Nesrine Malik: In valuing only how to argue, we are forgetting how to talk
The forums in which we find ourselves
debating issues – Brexit, immigration or “identity politics” – are structurally
designed to exacerbate, rather than resolve or even explore, differences.
Conflict is favoured over conversation, animosity over inquiry. Usually,
disagreements that happen on social media are picked out and repackaged by
traditional media outlets.
We see it all the time: a public figure tweets a
controversial statement, social media users come out for or against, print and
online media amalgamates the content into 600 words, and perhaps “the debate”
makes the six o’clock news. There may be a relatively small number of people
actually online, and an even smaller number actively arguing, but their
activity is magnified, consumed and, ultimately, monetised and pressed into the
service of political
agendas.
Even the language we use to describe the
interlocutors shows how conflict is manufactured. We have “provocateurs” and
“controversialists” who demand a hearing. Characters such as Katie Hopkins and
Nigel Farage are given platforms and coverage in our “polite media”, spreading
misinformation about immigration and race, which contributes to racism and
xenophobia. In these conditions, engaging in a back-and-forth with someone
holding an opposing viewpoint is not a constructive act with the aim of
reaching common ground, or at least an understanding of the other: it is to
feed an insatiable appetite for public spectacle....
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/20/how-to-argue-talk-dissent-disagreesee also
Susan Neiman - Evil in Modern
Thought // 'Hannah Arendt's Disruptive Truth Telling'
Kwame Appiah's review of Moral Clarity
Kwame Appiah's review of Moral Clarity
