Characteristics of Postmodern Discourse
• sensitivity, inclusivity, and inoffensiveness are key values;
• priority on cooperation, collaboration, quietness, sedentariness, empathy, equality, non-competitiveness, conformity, a communal focus;
• seems lacking in rationality and ideological challenge;
• tends to perceive satire and criticism as a motivated by hate or fear;
• lacking the means to respond to dissent, it will typically resort to demonizing personal attacks upon the opposition;
• will typically try to not answer opponents with better arguments, but to silence them completely by assigning labels like ‘hateful’, ‘intolerant’, ‘bigoted’, ‘misogynistic’, ‘homophobic’, etc.;
• tends to value feelings and impressions rather than logic or reason;
• frequently results in the withdrawl from the discourse due to feelings of offense from being challenged.
B.R.: Great list, and while I'm sure you'd assign many of these tendencies to me, I wouldn't say they encapsulate all postmodern discourse. But what about you? Which items on this list apply to your own discourse? What tendencies or shortcomings do you observe in yourself? I see a lot of accusation but there's an opportunity for self-awareness as well.
Me: I did not present the list as if it were everything to say about post modern discourse.
Don't be solipsistic. Also, are you being ironic?
B.R.: Oh, did you mean "Some Characteristics of Postmodern Discourse" instead of "Characteristics of Postmodern Discourse"? That's an important distinction.
I didn't think I was being solipsistic, but if you do, please tell me how.
I'm not trying to be ironic. Your list supposes a good deal of preference; it seems to be a litany of tendencies that bother you about other people. Of course, that's just my assumption, based on our previous posts and conversations. While reading your list, I realized that you've accused me of many of these tendencies, and not in complimentary ways. I don't think the list is solely about me, but I think that I fall into some of these categories. My question for you, then, is "do YOU belong in any of these categories? And if not, what kinds of bothersome tendencies can you recognize in your own discourse?"
Me: "Seems to be?" I have to add another to the list now.
• A tendency to engage in at-a-distance psychological diagnosis
My approach is and always will be the relentless pursuit of base assumptions and the the extension of those assumptions to their logical conclusion. I always match the tone of my interlocutor and respond on the same level. If my interlocutor is generally thoughtful and logical (like you, for example), I will respond similarly. However, if he or she responds with disrespect, insult, or shabby thinking, I will point it out, and if necessary, employ similar techniques myself.
I wondered about solipsism because your very first thought appeared to be that what I wrote was about you.
B.R.: Is there anything about your discourse habits that you would like to change or evolve?
Me: You seem to want to impose on me some sort of requirement for introspection, as if I have an obligation to defend myself against my own observations.
B.R.: I would love to impose upon you a requirement for introspection. But that's not what I'm doing here. I read what you think of others. I processed it. I applied it to myself, and found some overlap. Now I want to know what you think of yourself. When someone assigns shortcomings in others, I find great value in that person's ability to identify shortcomings within themselves. If you don't want to discuss what you think of yourself, just say so. If you think you're perfect at discourse, just say so. Tell ya what, I'll give you a few to get us going. I totally own up to the following tendencies. I've marked the ones that I'd like to change about myself with a *. I've put the words I don't apply to my own tendencies in parentheses.
• sensitivity, inclusivity, and (inoffensiveness) are key values;
• priority on cooperation, collaboration, quietness*, (sedentariness), empathy, equality, non-competitiveness*, conformity, a communal focus;
• lacking the means to respond to dissent, it will typically resort to (demonizing) personal attacks upon the opposition;*
• will typically try to not answer opponents with better arguments, but to silence them completely by assigning labels* (like ‘hateful’, ‘intolerant’, ‘bigoted’, ‘misogynistic’, ‘homophobic’, etc.;)
• tends to value feelings and impressions rather than logic or reason;*
• frequently results in the withdrawl from the discourse* (due to feelings of offense from being challenged.)
