Nuance is not a Vice
Saturday, November 27, 2004
Putting the course back in discourse
In his piece "The Age of the Essay," noted computer programmer and essayist Paul Graham argues against the traditional pick-a-position-and-defend-it style of essay:
Defending a position may be a necessary evil in a legal dispute, but it's not the best way to get at the truth, as I think lawyers would be the first to admit. It's not just that you miss subtleties this way. The real problem is that you can't change the question.
[...]
And yet this principle is built into the very structure of the things they teach you to write in high school. The topic sentence is your thesis, chosen in advance, the supporting paragraphs the blows you strike in the conflict, and the conclusion-- uh, what is the conclusion? I was never sure about that in high school.
[...]
To understand what a real essay is, we have to reach back into history again, though this time not so far. To Michel de Montaigne, who in 1580 published a book of what he called "essais." He was doing something quite different from what lawyers do, and the difference is embodied in the name. Essayer is the French verb meaning "to try" and an essai is an attempt. An essay is something you write to try to figure something out.
Figure out what? You don't know yet. And so you can't begin with a thesis, because you don't have one, and may never have one. An essay doesn't begin with a statement, but with a question. In a real essay, you don't take a position and defend it. You notice a door that's ajar, and you open it and walk in to see what's inside.
I would problematize Graham's case in several ways, but he presents an interesting point. I don't see an inherent problem in leading with a thesis, on the condition that you're open to changing it if the evidence supports a different conclusion. Thesis provide structure to arguments -- no more can you begin to seek "the truth" blindly than a scientist can just perform an experiment and develop a hypothesis from the results.
However, Graham's argument has an intruiging implication on public discourse. Substantive debate is a rarity in our culture, as what would normally be productive disagreement so often devolves into mindless screaming matches. There seems to be little room for synthesis and compromise, despite the fact that synthesis and compromise are the best tools of policymaking.
Why such hostility towards open-mindedness? Perhaps some of it stems from the way we are taught to make arguments -- lead with a thesis, defend it at all costs. Implicit in that paradigm is a corollary which says that if logic and evidence disproves your thesis, you need to modify it, but the majority of people don't take that second step. As a result, we have a standoff before words are even spoken. I'll assemble some hard facts to back this up at a later date, but just apply this theory to debates over gun control, gay marriage or the death penalty and there is endless anecdotal and empirical evidence.
If you don't think that thesis-and-defend is a prevalent socializing factor, consider the following: Newspaper editorials and letters to the editor, television pundits (political, sports and otherwise), formal debate and forensics teams in H.S. and college, essays throughout the education system (including standarized tests), etc., etc., etc. It is drilled into our heads that this is the way you make an argument and debate it. Given that background, is it so surprising that instead of discourse we have dissention?
There is another way, of course. It's assumed that thesis-and-defend is natural, but as Graham points out:
What you tell [the reader] doesn't matter, so long as it's interesting. I'm sometimes accused of meandering. In defend-a-position writing that would be a flaw. There you're not concerned with truth. You already know where you're going, and you want to go straight there, blustering through obstacles, and hand-waving your way across swampy ground. But that's not what you're trying to do in an essay. An essay is supposed to be a search for truth. It would be suspicious if it didn't meander.
Though Graham is speaking of written essays and not oral discourse, the principles hold largely the same. Envision a great debate where positions were staked but malleable, where ideas flowed freely and filtered through the lens of intellect and reason. Truly, that is the milieu in which great works will be done.
-Elliot
P.S. I'm undertaking a new project to ask a lot of the question "Why?" We take the underpinnings of our society largely for granted, and perhaps we don't challenge them enough. I'm enough of a moderate to believe that a great deal of what exists is functional (which is why although I quote Graham heavily I disagree with one of his main assertions regarding the efficacy of the thesis), but at the same time there are fundamental aspects of society that could be improved with great benefit that aren't even being looked at. That, I'm hoping to change. I seek that great debate, and I think perhaps "Why?" is as good a road as any.
Related Link
Friday, November 26, 2004
A time for thanks and a time for action.
While I hope everyone is enjoying their family and friends for Thanksgiving, I'd implore you all to read this article in the Washington Post entitled "For a small girl in Darfur, a year of fear and flight."
We're fortunate enough to have this opportunity to feast and be merry; others have to give thanks if they make it through the night alive. So while you're reflecting this weekend, give a little thought to those less fortunate, and remember that our world is one.
[800,000 died in Rwanda. So far, 70,000+ have died in Darfur. 1.5 million have been displaced from their homes. These aren't statistics; these are people. If you haven't done so already, write to your representatives and senators, talk to your friends. In a country where we have national security interests on top of humanitarian interests, we're standing idly by. That's despicable.]
"An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
Related Link
Friday, November 12, 2004
Read this.
How UVA Turns Its Back on Rape -- this is a story in the current edition of The Hook, and you should all really read it. My next column will be focusing on sexual assault and what the University should be doing, but if you want to send a chill down your spine, take in that article.
Related Link
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Pro-choice, pro-life, pro-compromise?
