{"id":24914,"date":"2011-01-11T07:47:45","date_gmt":"2011-01-11T14:47:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nmpolitics.net\/index\/?p=24914"},"modified":"2011-01-12T08:07:18","modified_gmt":"2011-01-12T15:07:18","slug":"the-dangers-of-being-disagreeable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/2011\/01\/the-dangers-of-being-disagreeable\/","title":{"rendered":"The dangers of being disagreeable"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

A sign from a tea party rally in Albuquerque in 2009. (Photo by nmfbihop\/flickr.com)<\/p><\/div>\n

Whether Jared Lee Loughner targeted Congresswoman Giffords after listening to extreme right wing or extreme left wing rhetoric seems beside the point \u2014 the truth is that, like all of us, he\u2019s likely been exposed to a full helping of both.<\/p>\n

And although we may find that one fanatic group or the other bears a lion\u2019s share of the blame for this particular tragedy, there\u2019s enough incendiary talk burning up our public dialogue that any one (or combination) of them could be responsible.<\/p>\n

A more useful thing might be to consider how the ways that we talk about our disagreements not only hinder meaningful problem solving but also, in the worst cases, facilitate violence.<\/p>\n

Discursive entrenchment<\/h3>\n

Rhetorician Elizabeth Ervin uses the term discursive entrenchment<\/em> to describe when:<\/p>\n

\u201cparticipants in a debate intellectually and rhetorically dig in their heels, refusing to consider alternative positions and thus aggravating existing tensions.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

We can find many examples of discursive entrenchment in our society.<\/p>\n

For example, consider many of the comments following articles on this site where commentators talk past each other, insisting on seemingly willful misunderstandings of opposing points of view, and resorting to name calling rather than civil discussion. Interactions like these promote discursive entrenchment and, as Ervin argues, are capable of \u201caggravating existing tensions.\u201d<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve seen this sort of rhetorical brinksmanship playing itself out in the public sphere, with conservatives calling President Obama a socialist, or, even stranger, someone who displays “Kenyan, anti-colonial”<\/a> behavior. In turn, President Obama recently accused Republicans of being \u201chostage-takers\u201d when they didn’t act as he wanted them too. It’s easy to see how this sort of talk, from both sides<\/strong>, exemplifies discursive entrenchment and moves the country further from solutions rather than closer.<\/p>\n

Both parties have dug in their heels, both refuse to consider alternate viewpoints, and both are aggravating existing tensions<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Sacred Rhetoric<\/h3>\n

Political scholar Morgan Marietta uses the term sacred rhetoric<\/em> to describe rhetoric that is:<\/p>\n

\u201cunconflicted, extreme, and strident, taking positions that ignore compromise or negotiation, upholding the inviolability of a favored set of values while dismissing others.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

President George W. Bush used sacred rhetoric when he argued after the 9\/11 attacks that \u201cyou\u2019re either with us or against us.” In this case, President Bush brooked no room for discussion or deliberation among \u201cus.\u201d Talk like this limited the scope of how we might have addressed the 9\/11 attacks, effectively moving the public dialogue past deliberation to passionate engagement (or alienation, in some cases).<\/p>\n

Sacred rhetoric is contrasted with what Marietta calls consequentialism<\/em>, a rhetorical mode where discussion centers around how the activity or policy in question would impact the public welfare. A consequentialist discussion of 9\/11, for example, would debate the practical effects and real world consequences<\/strong> of various military and diplomatic options rather than proselytize about the morality of them, as both sides (and I too) have done.<\/p>\n

Marietta\u2019s research indicates that our brains process sacred rhetoric differently than consequentialist rhetoric.<\/p>\n

Here are her findings:<\/p>\n