Renegades!

A Warm Embrace: Intellectual Incest

In the process of categorizing one thinker, any critic or observer has to use almost a shorthand approach to label anyone else. Where do does this intellectual stand on any one issue? Where do they stand in an overall sense? Inevitably, the process gets messy when the observer attempts to compare themselves to their subject: How can I objectively observe someone else's work when I profoundly disagree with them? The problem will stick with the reader of observer of another's work. There has to be a rationalization of the observer's point of view as they observe a reasonable argument from an opponent. In short, they are challenged by an opposing viewpoint.

The observer of an opponent's position will feel as though they are threatened, inferior for having their illusions shattered, or cornered and defensive. The reaction is natural: although not explicitly stated, the difference of opinion means that someone believes your thinking to be flawed. It becomes almost personally offensive for some observers to read, think about, or consider the opposition's position on any one question. Take the issue of abortion, easily one of the most divisive topics in modern politics. If you are pro-choice, you may be instantly branded a child killer and an amoral psychotic by opponents. Conversely, pro-life boosters are almost instantly labeled intolerant fundamentalists by pro-choice forces. There are a list of hot button issues that cannot be dispassionately debated in such an atmosphere because of the instant vilification of both sides. An attempt to reach out to the other side's point of view is almost inimicable to the make up of the opposing forces. Each side may organize into lobby groups, pressuring a government to side with one side, or undermine the other. Heated exchanges in the public sphere, on the news, on panels or (less and less likely) the university result in few constructive dialogues.

The organization of like minded individuals is nothing new. Of course there is strength in numbers. Of course there is reassurance from knowing that your individual viewpoint is not the only one. But this reassurance of being 'one of many' is also a cause of concern. What if you only hear your own viewpoint reverberrated back to you? If the only viewpoint you might hear is your own, but just repeated by another person?

The response to this is instant comfort. Any one thinker can feel at ease knowing that their viewpoint is shared, and reinforced by others. There may be even a sense of invincibility to the thinker: Of course my viewpoint is correct. Others share my views, and they are intelligent and reasonable. In fact, it is possible that I am simply repeating what a majority of individuals believe. If so many agree with myself, it is a sample size worthy of a majority of individuals. Challenging viewpoints of an opponent will seem to glance off the solid armour or reinforcement and reassurance. Opposition may become unnecessary. Therein lies a problem of the thinker: the tool that kept them sharp, is no longer used. Ideas, once battle-hardened and shaped by an opponent's attacks and volleys are not utilized.

What possible thinker could embody such reasoning? Beyond challenges? The answer: all of us. Take a look in the mirror.

A sample of the modern thinker's reading material will show a stunning tunnel vision. The left reads Chomsky, Begala, and Moore. It eats up dissenters from the Bush Cabinet. It revels in the self righteousness of Hollywood. Its writers track the daily rants of the Daily Kos and Moore with zeal and secretly indulge in Z-Net and Indymedia. The right, for its part, has turned a blind eye to the obvious problems with the Bush administration, valuing its ideology over competence, the problems with its foreign policy, and the willingness to forgive dictators who will tow the party line (Musharaff).

Sample the reading lists of both the left and right, and you will find only like minded individuals as their favourites. There is no perceived value in their opponents, and with only your echo chamber, the writing and views of some have traveled well beyond the mainstream, and into fanaticism. Without the safety net of the opponents to keep viewpoints sharp and concrete, ideas and views have made an unfettered journey to the outer reaches. Where 'mixed company' might once held us together as a cohesive unit that simply 'agreed to disagree' and would 'fight for your right to disagree with me', now there is an instant, repulsive reaction to differences of the other.

posted by Shamrocks! @ 11:45 PM