“There is a pathos in television dialogue: the rapid exchange of monologues that fail to find the issue, like ships passing in the night; the reiterated preface, ‘I think that…,’ as if it mattered who held which opinion rather than which opinion is worth holding; the impressive personal vanity that prevents each ‘discussant’ from really listening to another speaker”.
Sounds like all the political talk-shows you have recently witnessed on a local TV stations in Belgrade, Zagreb, Sarajevo,…. Skopje or Tirana 
? Or the columns you try to regularly follow in the daily newspapers in each of these places?
I though the same.
Yet, this quote has nothing to do with the Balkans and the way political debate is (not) carried out there. Everything you read is taken verbatim from a recent essay I read in the Christmas edition of the Economist addressing the nature of political debate in the USA. The quote is from Stringfellow Barr, an historian and president of St John’s College in Maryland, who wrote a Socratic critique of American discourse in 1968. It is part of a longer, enticing and mind-provoking text entitled as: Arguing to death: From Socrates, history’s quintessential nonconformist, lessons for America today.
By now, we know that Americans also have problems with the political debates and those of us with a bit of liberal mind have troubles understanding the core of conservatism. I had a chance to follow CNN, MSNBC, Fox News or the network channels during a recent trip in US have updated me a bit, although as an internet junkie I have plenty of access and try to follow*. There is an endless row of sound-bites that US Media serves 24 hours a day, 7-days a week. The TV debates regrettably still confirm rather than negate the Barr’s quote. And yet, there is another big production in the US. Policy-relevant research is churned out in big volumes. While not all of it is good and respectable, still there is plenty of data, analysis that is fed into different type of debates. Those debates take place in parallel to the TV debates. These debates are deeper and more thought provoking. Some of those manage to change policies. A word of caution! I am not saying that think tanks and policy researchers are changing policies over there. It is just that these people are heard (from time to time) and are in general accepted as part of the policy process,
OK. Enter Balkans. I do not pretend to compare it with the US, it simply does not make sense, just being driven by the quote coming from the US! Let’s go back to Socrates.
So, the political debate – where it exists – is only a discussion between the people who do not listen to each other. But more dangerous is the absence of quality in these debates. How much these debates are informed? And by what? I could barely remember someone on TV to quote anything else than an opinion poll or some EU report, at best. The populist statements have become a norm. Worse of all, there is no mechanism to check the truthfulness of statements and Next, the tendency is to replace the journalists-hosts of these TV shows with entertainers. I know the few policy research centers out there are trying to change this culture, also trying to influence the mainstream debate, but how to fight against this style of debating where substance is absent? And how to influence people who do not listen?
End note: I became so tired of watching TV debates, distinguishing winners from losers in those. Why shall I watch when no-one on the other side of the screen is apt to listening? Similar becomes my attitude towards the ‘respected columnists’. I will read and hear only from those I see are ready to listen!
*My February highlight: Jon Stewart’s appearance on ‘The O’Reilly Factor’
4 comments ↓
you touched upon a very important topic – the deficit of empathy i would say, or at least sensitivity for the existence of the Other, or even the existence of attitudes unlike one’s own.
couple of days ago i had the opportunity to take part in a round-table on political culture and the political dialogue in macedonia. the keynote speakers were politicians, civil society pundits and foreign diplomats. to my big disappointment, many of the keynote speakers after they had given their monologues, simply left the round-table during the break. along with them, left the media and the crowd.
so how do they expect to improve political dialogue when they do not even honor the rest of the participants on the same round table with the opportunity for their opinions to be heard? that situation just demonstrated that ‘the elites’ are not aware that dialogue consists of listening as well.
Thanks Woona. Sadly, the type of round-table you described becomes a standard these days. Moreover, even when people are present, they pay more attention to their handheld devices or lap-tops. But this is only at the technical level and at the level of externalizing the political culture. What troubles me most is the deeper dimension of elites that actually understand only raw and (often) brutal power as the only type of message to which they are receptive.
More sadly, the ‘international community’ only exacerbates the situation dealing only with the chieftains (leaders) of the political parties. Hence, in our environment a proper analysis based on some models of political influence (for example elitism, corporatism and participatory policy making ) is simply not possible. All these involve negotiation, which necessitate a basic ‘listening’ of the other, so much absent in the WB political culture today.
Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now. Keep it up!
And according to this article, I totally agree with your opinion, but only this time!
Goran, one more interesting topic from you. I share your frustration with the political debates in West Balkan. The main problem is that are most politicians are narrow-minded and are not listening to each other as you rightly noticed. But I would like to draw your attention to one more aspect. Following many TV shows in the region (particularly in BiH) I noticed that consumers (public) enjoy much more the discussions that are orientated towards some stupid non argument disputes and populist statements. Positive achievements and experts dialog are not gaining so much attention. The media sells only sensational news and it is the mainstream in their approach. Such feature could be also the reflection of the overall situation of our societies. How to initiate the change when sellers and consumers are satisfied?
Leave a Comment