Culture War Rhetoric
Aristotle defined rhetoric as the ability to see what is possibly persuasive in every given case. Under this definition, I would be a skilled rhetorician if I could discern the best means of persuading you. Obviously I can seek to persuade you of something true or something false. I can use rhetoric for good or ill. Generally speaking, my use of rhetoric is morally good when my means of persuading you flow from a concern for proving that something is true. Paul Ricoeur observed that when my means of persuasion are freed from a concern for proof, I can get carried away by a desire to seduce and to please and my style becomes ornamental. With these points in mind, I intend to consider the rhetoric of the culture wars. Specifically, I wish to analyze whether this culture war rhetoric is bound to or divorced from a concern for proof.
To discern the aim of culture war rhetoric, we have to understand the aim of the culture wars. The metaphor used reveals that aim: it is the aim of war. The objective of war is to defeat the enemy: defeat is the criterion that determines whether a war is won or lost. Culture wars are fought in order to defeat one’s cultural enemies. They’re premised on the ideas that nothing short of the defeat of one side can resolve the cultural conflicts for which the wars are fought and that the culture’s very survival necessitates this defeat. The goal of culture war rhetoric is clear: the defeat of one’s cultural opponents.
How does one defeat a cultural enemy using rhetoric? Two ways come to mind:
1. Persuading one’s opponent to accept one’s position.
2. Destroying one’s opponent within the culture through rhetorical assault.
This second means can be accomplished in two ways: 1) directly by demeaning and disparaging signification of one’s cultural opponents (e.g. publically describing them in demonizing terms) and 2) indirectly by elevating one’s own side at the expense of the other (e.g. rallying the troops).
As wars are not generally won by talking to the enemy, it should not surprise us that culture war rhetoric rarely endeavors to persuade the enemy and most often aims at the opponent’s destruction within the culture. The people to be persuaded are not found among the enemy troops or generals, but among those who are ambivalent, indifferent, or already on one’s side. Pro-lifers protest Planned Parenthood much more often than they engage its leaders in conversation. The persuasion of pro-lifers wasn’t the plan behind the recent jump by pro-choice opinion leaders to depict Republican sponsors of the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” as pro-rapist.
For the most part, culture war rhetoric is aimed not at offering an effective proof for the benefit of the opposition, but in destroying the opposition. Because proof is not its aim or its concern, culture war rhetoric has no allegiance to the truth. This isn’t to say this rhetoric necessarily employs lies, but that lies are not antithetical to its purpose. Its loyalty is to whatever most effectively leads to the enemy’s defeat. It employs famine, sword, and fire and suffers nothing if it sickens, slashes, or engulfs the truth as collateral damage.
Does culture war rhetoric actually work when the sides which speak it are more or less equal in cultural sway? This question begs for a more advanced analysis than I can provide here, but let me suggest that the cultural effect of Sarah Palin illustrates an answer. Palin is a model culture warrior. She suffers the slings and arrows of political fortune and reforms her wounds into her appealing personal narrative. Her followers interpret every shot against her as a shot against themselves and the cultural ideal that binds them. Palin’s own rhetoric is deliberately aimed at constructing a narrative identity that’s antagonistic to the prevailing political culture. She very deliberately rallies her base by depicting them (through carefully controlled media outlets) as the true representation of America and by orchestrating a rhetorical bombardment of liberals, the media, and whoever else is critical of her position. And so what has been her cultural impact? About a quarter of the voting public champion her cause, another quarter is indifferent to her, and about half the voters of the country view her negatively. If the consequences of Sarah Palin’s rhetoric serve as an example indicative of cultural war rhetoric generally, the effect of culture war rhetoric, and the wars themselves, is further cultural division and enmity.
Kyle Cupp is a freelance writer and editor with a background in literature, language, and philosophy.
Like this:
Comments are closed.
Palin illustrates another point: every war has its war profiteers.
No kidding.
I used to see cultural division and enmity as an accidental occurrence of two sides with no desire for compromise squaring off against each other.
Now I see it mostly as a deliberative attempt by a third party intent on keeping both sides distracted while they in turn, loot the cookie jar.
I view it as deliberate, but not merely an attempt by a third party.
