In a comment to BooMan’s excellent FP diary on the Imus imbroglio, Kahli wrote:
I only hope that this incident can lead to some constructive conversations about the way we discuss our differences in this country.
Now, this is in no way a criticism of Kahli, but I find such talk, and the closely-related calls for a “national conversation” or “national dialogue” – on race, on economic inequality, on many other matters of import – increasingly puzzling.
In part this is because, with my overly literal mind, I have a hard time imagining what a “national conversation” would be. (Who would provide all the snacks?) But to the extent that I can envision what is meant by this phrase, I cannot envision its happening at the present time. For the fact is – or so it seems to me – a very large part of the present U.S. population, by no means restricted to dittoheads and such, firmly believes that listening itself is a form of weakness. (And weakness is to be detested.)
“Strength”, on the other hand, is displayed in the making of confident assertions, absent any qualifications, any expression of uncertainty, any supporting reasons. Qualification, after all, resembles equivocation, and to be equivocal – about anything – is (to a certain sensibility) to be weak, gutless, afraid or unwilling to “take a stand.” And as Nietzsche pointed out, the awareness of a need to give reasons is symptomatic of a diminution of confidence (whether that is a good or a bad thing is something on which Nietzsche was, admirably, equivocal.)
The Imuses, O’Reillys, Limbaughs … the Judge Judys … etc. … are merely an obvious surface manifestation of this. One sees it all over the place. Our so-called political/news “debate” shows. Many a “discussion” thread on the dailyKos. NPR call-in shows like Diane Rheem’s or “Talk of the Nation”, where I, at least, am frequently amazed to hear how many listeners will write or call in to a guest with considerable expertise and experience in some area, someone from whom one might think most of us had something to learn, not with a question, but with a “comment” … proceeding to instruct the guest (and the rest of us) as to the way things really are, without the slightest pretense of seeking a response or further information.
I won’t even get into my numerous depressing years in the classrooms of “elite” and “not-so-elite” universities, trying to encourage a spirit of inquiry.
Or, to take a trivial example, consider those pre-game sports shows on ESPN and the like. You know, the ones where they have four retired football players and one “nerdy” announcer sitting around the table “discussing” the upcoming game in terms that basically boil down to: “You’re wrong.” “No, you’re wrong.” “Both of you are wrong.” “No, you’re wrong.” “You’re all wrong.” (Chummy macho laughter.)
It’s too facile to say that this sort of stuff is so pervasive on the airwaves because people find it entertaining. No, many of them find it positively admirable. To repeat: Authoritative assertion, strength, admirable. Listening, weak, detestable.
How, in such circumstances, can there be a serious, constructive, “national conversation” on even a trivial matter? It would just be “NFL Today” writ large. Very large.
Though it’s fatuous, it bears stating: you cannot talk somebody into listening.
I hope I’m wrong about all this. And if anybody can explain to me why I am … I’m listening.