idea/context dualism
May. 3rd, 2006 02:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaHere's an interesting continuation from yesterday's theme on the tone of scientific rhetoric. Following is the abstract of "A Proposal to Classify Happiness as a Psychiatric Disorder" (thanks to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
chaoticerotic for the link).
If you read this, you will note that it is more or less as rigorous and well-cited an argument as we might expect to encounter in academic writing (although it does contain typos).
It reminded me right away of Dextera Domini: The Declaration on the Pastoral Care of Left-Handed Persons, which was in turn a spoof, and more, of another sort of rhetoric, in this case Catholic theological argument.
These are more than merely spoofs; they teach us a lot about the direction of modern thought and the consequences of fostering "detached rhetoric" as a favorable mode of communication. In the first case, we have an examination of the way common aspects of human experience have been seen as pathologies to be corrected. In the second case we have a theological examination, complete with nuanced scriptural citations, of the sinfulness of being left-handed (a parody of similar arguments offered against homosexuality).
This brave new world teaches us that anything stated in a rational tone, with proper citations and rhetorical style (arguments offered and objections anticipated), deserves to be taken seriously. The underlying idea is that ideas can and should be examined in a vacuum, a so-called "free marketplace," weighed against counterproposals in an environment completely divorced from their real-world implications. Every idea, no matter how repugnant, deserves to be calmly and rationally examined, debated, and discussed. If an idea is truly without merit, it will prove to be such after dispassionate examination.
This comes by way of reaction, of course, against the kind of argumentation which has given us much grief in the past: appeals to emotion, to common sense, to tradition, to "truthiness." Modern rhetoric is an attempt to escape the pitfalls of the past, and the cycles of oppression and discord that they have sowed. It also comes from a justifiable fear of simply going along with any given culture's rejection of certain ideas or principles as unworthy of examination: this is, after all, a means by which prejudice has been defended and perpetuated.
I've written before, briefly, about the use of rationalization as a way of discrediting the statements of feminists and cultural critics. A large part of this, of course, is the misappropriation and subversion of playing-field-leveling measures by those who wish to maintain an un-level playing field. Since the tone of detached "objective" scientific discourse was adopted in an attempt to counter the damage caused by demagoguery and superstitition, it was found necessary for this style to be subverted to the cause of promoting injustice. And so it has: modern evil is even more banal than ever before, offering in detached and well-cited argument why black people are inferior to whites and women are less capable than men.
By bringing up the context of oppression and by employing depictions of personal experiences, critics and feminists are not playing by the rules of rhetoric. In turn, they do not feel obliged to play by these rules because they argue that these rules were chosen for memetic proliferation because they make it easier to defend the social-stratification status quo, by rendering invisible the experience of oppression. For oppression to stand, the people who are subject to it must be unaware of it; therefore any tool that promotes isolation is deemed valuable to those who have privilege in an oppressive society -- the same people who are likely to write the laws and ideologies, and who have the power to decide what is and is not acceptable discourse.
Consider my previous thoughts on the way one generation's solution to a problem becomes the basis for a new problem facing the next generation. We certainly don't want to move backwards and empower demagoguery and fanaticism. What is the way forward?
Rational debate should be tempered with a higher degree of context-awareness. I concur with Wander and Jaehne (thanks totyrsalvia for this link [PDF]) that experts have to be more aware of the effects their ideas and proposals have on people, and that we have to be always aware of the way the economics of academia has guided the course of academic discourse. We cannot successfully divorce ideas from their implications, or idea-makers from their need to eat, sleep, and live in secure comfort.