I think I might have been suggesting that there are many self interested third parties operating from well inside of a movement. Although I could have definitely phrased it better than I did.
Very good post. It shows again that violence, both real and rhetorical, is a fuel that drives many on the American right.
Thank you.
Kyle – this is brilliant stuff. Kudos.
Merci, sir.
Kyle and Minion:
Palin and the prolife zealots are the easy targets and represent the obvious, even stereotpical examples of culture warriors. Can we get you guys on the record acknowledging that culture war rhetoric emits from both sides of the barricades and provide some balancing examples?
Mike,
You’ll notice two paragraphs before I bring in Palin that I mention the rhetoric aimed at painting GOP supporters of the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act as “pro-rapist” as an example of language meant to destroy the other within the culture. So I’m already, in this very post, on record. However, I can also point to other examples of demeaning terms that are shot from “the Left”: speaking publicly of pro-lifers as generally anti-women or supporters of traditional marriage as generally homophobes. My sense, though, is that the label “culture warrior” is self-applied more frequently on the right.
Who opposes traditional marriage? Virtually no one. The pretense that support for traditional marriage is what drives the opposition to gay marriage is the bald grab for more noble motives than will fill the role given them.
Well, supporters of same-sex marriage oppose the traditional understanding that restricts the meaning of marriage to an institution between a man and a woman. That doesn’t mean they’re against heterosexual marriages, of course, but it does me they are against an idea of marriage that doesn’t include homosexual couples.
I see no reason to do that. I reject out of hand this notion of “balance”. If you want “balance”, watch CNN where they trop out “experts” from “both sides”. Never mind that one side is reasonable and anxious to compromise and that they other side panders to hysterical bigots and morons. No, sir. The “sides” are not both guilty of the same tone of rhetoric. Accusing the President of not being “one of us” is of a completely differnt flavor than mocking people we disagree with (RE the abortion wars).
For the most part, culture war rhetoric is aimed not at offering an effective proof for the benefit of the opposition, but in destroying the opposition. Because proof is not its aim or its concern, culture war rhetoric has no allegiance to the truth. This isn’t to say this rhetoric necessarily employs lies, but that lies are not antithetical to its purpose. Its loyalty is to whatever most effectively leads to the enemy’s defeat. It employs famine, sword, and fire and suffers nothing if it sickens, slashes, or engulfs the truth as collateral damage.
I think this is exactly right. And to pre-empt those who are going to demand an example from the left to balance the (spot-on) critique of Palin that follows, consider that pro-choice rhetoric which acts as if the unborn human is not even there. Pro-lifers are presented as being “anti-women’s rights” but no one is actually willing to talk about what “right” it is we oppose. “The right to choose” indeed. The right to choose what?
Tell us then Brett, per my comment below, which people on the “right” are evil CWRs that fall under Kyle’s judgment. Planned Parenthood protesters? Are they CWRs? In what way? In every way? They are one of Kyle’s only examples. What in the world does this apply to, except to one’s prejudged rhetorical enemies? No, you would say of course you don’t believe that, and I would guess that you don’t. But don’t you see any significance at all in an essay that says CWRs are evil in these various ways, uses people who oppose Planned Parenthood as a prime example, and then just concludes, and then you say “right on” and Minion says right on those righties (who he has said many times includes for him pro-lifers) are evil? Is there any need to specify what is being talked about here? How is this not a problem?
You’re asking me to name people on the right? And here I was pre-empting the demands to name someone on the left! Gotta say, I didn’t see that coming. ;)
OK. People who say that the current health care legislation is “communist.”
I live in a country with actual government-run health care, and no one here (or anywhere else for that matter) considers us communist. We have had a right of center government for 5+ years.
And no one who has actually had state-run health care would mistake the current American legislation for being state-run. You still have to buy your own health insurance for goodness sake! I just get a health card from the government and present it whenever I have an appointment.
Calling the current American legislation “state-run” is close enough to culture war rhetoric. Calling it “communist” is about as perfect an example as can be hoped for.
