Sunday, April 20, 2008

Talking to Ourselves

Susan Jacoby, in LA Times says that Americans are increasingly close-minded and unwilling to listen to opposing views.

As dumbness has been defined downward in American public life during the last two decades, one of the most important and frequently overlooked culprits is the public's increasing reluctance to give a fair hearing -- or any hearing at all -- to opposing points of view.

SNIP!

Whether watching television news, consulting political blogs or (more rarely) reading books, Americans today have become a people in search of validation for opinions that they already hold. This absence of curiosity about other points of view is the essence of anti-intellectualism and represents a major departure from the nation's best cultural traditions.

In the last quarter of the 19th century, Americans jammed lecture halls to hear Robert Green Ingersoll, known as "the Great Agnostic," attack organized religion and question the existence of God. They did so not because they necessarily agreed with him but because they wanted to make up their own minds about what he had to say and see for themselves whether the devil really had horns.

Similarly, when Thomas Henry Huxley, the British naturalist who popularized Darwin's theory of evolution, came to the U.S. in 1876, he spoke to standing-room-only audiences, even though many of his listeners were genuinely shocked by his views.

This spirit of inquiry, which demands firsthand evidence and does not trivialize opposing points of view, is essential to a society's intellectual and political health.

Richard Hofstadter, in his classic 1963 work, "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," argued that among
...the major virtues of liberal society in the past was that it made possible such a variety of styles of intellectual life -- one can find men notable for being passionate and rebellious, for being elegant and sumptuous, or spare and astringent, clever and complex, patient and wise, and some equipped mainly to observe and endure. ... It is possible, of course, that the avenues of choice are being closed and that the culture of the future will be dominated by single-minded men of one persuasion or another. It is possible; but insofar as the weight of one's will is thrown onto the scales of history, one lives in the belief that it not be so.
Hofstadter was of course using the word "liberal" with a small "l," in the sense that the term had been used in the past -- as a synonym for open-mindedness and concern for liberty of thought instead of as the right-wing political epithet it has become during the last 25 years.

SNIP

... Tell it to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who certainly had many, often bitter disagreements about politics and whose correspondence nevertheless leaps off the page as an example of the illumination to be derived from exchanges of ideas between friends who respect each other even though they do not always share the same opinions.

Adams wrote Jefferson in 1815,
You and I ought not to die, before we have explained ourselves to each other.
It is doubtful that today's politicians will spend much time trying to explain themselves to one another even after they leave office.

SNIP

There is a direct connection between the debasement of political discourse and the public's tendency to tune out any voice that is not an echo. "Swift boating" can succeed in politics only because of the correct assumption that huge numbers of Americans lack the broad knowledge that would enable them to spot blatantly unfair attacks. . . . . Voters of any political persuasion who watch only cable news shows or consult only blogs that support their preconceptions are patsies for these kinds of lies.

Ironically, the unprecedented array of choices, on hundreds of cable channels and the Web, have contributed to the decline of common knowledge and the denigration of fairness by both the right and the left. No one but a news junkie has the time or the inclination to spend the entire day consulting diverse news sources on the Web, and the temptation to seek out commentary that fits neatly into one's worldview -- whether that means the Huffington Post or the Drudge Report -- is hard to resist.

Genuine fairness does not mean the kind of bogus objectivity that always locates truth equidistant from two points, but it does demand that divergent views be understood and taken into account in approaching public issues. In re-reading Hofstadter several years ago, I was struck by the fairness of his scholarship, a serious, old-fashioned attempt to engage the arguments of his opponents and to acknowledge evidence that ran counter to his own biases. I had not noticed that when I read the book for the first time in the 1960s because fairness was, to a considerable degree, taken for granted in those days as an ideal for aspiring young scholars and writers.

A vast public laziness feeds the media's predilection today to distill news through polemicists of one stripe or another and to condense complex information into meaningless sound bites.


On April 8, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus's testimony before a Senate committee's hearings lasted into the early evening. Some hearings were on cable during the day But the networks offered no special programming in the evening, and newscasts were content with sound bites of McCain, Obama and Hillary Clinton questioning the general. Dueling presidential candidates were the whole story.

