A Justice Site
Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP
California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Soka University Japan - Transcend Art and Peace
Created: October 29, 2001
Latest Update: October 29, 2001
Faculty:
jeannecurran@habermas.org
Olivier at tapcourse@yahoo.com
takata@uwp.edu
The Shaping of Dominant Discourse
Copyright: Jeanne Curran, Susan R. Takata, Olivier Urbain, and Individual Authors: October 2001.
"Fair use" encouraged.
On Monday, October 29, 2001, Kasie Boone, LaKisha Miller, and Angelique Wyatt wrote:
Hi Jeanne.As I sat in class last week, I realized that we as Americans are slowly but surely, becoming adversaries. As I stated to you in class, Ben Graham stated that '' of course we must be adversaries at this point". But Jeanne, why should we allow ourselves to become this way? I understand that Americans are very angry, and want to strike back, but is striking back the answer to our problem?
jeanne's comment We don't have to allow ourselves to become that way. That's Fellman's message in Rambo and the Dalai Lama. That's Ben Graham's message. That's Gandhi's message. But we do have to feel the anger. That's Hal Pepinsky's message in the Peacemaking Primer. To repress the anger in the name of "goodness" or whatever means that it will fester inside us. With some of us, not all, just some it will one day burst force in aggression. With some it may one day burst forth in murderous revenge. It is not good to fail to see that possibility and to work at curing the anger now. Ben Graham acknowledges that it's hard to deal with that anger at a time immediately following a great wrong. But to deny it is to become complicit with those who simply want revenge. That's what I meant when I said we must be adversarial in some sense now. We must reach that naturally occurring anger and deal with it honestly.
Bush, is a very ignorant man to me. He preaches: " We will beat them," making his context a negative social element, and also putting Americans in a position of confusion.
For example, I really dont know which way to turn. With this Anthrax factor in process, and smallpox following strongly behind, dominant discourse seems to be taking on a negative character, like Bush's attitude, putting me in a position of not knowing.jeanne's comment Well, yes, I see your point. Of course we want to win. Everyone wants to "win." Yet, the concept of winning does not have to include "beating" the Other. There are recognized and workable alternatives to "winning" which include "negotiating to 'yes' ", saving face, "win-win" alternatives, and so on. they are hard to work with when anger and grief are still raw. But unremitting killing of the "one who done us wrong" will not resolve the conflict. President Bush's total embrace of the "winning" stance is confusing to those of us who recognize that war and terrorism are complex social constructions, not a game in which one party or the other "wins."
jeanne's comment Two things here, Kasie. Most of us are uncomfortable with ambiguity. We would like a "right answer." But in war and terrorism there may be no right answers. At the same time that we must stop the killing and the harm to Others, we must somehow cut short the whole process and help each other recover from the hate and anger which led to the war and terrorism in the first place. And there are no "right answers" to the causes of hate and anger. Bush's approach may stop the immediate threat by stamping out enough of the Others who don't like us, but his approach will not resolve the causes of hate and anger. The "war" approach is much more likely to instigate further retailiation and resentment.
The confusion you feel is often referred to in theory as an intolerance for ambiguity, and/or cognitive dissonance. Nag me to put up some summaries of these theories.
As I converse with others about the war, many wish that a slight form of fundamentalism would occur because, really, no one knows what to do.
As Jonathan Lear states, "Our biggest fear is that of not knowing," and I agree with him 100%. Ever since September 11th, I find myself not watching much news. I really don't want to know what's next. As I can see, we now live in a world where interaction process analysis is going to become an overwhelming factor in society.jeanne's comment I like your invention of "a slight form of fundamentalism." To my knowledge there is no such thing, but I think I understand what you mean. It would be comforting at a time like this is there were someone in our social context who could filter the information coming in, tell us what degree of importance each piece of information has, and point out to us what effects, both short term and long term each new piece of information is likely to have.
But for us to trust someone in that role is to show a great deal of trust. Programs of news analysis are meant to help with this. But each of those programs has its own agenda and political perspective, which affects the analysis they offer.
We used to turn for such informational and moral guidance to religious leaders. But often the religious leaders themselves are having great difficulty sorting out the whole crazy situation.
Your solution, "a slight form of fundamentalism," is a good way of expressing the emotional dilemma we all face. I'm afraid that like a "slight case of pregnancy," we can't have that dream. But we can choose teachers, religious guides, friends, and even news media that we can trust in those moments when we need the protection of that "fundamentalism." The trouble is that having someone to tell you what to do might be so comforting that one day you'll be willing to give up your freedoms for that security. Dangerous that. Better to rest, center yourself, and than venture out slowly again into that awesome anguish of the freedom to choose, life.
jeanne's comment Whoa! Something doesn't compute here. Interaction Process Analysis is the paradigm worked out by Bales to determine leadership in face-toface groups. Remember that we discussed that leadership can be evidenced by either socio-emotional participation or by task-oriented participation in the group. Task-oriented participation can be either giving information, summarizing, and giving direction to the group, or the asking of questions. Socio-emotional participation cna consist of either positive socio-emotional comments to hold the group together or negative socio-emotional comments to whip the group into shape.
Now, what's going to become an overwhelming factor in society. The negative whipping into shape in the direction of aggression and vengeance? If so, you can't make the intellectual leap to that conclusion without explaining it. It would fit, but you can't just throw out the name of the theory and leave it totally unexplained.
We are becoming one, bringing hope and hopefully peace to America. We are allowing families, couples, even friends to be closely connected in this crisis. But in conclusion, with all this said, do you think that going on with our lives is the right thing to do?
jeanne's comment OK, I give up. Where did so many of you get this rhetorical device of using a general philosophical and unanswerable question at the end of your essays? First of all, that's not a conclusion. A conclusion for what you three wrote would be: "Even though we recognize the necessity for critical thinking as we try to sort out the events since September 11, we feel the anxiety of an ambiguity from which we all seem to suffer, except perhaps those who have responded in the simple intensity of their rage." That tells me what you think about the situation.
But the question at the end would seem to belie all that you've said and concluded: "[D]o you think that going on with our lives is the right thing to do?" It's not a plausible question. What do you care what I think? You know that "How shall I live?" is Socrates' fundamental question of life. And to accept my answer, whatever it might be, and that would probably change over time, would be more than a slight case of fundamentalism. To seek such an answer from a guru would be to seek to relinquish your humanity, your responsibility for the life you choose to live. Life is worth more than that. Live it.