• A tendency to engage in at-a-distance pychological diagnosis
R.R.: I have to disagree with a few points, of course. I would have to argue that your 2nd bullet listed as priorities are in actually residual consequences of two competing philosophies in postmodern culture: anonymity and self definition. Anonymity is the tendency to consider ones self separate from the mass culture, a buffer between the public and the self which yields safety from ridicule and defense against retaliation. Self definition is almost the opposite, as the projection of what a person would like others to perceive. This facade of self is a hypothetical entity generated to embody values and character that a person exhibits, or romanticizes or aspires to obtain. This persona is the sum of that which a person believes is moral, beautiful, valuable, and "good" and is out on display, beyond the chasm of anonymity. The end result is an explanation of the rest of the points you list. To argue with a person is not to have a different view, but to call into question the self definition of a person. This personal entity becomes defensive, having both his values and ,through the violation of such values, his anonymity. This dissolves the once rational argument into a battle of wills, and coupled with the philosophy of anonymity, opposing forces begin to attack the character of the other person, for as we established earlier, the self definition is a representation of character. This is why these debates result in the withdrawal from the discourse; offense is only the manifestation of almost literal self preservation.
That is also why labels like hateful or bigot come into play. A direct attack on someone's values erases a perceived reverence for another's viewpoint, by eroding away a a person's assumptions about someone else's values. It begins with an assumption of misinformation. 'As I am obviously dealing with a person of equal intellect, I will fill the other person in on the information he may be lacking. When that person demonstrates a counter argument to this information, the assumption is that he cannot comprehend this information and that the opponent lacks the required intellectual power to rationalize what you value. Argument ensues " I will now attempt to break down what I believe as to allow for your own edification" this is the beginnings of the dissolution because the willingness to acknowledge the other has been compromised by assertion of self definition, which of course is the values of the person in the argument, and more importantly, it is a exaltation of a person's values over another. Finally, the last stage of this breakdown is the realization that an opponent is equally intelligent, can understand the values just fine, which means 'this guy knows the truth, he won't admit it. He must be a malevolent person bent on disinformation.' This means that the persona of self is pulled back from the debate, leaving the rampart of anonymity to hurl insults, defamations of character, and claims of discrediting. A person is safe behind anonymity and therefore both people return to the cut off status of safety behind being faceless. This is why the modern discourse seems impotent and petty. We have the luxury of anonymity and self definition that allows us to demonize people because they don't share a viewpoint.
Me: B.R., I appreciate the fact that you want to help me, but I feel no need to address any inadequacies I may or may not have. I am quite aware of my flaws.
I tend to resist the incessant naval gazing that society seems to value. People do not achieve by keeping their flaws dredged up, they achieve by pushing themselves into greatness.
Me: R.R., I'm not entirely convinced that anonymity is a feature of post modernism. I think that it is more like situational anonymity. The desire for being noticed and acclaimed conflicts with the idea of "personal space" and "personal choice."
This manifests as the presumed equivalence of all ideas without judgment. For example, we frequently see people demand "suppport," as in, "Why can't you just support me in my decision?" "Support," of course, is "agreement." If you disagree, you aren't "supportive." You aren't even a friend.
It places extraordinary value on "me" while simultaneously disparaging merit. It transforms the interplay of competing ideas into adversairies.
It is self-focused. The typical response to an event or occurence is, "How does it affect me?" It pretends to be amiable but quickly attacks dissent.
It is rigidity masked as understanding, conformity masked as intolerance, and lack of conviction masked as accomodation.
And B.R., no, this is not about you.
R.R.: I am well acquainted with the paradox of "being special like everybody else." You are right, anonymity and self definition are conflicting principals. What you have termed situational anonymity is the result of how that dissonance resolves, and the middle ground of "being alone in a society." I myself see the irony of Godzilla telling a cartoon face that anonymity is not a feature of post modernism, when there is no recourse, not even a face to react to in this conversation.
The analysis is spot on by the way, extrordinary value on "me." What you are talking about of course goes both ways when it comes to the supposed interplay of ideas.
When don't support things like abstenance education or required prayer in schools, I am worse than unsupportive; I'm a damned sinner or anti-christian. If I don't "support" conservative principals, my morality is called into question, not my ideas. This creates discord and starts those with differing opinions are the 3 levels of creating an enemy I was referring to earlier.
