Welcome to Morning Feature's Tuesday morning series Things We Learned This Week, where learning is encouraged and celebrated. If you have learned something this week, or would like to learn something, you have already been enrolled, your tuition covered, and a seat reserved in your honor. Even if you don't, you're still welcome as long as you bring enough donuts to share. We'll provide the coffee, as one of BPI's greatest theory-to-practical-application-successes continues to be the "Percokegulator," a keg sized, and shaped, functional coffee pot. Be careful with the pump action, please. Patent Pending.
I wrote most of this diary on Friday, before the current flurry of discussion-themed diaries on the rec-list. I could have rewritten it to make it a more obvious statement about that discussion, but chose not to. I'll be curious, as always, what you think.
Let's discuss, shall we?
If you live in a state with an election today, please go vote for more and better Democrats!!! {{{{{{{{{{{votinghugs}}}}}}}}}}}}}
Professor Crackpot Caractacus spent the week learning about rational thought and adult discussion, two topics which do not always seem to have much in common. Because there is so much discussion, and at least some rational thought, here on Tuesday mornings and in Morning Feature diaries in general, though, it might be interesting to, as NCrissieB put it, "make Meta Jesus weep!" So, grab your tissues, people, it may be a bumpy ride!
An In-Class Exercise
I've set up an in-class exercise below (aka: "poll"). I encourage you to scroll down and give it a try. I'm very curious to see if the results come close to those of clinical research. But, to do so without biasing the sample, I'll post the "answer" and debrief as a diary update (at the bottom of the diary) a little later this morning. Until then, please do your best with it, take as long as you'd like, and enjoy the rational thought!
Why discuss?
To learn. To express oneself. To practice treasured principles. To persuade. To be persuaded. To be exposed to and better understand diverse points of view. To be democratic. To think out loud. To forge emotional bonds.
These are only a few of the reasons why human beings have discussions. Let's shine a spotlight on a few of them.
Discussion as Democracy
The freedom to speak freely is not a guarantee that anyone will listen. But, it is kind of an empty promise if nobody does. In the 1920's, Eduard Lindeman suggested public discussion be considered as central to democracy as the act of voting itself. He argued that the discipline of contrary opinions (listening to viewpoints other than one's own) and the discipline of minority voices (that unpopular opinions not be silenced or repressed) are core democratic competencies. Discussion was his preferred method for cultivating them.
Discussion as Rational Thought
Traditionally, rational thought is emotion-free, objective, logical, and based on empirical observation. It mostly happens within the mind of one person. This is the kind of rational thought put to use in solving the poll question.
But there are alternative definitions. One was proposed by Jurgen Habermas. He contends that rational thought is the honest attempt to fully understand one another through discussion. We may not completely agree, but if we can understand why we each hold the views, opinions, and ideas we do, then rational thought will have been achieved. For him, the goal of discussion is to better understand each other. This is a little different from answering the poll question.
Discussion as Social Control
In a discussion, some people determine what is normal and accepted while others self-censor, adapt, and submit to their perception of "normal." And for Michel Foucault, it is possible for the same person to do both.
In an interview, one person asks questions and the other tries to read that person's body language, facial expressions, and vocal tone to determine if their answers are being approved or dismissed. Their perceptions will in part determine how they choose to answer subsequent questions.
In a classroom, a student may withhold a question or comment if they believe their peers or the teacher will perceive it as "stupid."
The feeling that one has of being surveilled and judged (whether it be Big Brother, or your little brother) is enough to coerce an acceptance of prevailing social norms and adaptation to them, unless one is a member of the group that determines what "normal" is. Deciding who is in which group is what referenda like Maine #1 is all about.
Discussion as Oppressive Tolerance
Recently, Glenn Beck appeared on the cover of Time Magazine. He was the subject of a feature article that asked "Is Glenn Beck bad for America?" Towards the end of that article you can find the following quote:
Extreme talk, especially as practiced by a genuine talent like Beck, squeezes maximum profit from a relatively small, deeply invested audience, selling essentially the same product in multiple forms. The more the host is criticized, the more committed the original audience becomes. And the more committed the audience, the bigger target it presents to the rant industry on the other side of the spectrum.
