Post - postsomething

Plurality is collapsing on itself.

No, seriously.

http://txcommie.wordpress.com/2007/03/07/some-of-my-mail-after-i-debated-horowitz-on-laura-ingraham/

The tone of both David Horowitz, and the group Justice For All brilliantly forecloses debate by opening it; riding the coattails of multicultural plurality as a vehicle to undermine the progressive movements that otherwise used equal participation and justice as rhetorical tools.

Part of the problem with multicultural/plural/inclusive debates is their impossibility/self-negation. The views not included in a discussion that includes all views are those that question the framework of discussion, or the intrinsic good of inclusion. The framework ‘inclusion’ includes everything except any view that may ‘exclude.’ Because this determination cannot be made conclusively – what might silence other people? – the mask of equal inclusion creates silences around itself, silences prevented by the use of inclusion.

People, capital and culture transform discussions, which creates the other problem with inclusion for inclusion’s sake: prejudice pictures and power shape discussions to where, no matter how much any number of views receive equal treatment, people understand messages using filters which favor certain arguments. Also, certain groups have the means (money, fervor, brainwashing) that allow them to create more effective messages than other people. And, in a context where ‘all voices are heard’ people believe they have the capacity to make objective or rational decisions about the subjects of discussion and debate.

The upshot of all this is not just that certain (nominally conservative, definitely dangerous) perspectives should not be included in debate, because limiting out people from discussion/debate is not only impossible, but that there needs to be a progressive rhetoric that counters the use of inclusion/discussion rhetoric in fascist/conservative discourse. This potentially could come out of an alternative model for public discussions, but I don’t think should come out of the rhetoric of open discussion and inclusion itself. Not only will calling for exclusion of conservative/fascists put you on the wrong side of public opinion, it plays into the rhetoric of reasonability and prudence that animates much of American conservatism.

I think one strategy is to talk about messages as rhetoric, to address the persuasive value of certain statements as persuasion. Not: “This group calls for X, X is a bad idea” but rather to say “this group’s message won’t work, because of Y.” This is the ‘I statements…” post I made before. Messages labeled persuasive will be more persuasive (at least I think so [no pun intended]). Who knows. I just think that talking about inclusion had an important role in one historical situation, but that situation may not be the one in which we currently live.

Duncan