Hostile Learning
Today I had a perfectly interesting argument interrupted. The individual (who remains nameless, I don’t actually know them) requested that we tone down a ‘hostile learning environment’ that apparently had been established in the midst of argument. He proved two very important points that I often consider when reading politics as he asked us (the class) to respect the opinions of others.
1. Form reflects substance. In asking to ‘tone down’ the situation, he was asking us to disavow and remove from discussion certain personal experiences that can (and should) influence how we understand politics. This discussion/argument was about gender and the social contexts where ‘women’ should be allowed to work in. The experiences of various members of the class with the military, raising children and work wield great influence over how they construct theories of gender norms and patriarchy. The form of their argument in an emphatic personal appeal reflects the substance of their argument – their personal experience. The form of the interrupter’s appeal demonstrates substance in its own right. By setting himself away from the other speakers, He calls into existence a normative ‘neutral’ sphere of consensus where we can all agree to disagree. This sphere takes shape in a very particular political terrain created in the opposition of ‘opinion’ and ‘rhetoric’ to an empirical, consensus reality in which we would actually live in. This consensus space in my experience resembles strongly the status quo, which we all too often forget, is intensely political in its own right.
2. Neutrality is a myth. A ‘hostile learning environment’ is inevitable. Even in the appeal that called it into being, hostility was evident. To a certain degree, the comment met its mark in getting several people to ‘tone down;’ but in this he expressed passive hostility towards their expression. The tolerant and open space for discussion only remains tolerant within certain bounds. Any “vigorously sustained difference” (Badiou’s terms) can be relegated to obscurity as ‘rhetoric,’ ‘demagogy’ or ‘extremism’ as soon at it interrupts the boundaries established. Though it appears as tolerant, the ‘non-hostile’ environment reflects constraints on the form and content of argument.
Whether he intended to or not, he proved a point. The institutions we accept as normal or neutral often implicitly demand conformity and adherence to specific political codes, often in the process excluding out-groups like women, and ethnic or gender minorities.
1. Form reflects substance. In asking to ‘tone down’ the situation, he was asking us to disavow and remove from discussion certain personal experiences that can (and should) influence how we understand politics. This discussion/argument was about gender and the social contexts where ‘women’ should be allowed to work in. The experiences of various members of the class with the military, raising children and work wield great influence over how they construct theories of gender norms and patriarchy. The form of their argument in an emphatic personal appeal reflects the substance of their argument – their personal experience. The form of the interrupter’s appeal demonstrates substance in its own right. By setting himself away from the other speakers, He calls into existence a normative ‘neutral’ sphere of consensus where we can all agree to disagree. This sphere takes shape in a very particular political terrain created in the opposition of ‘opinion’ and ‘rhetoric’ to an empirical, consensus reality in which we would actually live in. This consensus space in my experience resembles strongly the status quo, which we all too often forget, is intensely political in its own right.
2. Neutrality is a myth. A ‘hostile learning environment’ is inevitable. Even in the appeal that called it into being, hostility was evident. To a certain degree, the comment met its mark in getting several people to ‘tone down;’ but in this he expressed passive hostility towards their expression. The tolerant and open space for discussion only remains tolerant within certain bounds. Any “vigorously sustained difference” (Badiou’s terms) can be relegated to obscurity as ‘rhetoric,’ ‘demagogy’ or ‘extremism’ as soon at it interrupts the boundaries established. Though it appears as tolerant, the ‘non-hostile’ environment reflects constraints on the form and content of argument.
Whether he intended to or not, he proved a point. The institutions we accept as normal or neutral often implicitly demand conformity and adherence to specific political codes, often in the process excluding out-groups like women, and ethnic or gender minorities.
posted by Duncan at 10:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home