Religion, Politics, and Agonistic Dualism

As I read Deborah Tannen's book, I found myself wondering why I had not even heard of it before, let alone read it. During seminary days, I had read and found very helpful You Just Don't Understand, but somehow The Argument Culture had slipped past me. I found the book to be one of those rare gems that is simultaneously insightful and also recognizable as truth that you already know. It may be a "popular" take on argumentation, but it seems to me to be one that takes very seriously multiple problems in our current media, political, and academic cultures.

I found particularly insightful her distinction between agonistic, ritualize opposition ("fighting for the sake of fighting") and reasoned argumentation. Although I agree with Maxwell regarding her use of sources, I think the overall lines she traces through the media, the law, politics, and academia weave a strong fabric of support for her thesis. As someone who studies political communication and has long had a passionate interest in truth-telling, I thought her analysis of the way the "two sides" approach distorts understanding of crucial public issues was spot on. The truth is too often victim to the way we have come to believe that "both sides" must be aired - even when one of those sides does not have a leg to stand on (e.g. holocaust deniers), or there are, in reality, multiple perspectives to be considered.

As I mentioned in class, the main background I bring to my current life in academia is my experience in the church as a pastor. Allow me to make a connection, if you will. Each year during Holy Week I watch again the third part of Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth, and I have also used this section of the film with confirmation and adult classes over the years. Zeffirelli is a master at showing the way others projected onto Jesus what they wanted him to be, and particularly the way that they tried to fit him into boxes of their own making. There is this wonderful moment in the film where he heals the centurian's son, and some zealots, watching the scene, remark to each other "so, he's a friend of the Romans." It is so clear at that moment that, in a world of dualistic opposition, he cannot be seen for who he really is, and his message cannot be heard. It is a realization that will lead to his death.

I wonder, with Tannen, to what extent our cultural insistence on dualistic thinking leads to an inability to see or hear the truth (or, to be post-modern about it, the multiple truths of peoples' lives), and what profound opportunities we miss in the process.