redstar2000
1st July 2003, 06:40
For those who think of themselves as being "on the left", what could be meant by "principled" and "unprincipled" debate?
As some of you know, this question has been brought rather forcefully to my attention in the last 36 hours...so I thought I'd put down some reflections on the matter while it was still fresh in my mind.
We all ritualistically denounce "flaming", but no one really takes that very seriously...or for very long. If you are involved in a heated dispute with someone and a "witty" attack occurs to you, very few possess the strength to set it aside in favor of more reasonable discourse.
That being the case, are there any limits? Is it "ok" to say anything if it makes your opponent or his argument "look bad"? That's pretty much the case in bourgeois legal circles, you know, and since most bourgeois politicians have legal training, that's the way they do things. Supposedly, the "30-second hate spot" is the most effective weapon in American capitalist elections.
Could we do "better"? That is, could we agree that certain kinds of attacks are "out of bounds", "unacceptable" between leftists? Mao, of course, coined a rather grandiose label for this: "contradictions among the people" vs. "contradictions between the people and the enemy".
Perhaps, perhaps not. One difficulty is deciding exactly who is among the "people" and who is really part of the enemy. In a period like ours, when theoretical clarity is almost nonexistent, people will have honest and heated disagreements about "who is on the left" and "who isn't", and what they will consider to be acceptable discourse will vary accordingly.
One way to make a distinction is the matter of theoretical clarity: a principled debate concerns the correctness or incorrectness of ideas about social reality, how it works, and how to change it. An unprincipled debate concerns the motives, personal characteristics, and alledged moral depravities of the participants.
Unfortunately, it is often difficult, especially in the heat of argument, to keep clear of such matters. Motives, in particular, are often directly relevant to certain political ideas.
Some would say, of course, that a lot of this wouldn't be such a problem if people would only "tone down their rhetoric". Saying a proposition "makes no sense" is effectively the same as saying that it's "utterly idiotic"...but the former does not, unlike the latter, suggest that your opponent is an "idiot".
But "blandness" and "scholarly disinterest" alienate everyone. People expect passionate discourse, and if they don't get it, they change the channel.
Another problem is the "quick & dirty" summary--or even brief and derogatory label--for the views of another. Of course, I, like everyone else, am busy...the more "short-cuts" that I can take advantage of, the more I can get done...and everyone else feels exactly the same way. Sometimes the summary or the label is agreed on by both sides; usually it's not.
If there is any clear place where we can "draw the line", I think it would fall into the realm of unsupported assertions of personal depravity. If in the course of disputing someone's argument, I mention, in passing, that they are on the payroll of the CIA...and offer no evidence of this, it seems to me that I have crossed the line into unacceptable "debate". On the other hand, if this person has already identified themselves as an employee of the CIA, then I am still within the realm of acceptable debate. But even then, care must be exercised. Every CIA agent is not stationed in Cuba...if I am accusing him of trying to overthrow the Cuban Government, I need evidence that, at least, he was actually there, or worked on the Cuba desk in Washington, DC.
And so it goes. If you are going to assert that your opponent in some dispute is a reprehensible individual on other grounds, please, if at all possible, take the trouble to look up the post where evidence of their depravity is clear and cite the relevant passages.
That's not too much to ask, is it?
:cool:
As some of you know, this question has been brought rather forcefully to my attention in the last 36 hours...so I thought I'd put down some reflections on the matter while it was still fresh in my mind.
We all ritualistically denounce "flaming", but no one really takes that very seriously...or for very long. If you are involved in a heated dispute with someone and a "witty" attack occurs to you, very few possess the strength to set it aside in favor of more reasonable discourse.
That being the case, are there any limits? Is it "ok" to say anything if it makes your opponent or his argument "look bad"? That's pretty much the case in bourgeois legal circles, you know, and since most bourgeois politicians have legal training, that's the way they do things. Supposedly, the "30-second hate spot" is the most effective weapon in American capitalist elections.
Could we do "better"? That is, could we agree that certain kinds of attacks are "out of bounds", "unacceptable" between leftists? Mao, of course, coined a rather grandiose label for this: "contradictions among the people" vs. "contradictions between the people and the enemy".
Perhaps, perhaps not. One difficulty is deciding exactly who is among the "people" and who is really part of the enemy. In a period like ours, when theoretical clarity is almost nonexistent, people will have honest and heated disagreements about "who is on the left" and "who isn't", and what they will consider to be acceptable discourse will vary accordingly.
One way to make a distinction is the matter of theoretical clarity: a principled debate concerns the correctness or incorrectness of ideas about social reality, how it works, and how to change it. An unprincipled debate concerns the motives, personal characteristics, and alledged moral depravities of the participants.
Unfortunately, it is often difficult, especially in the heat of argument, to keep clear of such matters. Motives, in particular, are often directly relevant to certain political ideas.
Some would say, of course, that a lot of this wouldn't be such a problem if people would only "tone down their rhetoric". Saying a proposition "makes no sense" is effectively the same as saying that it's "utterly idiotic"...but the former does not, unlike the latter, suggest that your opponent is an "idiot".
But "blandness" and "scholarly disinterest" alienate everyone. People expect passionate discourse, and if they don't get it, they change the channel.
Another problem is the "quick & dirty" summary--or even brief and derogatory label--for the views of another. Of course, I, like everyone else, am busy...the more "short-cuts" that I can take advantage of, the more I can get done...and everyone else feels exactly the same way. Sometimes the summary or the label is agreed on by both sides; usually it's not.
If there is any clear place where we can "draw the line", I think it would fall into the realm of unsupported assertions of personal depravity. If in the course of disputing someone's argument, I mention, in passing, that they are on the payroll of the CIA...and offer no evidence of this, it seems to me that I have crossed the line into unacceptable "debate". On the other hand, if this person has already identified themselves as an employee of the CIA, then I am still within the realm of acceptable debate. But even then, care must be exercised. Every CIA agent is not stationed in Cuba...if I am accusing him of trying to overthrow the Cuban Government, I need evidence that, at least, he was actually there, or worked on the Cuba desk in Washington, DC.
And so it goes. If you are going to assert that your opponent in some dispute is a reprehensible individual on other grounds, please, if at all possible, take the trouble to look up the post where evidence of their depravity is clear and cite the relevant passages.
That's not too much to ask, is it?
:cool: