« when a day feels right | Main | What he said... »
May 02, 2006
Late to the [Crowley] Carnival
I'm very late joining this carnival on Sharon Crowley's newest book, Toward a Civil Discourse: Rhetoric and Fundamentalism. Jenny Edbauer, Jeff Rice, and Debbie Hawhee all posted thoughtful comments right at the beginning, and though I had finished my reading in time to post on time, I couldn't bring myself to put my comments in public.
After thinking about it for a week or so, and reading the other comments again, I know I don't have much new to offer, but I want to get my say in anyway, since I did want to participate.
I have read Crowley's other books, and I am a fan of hers. I have argued time and again in favor of her "modest proposal" and I am often the one willing to seriously engage the discussion of rethinking the very nature of composition as a college subject. I tend toward the classical in my understanding of, use of, and teaching of rhetoric, and I find myself appreciating other scholars that Crowley seems to respect or champion. I offer all of this because: a) Sharon Crowley is a senior scholar and long-time professor, b) I am but a lowly graduate student (despite my age and experience in the world), and c) because of what I'll say next: I was very disappointed in the tone of this book. From the first chapter, where Crowley offers her argument that "apocalyptism does more than [do ideological work]: it actually connects political activity to Christian duty" (9), I had the sense that Crowley had stumbled upon an entirely new (to her) genre of text and discourse, and wrote the book on the assumption that this would be as new to others. Maybe it is. So maybe its my own background getting in the way here. And if Jenny is right that liberals have a tendency toward dismissal of conservatives, Christians, or fundamentalists, then I stand corrected in my initial response. But I also agree with Jeff that Christian fundamentalism isn't really different from any other fundamentalism, (except to those who practice it), and that both the celebrity factor and the nature of democracy are important to understanding the toehold fundamentalist Christianity has in this country.
I agree with Jenny about the danger of a singular notion of "fundamentalism," and I agree with both Jenny and Crowley that there is a limit to "understanding" where real differences and real life decisions are in play. I spent a significant portion of my life in what might be termed a "fundamentalist" ministry (following Crowley's distinction of "fundamentalism" as a system where foundations are "primary, noncontingent, and non-negotiable.") I could, but won't, debate some of the notions she presents from other scholars (such as the seven dispensations she picks up from Darby), because these are not her arguments. I do think, though, that it's important that there are multiple understandings of such things as biblical time even among the most devout believers, and some of those believers can't even discuss that difference among themselves. My learning, for example, is largely based on what would qualify as classical rhetorical structures (precept upon precept, line upon line...) I lived in a "blue" state most of my life and swam against the current as a conversative, Christian, Republican (three terms I still use to self-identify). Yet I believe in rationality, liberalism, and tolerance within the limits of a civil society. I voted Republican right up to the 2000 election, when it was for me morally impossible. I am regularly amazed at how little my students and colleagues know about or understand the processes of government the determine their lives. I believe the key to peaceful co-existence with others who are different in any way is education - learning about those others and what they believe and value, and why. Now, I also understand that, as Crowley argues, if that other has no interest in returning that posture, there is no communication to be had. And this seems to be the important theme of the book: those who tolerate no discussion and who have built a belief system around apocalypticism not only won't engage in argument or discussion, but believe they have no reason to. The beauty of apocalyptic vision is that you get out of this world, so you don't have to be deeply invested in how it works out.
Debbie also talks about the problem of dismissal. If we think of fundamentalists as any other marginalized group who, when dismissed without feeling heard or understood (I know that's hard, but play along...), then it is less surprising that they pack the courts and the legislators as best they can with folks sypmathetic to their cause. What often surprises me is how a group with a deeply held value set and a sense of urgency can mobilize enough people to swing an election or an appointment when there are so many other eligible and differently minded folks who could prevent it by participating themselves. (That's another subject, though, isn't it?)
It seems to me that Crowley's book, as an attempt to build an understanding of the belief systems in play for fundamentalists and apocalyptics is valuable if it allows liberal minded academics to find a way to seriously engage in conversations intended to draw out those beliefs from individuals around them. It seems to me that a genuine attempt at understanding the other's position, of building that Burkean sense of identification, is the only way to get to the consubstantiation that can modify the extreme edges of both the discourse and the actions that follow from it. I also think Jodi Dean's observation is vital: "I believe that they believe...". And I guess that for myself (to try and bring an end to this long post) I, like Dean, am interested in "the diversity of truth claims; the multiple ways in which people construct and authorize them; and, finally, what this means for notions of community and the public sphere" (169). Understanding at that level seems to me more challenging and more engaged than a mere acceptance of an other's right to believe whatever s/he wishes.
If the goal is understanding the extremists to move "toward" a civil discourse, then I think it's necessary to realize that it's not enough just to understand what the other side does (i.e., in terms of winning elections, etc.) There also has be to be deliberate move to respond, to mobilize, to raise votes and awareness and participate in discussions ourselves.
Well, this is a start, and I have more I'd like to say in relation to the book. I'm still not comfortable that I'm responding well, so perhaps if there are any carnivalers out there still willing to talk about the book they will respond.
Posted by cageyer at May 2, 2006 09:04 AM
Comments
An interesting take indeed. It might be useful to bear in mind that Crowley herself doesn't espouse liberal politics but is rather a radical, a position that's almost impossible in our bipartisan system. I think the book is important for its acknowledgement that existing modes of argumentation don't really work when belief and conviction are in play (and radicals or liberals for that matter, as my post tried to point out, aren't free from such convictions, though Crowley doesn't suggest they are). Crowley's openness about her problem with fundamentalists is, I think, an admirably honest disclosure, one that still doesn't prevent her from trying to imagine the possibility of achieving stasis through more plausible means--i.e., that set aside a faith in rational argumentation.
Posted by: dhawhee at May 2, 2006 11:02 AM
Thanks, Debbie, for raising that point about radicals and liberals. I wanted to take up that thread and forgot. It does seem that our political system is increasingly narrowed and divided. Even though we've never had the true multi-party system that some of the European states do, we had more options in our history than have had in the last half-century of so. It would be an interesting exercise to imagine ways to open that system back up and work toward it as a goal.
I do recall that Crowley mentioned that faith in rational argument is also a belief system, and that is is a value. I share a distaste for the kind of fundamentalism exhibited by LaHaye (who I first read years ago) and others that are described in the book, so if my comments suggest a problem with Crowley's position, I apologize.
After ruminating on this text for the long week, I see a number of things from my recent studies where I can make connections to this text, and to the kind of imaging you mention here. Now that I've gotten this started, I'll try to keep building on it. Thanks for your thoughts.
Posted by: Chris Geyer at May 2, 2006 11:27 AM