Where you lose traction with me is the assumption that all ideas are then reduced to being equal without judgement, as though judgement is a universal concept and not a relative one. Judgement is the weighing of the worth or severity of an entity so by it's definition it is a relative concept, and until judgement is assesed, all ideas ARE in fact equal, and when value or sentance is determined, the result only applies to the judge, who then reacts in a manner most appropriate with him. The ideas which lack merit to you are in fact very valuable to those you are in conflict with, to extend the metaphor, put on appeal and given a different verdict by someone who sees things differently. This is why the discourse deteriorates so quickly, it is the values of one being in conflict with another until anonymity takes over and reduces the conversation to an antagonistic quarrel. End result, both sides staring down the other, first thinking the other uninformed, then stupid, then malevolent. Nothing is solved, nothing is discussed, everyone returns to their computer desk in isolation worried about the future with people like "that" in the world.
See, this is where I make assumptions about people. You don't like the idea that people are requiring you to agree with things you do not. You have a distaste for the linguistic choice of concealing dissent for lack of support and silence instead of the possibility of hegemony. You are upset that people do not respond to the truth in a way that is balanced or rational. Those things violate your persona you want to project and make you recoil for the sake of saving face, or relieving frustration. Well, I don't like the idea of anyone thinking in absolutes that are too strong to be changed based on proof, (which is irrational and borderline delusional by the by) I have a distaste for the linguistic choice of consealing dissent under the insult of a lack of reason, just because it conflicts with traditional beliefs. I am upset when a man judges a person's character based on the lens of the observer and not the merit of the concepts the other person presents. It is rigidity masked as supposed superiority, conformity masked as truth, and a lack of conviction masked as morality and precidence. There are two sides to every coin, not counting the edge. The edge of the coin is where actual debate can happen, but in our society we have the luxury of staying on our sides and creating projections of ourselves to represent us, unless of course you can crush Tokyo and if you blew me up with dynamite, I would only be covered with black stuff...
B.R.: I'm not trying to help you. I'm having the kind of conversation I like to have, which is based on more than simply proving myself and disproving others. Of course, that's just what it "seems" like you're doing.
Me: A vigorous exchange of ideas inevitably leads to disparate positions. This is a good thing. On what basis do you believe that your kind of conversation is better?
B.R.: I'm not of the opinion that mine is better. I believe that a) yours is not better either, and b) that mine allows for a wider variety of conversational outcomes. I place value on that variety, but I don't expect everyone to do the same.
Me: Then we've reach a nice post-modern values neutral assessment that neither of us are more correct. So why did you post your complaint if you already knew that your methodology was no better or worse than mine?
That is also why labels like hateful or bigot come into play. A direct attack on someone's values erases a perceived reverence for another's viewpoint, by eroding away a a person's assumptions about someone else's values. It begins with an assumption of misinformation. 'As I am obviously dealing with a person of equal intellect, I will fill the other person in on the information he may be lacking. When that person demonstrates a counter argument to this information, the assumption is that he cannot comprehend this information and that the opponent lacks the required intellectual power to rationalize what you value. Argument ensues " I will now attempt to break down what I believe as to allow for your own edification" this is the beginnings of the dissolution because the willingness to acknowledge the other has been compromised by assertion of self definition, which of course is the values of the person in the argument, and more importantly, it is a exaltation of a person's values over another. Finally, the last stage of this breakdown is the realization that an opponent is equally intelligent, can understand the values just fine, which means 'this guy knows the truth, he won't admit it. He must be a malevolent person bent on disinformation.' This means that the persona of self is pulled back from the debate, leaving the rampart of anonymity to hurl insults, defamations of character, and claims of discrediting. A person is safe behind anonymity and therefore both people return to the cut off status of safety behind being faceless. This is why the modern discourse seems impotent and petty. We have the luxury of anonymity and self definition that allows us to demonize people because they don't share a viewpoint.
Me: B.R., I appreciate the fact that you want to help me, but I feel no need to address any inadequacies I may or may not have. I am quite aware of my flaws.
I tend to resist the incessant naval gazing that society seems to value. People do not achieve by keeping their flaws dredged up, they achieve by pushing themselves into greatness.
