is the word 'diary' better than the word 'blog'? probably not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
how to change a mind.
For the last few years I�ve been trying to write a book that is at least in part about the lack of attention to motivation at the heart of liberal political philosophy. What would make someone aspire to act in ways that transcend self-interest, or what would make someone take responsibility for things she didn�t intend and maybe didn�t even do? It matters, because anyone who wants to live in the world that gets projected by lots of different strains of political theory (or by anyone who hopes justice will prevail) is going to have to do things that exceed what is best for the self. I love Obama for being unafraid to make statements about how hard things are going to be if this country is going to become a better place.
In the meantime my friend Simon published a book with a similar aim. I�m not mad. It�s a good little book, and it doesn�t have much overlap with what my book will end up saying, plus now I can say what I like and don�t like about what he said, heh. The world can certainly use any number of books about how we might kick our own asses while we pull our heads out of the sand. But when I put it that way, you begin to see how hard it is. It takes a lot of stretching, cardio and strength-training to be able to manage the demands placed on the body by a simultaneous self-ass-kick and head-sand-extraction maneuver. Especially because it�s not good enough to get it done just once.
And no one is going to be able to do it on her own. Which is why I can�t stop remembering how I felt when I was watching the crowd watching McCain give his concession speech. (Someone might want to make a comment about spectatorship here.) Of course I was beyond elated. I have spent the last months losing sleep, worrying, daring to hope, feeling giddy at the prospect of a President Obama, then full of anxiety of what would happen with a President McCain (compounded by a Palin vice). On election day I kept spontaneously bursting into tears because I was so worried and the day was already here. And then on election night I couldn�t stop crying for joy. We did it. There is a lot less to be ashamed about in being from the U.S., such a huge step forward, overnight.
But those McCain supporters felt sadness, terror, utter failure, an uncertain future full of hopelessness. And that is precisely how I would have felt if things had gone the other way. Sure the electoral college victory was a landslide. But the popular vote is closer to a half and half. And it matters to me that half of the country feels terrified and sad. Is this how it�s going to be? After the 2004 election it was clear that half of the country felt terrified and sad, and I was on that side that time. Is such a way of life sustainable?
Some might be quick to say that the terror and sadness on the faces of McCain supporters is racist or ignorant, and thus it deserves no sympathy. While that might be true of some McCain supporters, it is certainly not true of all of them. I am beyond ready to challenge anyone�s bigoted views, including those of my much beloved and regrettably deceased grandmother. But what I am not ready to support is a widespread dismissal of all views that are not the same as mine, especially when the dismissal is paired with an unreflective certainty that my views couldn�t possibly require any challenging. Because not only would that be unphilosophical, it would be undemocratic and insufficiently kind. It would be a way of saying that I do not wish to share the world with other people.
The kind of life that many of the McCain supporters �and those who voted for the gay marriage bans�want to have is a way of life I am committed to struggle against. But since there are a lot of them, and since we share a huge country and are going to have to live together, be guided by the same laws, and so on, I�d like to learn how to have a conversation in which we�they and I, they and us�find some common areas and visit them together, treating everyone with respect. There will be some questions that will never be solved to anyone�s satisfaction. And some of them should not be subjected to talk of �compromise��for instance it is inexcusable to leave something like the right to marry the person you love up to a popular vote. But there may be other questions that could be reframed such that current divisions get viewed differently.
That�s called changing the terms of a polarized argument. A student of mine wrote to me on election day asking for advice because she loves a man who is pro-life and she is pro-choice and neither will entertain a change of mind. Plus she�s for Obama and he McCain. It gets worse. She�s also from Venus, and is comfortable talking about feelings. Anyway, she wanted to know whether I knew of any pieces of writing neutral enough for him to begin to see her side of things. I thought about it for a day and then did my best, but it just is the case that most people who write about abortion write from one side or the other, and so the operative register is �preaching to the converted.� But I also told her that she was going to have to figure out what kinds of questions meant she could not have friendship with a person, and that she was the only one who could decide such a thing. And I suggested that if it was worth it she could try to change the terms: could he maybe see it from the standpoint of women having rational autonomy to make tough decisions for themselves? That puts the focus on autonomy or individual dignity rather than fetal conception or murder. I wasn�t very hopeful, as this is a paradigmatically polarized topic. But apparently they were talking again before I was able to offer my advice.
Of course I am endlessly frustrated by people who have beliefs that they want to impose on everyone else! But that is also how it is viewed by the other side, you know?
I write this because in the last few days, these things happened: I mentioned to a friend that not everyone in the country is happy about Obama, and she wanted to know why I felt the need to say such a thing; I leavened an expression of joy with an observation about what�s ahead of us, and a friend called me a hopeless intellectual (and man, I get called this when I�m utterly idealist, too!); I pointed out to a colleague that half the country feels as desolate and scared today as the other half would if things had gone the other way, and she said without pausing that it�s not the same thing. (Of course, no two things are ever the same thing, but lots of things can be compared.) But feelings are about what you�ve known, what you know, what you hope�past, present, future�and even if it really is time to change how you think and feel, it is never easy to see a treasured way of thinking on its way out� even if that way of thinking is inexcusable. And it's not like everything a Republican would think is inexcusable! .... Anyway, it�s not like these cautiony things are the first or the only things I�ve said. I am jubilant to the point of ridiculousness, as if I had been attacked by unbidden smiles. There is much to celebrate about, much to be proud of and, dare I say it, much to hope! But, DUDE, joy is not destroyed by awareness of surroundings and concern for others.
Barack Obama has a powerful intellect, a great amount of compelling charisma, the fair-minded sense of a law professor (and an intellectual!), and the support of large number of really engaged people from all over the place. What I�m saying is that I think Barack Obama will change some minds! Oh, how exciting it is. But we aren�t doing him or ourselves any favors if we assume that none of those minds are worth our time. And we do not serve ourselves well if we think our own minds couldn�t possibly require changing. You know?
ps--my friend john wrote a great blog entry about obama today. you should read it.
3:45 p.m. - November 06, 2008
John - 2008-11-07 02:06:54
Thanks for the shout-out!
Great post. Democracy is really hard. Our society is full of haters and some of my best friends are those haters...I'm serious.
I argue a lot with friends about pro-lifers. I don't think they're that mysterious, especially their single-issue voting, their vehemence, and their tendency toward extremism. I mean, they really believe that every abortion kills a human. If you imagine believing that, then the world is a horrifying place.
Now, understanding that life-position - and it is not just a political position - makes democracy really hard. Because now the passion and commitment mean something, have real human substance. Not sure how to deal with it. But, like you said here, the first premise has to be accepting that difference matters. Harder than blowing them off, sure, but also more human.
I'm reminded of what Chantal Mouffe says about democracy as an agon. The point is to win the struggle against your enemy. The point is not to destroy them. Therein lies the nuance. And also where philosophers start having a hard time being and talking in the world.
Being and Talking.
I want to write a book with that title!
-------------------------------
josiah leet - 2008-11-08 15:18:41
"...attacked by unbidden smiles..." You may wear the custom tunic of the philosopher, Dr. Stauffer, but you also look quite dashing in the pret a porter of the poet when you turn a phrase like that...nice work cheers !
-------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
