![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
semiotic_pirateIs Persuasion Dead?
By MATT MILLER
Speaking just between us - between one who writes columns and those who read them - I've had this nagging question about the whole enterprise we're engaged in.
Is persuasion dead? And if so, does it matter?
The significance of this query goes beyond the feelings of futility I'll suffer if it turns out I've wasted my life on work that is useless. This is bigger than one writer's insecurities. Is it possible in America today to convince anyone of anything he doesn't already believe? If so, are there enough places where this mingling of minds occurs to sustain a democracy?
The signs are not good. Ninety percent of political conversation amounts to dueling "talking points." Best-selling books reinforce what folks thought when they bought them. Talk radio and opinion journals preach to the converted. Let's face it: the purpose of most political speech is not to persuade but to win, be it power, ratings, celebrity or even cash.
By contrast, marshaling a case to persuade those who start from a different position is a lost art. Honoring what's right in the other side's argument seems a superfluous thing that can only cause trouble, like an appendix. Politicos huddle with like-minded souls in opinion cocoons that seem impervious to facts.
The politicians and the press didn't kill off persuasion intentionally, of course; it's more manslaughter than murder. Persuasion just isn't relevant to delivering elections or eyeballs. Pols have figured out that to get votes you don't need to change minds. Even when they want to, modern media make it hard. They give officials seconds to make their point, ignore their ideas in favor of their poll numbers or showcase a clash of caricatures, believing this is the only way to make "debate" entertaining. Elections may turn on emotions like hope and fear anyway, but with persuasion's passing, there's no alternative.
There's only one problem: governing successfully requires influencing how people actually think. Yet when the habits of persuasion have been buried, the possibilities of leadership are interred as well. That's why Bill Clinton's case on health care could be bested by savage "Harry and Louise" ads. And why, even if George Bush's Social Security plan had been well conceived, the odds were always stacked against ambitious reform.
I'm not the only one who amid this mess wonders if he shouldn't be looking at another line of work. A top conservative thinker called recently, dejected at the sight of Ann Coulter on the cover of Time. What's the point of being substantive, he cried, when all the attention goes to the shrill?
But the embarrassing truth is that we earnest chin-strokers often get it wrong anyway. Take me. I hadn't thought much about Iraq before I read Ken Pollack's book, "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq," a platonic ideal of careful analysis meant to persuade. It worked. I was persuaded! So what should we conclude when a talent like Pollack can convince us - and then the whole thing turns out to be based on a premise (W.M.D.) that is false?
If serious efforts to get it right can lead to tragic errors, why care about a culture of persuasion at all? On one level, everyone needs a good rationalization at the core of his professional life; mine holds that the struggle to think things through, even when we fail, is redeeming.
But beyond this, the gap between the cartoon of public life that the press and political establishment often serve up and the pragmatic open-mindedness of most Americans explains why so many people tune out - and how we might get them to tune back in. Alienation is the only intelligent response to a political culture that insults our intelligence.
The resurrection of persuasion will not be easy. Politicians who've learned to survive in an unforgiving environment may not feel safe with a less scripted style. Mass media outlets where heat has always sold more than light may not believe that creatively engaging on substance can expand their audience. But if you believe that meeting our collective challenges requires greater collective understanding, we've got to persuade these folks to try.
I'm guessing Ann Coulter isn't sweating this stuff. God willing, there's something else keeping her up nights. In the meantime, like Sisyphus, those who seek a better public life have to keep rolling the rock uphill. If you've read this far, maybe you're up for the climb, too.
(babble)
This reminds me of my Classic classes - specifically Greek & Roman Mythology, Intro to Political Science, and Greek & Roman Literature. In each of those classes I was impressed by the things that children learn then as opposed to the things children learn now.
In ancient Athens, the purpose of education was to produce citizens. Back then you would take classes like rhetoric, drama, public speaking, government, art, reading, writing, math, and music. There were open debates happening all over the place, forums where people could discuss their opinions and persuade people to believe/think what you do.
It isn't that we don't still have a semblance of this in our education system, but it happens so late in the development of our children (young adult stage) with debate clubs and college level philosophy courses, that by the time it happens it can be, in many ways, too late. Or were/are the only people engaged in these activities the elite, the rich? Is it because we have had a giant surge in "the masses"? The ones who would cleave to religion as an opiate?
We are overrun not by how well we should educate our next generations, but in how much it costs, and that it costs us too much (government) and that we should shift the burden to the private sphere. Hmmn. We shouldn't put the burden for education solely on the parents or teachers - the only way to educate is to have multiple layers of reinforcement, of ideals, ethics, morals, as well as the basic fundamentals of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Maybe there should be a complete overhaul of the school system. Where there is more of an across-the-board sameness of curriculum, etc... I grew up moving around frequently, I lost count of how many schools I ended up at. And at each one, I lost a bit of time (or rather floundered) as I found my way into the ever shifting curriculum of each school. Or is that too much to expect? (/babble)
Education, not Annihilation
Books, not Bombs
By MATT MILLER
Speaking just between us - between one who writes columns and those who read them - I've had this nagging question about the whole enterprise we're engaged in.
Is persuasion dead? And if so, does it matter?
The significance of this query goes beyond the feelings of futility I'll suffer if it turns out I've wasted my life on work that is useless. This is bigger than one writer's insecurities. Is it possible in America today to convince anyone of anything he doesn't already believe? If so, are there enough places where this mingling of minds occurs to sustain a democracy?
The signs are not good. Ninety percent of political conversation amounts to dueling "talking points." Best-selling books reinforce what folks thought when they bought them. Talk radio and opinion journals preach to the converted. Let's face it: the purpose of most political speech is not to persuade but to win, be it power, ratings, celebrity or even cash.