Me: R.R., I'm not entirely convinced that anonymity is a feature of post modernism. I think that it is more like situational anonymity. The desire for being noticed and acclaimed conflicts with the idea of "personal space" and "personal choice."
This manifests as the presumed equivalence of all ideas without judgment. For example, we frequently see people demand "suppport," as in, "Why can't you just support me in my decision?" "Support," of course, is "agreement." If you disagree, you aren't "supportive." You aren't even a friend.
It places extraordinary value on "me" while simultaneously disparaging merit. It transforms the interplay of competing ideas into adversairies.
It is self-focused. The typical response to an event or occurence is, "How does it affect me?" It pretends to be amiable but quickly attacks dissent.
It is rigidity masked as understanding, conformity masked as intolerance, and lack of conviction masked as accomodation.
And B.R., no, this is not about you.
R.R.: I am well acquainted with the paradox of "being special like everybody else." You are right, anonymity and self definition are conflicting principals. What you have termed situational anonymity is the result of how that dissonance resolves, and the middle ground of "being alone in a society." I myself see the irony of Godzilla telling a cartoon face that anonymity is not a feature of post modernism, when there is no recourse, not even a face to react to in this conversation.
The analysis is spot on by the way, extrordinary value on "me." What you are talking about of course goes both ways when it comes to the supposed interplay of ideas.
When don't support things like abstenance education or required prayer in schools, I am worse than unsupportive; I'm a damned sinner or anti-christian. If I don't "support" conservative principals, my morality is called into question, not my ideas. This creates discord and starts those with differing opinions are the 3 levels of creating an enemy I was referring to earlier.
Where you lose traction with me is the assumption that all ideas are then reduced to being equal without judgement, as though judgement is a universal concept and not a relative one. Judgement is the weighing of the worth or severity of an entity so by it's definition it is a relative concept, and until judgement is assesed, all ideas ARE in fact equal, and when value or sentance is determined, the result only applies to the judge, who then reacts in a manner most appropriate with him. The ideas which lack merit to you are in fact very valuable to those you are in conflict with, to extend the metaphor, put on appeal and given a different verdict by someone who sees things differently. This is why the discourse deteriorates so quickly, it is the values of one being in conflict with another until anonymity takes over and reduces the conversation to an antagonistic quarrel. End result, both sides staring down the other, first thinking the other uninformed, then stupid, then malevolent. Nothing is solved, nothing is discussed, everyone returns to their computer desk in isolation worried about the future with people like "that" in the world.
See, this is where I make assumptions about people. You don't like the idea that people are requiring you to agree with things you do not. You have a distaste for the linguistic choice of concealing dissent for lack of support and silence instead of the possibility of hegemony. You are upset that people do not respond to the truth in a way that is balanced or rational. Those things violate your persona you want to project and make you recoil for the sake of saving face, or relieving frustration. Well, I don't like the idea of anyone thinking in absolutes that are too strong to be changed based on proof, (which is irrational and borderline delusional by the by) I have a distaste for the linguistic choice of consealing dissent under the insult of a lack of reason, just because it conflicts with traditional beliefs. I am upset when a man judges a person's character based on the lens of the observer and not the merit of the concepts the other person presents. It is rigidity masked as supposed superiority, conformity masked as truth, and a lack of conviction masked as morality and precidence. There are two sides to every coin, not counting the edge. The edge of the coin is where actual debate can happen, but in our society we have the luxury of staying on our sides and creating projections of ourselves to represent us, unless of course you can crush Tokyo and if you blew me up with dynamite, I would only be covered with black stuff...
B.R.: I'm not trying to help you. I'm having the kind of conversation I like to have, which is based on more than simply proving myself and disproving others. Of course, that's just what it "seems" like you're doing.
Me: A vigorous exchange of ideas inevitably leads to disparate positions. This is a good thing. On what basis do you believe that your kind of conversation is better?
B.R.: I'm not of the opinion that mine is better. I believe that a) yours is not better either, and b) that mine allows for a wider variety of conversational outcomes. I place value on that variety, but I don't expect everyone to do the same.
Me: Then we've reach a nice post-modern values neutral assessment that neither of us are more correct. So why did you post your complaint if you already knew that your methodology was no better or worse than mine?
No comments:
Post a Comment