The level of intelligence in public discourse on any issues is currently in a rather messy state. It is the loudness that counts. On one hand, Facebook has paved the way for anyone to voice their opinion (including myself), which is great. But everyone has an opinion, and it’s not necessarily always well-informed or rational.
One example is a post that’s been floating around that is comparing refugees to a bowl of M&Ms. It is supposed to be an analogy that goes something like this: there is a bowl of candy in front of you, and you want to devour it, but some of the candies are poisonous. You wouldn’t want take that risk in eating them. The point being that out of all the Muslim refugees, there will be some that are terrorists and we can’t take that risk. Trying to talk about a complex issue with an analogy that fits more into the context of a middle school math problem is preposterous and ultimately, counter productive. There is a better way to propose a freeze on immigration for the time being.
Although not quite simplistic, news agencies are also guilty of reducing problems into neat and comfortable ideological boxes. In both instances (and this includes either a liberal or a conservative framework - or what remains of those definitions), the players are so powerfully committed to the ideological narrative that any possibility of an intelligent dialogue is lost.
As a Bosnian Muslim, I have attempted to engage into discussions explaining what kind of Islam I grew up in, trying very hard to prove that not every Muslim is a terrorist and an extremist. The fact that in my case, it was the Muslims who were mass murdered in the war somehow does not matter. For the most part, I have been dismissed because I am just one voice. Since when one voice doesn’t matter, particularly in America?
I do not intend to waste my time in proving that I am “normal” or that I am a “moderate Muslim” or anything similar. I am Muslim by birth and I am Bosnian - this is my history. I am also an American, who chose to come to this country, and who admires its principles as found in the Declaration of Independence.
What I am proposing is a change in the process of discourse. Gone are the days of William F. Buckley, Jr. and The Firing Line, and such things cannot be revived. We should certainly not engage in nostalgia or idealization of WFB. But there is something to be said about how Buckley approached discourse. Sitting down with one’s interlocutor, trying to find out what is on his or her mind (and may I add, heart!), and engaging in something, which will hopefully be fruitful is what needs to happen. Bring back the spirit of idealism and skepticism, which was certainly visible in the complex relationship of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.
There is nothing comfortable about dialogue. It may end badly. It may end well. The point is that we have to start rejecting reductionism in arguments and personal attacks. You cannot prove your point by comparing people to candy, just as you cannot prove your point by waving an idiotic sign that says “I am a Muslim, do you trust me enough for a hug?”
What I have said is applicable to any issues. I just happen to pick one to illustrate my point. People are angry, frustrated, tired. But speaking in cliches won’t get us anywhere. It will just divide us even more.
No comments:
Post a Comment