A modus vivendi

 

 

It’s depressing to see a pleasant exchange of opinions degenerate into a level of pettiness, sometimes even close to meanness that borders on mudslinging or defamation. While conflict is natural to the human condition, oftentimes we have lost the sense of “courtesy of the heart,” as Goethe would put it, and from which arises the purest courtesy in outward behaviour.

 

I’ve seen this happening in the Filipino community in Toronto, a sharp division engendered by a nasty spat among Pinoy journalists. On one side, a crusading local community newspaper hell-bent on bringing down a perceived political carpetbagger and all his boosters, pitted against the rest of the community who are pleading for fairness and civility.

Bigot, courtesy of dockdrumming.

The unwritten rules of public engagement are either not clear to most of us or others simply tend to abuse their liberties. This is not saying a spirited and hotly-contested debate is unhealthy and unwelcome. But when one side insists only on the wisdom of their arguments to the exclusion of the opinions of others, then the supposedly free exchange breaks down and paints us an image of warring tribal communities.

 

Vibrant intellectual discourse is the status quo ante in a social-political forum I have joined. But recently, the loud voices of bigotry and intolerance have hijacked the tone of conversations that some of the forum’s female members are up in arms. As one peeved member noted: “[It’s] difficult to hold a discussion with those who punctuate their statements with ‘end of discussion.’” Or when arrogance seems to betray one member’s better side of nature that he would instantly dismiss another member’s argument as “pure liberal crap” without offering any hint why. These intolerant members have turned themselves into what a Georgetown University professor would aptly describe as ““the soccer hooligans of reasoned discourse.”

 

One wonders why, given their reputation for open-mindedness and critical thinking, some forum members frequently leave their critical thinking and fairness at the door when it comes to matters that, perhaps, are so personal to them? Why are they close-minded on the opinions of others?

 

Liberalism, as a framework, not the ideology which may be repulsive to others, could provide a space for free exchange and development. It can be an effective device that allows a diversity of opinions and different ideologies to flourish and compete in the marketplace of ideas. Where there could be deep-rooted divisions over the significance or relevance of some arguments, the neutrality of the liberal state furthers mutual restraint or patience.

 

The display of self-importance by those members of the forum who are obstinate with their preconceived notions of moral superiority is almost akin to the Republican Party’s current uncompromising attitude in US politics, particularly against any initiatives by the incumbent White House occupant. Anything President Obama proposes, the Republicans thumb their noses. It reminds us of Wagstaff, the Groucho Marx character in “Horse Feathers,” whenever he sings “Whatever it is, I’m against it.”

 

The problem is not that that we don’t reason anymore. These people do reason. But oftentimes their arguments only aim to support their conclusions, and allow no space for the opinions of others. To them, reason doesn’t work like a judge or teacher that impartially weighs evidence or guides us to wisdom and understanding. It works more like a lawyer or press secretary, justifying their opinions and judgments to others, notwithstanding how others have thoroughly demolished their arguments.

China's death penalty. Photo courtesy of amnestysoffice.

For example, some members in this forum deem the argument against the death penalty for drug crimes as “liberal crap” without appreciating whether this form of punishment in all its weight and harshness is proportionate to the offence. They do not see the wisdom why other nations have already deleted this type of punishment in their books. They also fail to spot holes in the alleged evidence of the Chinese government that the condemned Filipino woman had been to China 18 times and might have been smuggling drugs that often. It is easy for someone who has no experience defending an accused and questioning the evidence by the Crown or prosecutor to accept without reservations the credibility of this evidence, despite the implausibility of a foreigner travelling to another country 18 times in 3 years on a tourist visa and somehow managing to squeeze in some 50 grams of cocaine in a suitcase without being caught. Unless the condemned woman was tortured during her interrogation and forced to admit this lie.

 

The opposite argument against the death penalty for drug-related crimes is not necessarily a position that condones the crime as some forum members would like to suggest. Of course, those that peddle in drugs must be punished for they are a menace to society. But the punishment must fit the crime to meet the standards of justice and reasonableness.

 

Another example of a collapse in rational thinking among some members of the forum is when they disregard the historical fact of the injurious consequences of the Marcos dictatorship and repression to the country as whole. It is all right for those deeply loyal to Marcos or those who continue to blindly believe in his yeomanship of the New Society to place him in a pedestal and pantheon of greatness. Nobody is taking away this right to worship Marcos the way they want. But to revere Marcos above all Philippine presidents despite what he did to the country is simply an act that can be construed as lunacy. History is clear how Marcos plundered the country’s wealth and enriched his family. The thousands of dead and disappeared are silent witnesses to his oppressive rule, yet some forum members refuse to reconcile themselves with this existential truth. No wonder the forum women-members are the most forceful in opposing the revisionist reincarnation of Marcos because as women and mothers they know full well the genuine pain of losing one’s children.