The rant industry on the other side of the spectrum? I think of them as "the sane," and articles and quotes such as this one as primary examples of what Herbert Marcuse called "oppressive tolerance."
For Marcuse, if discussants that intentionally misrepresent the facts or make them up, and intentionally suppress or seek to destroy other points of view, are given equal time and attention their likelihood of silencing or destroying other points of view is simply too great to tolerate. Democracies create the conditions for their own corruption, or destruction, by treating as legitimate opinions that seek to corrupt or destroy them. Some opinions are too dangerous and illegitimate to be given equal time.
In other words, being intolerant of intolerant viewpoints is not a contradiction for Marcuse, it is a form of protection. Therefore, not only is this article on Beck deeply flawed as it tolerates an intolerant voice in public discussion, but Beck himself, the birthers, the Boortz's, the Rush's, and the Orly's just wouldn't be allowed to be a part of public discussion. He would have told you to write off your wingnut father-in-law as a hopeless case decades before the "Help-me-with-my-wingnut-father-in-law" diaries had even been invented.
I wonder what he would have thought of the Fairness Doctrine?
(In a bit of brilliant sauciness, his grandson maintains a web page in his honor on which he proudly displays articles by those who argue against his philosophy of discussion. The grandson simply calls this the Haters Page. Brilliant.)
Discussion as Personal Growth
I am much more comfortable with this one than I am with Marcuse. While I understand Marcuse, and sympathize with him, I don't really agree with him. I can really get behind John Dewey, though. He conceived of discussion as a method for individual "flourishing," or achievement of social and intellectual potential. A kind of self-actualization through communication with others. Yes, I like this one mucho.
We can probably see all of these in this diary, if we try hard enough. Or DKos in general, or at the family dinner table, or our favorite tv shows or current events programming or watercooler gossip stops (quick: "Kate Gosselin!" blurgh). So, what can we do to create discussion conditions that maximize personal growth, democracy, and rational thought while minimizing social control and oppressive tolerance? Finally, we get to the fun stuff:
Old School Discussion
In most face-to-face situations, discussion involves a group of people who meet together and take turns talking. A discussion leader determines who speaks, how long they speak, and defines the limits of what they are permitted to say (i.e. no cussing in classrooms is a pretty standard restriction).
Discussants indicate their interest in commenting by raising a hand or making eye contact with the leader. Sometimes, a larger group is divided into smaller groups where someone records what is said and then reports back to the larger group. This reporting-back model is supposed to increase the chances that more people get to participate, increasing the "democracy" of the discussion.
Problems With The Old School
As a democratic institution, traditional classroom or town-hall discussion, falls tragically short of a democratic ideal. Some voices are privileged over others, some voices are not heard from at all, an assertive or aggressive voice may dominate, only one modality is rewarded, emphasis is placed on "winning the point" or "scoring points," those who record in small groups may misrepresent the group, the leader may have a predetermined outcome in mind and inappropriately manipulate the discussion toward that end, discussants may be silenced or ignored by other discussants or the leader, etc., etc., etc...
The New School
- Deliberate Pause: This one is simple, but no one ever thinks to do it. So, the leader needs to establish it as an expected norm. Everyone pauses for a minute to think. That's it. Just a shared, quite moment to come up with one's own answer to a question. Some take notes. Then, as each of the following techniques is used, each person is less likely to be thinking while someone else is talking, and more likely to be listening.
- Circle of Voices: Ideal for small groups from 4 to 8, each discussant, in turn, speaks uninterrupted for up to 1 minute. After each person has spoken, the group goes around in the same order once again. This second time, however, each person is restricted to sharing thoughts about something one of the other people has said. No questions, no answers, simply statements and reactions in two 1-minute rounds. Then, in a 3rd, open phase, members of the group are free to question each other and answer each other's questions.
- Snowballing: Two people face each other. Each answers the discussion leader's question to the other. The merge with another dyad. No one is allowed to summarize or paraphrase. The only forward movement is to raise questions suggested by previous discussion but not answered by it. Then, the groups of four merge, the groups of 8 merge, and by the time the whole group is together there should be an implied sense of what has been said, but a concrete sense of what needs to be addressed next.
