During the early days of the war in Iraq, some threw the word "traitor" at those who raised criticism of their country's decision. To criticize us was, very simply, to side with them, the enemy, the opponent. There was little respect or tolerance for dissonance, even though those dissenting voices were loud and hard to ignore.
What lies behind that attitude, that fear of the critic? In part, it is the simple principle of solidarity, of collective identity. It is also the fact that disagreement, particularly reasonable disagreement, is always a hard thing to face. That which we believe to be true we seek to affirm, as aggressively as we seek to deny that which we believe to be false. I think this is a natural tendency, and not inherently wrong.
Whatever the cause, in an open society we will always have at least two forces, two discourses: the dominant and the minority. In moral terms, there is nothing inherent in either of these discourses to guarantee uprightness: that is, the dominant is not right because it is dominant, just as the minority is not morally superior because it is in a minority.
But there is a right and wrong way to view these two discourses. I believe that a silent minority is the sign of an unhealthy society, regardless of the nature of that minority. The reason for this is that a vocal (or at least acknowledged) minority is the built-in means for social critique. Without criticism, we cannot improve, we cannot reassess, we cannot look at ourselves, which is the most difficult perspective.
Yesterday in America, the dominant voice spoke, and spoke clearly. At the same time, that dominant voice was only slightly more powerful than the minority. Interestingly enough, despite this divide, both candidates immediately called for unity. Unity is not a bad thing. But it can be a disguise for silencing dissent.
This blog is named after my commitment to the inbetween, the dialogic and messy interplay between the dominant and the dissident, the thought and the action, the voice and the word. Based on that commitment, I ask that those who identify as the victor or the underdog (or both) look closely, carefully, and respectfully at this delicate relationship. I think it's good for all of us.
I like that you said that that neither the dominate group nor the minority group are inherently right or wrong. I think we need to look carefully at each issue and decide. It is clear from the election results that the country is deeply divided over different issues; we need to listen to each other to try to make the right decisions for our country.
Posted by: jlg at November 4, 2004 09:54 AMThanks for your comment!
I think there is an implicit attitude in both discourses that they are inherently superior. For example: "Homosexuals are in the vast minority, why should they be inflicting their values on us?" or "The powerful only get there by exploiting the weak; liminal voices are morally valuable because they have been exploited." Both positions are dangerous.
Posted by: paul at November 4, 2004 12:45 PM