As to whether PP protesters are CWRs, I suspect many are and many aren’t. I don’t think you can label groups CWRs based on something like that. You have to label them based on actual rhetoric. It has to be “people who say such-and-such” are engaging in culture war rhetoric. At least, that’s the criteria I used above.
Or consider these two caricatures, currently on full display in debates here at VN:
1. Liberals insist that every problem must be solved by state intervention.
2. Conservatives who oppose state intervention believe that certain problems aren’t really problems, or at least are not worth solving.
Both of these positions are attributed to one’s enemy, though neither recognizes itself in the critique. This leaves absolutely no room to resolve real problems. Rather it leads to endless squabbling about the degree to which each caricature represents reality.
Now I’m not saying they don’t represent reality at all. For any caricature to catch hold it can’t have nothing in common with the truth. But to spend all one’s time defending the caricatures one draws of one’s opponents leads inevitably to a dulled interest in truth as such. Winning arguments takes precedence to building the Kingdom.
The category of “culture war rhetoritician” is itself a caricature. How is it not? Explain in a non-defensive way.
I’m not sure I understand your question Matt.
I suppose it is quite possible, in describing a “culture warrior,” to make him or her into a caricature. Does that mean there are no people who actually do (mis)use rhetoric in the way Kyle outlines?
Am I close to answering your question, or were you going somewhere else with that?
See my second response to Kyle below, when approved. Because the CWR category’s contours are malleable to just about whatever the reader wants it to mean, the reader can plausibly claim that HIS enemies are CWRs and therefore they are demonizers, disparagers, etc. Attach the label, declare the evil conclusions. That IS demonization and caricaturization. Sure demonizing rhetoric exists. But like you say, it has to be discussed one piece at a time. To create a whole category, and say here is a category, if you fall into it, you are a bunch of terrible things, is itself demonization unless the parameters of the category are strict–but in this case they are not, they are conclusory, because the categorizer did not do the hard individual work for each piece of rhetoric they are discussing. The category doesn’t aid our understanding. It’s just more name calling. Which is what Kyle said he was trying to oppose. But perhaps inadvertently he is proposing a characterization that is itself indistinguishable from name calling. Brett if you think this is a legitimate method of approaching “culture war” issues whatever that means, again it gets back to our previous discussions about whether these issues will be approached in a way that demonizes and casts aspersions on pro-lifers categorically or not.
So, I think that any time anyone criticizes someone else’s rhetoric, they open themselves to pot and kettle type accusations. I don’t think that means we should never criticize rhetoric, but it does mean we have to be careful.
Accusing pro-lifers of being “pro-rape” or calling the health-care legislation “communist” are both dishonest, and dishonest with the intent to vilify an opponent. I think we should be allowed to call this out.
The difference, it seems to me, is that in calling that out we are being honest. Neither of those comments is honest.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t scrutinize particular rhetoric. I am speaking against a particular attempt that I understand to CATEGORIZE instead of SCRUTINIZE. In place of the hard work of looking at a particular utterance, the person uses criteria that are less rigorous (Kyle’s definition) and says, if it meets this it is CWR, and if it is CWR it is all these bad conclusions (demonizing etc). Those conclusions would not otherwise be legitimate if we had not done the work to prove each of them specifically to each utterance. Now they get attached as labels without having done so.
Do you see the difference between saying, if you are in the culture war you are a demonizer anad unconcerned for the truth, and saying, statement x within the culture war seems to be demonizing and unconcerned for the truth? Maybe all Kyle is doing is the latter, but I read it as an attempt to speak more generally and categorically. I think that is a reasonable reading. Maybe I am reading it wrong–that’s why I asked. Kyle did not respond in a way to clearly indicate that I was reading it wrong in this way.
I am speaking against a particular attempt that I understand to CATEGORIZE instead of SCRUTINIZE.
You got to be kidding, right? I mean, you got to be kidding.
Yeah Henry, just like you and MM are kidding when you whine about the incivility of right wingers, as you foam at the mouth and spew venom against them.
Matt
You prove my point.
Keep telling yourself that and maybe someday you’ll believe it.
