As I wrote last week, the United States has become a nation where disagreement, in the truest sense of the word, is discouraged. Instead, it is replaced by faux arguments done only to draw ratings and appeal to only the most surface-level logic of each side. In the reading for this week, a theory is examined that requires substantial use of empathy in order to discern the best possible argument, amongst other uses.
This theory, known as stasis theory, implores rhetors to first be certain they are discussing the same topic at the outset of an argument. Stasis theory contends that, until stasis (an agreement to disagree, so to speak) is achieved, no true discourse can take place. The example of an abortion debate is used to solidify this point, as the text aptly points out no Pro-Lifer would say they’re anti-choice and vice versa.
On the surface, I feel the theory itself is very sound. My issue, however, is with one of the points used to describe the product of all the work one would have to do if using stasis theory in preparation for a discussion. At first glance, the point I’m going to take issue with will make me sound completely absurd, but within the context I’ll examine it, I think several of my colleagues might agree.
“2: Forces them to think about the assumptions and values shared by members of their targeted audience.” (72)
I know what you’re thinking – “How could this possibly be a bad thing?” Well, when used within the way described in the text, this sort of thinking is not only harmless, but productive as well. On a macro level, however, we’ve gone beyond the usage Crowley & Hawhee outline for us. As a culture, we are so careful not to offend or step on anyone’s toes anymore that it is difficult for anyone to pose an original thought, much less a poignant argument.
I could easily illustrate to the many examples in politics, entertainment and journalism that make this point. The corporate (non-FCC) restrictions placed on talk radio alone (heaven forbid someone hear the term “douchebag” on the air) are enough to make any fan of the First Amendment uncomfortable. The recent backlash to boxer Floyd Mayweather’s YouTube rant on would-be opponent Manny Pacquiao, though, is one of the most revolting displays of kowtowing in media I’ve seen without politics involved.
For those unfamiliar, Mayweather and Pacquiao have been trying to work out a deal to meet in the ring, a prospect that would bring each man (and their respective promoters, as well as the sport itself) millions of dollars in pay-per-view revenue. When negotiations stalled and started becoming unsportsmanlike, Mayweather unleashed this (poorly-mixed) tirade in reference to Pacquiao.
Granted, it wasn’t a nice way to say things, but is it really all that bad? Yes, it’s relatively racist. But Mayweather is a boxer. Their entire job is to sell the conflicts they create. That’s what Mayweather is doing here. He knows he’ll eventually fight Pacquiao. With this kind of an insult, he’s insured that he’ll create more controversy, and thus more buys, from people wanting to see the confrontation.
It’s certainly not worth some of the backlash it has received. Kevin Iole, one of Yahoo! Sports’ boxing experts, wrote this piece condemning all things Mayweather in the wake of the incident. I would pick out one or two condescending quotes Iole used, but it would be doing a disservice to the fantastic way he looks down his nose in no less than 700 words. Iole is a perfect representative of the way this country loves to scold someone when they offend someone else. The days of turning the dial when we hear something we don’t like, as media pundit Sean Hannity suggests, are sadly behind us.
Stepping on the toes of others has become so taboo in this society that it cost Don Imus, a man who is an institution in broadcast radio, his job. The fact that Imus was fired in the midst of a telethon to raise money for children with blood disease and cancer just shows that we’ve prioritized the possible hurt feelings of others above giving back to others, something Imus did with his wife for years. All over a throwaway term like “nappy-headed hoe.” Perfectly rational, right?
Lastly, there was an incident with Tiger Woods in 2007 that perfectly illustrates the issue I’m trying to raise. In a roundtable discussion, Golf Channel analyst Kelly Tilghman made the mistake (in jest) of suggesting several golfers get together and “…lynch [Woods) in a back alley.” She apologized for the remark the following day on the network, and was still suspended two weeks for the transgression. Even Tiger himself came out in defense of Tilghman immediately following the comments, stating through his agent that “"We know unequivocally that there was no ill intent in her comments."
Such statements weren’t good enough, of course, and Tilghman continued to serve her suspension while Rev. Al Sharpton and his “congregation” protested the Golf Channel’s decision not to fire her outright.
This kind of attitude has to cease for stasis theory not to be viewed as a double-edged sword. It certainly must be done away with for us to be able to have insightful and meaningful discussions, especially about contentious issues. If we can’t do that, what hope can we have for resolution?
Well, at least no one’s feelings will be hurt.
No comments:
Post a Comment