Public discourse, modern life

By: Robert Sanchez

Posted: 8/13/08

One could argue that we live in a miasma of contradictory options, a fog toxic to learning, purposefully poisoned by skewed presentation and interpretation of fact. Corporate news, industry-sponsored experts and modern day sophists (we call them pundits)all present information designed to sway or influence public opinion, rather than presenting facts in as complete and unbiased a manner as possible.

Is abortion legalized mass murder, an unacknowledged genocide in our midst, or is it a vital human right?

Should education and health care be affordable for everyone, or only for the upper middle class and the rich?

Is our current war on terror the fulfillment of a moral responsibility to fight terrorism, a reasonable and necessary response to genuine and imminent threats, or is it a form of modern economic colonialism, an overkill response to a problem that could be better addressed by diplomatic means?

We are all subject to our ideologies, our beliefs about what is right and proper, which is the way things should be. Without reference points explaining what we believe to be the fundamental nature of reality and humanity, we wouldn't be capable of functioning. Having an ideology or a bias is not in itself a problem.

If, however, we allow this bias to shut our minds and close our ears to diverse viewpoints, then it becomes a problem.

The degree to which one's mind is open to change is the degree to which one can learn. The best we can hope to do, perhaps, is to seek always to approach truth by engaging in active dialogue that includes the widest range and diversity of perspectives, to learn from each other by talking and thinking about what we hear, especially if we disagree with what we hear.

The concept of public discourse is rooted in Athenian participatory democracy, and this sort of horizon-expanding debate is essential for informed decision making, both in personal matters and in larger political decisions.

What it means to be a citizen and what we imagine government should be is dynamic, evolving in response to a social and physical context that changes over time.

It is through cooperative public debate and discourse that these roles and their accompanying institutional structures most quickly and accurately evolve to meet emerging conditions.

Author Glen Tinder, emeritus professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Boston, explains the need for public discourse and its effects on learning and thinking critically.

We must have, Tinder suggests, "an irrepressible capacity for reconsideration, for asking again the questions" that may seem already answered.

Understanding is a process rather than a destination that can be arrived at with certainty.

An acceptance of the possibility of being proved wrong, a desire to have the errors in one's reasoning and factual knowledge exposed: These are the tools of a self-perfecting mind.

To admit uncertainty, to exist - as Tinder puts it, in "the nakedness of [one's] own thoughts and doubts" - is a wonderful place to be. And this is the only place where learning can be maximized, the place where clear recognition of our thoughts and the inherent uncertainty of our conclusions lead to a mind expanded to its utmost capacity. It is from this place that genuine and honest debate can occur. Such a debate shuns sophistry and the agenda-driven exploitation of ideological stances so common in modern politics.

As discussed by Aristotle, the duty of the good citizen is to engage actively in political life, and to follow the civic virtues of temperance, justice, courage and prudence. This definition of the good citizen holds true today. Growing corporate influence on the political process, evidenced by the increasing power of political action committees, and the erosion of the middle class have tipped the balance of power in favor of the wealthy, making the need for an informed and active citizenry increasingly relevant.

Like the ancient Greeks, the degree to which we can engage effectively in public discourse is limited by our education and our access to information. Increasing Internet availability and other modern technologies is making reliable information more and more accessible to the average citizen.

While there is certainly a plethora of poor quality information on the internet, there are also volumes of excellent material. Primary data is available from state and federal government websites, the United Nations, the World Bank and many others. Online databases collect scholarly journals, cataloguing decades of fact and thought in a digital library that is easy to search.

It is interesting to note that current communication theory regarding ethical public discourse and argumentation describes essentially the same virtues described by Aristotle, substituting respect and cooperation for temperance and prudence.

Communication theory also mirrors the thinking of Socrates in describing the benefits of ethical debate.

Public discourse examines and tests conclusions, stimulates critical thinking, disseminates knowledge, and acts to refine the understanding of the participants and audience of a debate. The widespread use of this sort of ethical public discourse would be of great benefit to the modern political process, as well as to the personal wisdom of the average citizen.

As Tinder observes, "social order depends heavily on tradition and habit, and these are apt to be disrupted by real thinking"; this real thinking is the sort often generated by genuine inquiry and cooperative debate. Public discourse is an opportunity to constantly reexamine our current social order, our laws and institutions, and all our various relationships.

To reinvent or reexamine does not mean to throw out or reject established ideas, it just means keeping an open mind, recognizing that established order might or might not be the optimal order - that established understanding might or might not be the optimal understanding.