ROG:
> Could you clarify some of your statements please?
With delight.
> LAWRY:
> An important theme in the founding of this country was an
> anti-intellectual one; a populist religious faith and passion were very
> influential. We did also have a thoughtful and well-educated parallel and
> contradictory element
>
> ROG:
> So we have intellectual and non-intellectual (social?) elements. Is this
> peculiar to the US in your opinion?
LAWRY: In the extent of its extremes, yes, quite so. We had the fortune to
have a group of world-class intellects formulate the foundations for
American independence and its governance ( e.g. Franklin, Adams, Jefferson,
Hamilton, et al). I can't think of any time in history when that has
happened to the extent that it did here (though I wouldn't be surprised if
there were some, somewhere). At same time, we had the Second Great
Awakening, led by firebrand populists (e.g. James O'Kelly, Lorenzo Dow, and
Elias Smith) who asserted that the common sense of plain folk was authority
enough in both religious and political matters. Both these elements had
cooperated early on, seeing in the creation of a free country the
opportunity to create a great society. But on what basis? The conflicting
roles of rationality, logic, faith and mythos were viewed in profoundly
different ways by both, and a struggle for dominance ensued. We still
wrestle with it today. As I said, I can't really think of any other society
that has had such a finally explored and passionately pursued polarity.
I am not sure I would characterize one as intellectual and the other as
'social' in the sense that I think people in MOQ use those terms, but would
like to think about this a bit. Maybe it IS a helpful way to think about it.
Hmmm....
> LAWRY:
> The fundamentalist religious
> mythos, though, has always been present in the US, and helps
> explain the odd
> twists and turns we sometimes see in US actions, life and policy. Our
> thought-less but passionate response to Sept 11 comes very much from this
> element.
>
> ROG:
> Which thoughtless response are you referencing? The military retaliation
> against the fundamentalist religious terrorist mythos? And while
> you are at
> it, could you please clarify which odd twists and turns you are trying to
> explain, and how American culture is more or less subject to them
> than other
> modern cultures?
LAWRY: Yes, I am referring to the response of the Bush administration to the
WTC/pentagon attacks, including the bombing of Afghanistan, but even more so
to the language that the Bush administration adopted (war, terrorism,
crusade, dead or alive, they seek our destruction, etc.) It is a language
based upon a mythic view of the world, and not one of logos. (Fukuyama must
have been both elated and annoyed. History has been restarted, but his
insight of its end invalidated.)
I would point to several examples of what I termed 'odd twists and turns':
Wilson's Fourteen Points vs. our policies at the Sevres and Lausanne peace
conferences after WWI; our values of supporting self-determination for the
peoples of the world vs. our behavior in Vietnam of inhibiting it.
Internally, of course, the tolerance of slavery vs. Civil War manifested one
of these twists and turns.) Others: our support for Israel vs. our
insistence that it (and the UK and France) withdraw after its 1956 attack on
Egypt; our urging Latin American countries to adopt democratic ways vs. our
support for regimes there that are characterized by death squads and utterly
corrupt elections. Our upholding the international rule of law vs. our
unwillingness to have it applied to US nationals abroad (e.g. re.
extradition policy).
I do believe that we are more prone to these contradictions than other
countries, thanks to the strength and robustness of the polarity that I
described earlier.
> LAWRY:
> This element, I think, is also involved in the low level of thoughtfulness
> shown in much of our mass media, including Newsweek.
>
> 1)The fundamentalist
> tradition included the idea that one didn't have to study things to know
> their essential truth,
LAWRY: see the writings of those I cited above -- I think there own words
will be compelling enough. One secondary source book that captures this is
Nathan Hatch, THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY, 1989.
> 2)one could know essential truth simply through faith
> and the goodness of human instinct.
LAWRY: Ditto. There is a huge literature on this.
> 3) So it is viewed as acceptable to
> formulate major opinions of difficult subjects without really studying
> things or knowing much about them.
LAWRY: Ditto, re the historical emergence of this mythos-based system of
beliefs in the US. For its current applicability, I simply point you to the
quality of the 'debate' over our response on Sept. 11, and as a
center-piece, John Ashcroft's testimony before Congress re. the Patriot Act.
or, though I can't remember the name of this person, to the Ohio law
professor who was relied on by the Bush administration to explain Islam to
them. This is a professor whose only expertise was the treatment of
Christian missions overseas. Later, they also sought the advice of more
astute writers, like Robert Kaplan and Thomas Friedman -- but these, good as
both have been from time to time, still were only journalists and essayists.