Absent from most news reports was testimony concerning the administration's ongoing efforts to forge agreements with various Iraqi factions without submitting the terms to Congress for ratification -- a development with constitutional implications as potentially serious as the Watergate affair. No matter. Anyone who wanted to hear Petraeus bashed or applauded could turn to his or her preferred political cable show or click on a blog to find an unchallenging interpretation of the day's events.

The tepid interest in the substance of Petraeus' testimony on the part of the public and much of the media contrasts sharply with the response to the Senate Watergate hearings in 1973. All 319 hours of the first round of the hearings were televised, and 85% of Americans tuned in to at least some of the proceedings live.

I remember those weeks as a period when everyday preoccupations faded into the background and we found time, as a people, to perform our civic duty. An ongoing war may lack the drama of Watergate, but it is doubtful that anything short of another terrorist attack on our soil would convince today's public that it ought to read the transcript of a lengthy congressional hearing or pay attention, for more than five minutes, to live news as it unfolds.

It is past time for Americans to stop attributing the polarization of our public life to the media, the demon entity "Washington" or "the elites." As long as we continue to avoid the hard work of scrutinizing public affairs without the filter of polemical shouting heads, we have no one to blame for the governing class and its policies but ourselves.

Like Hofstadter, I yearn to live in a society that values fair-mindedness. But it will take nothing less than a revolutionary public recommitment to the pursuit of fairness, knowledge and memory to halt, much less reverse, the trend toward an ignorant single-mindedness that threatens the future of democracy itself.


Hate to end on that despairing note. So I'll just say, "Good luck, America".

6 comments:

  1. I apologize for the length of this column. Susan Jacoby's website is a rewarding read.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Emily, Thank you for an excellent introduction to Jacoby's new book. I've read her website today and I've ordered the book from Amazon - it will be here Wednesday.

    I simply couldn't agree more with Jacoby's premise. So many people have a great deal to say, but virtually no room to listen. Name calling and overly cute sarcasm have replaced reasoned discussion.

    I do want to say a great deal more about this, especially as it applies to the blogosphere, and I've started organizing my thoughts. I'll wait until I've read Jacoby's book until I finish my thoughts in an entry or two at my house. Be certain you'll receive full credit for this enlightening new path of thought.

    Thanks......

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great job Emily! I too have wanted to read this book. A friend of mine who is a retired history professor recommended it to me when it first came out. Sadly my brain seems to be able to either write or read. So it will be on my reading list as soon as the writer goes away.

    Thank you for this wonderfully sensitive post. It's a good reminder to me to dial it back a little. Sarcasm comes far too easily to me. Sometimes early training is hard to undo.

    ReplyDelete
  4. No apologies necessary, emily. This is a great post. As someone who reveres the 18th century, the idea that we are living in an Age of Unreason deeply resonates with me.

    I tend to seek out right-wing Christians and Republicans to converse with them and find out why they feel the way they do.

    The Age of Reason was also the Age of Satire. I think, Utah, satire is called sarcasm as America dumbs down. Those so gifted should be proud of their intellect.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Emily, this is an excellent post. While I agree with it on the whole, it doesn't have to be that way. Doing the daily research for my blog, I visit sites that support both Clinton and Obama, and even some right wing sources as well. Rather than take stories at face value, I try to did into the facts that underlie the stories. If people are seeking validation, and therefore not listening, they are doing so by choice, out of laziness and apathy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Emily, I'm about 2/3rds through Susan Jacoby's The Age of American Unreason.

    When she sticks to her basic premise and expands of the writings of Richard Hofstadter, the book is excellent.

    However, she all too often shows she is guilty of the very sins she is protesting against. Her blanket condemnation of the right is sometimes so misplaced or misguided it's almost funny.

    She condemns those who refuse to listen, but her ears and mind is closed on many issues.

    I still hope to write a broader piece in my own blog, but several other issues are pressing tonight.

    ReplyDelete