Kyle, I want to affirm your desire to seek true and positive discourse towards worthy goals. I think there are many truths in your reflection. I do not understand exactly what rhetoric specifically the reflection applies to. I think it could be a disservice of your goal not to specify what it applies to, since it will be harder for people to put your principles into practice. Even more concerning, it seems to me that someone could simply take your principles, because of their lack of specificity, and simply turn them around on your essay. Your essay itself leads people to believe that another group of people, “culture war rhetoriticians” (CWR) possess a variety of horrible demonic characteristics. So your entire essay could itself be called culture war rhetoric of a passive aggressive type but war rhetoric nonetheless–the attempt to demonize people who share a different view than you do about the value of certain rhetoric as people who possess all those very negative chararcteristics that your essay judges them to have: they don’t seek truth, they use scorched earth, they are like people who your readers believe unspeakably evil like Sarah Palin. Is anyone who is pro-life and speaking about it public in your CWR category? Who knows? You can deny it and say you never said that. But what did you say defines the category parameters? You say CWR is total war rhetoric. Now, this overlooks (or denies, not sure which) the fact that jus in bello is also a possible way to wage war–a way, in fact, that undermines all your conclusions about it not being geared to truth, etc. But is your total war determination a *definition* or a *judgment*–does it mean that various people who don’t meet it aren’t, by definition, CWRs, so you aren’t really talking about them (many “on the right”!), or is a judgment, that mwans that anyone in the preset CWR category (defined by what?) are warlike BECAUSE they are CWRs, and so it does judge most pro-lifers or whoever hated group your reader wishes to apply it to? The reader has no way of knowing how to apply your essay except as Minion did: to take it as affirming his existing predisposed hatreds for a group of people. Again this achievement of your essay is itself a characteristic of war rhetoric as you have defined it.
I have defined “culture war rhetoric” as rhetoric aimed at the defeat of one’s cultural enemy either by persuading the enemy to accept one’s cultural position or by destroying the enemy through rhetorical assault—language that demeans, disparages, demonizes, or caricatures. Persuasive or destructive language in themselves don’t fall into what I’ve called culture war rhetoric. To be considered such, their aim must be the defeat of the other within the culture. Both the means (persuasion or destruction) and the end (the enemy’s defeat) must be present.
I did not say that culture warriors never seek truth or that their rhetoric is never aimed at truth. I did say that culture war rhetoric, which is surely not the only rhetoric culture warriors use, has no allegiance to the truth. Its allegiance, so to speak, is to the defeat of the enemy. Speaking truth is at best a means to that end. If the rhetoric is not aimed at the defeat of the enemy, but instead at giving voice to the truth, then it isn’t what I’ve called culture war rhetoric, even if it demeans, disparages, demonizes, or caricatures. As I said, both the means and the end have to be present.
To give an example: if an anti-war activist seeks to paint U.S. soldiers as murderous thugs with the intention of creating a cultural perception that soldier=murderer, this activist is engaging in culture war rhetoric. But, if this activist uses the same language but without the intention of creating this cultural perception, then the activist isn’t using culture war rhetoric. He may just be being an asshole.
Thank you. It sounds to me like you are saying that these criteria are definitional in your essay–and applies only to “rhetoric aimed at the defeat of one’s cultural enemy either by persuading the enemy to accept one’s cultural position or by destroying the enemy through rhetorical assault—language that demeans, disparages, demonizes, or caricatures”. That’s the definition: the judgment, as I understand it, comes later: if someone is using CWR, they fall under all those terrible descriptions about untruth and destruction starting in your “fire, sword” paragraph.
Because you level those judgments against people, it is hard for me to understand how the CWR concept is not simply itself a rhetorical assault that demeans, disparages, demonizes, or caricatures. The criteria for determining who is a CWR is so widely subjective that anyone looking at the definition can plausibly make it apply to and not apply to anyone they want. “To defeat one’s cultural enemy” Does it require that the CWR believe the opponent to be his “enemy” in some certain sense? What kind of defeat does it require? Does it depend on the intention to defeat in a certain way–or can they just intend to defend something else which happens to have an opponent whom they claim is not their target of defeat? Does any criticism of an oppressor constitute an attempt to destroy through rhetorical assault? Which ones apply and which don’t? Why can’t someone intend defense of victims of oppression, and how could they not be classified by sympathizers of the oppressor as CWRs? And your definition uses a term, “culture war,” that has a commonly broad scope, meaning any social moral political issue, but then you claim that your definition is much more narrow than that (or you don’t say how much more narrow it is). So your definition because of its title without the bounds of your definition sweeps in anyone on any moral issue–hence Minion’s triumphant declaration over his pro-life enemies in this thread–but when questioned you retreat to supposedly more narrow criteria. By this mechanism your effort becomes even more of a way to label anyone on any moral issue all the disparaging things you conclude with.
