Kyrel,
Thank you for your thought-provoking comments, as always.
I think that the kind of daring, provocative argumentation you describe does have its place – when done skillfully and amusingly. An excellent example of this is Penn & Teller’s show, B. S.!, which I enjoy watching even when I disagree with Penn & Teller on their particular views. Why are they so effective? First, their incivility seems almost a mockery of itself. They curse so frequently and often in such silly ways that anyone can tell that they do not really harbor any spite in them and are rather amused by their own antics. Furthermore, they have made a joke out of their own incivility by suggesting that if they had criticized certain people substantively, they would get sued, but by cursing, they could avoid such liability.
Moreover, Penn & Teller aim their self-mocking profanities at such a general audience that it becomes virtually impossible for anyone (except perhaps some of the people interviewed on their show) to take the insults personally. And Penn & Teller do include a fair degree of substantive commentary and interviews with sources whom they respect on their show as well. Overall, what they do is highly effective and entertaining.
I think that this style of argumentation has limited applicability however. Here are instances in which it fails:
1) One-on-one conversation or conversation in small groups, where it is far too easy for people to become offended, and where many people neither expect nor seek highly provocative exchanges that involve the passions too intensely.
2) Uncivil or insulting behavior by people who do not know how to do it artfully and with style – and to distance it from their own anger. It is one thing to curse without spite as Penn & Teller do; it is another to curse out of rage, hatred, or a feeling of being maligned – for instance. Many people, as you have noted, substitute insults and profanity for a lack of substance or, as Gerald has pointed out, for insecurity regarding the strength of their own position.
3) Situations where disagreements are small, all things considered, and have not yet escalated into an active ideological confrontation (i.e., protest rallies, money being spent on campaigns, and mass media advertisements). It is necessary to keep in mind that mockery is a last resort for those who absolutely cannot be persuaded and continue to actively do harm. For instance, I see no problem in mocking Hillary Clinton or Barbara Boxer, but if a neighbor of mine were to express even enthusiastic support for their policies, I would try to talk to him civilly and calmly and figure out why he believes what he does and perhaps inform him about what Clinton, Boxer, et. al. are really up to.
Two of my favorite authors – Molière and Voltaire – used satire that would really have deeply hurt and mocked the subjects of its criticism, considering the cultural environment and attitudes of their time. But their mockery was justified, I believe, because they were confronting people who engaged in vicious religious and political oppression. They were not merely confronting abstract disagreements, but actual clergymen and governments who undertook large-scale persecution.
But when one communicates directly to fairly ordinary people who are not in a position to inflict actual harm, I believe incivility to be unjustified. What do you think of the distinctions and qualifications I have made here?
Sincerely,
Gennady Stolyarov II
Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator: http://rationalargumentator.com
Writer, Associated Content: http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/46796/g_stolyarov_ii.html
Author, The Best Self-Help is Free: http://rationalargumentator.com/selfhelpfree.html
Author, The Progress of Liberty Blog: http://progressofliberty.today.com/
|
