominant moral entrepreneurs have created an atmosphere inimical to the expression of certain classes of prohibited sentiments. I consider this to be an issue of vastly greater importance than whether a dissident opinion was expressed politely.
You've lost me.
Alison May was defeated -- for a second time -- by a majority of those who voted. All of those votes against Alison were either against Alison, for her opponent, or a combination of the two. There is no question there were a great number of residents unhappy with Alison's tenure and style, myself included.
How many of those people felt compelled to express their opposition as you did? How many feel you did the right thing? I have no idea.
I do know I'll defend your legal right to express yourself as you chose to do. I did so publicly on the listserv the night of Town Meeting.
Beyond legality, I question your methods. Here, I've questioned whether anonymity emboldens the speaker to indulge rudeness because they won't be held to account. A theory without a shred of empirical evidence, but hardly fanciful.
Is it empirically rude to single out a public official as your signs sought to do? I don't know. It strikes me as rude and needlessly inconsiderate of the common endeavor of small town democracy.
You see a system of unspoken rules which "have created an atmosphere inimical to the expression of certain classes of prohibited sentiments."
I see people in this community shying away from service because they can't stomach the divisiveness and personal attacks which have become more common this past decade.
Your "prohibited sentiment" found a more eloquent voice through the ballot box. Your chosen method of expressing that sentiment may further degrade the choices we have at the ballot box.
Post a Comment