- Silent Discussion: Perhaps my favorite. Hang sheets of newsprint around the room. Each small group answers a question by writing its thoughts on the paper(s). This can be done as a summary of discussion, or by each person individually. Everyone is then free to roam the room, reading other answers. Key to this is the freedom to write on other group's sheets--if I see something across the room that makes me think or question or respond, I am expected to write that idea or question on their sheet. After a set amount of time, everyone returns to their own sheet(s) to read what others added to their page(s). After a moment if anyone wants to address something they saw,or raise a question to the group, there is an opportunity to do so.
- Silent Post-It: A variation on #4. If teaching a class or presenting information, simply encouraging those in attendance to write questions or thoughts had during the presentation on post-its and to walk them up and stick them to a board set up for the purpose. At a natural break the presenter or an assistant can then pull the post-its and address each one directly and until satisfied, rather than disrupting the flow and content of the presentation. Often, participants discover their question was answered before the note was pulled (which is why I really like using this one when teaching high school classes).
- Another variation of #4. Have groups rotate from sheet to sheet, discussing each one amongst themselves before writing anything new at each 'station.' A little less chaotic, and creates more intra-group cohesion than everyone randomly roaming around.
- Variation on #2. After a deliberative pause, one person answers a question. They get 1 minute, and cannot be a recognized authority figure in the group. Each subsequent person is restricted to a 1 minute comment on something the person before them said. This is why the boss or the teacher is not allowed to speak first.
What About Morning Feature and the "Democratization of Intimacy?"
I make 3 assumptions about discussion.
- It is a shared experience, no matter the format, classroom, internet, notes in bottles.
- Expectations--everyone brings expectations to a discussion. Expectations of the format (sure, my dial-up is fast enough to process that youtube embed!), of the purpose, and the other discussants, just to name a few. Expectations are just a fancy word for "assumptions."
- Limits. Every discussion is bounded by constraints. Constraints imposed by the format, other discussants, and discussion leaders. Many of the constraints on DKos are explicit, like hide-rating. Some of them are not...
I borrowed the phrase "democratization of intimacy" from a recent TedTalk in Oxford, England. I highly recommend it. It places this discussion of discussion squarely in the modality of blogs, IM's, and online social networks. I tried to embed it but kept getting html errors that prevented publishing the diary.
But, it is a great way to, if not end, at least bring this discussion to a different place. If you don't have time to watch it now (about 8 minutes), pleasecome back to it. There is something here for anyone who visits the web for discussion. Really.
This is why I value the ongoing Morning Feature discussion. I find it to be democratic. All voices are welcome. I find it to be appropriately intolerant, name-calling and personal flaming are not tolerated. I find the Foucaultian surveillance to be benevolent and encouraging rather than oppressive, and the opportunities for personal growth (especially through diary authorship) to be real and meaningful. And as for rational thought, check back here around 10am for the answer to that poll question!
And, as always, thanks for stopping by.
TWLTW
- The blocks in NYC where West Side Story was filmed were razed for the construction of Lincoln Center.
- "Smarter people usually make better choices, and smarter people are less likely to be conservative."And the AEI's attempt to discredit that research-supported conclusion by arguing that just because you are smarter and less conservative doesn't mean anyone will agree with you.
- Jeff Dunham, the ventriloquist I remember seeing on teevee in the early days of Comedy Central, is the 3rd highest-grossing comedian in America, after Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock. I guess his recent cameo on 30 Rock doesn't mean he's joining the show- he's bigger than they are. And New York Magazine calls him homo- and xenophobic!
- Residents of Guangzhou, China are forbidden from owning more than one dog.
- Roger Ebert is the only person to have won a Pulitzer Prize for film criticism. Additionally, he and Paul McCartney were born on the same day: June 18th, 1942.
- An average adult human stomach can hold about 100 hot dog buns!
- There is a woman who has run the New York City marathon 22 times in a row. She is 82 years old (and she was on the Today Show, yesterday morning).
- The series premiere of Sesame Street was sponsored by the letters W, S, and E, and the numbers 2 and 3. New episodes starting November 10th! Yay!
What did you learn this week?