Silencing James: Why We Can't Learn in a Bubble
Two weeks ago I wrote about my friendly social media debate with James, a white male Republican who was trolling in our liberal goodreads group. And last week I wrote that I did not have any Republican real friends because I'm too sensitive about politics, and real friends are people whose company I enjoy and who enjoy my company. James was neither a real nor a virtual friend. I can't imagine talking to James on the telephone or engaging in e-mail conversations with him. As for lunch, well, I have too many digestive problems to think about lunching with a Republican who thinks Obama is the worst President in a century.
I did, however, enjoy my debates with James. We debated for several weeks, and, as I told my liberal teammates, he never came close to getting under my skin. But apparently some of the other liberals were irritated by James, so much so that he was ejected from the group. When he contacted me (by goodreads note) to complain (justifiably) about the intolerance of the Left, I activated my professor persona and told off the liberals. I asked them how they expected to learn anything in an echo chamber. I said that I wasn't foolish enough to think that I could convert James, but I was using James as a catalyst to provide them with good arguments the next time they encountered racist Aunt Sue or Uncle Joe (based on my many years of experience dealing with white people, I know that most of them have at least one racist relative). I also said that some of my favorite teaching moments occurred when a student challenged me. I preferred those moments because I was more likely to learn something when a student offered a different perspective.
Soon after I sanctimoniously chastised my fellow liberals, I realized that I was somewhat hypocritical since I spend most of my time in what comedian Bill Maher calls the bubble. The very liberal Bill was referring to a conservative bubble, where the people inside talk and listen only to each other and the conservative media. But I don't watch Fox News or listen to conservative talk radio. Instead I stay in the liberal bubble of MSNBC and (on the Internet) Salon and Slate. Even when I'm watching a show like NBC's "Meet the Press" and Bill's Friday night HBO show, which features politicians and intellectuals on both the left and right, I'm usually too busy yelling at the television when the conservatives talk to pay attention to their arguments.
However, I am a bit more open-minded when I read. I called out James for reading only books that support his conservative views and pointed out that I have read Dinesh D'Souza's ILLIBERAL EDUCATION and Shelby Steele's THE CONTENT OF OUR CHARACTER. I've also read and taught E.D. Hirsch's CULTURAL LITERACY and Allan Bloom's CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND. I didn't agree with most of the arguments in these books, but I not only read them but took them seriously. And because I knew the arguments on the other side, I was able to make a better case for multiculturalism and expanding the canon when I taught American literature.
I understand why my liberal teammates wanted to silence James. It's more comfortable to communicate with people whose values we share. But if we want to expand our minds, to learn, we must occasionally leave our bubbles and listen to what those jerks, those nuts on the other side have to say. We can listen respectfully and then destroy them with our superior wit and reason. We don't have to silence them by excluding them from our group. I haven't heard from James since I asked him what liberal intellectuals he had read.
I did, however, enjoy my debates with James. We debated for several weeks, and, as I told my liberal teammates, he never came close to getting under my skin. But apparently some of the other liberals were irritated by James, so much so that he was ejected from the group. When he contacted me (by goodreads note) to complain (justifiably) about the intolerance of the Left, I activated my professor persona and told off the liberals. I asked them how they expected to learn anything in an echo chamber. I said that I wasn't foolish enough to think that I could convert James, but I was using James as a catalyst to provide them with good arguments the next time they encountered racist Aunt Sue or Uncle Joe (based on my many years of experience dealing with white people, I know that most of them have at least one racist relative). I also said that some of my favorite teaching moments occurred when a student challenged me. I preferred those moments because I was more likely to learn something when a student offered a different perspective.
Soon after I sanctimoniously chastised my fellow liberals, I realized that I was somewhat hypocritical since I spend most of my time in what comedian Bill Maher calls the bubble. The very liberal Bill was referring to a conservative bubble, where the people inside talk and listen only to each other and the conservative media. But I don't watch Fox News or listen to conservative talk radio. Instead I stay in the liberal bubble of MSNBC and (on the Internet) Salon and Slate. Even when I'm watching a show like NBC's "Meet the Press" and Bill's Friday night HBO show, which features politicians and intellectuals on both the left and right, I'm usually too busy yelling at the television when the conservatives talk to pay attention to their arguments.
However, I am a bit more open-minded when I read. I called out James for reading only books that support his conservative views and pointed out that I have read Dinesh D'Souza's ILLIBERAL EDUCATION and Shelby Steele's THE CONTENT OF OUR CHARACTER. I've also read and taught E.D. Hirsch's CULTURAL LITERACY and Allan Bloom's CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND. I didn't agree with most of the arguments in these books, but I not only read them but took them seriously. And because I knew the arguments on the other side, I was able to make a better case for multiculturalism and expanding the canon when I taught American literature.
I understand why my liberal teammates wanted to silence James. It's more comfortable to communicate with people whose values we share. But if we want to expand our minds, to learn, we must occasionally leave our bubbles and listen to what those jerks, those nuts on the other side have to say. We can listen respectfully and then destroy them with our superior wit and reason. We don't have to silence them by excluding them from our group. I haven't heard from James since I asked him what liberal intellectuals he had read.
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Suzanne
(new)
Feb 18, 2014 08:28AM
Years ago, when I was commuting to classes (that I taught) during their air time, I listened a bit to Limbaugh and Hannity as well as more to-the-left radio types. It's always good to know what (and how) the enemy is thinking. : ) When I taught my students critical thinking, I encouraged them to listen/read to/from a variety of perspectives. To enclose one's self in the comfort of the known can inhibit growth. Just as, it is said, the only person who likes change is a wet baby, people need to be more embracing of change, including alternative thinking. Besides, such exposure often enhances rather than weakens one's core beliefs.
reply
|
flag
I agree, Suzanne. But it's sometimes hard to listen to people who are saying things that make us angry. That's why it's easier for me to read commentary on the other side than to listen to it. Welcome to my blog.
