We Need Higher Quality Outrage
By Deborah Tannen
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1022/p09s01-coop.html
-
Do you tend to avoid or lean into “heated” political discussions? What about them alienates or attracts you? Can you think of a hot political discussion that led you to think about an issue in a new way? What allowed you to shift your thinking?
-
The author mentions two benefits of heated political discussions: they ask us “to articulate-and therefore examine-the logic of our views” and they expose us to the views of those with whom we disagree. What benefits have you experienced from such discussions?
-
Did you avoid discussing the 2004 election with a family member or friend? What prompted you to hold back? What may have been lost as a result? What was gained? What commitments would you need to make and what steps would you need to take in order to enter a conversation about politics with this person with more hope than apprehension?
-
The author distinguishes between "agonistic shouting" and "constructive or genuine opposition." What stands out for you as the most important distinction between the two? How do you tell them apart?
-
Have you ever talked about a public issue with people whose views differ strongly from yours and found that the conversation became passionate but not "agonistic"? What did you or the others involved do (or refrain from doing) that helped the conversation develop the way it did? What did you value about the experience? What does this experience suggest about how to avoid “agonism” in talking with people who voted for another candidate?
-
The author advocates more focus on the merits of a policy and less on the motives of those who propose or support it. She asserts that we cannot know the latter. Do you think this is an important distinction? A desirable shift in emphasis? Why?
-
In what circumstances, if any, do you believe that "opposition is the best, if not the only path to truth”? Why? What other ways of truth seeking do you experience or value? In what circumstances is each alternative way most effective?
-
To what extent do you share the author's view of the downsides of “single-minded devotion” to "balance" in journalism? How else might journalists provide balance without creating “the illusion of equivalence”?
-
The author suggests that when challenges are “monumental” we need “passionate outrage.” What does “passionate outrage” mean to you? When have you experienced it? Witnessed its expression? In what situations has “passionate outrage” inspired effective actions? Actions that were ineffective or counterproductive? Under what conditions, if any, could actions animated by “passionate outrage” make a constructive difference at this time in our nation’s history?
-
What questions does this article raise for you? If Deborah Tannen were here, what question would you ask her to deepen your understanding of her views?
|
|
|
Home
Resources
