What Now
From Internet: Knowledge and Community
- Hoyle Hodges
- Internet: Knowledge and Community
- Response for 12 Feb 2011
- What Now?
- Following recent feminist accounts of dialogical reason, as well as male African-American and Latino articulations of cultural biases in dominant conceptions of deliberation,"
(Young, Communication and the Other, pg 129) The author defines the three elements of communicative democracy as greeting, rhetoric, and storytelling. I find that most types of speech between people in a casual setting have these elements; whether they are applicable to the political arena of public policy decision making is questionable in my mind. Greeting: The author proposes an extended greeting peppered with flowery comments and basic flattery between participants who disagree as ” Caretaking of the Otherness” (Young, pg .130) Built into this proposal is the flaw, that assumes any goodwill that is displayed or communicated will have any bearing on the situation when the discussion becomes heated and passionate. Having participated in several tribal Shuras in Afghanistan were elaborate greetings are the culture, I can attest to their ineffectiveness as a means of maintaining communication when disagreement in discussion is reached. Rhetoric: “it is not enough to make assertions and give reasons. One must also be heard” (Young, pg 130) Rhetoric is usually aimed at ingratiating the speaker with the audience. It does have its place both in a deliberative or communicative democracy. However to many times rhetoric is used as a gimmick, as fodder instead of fact. Nobody wants to listen to a dry boring speaker, at the same time over stylized speaking and excessive use of rhetoric degenerates communication instead of enhancing it. Storytelling: Or as the author also calls it “Narrative” can be as exclusionary as Robert’s Rules of Order. The group which has the most compelling story, just like in deliberative democracy the group with the best argument wins. Storytelling and narrative have their place; it is probably outside the formal policy setting of contemporary democracy. The political ads on TV and radio we all become sick of by the end of a political season are a form of Storytelling as are the “debates”. Imagine if this was actually part of the formal democratic process with opposing sides elaborating at length with “stories” each one trying to outdo the other. Government and decision making would grind to a halt. I found the authors view and some of her statements racist against white males, we expect professionals of all sorts to communicate in certain ways. Do you really want your heart surgeon communicating with the other members of the surgery team in Ebonics? “Ya Know What I’m Sayen” Of course not, you want that communication to be as clear and concise as possible to preclude any mistakes. The same can be said for pilots, do you want him up there in the cabin telling a story about how he can relate to the nationality or ethnicity of the controller in the tower, or do you want them both to communicate in a professional manner so the actual facts are discussed and a rational decision is made. The language of democracy should be just as, if not more professional than other segments of society. In contemporary life policy decisions at all levels are often a choice between the lesser of two evils. Decision makers must strive to include all viewpoints and then make a hard decision. Flowery rhetoric and storytelling are not going to get to the facts quick enough and clear enough for our policy pilots to make a decision on whether to land or go around before the body politic runs out of gas. Just because the language of democracy is viewed by some as culturally biased does not make it the wrong language to use. Citizens that are really engaged will learn to speak professionally in a political setting, instead of whining about the so called white middle class.