> 4) Our news media are not required,
> therefore, to reflect careful thinking, true journalistic reporting, or
> careful adherence to the facts.
LAWRY: One has but to look at the trivial performance of the mass media when
it comes to covering issues well, i.e. to the depth and with the degree of
comprehensiveness that is required to impart true understanding of the
issue. Every now and then, Newsweek, Time, US News and World report, USA
Today, and the broadcast companies will try and cover some issue that I
happen to know quite a bit about. In NO case have I thought it came close to
even a minimally adequate job.
Even when corrections are sent to them (regardless of whether the
corrections come from the right or the left, or are neutral, it is highly
unlikely that the reporters will be informed by them, both in fairness to
reporters, I must say that I think the news readers on TV and radio are far
worse than the print reporters. I know a few journalists and have talked
with them about this several times, and the excuse is that they are having
to move too rapidly from one story to another to really come to understand
it, and I imagine that they are right. These are not stupid people. In 'the
old days' -- say in the 1950s, news organizations used to place reporters
overseas and have them stay there for many years. Then they really did
become legitimate experts; now reporters fly in to some place where there is
breaking news, stay a couple of days, tape a 'report' and hop on the next
plane out to go somewhere else. They don't therefore have the chance to form
relationships with news sources, and to immerse themselves in the culture
that they are writing about.
> ROG:
> Could you please provide some compelling evidence of for each of these
> assertions? After all, we wouldn't want someone to accuse YOU of
> point number
> 3.
LAWRY: Have no fear on this point, Rog. <smile>
> LAWRY:
> Personally, this worries me, as it almost ensures that the US will make
> major mistakes in its foreign and domestic affairs, and that when crises
> occur, the people will not have the mental skill or informational basis
> needed to think and act wisely.
>
> ROG:
> As opposed to what? What are you comparing the US to? You go on
> to contrast
> it to a different problem of elitism leading to "naiveté and cognitive
> exploitation" in Europe, but you never really offer an ideal or a
> solution.
LAWRY: I was responding to Marco's comments, and making comparisons between
the US and Europe. I was not trying to offer a 'solution.' Though it would
be great if we found one, as the present situation leaves us prone to
self-harming behaviors and self-blinding beliefs, as outlined above and in
past emails. My hope has been that Pirsig might be among those that have
some ideas on a solution....
> LAWRY:
> In the US, the press is viewed as just one more
> voice in the raucous argumentation that passes for discourse here.
> In both areas, TV is recreational -- what a loss it is to our species!
>
> ROG:
> What do you have in mind as a suggestion for superior discourse?
> You already
> implicated all of mass media, so I take it you aren't recommending the NY
> Times or PBS. What are you recommending?
No, I like PBS, and don't think of it as being part of the mass media (see
its viewer shares!) There are several good news organizations. The
Washington Post does a pretty good job on technical policy matters, though
on hot issues they tend to go with the mass media, e.g. Sept 11. It is only
within the last month or so that we see the Post beginning to raise real
questions about Bush's policies. NYT is pretty good on some things, too,
and seems to have kept some reporters in the field, though Friedman seems to
have gone off the deep-end. I hope he will regain his form of the last
decade. Christian Science Monitor is pretty good, too. Would that all of
these were read by a larger portion of the population.
What would I recommend, in terms of sources? Hard work and diligence.
Reading a lot of things -- books, emails -- and talking with people who are
deeply knowledgeable -- academics, policy makers, people who live on the
front lines, etc. The Bush administration is a wholly unreliable source of
information on current events. I do believe that they think they can pretty
much say anything and people will accept it as accurate, but I think we are
seeing an administration that is profoundly ignorant, mythos driven (and so
faith is enough to justify any policy or assertion), and suffering from
cognitive chaos.
Back to comparing the US and Europe: in my last trips to Europe, I have
become appalled by the fall of the press there, in terms of the variables we
are discussing there. My old favorites, the Tribune de Geneve, has turned
into a piece of hyped up mush, and even Le Monde has deteriorated.
Perhaps Marco can comment of specific Italian and other European newspapers?
Cheers, Lawry
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:52 BST