On Charitable Discourse
Is it prudent to adopt charitableness as a general rule for public discourse and argument? Conor Friedersdorf wants to think so, but he isn’t entirely sure. While he admires forceful criticism that nevertheless treats the one criticized charitably, he also finds himself cheering substantial scathing takedowns that are less than charitable, especially when those on the receiving end deserve the hard hits.
As someone who’s frequently called for more charity in public discourse, I likewise want to think charitableness is prudent to adopt as a general rule. I wish we could see an end to the demonization and caricatures employed in our public debates. However, I also see a place for satire, ridicule, and mockery. These approaches have a way of disclosing the truth that can’t always be achieved by a well-reasoned argument. The jesters play a vital role.
Moreover, sometimes public speakers have ill motives and can be shown to have ill motives. Always assuming good motives isn’t an accurate assumption to make, even if it’s charitable.
I’m therefore led to say that it is a prudent rule to begin a debate with a person assuming good motives and treating him or her with respect and charity, particularly if one is unfamiliar with the person. However, if it becomes clear in the course of the discussion or otherwise that one’s interlocutor has no interest in the truth of the matter or has perverse motivations, I think it’s perfectly fine to mention that provided one isn’t engaging in detraction.
It’s not exactly uncharitable to show with evidence and argumentation that a propagandist, for example, is knowingly and willfully deceiving his or her audience. Debate should generally focus on the arguments and ideas discussed, but sometimes the core problem isn’t with what’s said, but with the one saying it.
Comments are closed.
Kyle,
I think this is probably true, but I also think that in the majority of cases pointing out the problem “with the one saying it” is unnecessary. Everyone who disagrees with them already knows it, and those who agree with them are unwilling to see it. It takes a special gift to point things out in a way that is not only true, but can be heard by all participants. I suspect it has something to do with holiness.
“Only the truth is pastoral.”
–Pope St. Gregory the Great
Sometimes those who agree with a deceitful speaker are unwilling to see it, but in others, the blindness is due to ignorance or an unwise trust.
I tend to think the charitableness gets a bit exaggerated. There is too much personalization on the Internet by both authors and readers. It is one thing to keep your mouth shut when your crazy uncle is giving discourse at Thanksgiving in order to keep the peace. It is another thing to get all in a huff because someone had the gall to disagree with you. The frustrating thing about the Internet is that there is absolutely no correlation between intelligence and popularity. This is a reflection of other problems in society. The public is grossly cavalier in rejecting expert opinion. Experts have tended not to serve their causes well by being grossly ideological and having a tendency to cling to abstractions and simplifications when it has become evident that practicality and nuance are required.
Fellowtraveler,
Lying is never pastoral, that much is true. But there are many different ways of attempting to communicate the truth, some of which are more pastoral than others.
Those who hide behind the cloak of “truthtelling” to excuse their lack of charity often miss the fact that truth is more than “facts.” Communicating truth requires acting out of a respect for how those who might disagree with you are able to hear your message. Those who pretend that the injunction to “speak the truth in love” is satisfied by accuracy with regard to factual details have an attenuated and unChristian understanding of the concept of “truth.”
Kyle,
Agreed. Nevertheless, helping those takes a special touch. One very lacking in the self-congratulatory place that is the Catholic blogosphere.
This is the flip-side of the recent discussion about bullying. Every step in a series of interactions has the potential to increase or decrease the level of hostility. A genuine conversation takes effort to dial down tension even when that tension was unintended. There’s an old saying, “don’t start nothin’, won’t be nothin’”. That’s not quite true. You not only have to avoid uncharitable comments, you need to go out of your way to defuse any lack of charity that develops.
What is the appropriate response when someone attacks you personally on a blog? If someone says, “You’re an idiot if you think such-and-such is true,” you can always respond by ignoring the insult and calmly saying, “I do (or don’t) believe such-and-such is true, and here’s why.” But suppose someone says, “You’re an idiot. You’re delusional. You have no respect for the truth. You’re just lying to yourself so you can continue in your wicked ways and suppress your conscience.” Then what do you say?
But suppose someone says, “You’re an idiot. You’re delusional. You have no respect for the truth. You’re just lying to yourself so you can continue in your wicked ways and suppress your conscience.” Then what do you say?
In such instances, I’ve generally said something to the effect of “Crap, they’re on to me.”
Brettsalkeld,
The facts you’ve stated about how people err and sin is of course true. Are you saying that St Gregory’s dictum is not useful for the type of discourse you seek?
Perhaps, “I’m sorry you feel that way,” is the best one can do in such a situation.
I’ve never really understood why charity is the virtue touted so much in the blogosphere. By my estimation charity primarily has to do with relief for the poor or victimized, and secondarily the dispensing of mercy when unequal power relations are in effect (professor and student; employer and employee). I’m not sure these really apply in the blogosphere.
Its seems to me that commonly manners and ettiquette (which hopefully our Mothers taught us well enough) should be more than enough for the Internet.
“I’m sorry you feel that way” would presumably be a true statement, and therefore in line w/ St Gregory’s dictum, wouldn’t it?
I was taken aback recently to find that the Catechism does not allow “a place for satire, ridicule, and mockery.” Well, maybe satire, but not ridicule or mockery:
2481 “…irony aimed at disparaging someone by maliciously caricaturing some aspect of his behavior [is an offense against truth].” (emphasis original)
Fellowtraveler,
I think St. Gregory’s dictum is useful to guard against the possibility of people fudging on the truth because it might cause hurt feelings. I get nervous when it is used (and I’m not certain you meant to use it this way) to imply that truth is the only criteria for charity. There are those in the blogosphere who defend themselves against the charge of being uncharitable simply by claiming that what they have said is true. Now, often enough, the claim itself is open to some debate. But even when it is not, having said something true does not, of itself, satisfy the demands of Christian charity.
And yes, I think “I’m sorry you feel that way” would be in line with (my reading of) the dictum. In other words, I hope it is both factually true and said in a way that can be heard by those who disagree.
Tim,
I disagree. Ridicule and mockery needn’t involve irony or maliciousness or caricature. The great Christian poet Dante clearly mocked and ridiculed sinful behaviors and personalities, yet we wouldn’t accuse him of offending against the truth.
I think context goes a long way in determining whether a given satire is an offense to truth . . . like how lying in poker isn’t really lying because everyone in the context expects it.
In any normal conversation, check to see if you’re being malicious. If you’re doing satire, double-check. It’s a lot easier to get caught up in it.
AdamV – We’re talking more about charity as a virtue. Certainly manners and etiquette are a part of that.
I’m well aware that Charity is a virtue. I’m just not sure it applies here. I think baked into charity is a disparity in the standing two parties. I’m not sure that’s the case on the internet. If you were to seek a virtue that applied it might be respect or kindness. I don’t believe those to be part of charity because they can be expressed amongst equals.
Jesus called some of those proud religious paragons who opposed him “a generation of vipers” and “whited sepulchres”–calling a spade a spade. He told the repentant woman taken in adultery, “Go and sin no more”–charitably.
I suppose it’s a matter of examining our consciences to judge if what we are saying is telling the unvarnished truth or trying to prove how smart and right we are, and how stupid and bad our enemy is.
Adam – I don’t think we’re on the same page yet. Charity, the virtue, is caritas or love. Charity, the act, is almsgiving. That second kind of charity implies a disparity, not the first.