Citizenship and the Politics of Othering
by: Zach Dorfman on July 21st, 2009 | 1 Comment »
There is a simmering anger in America, embodying what Richard Hofstadter called “the paranoid style in American politics.” This politics does not define itself according to opposition to, say, the president’s health care or climate-change policies, but by a visceral distrust and resentment of the man himself. During the presidential election, rumors floated around that Barack Obama was a Muslim (implying that that was something inherently pejorative), that he was some kind of “Manchurian Candidate,” that he was not, in fact, an American citizen, and was thus a kind of pretender to the throne.
Many rejected these accusations out of hand. Obama was elected; the American Republic did not crumble; we have not been infiltrated by some kind of fifth column.
However, we must admit that this kind of politics–the politics of othering–is alive and well. In fact, it remains a powerful force in American politics, and we are all the worse for it. Watch the video below. It was recorded at a recent post-election “townhall” meeting with Representative Mike Castle (R-DE). How is dialogue possible when incontrovertible facts are dismissed as conspiracy? How do we find common ground when up is wholeheartedly, and repeatedly, asserted as down? For any kind of real understanding to develop between political antagonists, we must first acknowledge that radically different worldviews co-exist in America; that, in fact, we live in very different worlds.
I have been thinking a lot about this idea lately, that people live in a multiplicity of worlds. It’s an overwhelming thought for me because I feel its truth in my day-to-day life, and the sense that I do not live in the same world as everyone is more present to me than a sense of how to navigate those worlds. I think about it when I try to express my ideas and my friends don’t understand them (or vice versa); when I people-watch and see how differently people dress, relate to others, hold themselves, how different are people’s facial expressions and the cadence of their steps; and especially when I talk to people our society understands as mentally ill, who also live in a different world from me.
The fact of differing worldviews explains the existence of those views with which I disagree, and also offers hints of the possibility of reconciling them — through working to build conceptual bridges between worldviews that otherwise would clash, to help them mutually accommodate each other instead. But it seems like doing so would still require me to operate as though my worldview is, more or less, correct (in the sense either of “accurate” or “ethical”). I don’t think that I could ever definitively do that. (Sounds like a relativistic sand trap, maybe…)
However, I do think that it makes sense to value and nurture those worldviews (and principles of inter-worldview navigation… if you will) that accommodate the peaceful coexistence of the widest diversity of worldviews. That is something, I think, that I can definitively say is Good. And that requires first the acknowledgment that, indeed, there are many different worlds.
(Thanks for this post.)