Right now in the United States we struggle to communicate with each other. To put it another way, we seem incapable of disagreeing in a civil manner.
Loud partisan talking points and hurling ideological platitudes at one another is in direct conflict with the (com-/cum-) prefix of the word “communication.” In fact, the Latin word that communication derives from–communicare–actually means “to share.” Lately, we don’t seem to share very well in this country.
This situation is the result of two developments: first, a widespread breakdown across the United States of a basic sense of civility, respect and politeness; and, second, we have gotten into the habit of identifying our ideological opposition as inimical—the enemy. These two circumstances would—naturally—result in an inability for reasonable communication.
We seem in a perpetual state of opposition: blue/red state; liberal/conservative; pro-/anti-big government; free-market capitalism/socialism; pro-choice/pro-life. And the list goes on. Look at the online “comment” sections to various articles or at Twitter, Facebook, and other social media to see how potently personal and vitriolic many of our interactions have become.
Part of the reason we find ourselves in this spot is the result of what political scientists often call a “full sort” or the “Big Sort”: Americans, in an overwhelming majority, identify strongly with one of the two major parties in the US. For example, one 2016 study shows that polarization increased by 29 percent across Census regions, 12 percent across states, and 14 percent across counties over this period. A fully divided two-party system results in a number of things: it defeats the purpose of the checks-and-balances system so important to a shared governance that the US system was meant to represent, and it does this by actually allowing for a narrow majority rule that the system was originally constructed to make impossible.
However, the sort means a “we-win, they-lose” mentality forces nearly everyone to choose a larger vision of a national identity. Such sorting removes an easy opportunity for a nuanced personal identity or opinion about particular topics or issues. The lack of nuance, in turn, causes us to view anyone we come in contact with as either an ally or as a political opponent.
Instead of a political difference, or even a political opponent you or I might disagree with, this partitioning leads us to imagine this difference or person as something or someone we must delegitimize, even destroy, in order that their larger, more encompassing vision cannot be realized, because their vision is not ours. Thus, a fellow U.S. citizen moves from someone with whom we merely disagree, to an enemy. Compromise, or concession, becomes unlikely—or impossible.
Why is this a problem? In the last five years, a common diagnosis has arisen among political writers of all stripes about the precariousness of American democracy, often centering on the two-party system and unhealthy partisanship. For example, in 2017, the Economist Intelligence Unit downgraded the US from “full democracy” to “flawed democracy,” with the same ranking as Italy.
As of 2018, the Bright Line Watch survey of 679 political scientists marked a decline in the overall quality of American democracy, and identified the starting point of this process around 2015—poignantly, just before the 2016 election. The 2016 presidential election is viewed as a moment in which a number of tensions came to light, not only between and within political parties but between the Electoral College and the popular vote.
Basic human decency toward others is a choice. Today, we seem to have a common formula backwards: rather than starting with a gesture of respect, we start any exchange by categorizing someone, and then choosing either to extend our hand via words of accomplice, or, alternatively, simply to vilify the person.
As a result of this all-or-nothing approach, we have come to view the “other side,” not as different from our own opinion, but as, effectively, immoral.
What I suggest is a moment of common ground. Conversation requires at least one moment of agreement; without a moment of agreement, conversation becomes hopeless; gone is the likelihood of collaborative creation of legislation, policy, or action that drives our country forward. What is lost is the chance for both sides to work toward their visions, but on the bases that agreement – and respectful disagreement—are essential for democracy to function.
In short, we might think about understanding communication as a moment of sharing; and this approach, in turn, might allow us to redefine our sense of a word that originally means “something held in common” -- community.
Ryan Fowler is visiting assistant professor of Classics at Franklin & Marshall College.
"Opinion" - Google News
August 22, 2020 at 07:41PM
https://ift.tt/31jFqBx
To preserve democracy, we must defend civility | Opinion - pennlive.com
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
No comments:
Post a Comment