A Singer, A Song

Nov 09 2008

Grant

The future belongs to the savvy

3 responses so far

3 Responses to “The future belongs to the savvy”

1. timfon 10 Nov 2008 at 12:45 pm 1

   “In their different ways, both totalitarianism and liberalism seek to establish consensus, the one by eradicating opposition and the other by negotiating with it. . . What we need if things are to get better…is not consensus, but dissention. The commitment to consensus promotes a bland centrism, appoints the compromise candidate that no one really wants, satisfies nobody, and leaves things much as they are. Conversely, intelectual difference, inventiveness, lateral thinking, heterogeneity all promote modifications of the existing rules and conventions. Dissention challenges the status quo” (Belsey, 96).

   Belsey, Catherine. “Postructuralism: A Very Brief Introduction.” Oxford. Oxford University Press. 2002.

2. Granton 10 Nov 2008 at 1:18 pm 2

   Tim, maybe we’re viewing the issue from complimentary angles rather than opposing viewpoints… I’m not sure of the trajectory you’re after.

   I don’t think the article is asking people to compromise their beliefs or cobble together consensus built out of necessity. It seems to me that it’s foregrounding the reality that anyone with any kind of an agenda in this life (political, ideological, interpersonal…) is only going to be able to advance that agenda by taking opposing viewpoints into account. Adamantly folding one’s arms and refusing to budge on an issue accomplishes nothing. An immovable force winds up meeting an unstoppable object, and so no one moves forward.

   There’s a big difference between seeking mutuality and resorting to compromise. And to capitalize on your quotation, it’s seeking a mutually-agreeable outcome that truly requires inventiveness and heterogeneity.

3. timfon 10 Nov 2008 at 2:04 pm 3

   Bingo! I think that’s the nuance that is easy to miss if one isn’t willing to analyze perspectives other than one’s own. One could easily insert “extreme right-wing bent” in place of “totalitarianism” in the extract from Belsey (though the method of eradication is significantly more tame and slow compared to your run-of-the-mill totalitarian ruler).

   I have to admit here that the greatest lesson for me in this recent election cycle has been realizing that weighing one’s vote is a process that’s more oblique than a square-on black and white.

   I’m glad you pointed out the difference between mutuality and compromise. That’s what makes our political system so great! It’s the sort of gridlock generated by a two-party system that fosters an inventiveness that doesn’t require either party to sacrifice their ideology. At least that’s what Jefferson had in mind. It makes me wonder where the good/evil associations first showed up in party politics.

   I know a few people who will wake up Christmas and find a copy of the Federalist Papers in their stockings

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website