This is why I think unless you strictly curtail what you are talking about, your essay cannot be defended against the charge that the essay is itself rhetoric aimed at destroying the enemy through rhetorical assault—language that demeans, disparages, demonizes, or caricatures (all the judgments you attach to “CWRs” at the end). It’s passive aggressive war against people whose goals the LABELLER, the one who pastes the CWR label on people, does not like. It lets them avoid dealing with the truth of the LABELLED people and just label them destroyers and demonizers. That IS demonization.
In establishing criteria for culture war rhetoric, I haven’t put a stop on the debate about what rhetoric qualifies and what doesn’t. Even the most precise definition would leave room for some debate.
Am I guilty myself of using culture war rhetoric? My applying destructive labels and descriptions (I would contest this charge) isn’t sufficient evidence to conclude in the affirmative. The question has to be answered: do I envision culture war rhetoricians as my enemies within the culture whom I am intent on defeating (diminishing or removing their cultural sway). If I do not see them as my enemies, then I am not engaged in the culture wars.
Also, have you said something patently untrue in order to vilify them?
According to Kyle’s criteria, he doesn’t have to say something untrue.
Language that demeans, disparages, demonizes, or caricatures has an element of untruth.
Again Kyle, is that a premise or a conclusion? If someone says, you have called a group of people demonizers, demeanors, disparagers, and disconnected-with-the-truthers, so those labels are themselves demeaning, demonizing, disparaging, and disconnected with the truth, and you say, they’re not demeaning, demonizing, disparaging, and disconnected with the truth, can the other person say, they have an element of untruth BECAUSE they are demeaning, demonizing, disparaging, and disconnected with the truth. Does the labeller have to show the element of untruth, or does the attachment of the label itself prove (by implication) that there is an element of untruth?
It follows from the definition of the terms.
“If I do not see them as my enemies, then I am not engaged in the culture wars.”
That’s fine. But then it means that anyone that your reader labels as a CWR can respond the same way: we don’t see x as our enemies. Our enemies are powers and principalities, and the people at x are victims too. That’s OK. It just means in the end that no one is a CWR unless they self-define as one, and cannot be declared one by say Brett or Minion looking at someone’s rhetoric and saying this is CWR. If that was the intent of your essay, I don’t have a problem with it, though I don’t see how it would be applicable except in cases so rare as to be negligible.
A case could be made for calling someone’s rhetoric “culture war rhetoric” even if the person wouldn’t self-apply the term. If, for example, the person depicts his cultural opponents as enemies by what he says, then you’ve got the groundwork on which to build.
In other words, I don’t have to come out and tell you in no uncertain terms that I view culture war rhetoricians as my enemies for you to conclude, from what I’ve said about them, that I do see them that way (or at least speak as if I do). What I say – the text – provides the evidence, or it does not.
Well either you are proposing to judge people/rhetoric as CWR and then draw conclusions from that, or you aren’t. If you are, the definitional ambiguity is itself demonizing because it doesn’t require that you actually show that the labelled person is guilty of your charges, just that they are undesirable for other vague reasons. If you aren’t, you’re not saying anything else than that some rhetoric can be demonizing if it is demonizing, which is a valuable point but doesn’t enable the label to be tagged on groups without actually showing that the rhetoric is demonizing and not merely that they met some vague definition relating to war.
Kyle,
Am I wrong in thinking that the notion of a “culture war” derives from the JPII and “the culture of death” vs. “the culture of life” of Evangelium Vitae? And if JPII was the source, is there any good about thinking and talking about the world in terms of a “culture war”? Or are you saying that language and rhetoric that invokes a “culture war” is inappropriate and improper?
Not sure about the contribution JPII made to the idea. Either way, I would say it’s not rhetoric that’s prudent to use. In itself, it is divorced from a concern for proof (it’s married to a concern for the defeat of one’s cultural enemies) and so it brings with it some pretty grave temptations. It’s also ineffective.
Other thoughts:
-I don’t think I understand the conclusion of the post. Is the point of the post that Sarah Palin is a model culture warrior, and that a culture warrior is bad because it leads to division and enmity (as seen by 50% of voters viewing her negatively)? Is it only Palin’s particular brand of culture warrior that is bad, or all brands of culture warrior?
-The post makes it sound like Palin is unleashing an assault on liberals/media/etc – the powerful aggressor against the weakened and non-agressive opponent. Now, I’m not defending Palin’s tactics or words, but it seems to me that liberals/media/Palin’s opponents can dish it out just as much (or more, and sometimes preemptively).
-I’m against violence, and I’m against advocating for or inciting violence. But metaphorical language of a battle against Satan or a war against evil has always been a part of Christian theology. Is there a place for metaphorical use of warfare language?
-I register a dissent to MM’s claim that real and rhetorical violence fuels many on the American right.
Coming from the middle Thales, I can say there are many uses for metaphorical use of warfare language and football games come to mind.
In an ideal world we could safely employ it more broadly than just environments such as the gridiron, but my concern would be with those who could not separate the metaphor from reality.
Metaphorical use of warfare language has been broadly used by both sides of the political spectrum for as long as I can remember. Culture warfare has also been employed by both sides as well, although I must say it appears to be more effectively used by the right on their rank and file. I think “why” it appears to be so effective on them is a very good question to ponder further.
I do say I have to agree with Kyle that culture war rhetoric is most often used in place of truth and if one desired a healthier discourse, reducing the use of CWR would obviously aid in that regard. That said, I am not betting any money on that happening anytime soon.
To offer one example of what I meant by the right seems to more effectively use such rhetoric on their rank and file, take for example the culture of government versus “rugged individualism”.
So many times have I heard a right wing politician state:
“Government cannot fix our problems…”
and then in the very next breath you hear:
“So vote for me, to go to Washington and fix our problems”.
It’s like they just said “I will not eat any cake but pass me that plate with cake on it so I can have some”.
Total logical disconnect. But it seems to work like a charm every time.
To me, that sounds like something every politician says, whether right or left. :)
Yes, you hear democrats talking about limited government all the time:)
Thales,
1. It’s not a conclusion so much as a parting speculation. Palin, I think, shows the consequence of culture war rhetoric: the base is rallied and everyone else is alienated.
2. Hence my beginning with the slings and arrows she suffers.
3. Yes.
4. Dissent recorded. Not that we’re keeping track. ;-)
Kyle,
I just refreshed my memory about Evangelium Vitae and sure enough, the whole thing is about “the struggle between the “culture of life” and the “culture of death”". You need to read it. I would be interested in hearing what you thought of the rhetoric JPII uses.
Though JPII came up with the notion of “culture of life” vs. “culture of death”, Wikipedia seems to indicate that the phrase “culture war” has been used in earlier and other contexts.
War is one means of dealing with a struggle or conflict or clash. It isn’t the only means.
Isn’t “war” just another metaphorical synonym for “struggle” or “conflict”? E.g., the “culture struggle” or the “culture conflict”. Obviously, we’re not talking about actual warfare.
No, I don’t think so. We experience struggles and conflicts all the time – at work, in the home – that are in no way analogous to battles or warfare. Though some of these could be. We might call a couple actively trying to harm one another emotionally as being “at war” with one another.
It sounds like you are taking issue with the metaphorical use of “war” language. I agree with you on the larger issue that today’s rhetoric is often out of control and uncivil. But I don’t see why “war” language, in and of itself, out of bounds. Where does it stop? Are the phrases “destroy”, “ax”, “campaign”, “attack my ideas”, “budget cuts”, “targeted his district”, “demolished his opponent”, “he shot down his argument” all out of bounds?
“The Church Militant”: demonizing and disconnected from the truth.
I should add that I think your post makes a good point about what is the appropriate tone and nature of rhetoric. JPII would agree that in this struggle between cultures, “victory” is not achieved through rhetorical “assault” that destroys another person. JPII’s point in EV is that the culture of life is won by changing the hearts of people.
This gets at what I’m trying to say. Obviously our culture is divided over a number of important issues. There are conflicts that demand a resolution. I think it better to resolve these conflicts through a process of changing hearts and minds, a process that sees my opponent as a brother or sister or neighbor, then a process of cultural warfare, in which my opponent is an enemy that I have to defeat through “rhetorical assault.”
Again this raises the question: if it is not CWR to believe that there is a STRUGGLE–it is only CWR to believe it is a WAR in the sense of war that you are talking about here–then it seems to me that almost all rhetoric that one might use your analysis to discuss could be defended on the basis that it is not war rhetoric in that sense it is struggle rhetoric in another sense. At that point the inquiry has to actually just examine each rhetoric piece by piece and not jump to a conclusion that since they seem to have enemies that they seem to be trying to defeat they don’t care about the truth and are demonizers. Instead you have to look at the merits of the rhetoric itself and PROVE they don’t care about the truth and are demonizers. Maybe that was the intention of your essay, to simply say that sometimes once you have shown those conclusions, they can exist. That’s fine.
Yes, any claim that rhetoric X qualifies as CWR should be able to be proven (or at least argued for with evidence).
Then you need a strict and unambiguous definition and criteria for applying it. You have provided a definition, but an amorphous one.
An example from Evangelium Vitae:
“This situation, with its lights and shadows, ought to make us all fully aware that we are facing an enormous and dramatic clash between good and evil, death and life, the “culture of death” and the “culture of life”. We find ourselves not only “faced with” but necessarily “in the midst of” this conflict: we are all involved and we all share in it, with the inescapable responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life.”
Thales, What does it mean to be “unconditionally pro-life”?
Good question, Ronald. JPII has the answer here.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html
Thanks for the short answer, Thales:)
I only had time to read a little and already there are many implications to what is written.
One point is that everything that does not support the dignity and quality of life is a part of the culture of death. Private healthcare insurance is identified.
He also points out that those who perform acts contrary to life are harmed more than the victims of those acts.
What does that say about how we are to approach the perpetrators of those acts? Must go for a couple of hours.
One last point, culture “war” rhetoric is violent. All one has to do is be aware of their disposition and heart rate.
Ronald,
I didn’t want to misstate JPII’s answer or give short shrift to all the facets of being “pro-life” JPII talks about. That’s why I didn’t try to answer you directly.
I am unable to understand why this is primarily attributed to the American right.
Have you never heard of “jihad” nor read the litany of American progressive violent rhetoric?
…and how – praytell – is “Jihad” a product of American Progressives? I’m dying for an answer. HINT: Culture War rhetoric is the OPPOSITE of what you want to supply here.
Further, I want to address the moral degeneracy of comments like Bruce’s. The argument goes something like this: The “other” side did something bad, therefore “our” side gets to do something bad. You THINK you’re critiquing double standards but in fact you are distracting from the real issue. And some of us are not fooled.
I would appreciate it if you came back and commented more often. For example, like several times a day on each thread.
Sarcasm or sincerity? Personal attack or kind invitation? I wonder…
Sincere, and totally so.
“Destroy Unions, Ax Health Care For The Poor and Make the National Guard Scabs”
Is this inappropriate culture war rhetoric? It’s hard to keep track of what is bad CWR and what isn’t.
Does it meet the criteria I gave? Does it depict another as an enemy and is it aimed at the defeat of one’s cultural enemy either by persuading the enemy to accept one’s cultural position or by destroying the enemy through rhetorical assault?
Let’s see:
-it depicts the governor as an enemy and labels him unnecessarily with the derogatory slur of “scab”
-it attempts to destroy the governor through a rhetorical assault (ie, exaggerated rhetorical descriptions that the governor is “destroying” unions, is “axing” health care for the poor)
So is the answer yes?
Thales,
If the union is not being destroyed, what to you see as the function and status of the union with implementation of the Governor’s plan?
