dern and post-modern discourse,by Kenneth Westhues
> > >Two conflicting points of view often develop into cognitive dissonance. The >modern and the post modern. >Which one are you? > >Postmodern Discourse >Postmodern discourse has had a stranglehold on academia for 40 years. Here are >some examples. >1.)"persons and positions are ordinarily closely related," with little >insistence on keeping personal identity separate from the questions or issues >under discussion; > >2.)"sensitivity, inclusivity, and inoffensiveness are key values" > >3.)priority on "cooperation, collaboration, quietness, sedentariness, empathy, >equality, non-competitiveness, conformity, a communal focus." > >4.)"seems lacking in rationality and ideological challenge," in the eyes of >proponents of modern discourse. > >5.)tends to perceive the satire and criticism of modern discourse as "vicious >and personal attack, driven by a hateful animus." > >6.)is oriented to " the standard measures of grades, tests, and ! a closely >defined curriculum" > >7.)lacking "means by which to negotiate or accommodate such intractable >differences within its mode of conversation," it will "typically resort to the >most fiercely antagonistic, demonizing, and personal attacks upon the >opposition"; > >8.)"will typically try, not to answer opponents with better arguments, but to >silence them completely as `hateful', `intolerant', `bigoted', `misogynistic', >`homophobic', etc." > >9.)has a more feminine flavor, as opposed to the more masculine flavor of >modern discourse. > >10.)results in "stale monologues" and contexts that "seldom produce strong >thought, but rather tend to become echo chambers." > >Modern Discourse (making a comeback!) >Following are ten key characteristics of modern discourse, what many >professors and students even now consider the normal or standard way to think, >study and argue in the academy: > >1.)"personal detachment from the issues under discussion," ! the separation of >participants' personal identities from subjects of inquiry and topics of >debate. > >2.)values on "confidence, originality, agonism, independence of thought, >creativity, assertiveness, the mastery of one's feelings, a thick skin and >high tolerance for your own and others' discomfort"; > >3.)suited to a heterotopic space like a university class, scholarly journal, >or session of a learned society conference, a place apart much like a playing >field for sports events, where competitors engage in ritual combat before >returning with a handshake to the realm of friendly, personal interaction. > >4.)illustrated by debate in the British House of Commons; > >5.)epitomized by the debates a century ago between socialist G. B. Shaw and >distributist G. K. Chesterton. > >6.)playfulness is legitimate: one can play devil's advocate, speak tongue in >cheek, overstate and use hyperbole, the object being not to capture the truth >in a single, balanced monologue, but to expose the strengths and weaknesses of >various positions. >7.)"scathing satire and sharp criticism" are also legitimate. > >8.)the best ideas are thought to emerge from mutual, merciless probing and >attacking of arguments, with resultant exposure of blindspots in vision, >cracks in theories, inconsistencies in logic; > >9.)participants are forced again and again to return to the drawing board and >produce better arguments; > >10.)the truth is understood not to be located in any single voice, but to >emerge from the conversation as a whole. > > > >Contrasting modern and post-modern discourse,by >January 23, 2013 Kenneth Westhues > > > >
