[long post; read it carefully]
When we did our 'belief / science' spectrum in class we could all look out over our group and see—graphically—how we differed in the ways we see science, facts, rationality, spirituality, commitment to views of the world and the universe, emotion, proof—everything. It was a moment of affirmation for many of us, because we were able to treat our many differences with complete respect.
It's not always that way. In 'Beyond…reason,' Robin and Carl try to explain how we might understand the visceral, powerful, passionate and often ugly ways we 'construct' those whose views radically contradict ours. They show how words (rhetoric) work to construct worlds that may never be brought into alignment. And why it matters so much. And why we all probably do it.
So maybe, over in the other corner from where we sat on Tuesday, are people who really don't live in the same worlds we do—though we pass on the street and sit beside each other in Al's all the time. Maybe.
In this late blog post, we can take this further by imagining a very specific 'subject position' different from our own, identifying a very specific claim about the world on which we would probably differ, and offering that person a way to see how the differences are constructed. And why it matters so much.
NOT a rant. NOT Hannity or Jon Stewart. No sneering, eye-rolling, snarky, funny put-downs. No preaching. No testifying. No self-serving superiority. No unsupported claims. No condescension—as much fun as any of that can be.
Reasoned, careful, theoretically-anchored, self-aware and charitable.
We may never change a mind. But we may be able to get clear how we differ. Step one across the bridge.
1. Identify a subject position. The model here is 'Beyond…reason,' but for you and your world. Think about how Robin lays out his hard-won investment in science, ornithology, geology, mountaineering, careful driving, big words, art, representation—and how his it contrasts with the world of guys who like the grand and grandiloquent, and who read the Whitney's catalog and build trucks as art. Detailed. Specific. Maybe it's your best friend or your aunt. Maybe it's your former Pastor or Hebrew School teacher. Maybe it's your biology teacher.
2. Identify an issue with a specific claim in it. The MCCL billboard above has many. One is actual science: 'embryos are just tiny babies.' One involves gender roles and pairings; a dude with his cap on backwards, and a babe with a cute hat with a butterfly. Science. Sex and sexuality, of course, if you can—but really anything that falls under our big umbrella of 'Science and Culture.' Use the claims in Andrea Tone's history of 'the pill' if you like; things like Loretta Lynn singing sexual freedom and Bad Men. Medicalization of sexuality. Side effects. Birth control as a 'woman's issue' (variously). The total alteration of sex, love, marriage, families that comes about when various 'reproductive technologies' become available. 'Rights' (privacy, life). 'Hook-ups' or 'friends with benefits' (discursive technologies). Abstinence rings, clubs or balls (discursive technologies). Arranged marriages (discursive technologies). Celibate priesthoods (discursive technologies). E-Harmony (discursive / cyber technology). Though we're not there yet, Jill Lepore's history of Planned Parenthood politics, the Pope, and the MCCL website (next week) are full of material. So is your life. Get it small and specific; good issue = good blogpost.
3. Build a bridge. Writing in any form / format that works for you, explain how and why this issue is a total stumbling block, and what needs to be done to understand the inherent conflicts. You're explaining and showing. You're using our work (all of it) to make the case. Your goal is understanding—going both ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment