I have always been interested in the history of ideas. As a young man, I read all the philosophy books that my small town library held, and can still remember a few authors that especially captured my attention; Albert Sweitzer, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, the Buddha, and Plato. I was so intrigued with ideas that I knew from the 8th grade on that in college I would study Philosophy, which I did at Texas A&M. In a somewhat ironic twist of fate, A&M was also home to Dr. John McDermott - one of the foremost scholars on the American philosopher John Dewey. I say ironic, because I certainly had no appreciation for Dewey's philosophy of experience then despite the huge influence it has on me as a thinker today.
What I find fascinating about philosophy is the rigorous exploration of thought, the penetrating reconsideration of our world and its possibilities, and the impact that ideas have on world civilizations, all of which have been called an appreciation for the "life of the mind." Two particular skills one needs to develop as a philosopher are an adept understanding of logic and a capacity for rhetoric, the art of conveying ideas cogently and succinctly. In the ancient world, whole rhetorical academies existed that taught adherents how to argue persuasively. I, too, loved rigorous debate and enjoyed especially wrestling over taboo topics such as politics and religion.
Americans adopted this style of exhortation early on, and many of our founding fathers were fine polemicists. Our greatest spokespersons for democracy and justice and the standard-bearers of the American conscience also adopted this style. Speakers were judged by their ability to sway the crowd through the logical method of premise, premise, premise conclusion, peppered with the turn of a careful phrase or the clever use of a particular maxim. They urged us to be better than we where, to adopt the life of moral virtue bolstered by the reiteration of ethical idioms, and to rise up to the standards of exemplary character. And it worked.......somewhat. The problem, as some such as Erich Fromm point out, that persuasion works in the short run, and usually only with those who are receptive to the message or who are indifferent to the issue. Rhetoric does not work with those with whom we disagree - the "great communicator" Ronald Reagan never convinced me of anything - and this method can also increase distrust. In addition, while rhetoric certainly can help a person to consider and make sense of a mutually shared experience, it's not affective at synthesizing the experiences of a diverse group. Also, rhetoric is not that effective at changing a person's emotional matrix - that ground of being within which our real beliefs and values lie covertly hidden. We can "intellectually" understand justice, but have "visceral" reactions to issues such as a woman's right to choice and the right of gays to marry. We are "convinced" that we need to protect Earth our mother, but we're driven to consume. We may value participatory democracy in theory, but we are willing to easily abandon it for security, forgetting that real security is dependent upon real democracy. We concede that the wealthiest nation on earth should have at the very least a safety net for the citizens that built that nation, but we react negatively to our most vulnerable citizens taking advantage of public assistance. We argue for fairness, but are wounded when creating a level playing field limits our freedom. We contend that peace is the path to human happiness yet find it easier to drop bombs than build connections. We say we honor humanity, but find humans drive us crazy. In short, more often than not, our words do not match our feelings nor our experiences.
A few decades ago a group of thinkers, initially women and people of color, began arguing that the Western fascination with rhetoric is rooted within a curious cultural development, and to shift the process from right beliefs to right living takes an entirely different approach than the one we've been pursuing for thousands of years (with some advances but with many more tragedies). The shift, then, was away from methods for indoctrinating ideas and towards processes through which individuals could cultivate moral virtue within their own minds and hearts. In all fairness, this call for "experiential" seated learning (as opposed to intellectualization through rote memorization) has existed as a thread within this country for some time. Emerson argued that Americans commune with Nature as the great teacher and Dewey tried to remake the entire American pedagogical system to put experience ahead of memorization.
This shift has not been without its consequences. While the American Left retreated into process groups focusing on dialogue, self-discovery, diversity, participatory democracy, community building, and empowerment, the Right hammered away at its conservative platform and sloganeering, swaying - at least in the short term - the minds of many. The market place of ideas became dominated with one type of rhetoric while the Left engaged in the harder work of helping others to claim their own voice. Frankly, the Right has it much easier. As humans begin to assume responsibility for their own beliefs, we find it more difficult to achieve consensus without good process led by people skilled in these areas. Populism gives way to pluralism.
So why do this, what are the benefits? The promise of communities of individuals focusing more on right actions over right beliefs is enormous. Among many others, democracy is made real, participation increases, we reap the benefits of diversity, alienation is diminished and we emerge as stronger humans. The process takes commitment and courage - but we are truly transformed along the way. Our Ethical Society has decided to focus these last two years less on our ability to provide stirring rhetoric than to foster the skills needed for good process. We've spent less time listening to soliloquys (one voice) and more time creating the conditions for colloquy (shared voices). Rather than arguing that individuals hold certain values, we've organized ethical action experiences and opportunities to reflect on those experiences as a way of helping individuals to clarify their own values. We've drawn upon participants own narratives - for it is within our own stories that "truth" is found. We've asked again and again that we share, listen, wrestle, co-labor, and support one another.
The other day, our Society co-hosted a film with the United Nations Association over recent events in Northern Ireland. The film told how both sides in the conflict had been exhorted by their leaders to "continue the cause" and both sides carried out violence. Yet later, while in prison, the perpetrators on both sides of the conflict began to realize through dialogue that behind and beyond all politics and slogans existed humans who experienced similar anguish and despair. When they focused less on the superficial political and religious difference that divided them and more on what it meant to be a human living in a community that fosters violence they found their common ground - and a real and lasting peace was made possible. The citizens of Northern Ireland realize that it will be a long slow process reversing centuries of distrust, hatred, dehumanization, and alienation, and many have their doubts. Yet, they also know that if they finish the process of diverse community building their country will truly have something to celebrate. In the last line of the film we hear a former terrorist claim that if Northern Ireland does create peace through hard work, not through slogans,- that their peace process will be the most valuable export they could ever offer to the world.
I can live with that.