Is Dialogue Impossible Now?

I am taking a break this month from my video game apologia to address a real problem I’m seeing in modern discussion about anything controversial. This  problem can be viewed across the political/social/cultural spectrum and is strangling the lines of communication. What I am referring to is the inability and unwillingness of people to represent an opposing view correctly and fairly.

It may seem like a quibble at first glance. The inability of a person to accurately represent another’s opinion could be a reflection of the person. In any event what does it matter?

Think about any conversation you may have had with someone in a combobox or comments board. How many times has someone attacked a position that you don’t recognize and refer to it as your opinion? And how many times have you written off that individual as irrational and hateful?

There is a very real problem with the way people communicate these days. People on both sides seem unable to articulate an opponent’s view. To compound the problem people seem uninterested in this fact and an accusation of misrepresentation is outright dismissed.

Part of this can be traced to the narrowing of the modern mind. The politicization and sexualization of everything has caused us to focus on a very narrow spectrum of ideas. Our perspectives are shaped by poorly thought out and poorly articulated moral viewpoints that conflict with our opponents’ viewpoints at very basic levels. This results in much shouting and anger, but very little in the way of communication.

Lest anyone think I am aiming squarely at the enemies of the Church, I am calling all of us to recognize our faults in this area first. We on the pro-life side often fall into this trap. Every time we say something like “You support the murder of children” to an abortion supporter we are misrepresenting their views.  Period. We are deep in the so-called culture war.  The problem is that we forget that just like an actual shooting war there are rules that one has to abide by.

The rampant misrepresentation of others’ views is a problem. Theoretically this could be overcome with patient dialogue and an honest effort on both sides to come to understand one another. The real problem, one that eats away at rational discourse like an acid, is that no one cares to.

It is far easier to create a straw man of what an opponent believes than to actually take on the position that he holds. Attacking a straw man is easy because I created him and know his weak points. As a result this temptation is something those of us who participate in discussion (everybody) are prone to indulge in.

The tendency to misrepresent and dismiss those we disagree with (and often hate) is an old temptation. Misleading rhetoric is nothing new. Propaganda was invented the minute a differing opinion was invented.

The difference is that as a society we no longer feel an obligation to be fair, honest and charitable to those who have opinions different to ours in alarming numbers. We feel free to misrepresent to the point where the actual opinions of those we disagree with are not even considered. In short, we feel free to lie about our neighbor.

Consider again the pro-life/pro-choice divide. Think of all the common propaganda both sides use. Pro-choice folks say that pro-lifers are “anti-women” who want women to be barefoot and pregnant. Pro-lifers accuse pro-choicers of supporting the murder of children. Both misrepresent what the opponent actually says. Yet too often we fail to account for simple honesty toward each other.

Before my point is disputed I would like to point out that it is perfectly fine to make the argument that the pro-choice position is equivalent to child murder or for the pro-choicer to argue that the pro-life position leads to barefoot and pregnant house slaves. The point is that it is our obligation to point out that this is our argument and not their position.

The misrepresentation problem is compounded by the fact that people do not seem inclined to correct their misconceptions. Every reaction I’ve received when I point out that my opponent is misrepresenting me is a reaction of disdain and anger. In almost every discussion — online or off — one can find the same also holds. In short, we feel free to lie about those we disagree with to the point where we fail to realize that we are in fact lying.

The consequences of these two problems in discussions is obvious. The inability to understand those who disagree with us combined with the unwillingness to engage and represent the actual opinion of others strangles discussion. No exchange of ideas can take place when we feel free to substitute our mangling of others’ ideas for the genuine article. When we cannot be bothered to understand those around us we live in a fun-house of our own ideas.

My intent is not to be overly critical, either to us or to others. The Lord knows I’ve been guilty of everything I’ve listed here. My point is that the current climate of living in our own minds rather than the real world is causing tremendous damage to ourselves and others. Simply recognizing our own failings will help us to grow in holiness and be that light to our society and the world.

Colin Gormley

Colin Gormley

Colin Gormley is a 30 something Catholic who is married. By day he is a contract worker for the state of Texas. By night, or whenever he’s trapped with his wife in her biology lab, he blogs about the Catholic faith from an apologetics perspective. He often strays into politics given the current debates in the country, but he tries to see all issues with the eyes of the Church. His website is Signs and Shadows.

Leave a Replay

10 thoughts on “Is Dialogue Impossible Now?”

  1. Pingback: Details of Pope Francis World Youth Day Visit Revealed - BigPulpit.com

  2. Pingback: Is Dialogue Impossible Now? - CATHOLIC FEAST - Every day is a Celebration

  3. “Pro-lifers accuse pro-choicers of supporting the murder of children. Both misrepresent what the opponent actually says.”

    You are right that blog comments, emails, facebook posts, etc., are terrible forms of communication, and also that they tend to bring out the jerk in each of us. Unfortunately, this example is very poorly chosen to support your argument.

    Accusing pro-choicers of supporting the murder of children is not a representation about what pro-choicers SAY. It is a combination of three assertions: (1) beginning with conception, the embryo or fetus is already a child; (2) because induced abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being, it is murder; and (3) the laws and policies supported by pro-choicers support the act of abortion. NOWHERE IN THIS LIST is a statement, “Pro-choicers say they support the murder of children.” They use other words to describe what they are doing, of course. (Well, at least in most cases. The fringe that shouted “Hail Satan” might say anything.)

    For that matter, I doubt Jonathan Pollard would say, “I betrayed my country.” He would probably say, “I helped an American ally, which only helps the United States.” To say that he betrayed his country, though, is not to misrepresent what he says, it is to confront the implications of what he has done.

    1. As I stated in the article I’m not saying one is not allowed to make an argument that the pro-choice position is ultimately an attempt to justify the murder of unborn children (I agree with this). My point is that we have the obligation to make the case AND to not substitute our argument for their position. Simply stating such without qualifying distorts what they actually claim (in your presentation, they would deny premise 2).

      1. More likely they would deny premise 1 and would say that abortion is not murder because the fetus (or embryo) is not yet a “person”.

  4. Two other questions suggest themselves: “What is the purpose of dialogue?” “Is dialogue always desirable?”

    If the purpose of dialogue is to find the truth, that is always a noble end. If, on the other hand, its purpose is compromise or some kind of synthesis, that is NOT always a good thing.

  5. In the end, no matter how much dialogue is exchanged, there is a basic form of
    polarization that cannot be breached. It becomes a no win for both sides and is
    then considered a moot point. This is expecially true of abortion as the
    dialogue has been going on for 43 years. What will finally solve the problem of unwanted pregnancy is a perfect method to determine fertility. This will render a
    no-excuse clause to someone who says oops. but have no impact on someone who is raped or pregnant by incest, or the life of the mother. In the end, it’s not about dialogue at all. It is about convincing people that there are corporeal, temporal and spiritual ramifications. If the targeted audience doesn’t believe that then you better put the whole matter in the hands of God There are 7 deadly sins out there by the way,and I haven’t seen a campaign yet that adresses pride, anger, covetousness, lust, envy, sloth and gluttony. Together they diminish abortion in scope and do more damage than can ever be estimated.

  6. Pingback: The Family as the Basic Unit of Society : IgnitumToday

  7. Colin – Timely points. I think misrepresentation and strawmanning only serve to end our ability to have a civil conversation.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Sign up for our Newsletter

Click edit button to change this text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit