First, two definitions\u2026<\/p>\n
(1) echo chamber<\/strong> (n.) – An environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.<\/em><\/p>\n And (2) dialogue<\/strong> (n.) – An exchange of ideas or opinions on a particular issue, especially a political or religious issue, with a view to reaching an amicable agreement or settlement.<\/em><\/p>\n Question: do we actually want to solve<\/em> our existing societal issues? \u2026 the political strife, the racial tension, the ever-increasing list of socio-economic debates? Note that only one of the above pursues solution. The echo chambers \u2014 the social media circles, chat rooms, and Facebook threads that are only gracious and inviting to likeminded ideology \u2014 do not solve the problems plaguing us today. They only reverberate the sound of our own opinions, which encourages ideology adherence. From The Witherspoon Institute\u2019s Randall Smith in his poignant discussion of \u201cIdeology and the Corruption of Language\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201c\u2026 How do we recognize the language of \u2018ideology\u2019 and distinguish it from a \u2018principled position\u2019? One common clue is that those who hold a principled position welcome arguments; they welcome having their position tested and possibly corrected. A principled position always has room for increased subtlety and greater complexity. Holders of an \u2018ideology,\u2019 on the other hand, will tend to eschew argument or any examination of the ideology\u2019s underlying presuppositions or premises, often refusing to concede that greater subtlety may be required to apply the principles to real-life situations. Ideology disdains argument; people with principled positions embrace it warmly and engage in it gladly.<\/em><\/p>\n Note, however, that \u2018engaging in argument\u2019 is not the same as a dual monologue or sharing complaints about opponents. If you\u2019re unsure what a dialogue is supposed to sound like, read one of Plato\u2019s. Socrates is as good a teacher of dialogue as anyone who ever lived. Personally, I suggest beginning with the \u2018Gorgias.’<\/em><\/p>\n In the \u2018Gorgias,’ Socrates defends \u2018dialectic\u2019 (the question-and-answer method he engages in with interlocutors) and distinguishes it from \u2018sophistry.\u2019 What Plato especially disliked about sophistry was its corruption of language: the belief that language was not primarily for the expression of truth<\/strong> but for the acquisition of power.<\/strong> Sophists bragged that they could convince the ignorant masses of anything, even better than people who were experts on a subject. How did they do this? By twisting words and using language to inflame the passions rather than to engage the logic of the mind. Appeal to fear and play on people\u2019s anxiety, never asking them to think about the evidence for your claims or reflect on the possible unintended consequences of a course of action.<\/em><\/p>\n This corruption of language is a characteristic sign of ideology. Throughout the Platonic dialogues, Socrates spends a great deal of time trying to clarify words, attempting to get clear on what people mean when they use terms such as \u2018good\u2019 or \u2018just\u2019 or \u2018great.\u2019 Ideologies want to skip over all that hard work. Asking what someone means by \u2018good\u2019 or \u2018just\u2019 or \u2018fair\u2019 is, to the devoted ideologue, like the greengrocer refusing to put the sign in his window. It suggests you\u2019re not a party member.<\/em><\/p>\n Watch out for this. Refusing to discuss one\u2019s terms because the point is \u2018obvious,\u2019 insisting on using euphemisms rather than plain speech, relying on a very specialized vocabulary and being unable to express one\u2019s thoughts without it, using speech to vilify persons rather than to clarify positions: these are all clues that you\u2019re dealing with ideology, not principle.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Ideology\u2019s corruption of language does not pursue solution. In fact, while justifying loving treatment toward some, it is accompanied by the unintended consequence of unloving treatment toward some others.<\/p>\n How many times have we heard or said, \u201cI cannot have one more conversation in which they don\u2019t realize the point is obvious!\u2026 I cannot have political debates with these people! Our disagreement is not merely political; it\u2019s a fundamental divide on what it means to be good!\u201d<\/em> And with that we label the other person as either arrogant, ignorant or compassionless. We justify no more dialogue, assuming only we are good.<\/p>\n As an advocate of respectful dialogue, allow me to encourage the hard work. Allow me to encourage the investment in dialogue, the sincere wrestling with unlike opinion, and the exit from echo chambers. Echo chambers are easy, as the reverberation of like opinion never challenges us to consider the wisdom of another approach. Think about the evidence for our own claims and reflect upon the possible unintended consequences of a course of action. Encounter others sincerely, selflessly. Clarify. Don\u2019t vilify. Listen well. And do nothing that justifies loving another less \u2014 such as refusing to have \u201cone more conversation.\u201d<\/p>\n Respectfully\u2026 First, two definitions\u2026 (1) echo chamber (n.) – An environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered. And (2) dialogue (n.) – An exchange of ideas or opinions on a particular issue, especially a political … <\/p>\n
\nAR<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"