Today I attended a hearing at the Albemarle County Office Building regarding a proposed Planned Parenthood building. The debate is centering on zoning technicalities, but as might be expected, the government center was overflowing with pro-life and pro-choice citizens (literally overflowing; not only did they have to clear the aisles, but the lobby was a zoo as well). Also as might be expected, a room full of people either wearing pro-choice circular stickers or pro-life square stickers led to quite a few heated conversations. It was clear from watching one pair going at it that the sun could go down and up several times and they would still be there, unwavering and without an ounce of progress. Observing ideological gridlock in action got me to thinking: Is there a possible compromise in the abortion debate?
Obviously there is no natural "middle ground," because the issue isn't that one side wants 4, the other wants 6 and everyone can meet happily at 5. Rather, the very assumptions of each side make a synthetic solution highly improbable. If you believe that life begins at conception, then yes, abortion is murder and should not be permitted. If you believe that life does not begin at conception and the decision should therefore by left up to the woman, then abortion should always be allowed. However, this duality does not preclude any agreement whatsoever.
There are two major methods through which to make substantive progress on abortion: One, find points of agreement on issues that spin out from abortion and work towards solving those; Two, have each side negotiate a softening of their positions.
With regards to the first method, abortion is but a pillar about which many agendas turn. Pro-choice and pro-life alike can agree that there is major work to be done in the areas of foster care, sexual assault, pre-natal care, maternity/paternity leave and child care, just to name a few. Both sides care deeply about the health and well-being of mothers, families and children, and these are points where they can unite to get at the core of abortion without having to pass through the gates of contention.
Not only does coming together to fight for the common good breed amicable connections among the varied supporters and opponents of abortion, but they also present solvable issues which can prove there is room for movement within each camp; in other words, this method dispels the myth of "baby-killers" and "women-haters."
Of course, even if you perfect the areas I mentioned above, the issue of abortion is still on the floor. As one of my friends likes to say: ignore controversy all you want, but after a while the dead elephant starts to smell. So, what can we do in a veritable standoff with two sides bitterly engaged and armed to the teeth? There's only one thing we possibly can do: start small.
Each side needs to realize that in order to make any progress, there must be negotiation, and negotiation entails sacrifice. This is in everyone's self-interest because it advances their currently stalled agenda and mollifies the terrible acrimony which is pervading our communities.
Let's take the pro-choice camp first. Opposition to abstinence education, though perhaps at times overstated, is an easy chip to throw in the middle. As shown unimpeachably in Uganda, one of the true AIDS success stories, abstinence education is a helpful tool in the fight against STDs. Furthermore, as that old saying goes, abstinence is the only 100% sure way to avoid unintended pregnancy and those nasty germs. At the same time, accepting abstinence education into the pro-life platform does not entail giving up safe sex ed. For little cost and significant gain, there's one point of compromise.
How about the pro-lifers? Opposition to contraception is an appealing counterpart to the abstinence education. Half of all pregnancies are unintended, and half of all unintended pregnancies result in abortions, so embracing contraceptive availability programs (in conjunction with the newly acceptable abstinence education) prevents any number of abortions. If you ask most pro-lifers what they would prefer, no abortions or no contraception, most would answer no abortions; thus, this should not be too bitter a pill to swallow for the pro-life camp.
So there we go: One point softened by each side, one step taken towards a compromise. You know those Strongest Man competitions where these hulks of men carry entire buses down the street? It's not so hard, really -- it's getting the bus to move that first inch which is nearly impossible. Throw in a united front tackling family-related issues which there is agreement on, and you might just get some serious inertia.
It's doubtful that abortion will ever cease to be the divisive topic it is today. As I pointed out at the beginning of this essay, there is simply an axiomatic clash to which there is no end in sight. Nevertheless, instead of screaming, cajoling, shouting and generally accomplishing nothing at all, the pro-life and pro-choice bodies should begin to find creative ways to compromise -- and who knows what will develop from there.
What do you think?
-Elliot
Related Link
Monday, November 08, 2004
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Deep breath, all together now.
Will everybody calm down? It really sucks that Bush won again, but it's not the end of the world. I give you three points for consideration:
Point the First: The American bureaucracy, bless its soul, is an unimaginably inert body. Even with a second-term President and a friendly Congress, the fact is that there are too many mechanisms of the status quo for a radical agenda to be imposed. Moreover, the GOP doesn't have the 60 votes it needs in the Senate to stop filibusters or override vetos or confirm any truly reactionary SCOTUS Justices, so there's that. I imagine we'll see more of the same, but don't expect concentration camps for Muslims or prayer in schools.
Point the Second: Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, MAYBE this drubbing will finally wake up the Democrats to the fact that they need a new strategy, a new doctrine, a new leadership. [read: me. :)]
Point the Third: At least come 2008, the Bush Doctrine will be unequivocably, unmistakably driven into the ground and stomped to smithereens. For better or for worse, America will never again attempt a policy of pre-emptive warfare without overwhelming evidence of a truly imminent threat.
So, chill. This isn't good, by any strech of the imagination; I was in Boston, and trust me, the faces in the crowd told the whole story. Still, let's stop the hysterics and figure out what we can take out of this experience to accomplish good over the next four years and set ourselves up for big wins in the 2006 midterms.