By contrast, marshaling a case to persuade those who start from a different position is a lost art. Honoring what's right in the other side's argument seems a superfluous thing that can only cause trouble, like an appendix. Politicos huddle with like-minded souls in opinion cocoons that seem impervious to facts.
The politicians and the press didn't kill off persuasion intentionally, of course; it's more manslaughter than murder. Persuasion just isn't relevant to delivering elections or eyeballs. Pols have figured out that to get votes you don't need to change minds. Even when they want to, modern media make it hard. They give officials seconds to make their point, ignore their ideas in favor of their poll numbers or showcase a clash of caricatures, believing this is the only way to make "debate" entertaining. Elections may turn on emotions like hope and fear anyway, but with persuasion's passing, there's no alternative.
There's only one problem: governing successfully requires influencing how people actually think. Yet when the habits of persuasion have been buried, the possibilities of leadership are interred as well. That's why Bill Clinton's case on health care could be bested by savage "Harry and Louise" ads. And why, even if George Bush's Social Security plan had been well conceived, the odds were always stacked against ambitious reform.
I'm not the only one who amid this mess wonders if he shouldn't be looking at another line of work. A top conservative thinker called recently, dejected at the sight of Ann Coulter on the cover of Time. What's the point of being substantive, he cried, when all the attention goes to the shrill?
But the embarrassing truth is that we earnest chin-strokers often get it wrong anyway. Take me. I hadn't thought much about Iraq before I read Ken Pollack's book, "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq," a platonic ideal of careful analysis meant to persuade. It worked. I was persuaded! So what should we conclude when a talent like Pollack can convince us - and then the whole thing turns out to be based on a premise (W.M.D.) that is false?
If serious efforts to get it right can lead to tragic errors, why care about a culture of persuasion at all? On one level, everyone needs a good rationalization at the core of his professional life; mine holds that the struggle to think things through, even when we fail, is redeeming.
But beyond this, the gap between the cartoon of public life that the press and political establishment often serve up and the pragmatic open-mindedness of most Americans explains why so many people tune out - and how we might get them to tune back in. Alienation is the only intelligent response to a political culture that insults our intelligence.
The resurrection of persuasion will not be easy. Politicians who've learned to survive in an unforgiving environment may not feel safe with a less scripted style. Mass media outlets where heat has always sold more than light may not believe that creatively engaging on substance can expand their audience. But if you believe that meeting our collective challenges requires greater collective understanding, we've got to persuade these folks to try.
I'm guessing Ann Coulter isn't sweating this stuff. God willing, there's something else keeping her up nights. In the meantime, like Sisyphus, those who seek a better public life have to keep rolling the rock uphill. If you've read this far, maybe you're up for the climb, too.
(babble)
This reminds me of my Classic classes - specifically Greek & Roman Mythology, Intro to Political Science, and Greek & Roman Literature. In each of those classes I was impressed by the things that children learn then as opposed to the things children learn now.
In ancient Athens, the purpose of education was to produce citizens. Back then you would take classes like rhetoric, drama, public speaking, government, art, reading, writing, math, and music. There were open debates happening all over the place, forums where people could discuss their opinions and persuade people to believe/think what you do.
It isn't that we don't still have a semblance of this in our education system, but it happens so late in the development of our children (young adult stage) with debate clubs and college level philosophy courses, that by the time it happens it can be, in many ways, too late. Or were/are the only people engaged in these activities the elite, the rich? Is it because we have had a giant surge in "the masses"? The ones who would cleave to religion as an opiate?
We are overrun not by how well we should educate our next generations, but in how much it costs, and that it costs us too much (government) and that we should shift the burden to the private sphere. Hmmn. We shouldn't put the burden for education solely on the parents or teachers - the only way to educate is to have multiple layers of reinforcement, of ideals, ethics, morals, as well as the basic fundamentals of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Maybe there should be a complete overhaul of the school system. Where there is more of an across-the-board sameness of curriculum, etc... I grew up moving around frequently, I lost count of how many schools I ended up at. And at each one, I lost a bit of time (or rather floundered) as I found my way into the ever shifting curriculum of each school. Or is that too much to expect? (/babble)
Education, not Annihilation
Books, not Bombs
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-10 08:00 pm (UTC)And the ideal of the citizen, at least according to most of the philosophers whose works we have, was someone who didn't have to work for a living.
I.e., "masters", not "workers".
In modern society, almost everybody does have to work for a living, so our education is focussed on producing competent employees (with, admittedly, a sprinkling of "liberal arts").
On the other hand, as you mention, if you look at the education given to the offspring of our own social elites (i.e. "masters"), it does show a greater emphasis on "rhetoric, drama, public speaking, government, art, reading, writing, math, and music".
Re: wonderful quote, and ideas on curriculumn standardization...
Date: 2005-06-16 08:59 pm (UTC)You sound like you've had some interesting experiences to share! Excellent.
for a revival of persuasion culture to happen we must educate for citizenship and encourage the involvement of everyone.
This is so true. If we again look to our history, any time there has appeared a great gap between rich (ie: our hyper-rich) and the poor (the fading middle class and the poor, the former knowing what they are losing and mad about it) we have seen very destructive patterns. Civilizations crumble into violent upheaval. One of the more ancient of these examples is the fall of Rome, where it was no longer the point to have intelligent citizens, rather it was important to distract the masses with fabulous displays in the Coliseums. The Empire had spread itself too thin as well, trying to fend off invaders from too many far-flung fronts.
Another quote for you illumination: Education, not eradication.