Kurt,
I don’t know enough about the issue to take a position on it myself, but I suspect that from the governor’s perspective, the plan is not a destruction of the union, but a needed and healthy reform of the union.
Thales,
Can you accept that some of us who feel we do know enough about the situation and have some experience and expertise in the operation of labor unions are convinced that he is destroying the union?
Did MZ depict the governor as an enemy? I missed that. Clearly he’s opposed to what the governor is doing, but I didn’t see where he raised the governor to the level of an enemy.
He called the governor a scab-maker, which I think is unnecessary use of a derogatory term (though I suppose M.Z. thinks the term “scab” is not derogatory).
I don’t know how two people could predictably agree on whether something fits this definition. Multiplicity in the terms has already been acklowledged, like a difference between struggle and war, but the definition encompasses both and more.
Yes.
It is not a policy argument; it is an invitation to have a generally negative opinion of Republicans in general, the governor of Wisconsin in particular.
Can you imagine anyone who does not share the author’s opinion on the governor of Wisconsin coming away from that piece convinced?
It is good enough for the largest newspaper in Wisconsin. Most of the commentary is theirs.
Perhaps I could have used the term “replacement workers” rather than scabs, but Kyle made me shorten the title. ;-)
Well if an American newspaper said it it must be unbiased. Likewise if FOX News said it.
What is the target (if you’ll excuse the expression) of that post — the policies, or the people who are proposing those policies?
The point of the post wasn’t to illuminate some truth that the author believes those proposing that policy had not considered that may have led them to a different conclusion. It was to convince the reader that because these politicians support these policies (paraphrased using tendentious language), they are bad.
Now, “they do it, too” is not a defense, and I do not care for our culture’s current determination that hypocrisy is the only sin for which one can be held accountable. But I hope you’ll consider how pro-life people feel about being lectured on demonizing and extreme rhetoric on a blog that engages in the same tactics, and seems to be advised to unilaterally “disarm.”
Culture war pacifism isn’t a condition for contributing to this blog, but I’m not really sure that MZ is engaged in a culture war against the Wisconsin GOP. His title was too belligerent for my liking, but I took the point of his post to be highlighting what he sees as the chief priorities of the Republicans in that state.
I actually don’t have a problem with M.Z.’s “Destroy” language. Now, I think his language actually hurts his argument, because I think it would be more effective for him to not resort to a mere knee-jerk label, but to explain his position instead – but that’s beside the point. The point is I don’t have a problem with him using that type of language. I just bring up M.Z.’s post to illustrate that we use “violent” rhetoric all the time.
And just as I don’t have a problem with M.Z. saying that the governor is “destroying” unions, I don’t have a problem with a “conservative” politician saying that Obama policy X is “destroying” the economy, or some other example. Now, personally, I don’t like using that language myself because I think there are more effective ways to make a point, but I don’t see a problem with it (as long as the language retains a modicum of civility – there is a civility line which shouldn’t be crossed). I just wondered whether Kyle would see both examples as equivalent under his CWR theory.
Metaphors of war within political discourse may or may not be examples of culture war rhetoric. Obviously I use such metaphors in this piece to describe a kind of rhetoric which I dislike.
5-6 years back there was a brief bestseller, “On Bullshit” by Harry Frankfurt. It’s claim was that bullshitters are neither liars nor truth-lovers, they are folks who simply don’t care and usually don’t know whether what they say is true or false. Their only concern is that what they say should advance their agenda. That, in a nutshell, seems to be Cupp’s point about Palin et al.
What I’ve called culture war rhetoric involves a fair amount of bullshit, but its aim is more than the advancement of any agenda, but that advancement of one’s cultural forces against the perceived enemy.
I suspect that the means of identifying when cultural war rhetoric is being used is more narrow than just the defeat of the percieved enemy. If, when presented with facts that show that a claim being made to support your side is false, the speaker cannot or will not acknowledge that it is false and stop making the claim, then you are seeing cultural war rhetoric in play.
If facts/truth no longer play a role in the presentation of the speaker, the speaker can be reliabily be said to be at war with the other side.
In American discourse, the inability for facts to get in the way of the cultural war is a large part of what keeps those wars going without any hope of their actually being an ending.