What we are seeing here at work is a dualistic scheme, rather like the idea that there is a dualism of brain and mind, only of idea and context. Once again, in another context, dualism proves to be inherently dehumanizing and offers itself to the service of defending unjust status quos.
chaoticerotic for the link).It is proposed that happiness be classified as psychiatric disorder and be included in the future editions of the major diagnostic manuals under the name Major Affective Disorder: Pleasant Type. In a review of relevant literature, it is shown that happiness is statistically abnormal, consists of a discrete cluster of symptoms, is associated with a range of cognitive abnormalities and probably reflects the abnormal functioning of the central nervous system. One possible objection to this proposal remains -- that happiness is not negatively valued. However, this objection is dismissed as scientifically irrelevant.
If you read this, you will note that it is more or less as rigorous and well-cited an argument as we might expect to encounter in academic writing (although it does contain typos).
It reminded me right away of Dextera Domini: The Declaration on the Pastoral Care of Left-Handed Persons, which was in turn a spoof, and more, of another sort of rhetoric, in this case Catholic theological argument.
These are more than merely spoofs; they teach us a lot about the direction of modern thought and the consequences of fostering "detached rhetoric" as a favorable mode of communication. In the first case, we have an examination of the way common aspects of human experience have been seen as pathologies to be corrected. In the second case we have a theological examination, complete with nuanced scriptural citations, of the sinfulness of being left-handed (a parody of similar arguments offered against homosexuality).
This brave new world teaches us that anything stated in a rational tone, with proper citations and rhetorical style (arguments offered and objections anticipated), deserves to be taken seriously. The underlying idea is that ideas can and should be examined in a vacuum, a so-called "free marketplace," weighed against counterproposals in an environment completely divorced from their real-world implications. Every idea, no matter how repugnant, deserves to be calmly and rationally examined, debated, and discussed. If an idea is truly without merit, it will prove to be such after dispassionate examination.
This comes by way of reaction, of course, against the kind of argumentation which has given us much grief in the past: appeals to emotion, to common sense, to tradition, to "truthiness." Modern rhetoric is an attempt to escape the pitfalls of the past, and the cycles of oppression and discord that they have sowed. It also comes from a justifiable fear of simply going along with any given culture's rejection of certain ideas or principles as unworthy of examination: this is, after all, a means by which prejudice has been defended and perpetuated.
I've written before, briefly, about the use of rationalization as a way of discrediting the statements of feminists and cultural critics. A large part of this, of course, is the misappropriation and subversion of playing-field-leveling measures by those who wish to maintain an un-level playing field. Since the tone of detached "objective" scientific discourse was adopted in an attempt to counter the damage caused by demagoguery and superstitition, it was found necessary for this style to be subverted to the cause of promoting injustice. And so it has: modern evil is even more banal than ever before, offering in detached and well-cited argument why black people are inferior to whites and women are less capable than men.
By bringing up the context of oppression and by employing depictions of personal experiences, critics and feminists are not playing by the rules of rhetoric. In turn, they do not feel obliged to play by these rules because they argue that these rules were chosen for memetic proliferation because they make it easier to defend the social-stratification status quo, by rendering invisible the experience of oppression. For oppression to stand, the people who are subject to it must be unaware of it; therefore any tool that promotes isolation is deemed valuable to those who have privilege in an oppressive society -- the same people who are likely to write the laws and ideologies, and who have the power to decide what is and is not acceptable discourse.
Consider my previous thoughts on the way one generation's solution to a problem becomes the basis for a new problem facing the next generation. We certainly don't want to move backwards and empower demagoguery and fanaticism. What is the way forward?
Rational debate should be tempered with a higher degree of context-awareness. I concur with Wander and Jaehne (thanks to
tyrsalvia for this link [PDF]) that experts have to be more aware of the effects their ideas and proposals have on people, and that we have to be always aware of the way the economics of academia has guided the course of academic discourse. We cannot successfully divorce ideas from their implications, or idea-makers from their need to eat, sleep, and live in secure comfort.What we are seeing here at work is a dualistic scheme, rather like the idea that there is a dualism of brain and mind, only of idea and context. Once again, in another context, dualism proves to be inherently dehumanizing and offers itself to the service of defending unjust status quos.