Marcos declares martial law. Photo courtesy of kidabobo.

The forum as a microcosm of an engaged society must adhere to its original purpose, to foster an exchange where reason and intuition interact in healthy ways. As we argue and debate, we also need to develop sympathetic relationships in order to understand each other instead of using reason to deflect opposing views.

 

Perhaps, we need to establish a modus vivendi, so we can agree to disagree and find ways to consensus and understanding despite the differences in our opinions. We have to refashion this liberal toleration that began in Europe in the sixteenth century. Our forum can be the flowering of our own project of toleration.

 

There is nothing sinister in the “L” word as one forum member seems to suggest. The ideal of toleration embodies two incompatible philosophies, two opposing contradictions. We have on one side, the ideal of a rational consensus on the best or better way of resolving our differences. And on the other side, the ideal that human beings can flourish and prosper in diversity.

 

Labels such as “liberal crap” and “stupid” have no place in our forum but we are all mature enough to take a punch to the chin once in a while. But if our goal is to facilitate the free flow of ideas in a marketplace of ideas, the one thing that cannot be tolerated is the idea of shutting down the marketplace with a dismissive “End of discussion.” It brings back those dark days of 1972 when Ferdinand Marcos put the country under authoritarian rule and shut down the executive, legislative and judicial bodies including the media and individual rights to keep himself in power.

Robust debate necessary for change

Discussions in my alumni chat group have recently become testy, if not downright nasty that some members who cannot take the heat are asking for more drastic etiquette policing, or else they have threatened to unsubscribe from the email group. Perhaps, they are unable to appreciate that any democratic exchange of opinions is much more alive when it is robust and free-wheeling, without unnecessary censorship. Think of parliaments, Congress or the local city councils when their members passionately debate each other.

Only yesterday, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was heckled during his speech before the U.S. Congress. Reacting to the disbeliever in the crowd, Netanyahu said that this type of protest would only be possible in free societies, or where there is freedom of speech, which drew wide applause from members of Congress.

Free speech, or the lack of it. Photo courtersy of little tramp.

Sometimes we, as human beings, have the tendency to be thin-skinned and easily upset by criticism or opposite views. But the more dangerous side of this attitude is when we respond, although unnecessary, with vitriol or derision.

I’ve recently read messages in my alumni chat group that were aimed with disdain at one member’s fondness for writing long emails augmented with statistical data to reinforce his arguments. An apt and perhaps more courteous response would have been simply to ignore or even delete the member’s lengthy and dense messages, especially if one does not agree and has nothing to add. A cynical and derisive response, disrespectful of the other member’s right to say his piece, only exacerbates the issue more so when the obvious purpose is to shut him down from letter-writing.

One member wrote a sarcastic message enjoining the other member to take a break from his long and frequent, almost daily, letter-writing and to look after his health. Instead of the other member clogging the e-group with his emails, he suggested that he should perhaps use the telephone, a device he believed was a faster and easier mode to communicate.

Another member wrote in support and still another also agreed, even inserting a picture of a nodding and laughing chimp in his letter.

Consider that these individuals are the very first ones to complain of incivility and rudeness in the chat group. Yet, they would respond with impudent messages aimed at putting down the other member and making him look inconsolably pathetic. What did the rest of the group say about it? Nothing, which seems like an obvious conspiracy of silence that could only mean they support the public humiliation of the other person, who by his arguments, if only they would care to read them, really meant well.  

This only shows we could be hypocritical and duplicitous about the values we cherish most. We scream to high heavens when our right to free expression, for instance, is threatened but would as easily cast off the same argument when we don’t favour opposite views being expressed. In other words, we only tolerate ideas from people whose thinking is similar to ours. Those on the opposite of the spectrum should take a break, as one member suggested.

Consider, too, this argument from another member who wrote that the chat group should not be used as medium for debate and that he should not be construed as being against free speech, but an ardent supporter, yet he believes the e-group is not the proper venue to freely express one’s opinions. Where else could be the proper platform? For all intents and purposes, an alumni e-group is the best forum for engaging in ideas and opinions. How can one be so judicious and wise to argue that he favours free speech in other arenas, but not in this forum?

These aforementioned individuals who chose to take the side of intolerance instead of accommodation have not been long detached from their alma mater. Yet, they seem to have forgotten the values their education and training from the premier school of learning in the Philippines have taught and expounded from day one. How quickly the real world has eroded the idealism of their youthful days when they were still debating in the classrooms and in public squares on the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

During the 100th Commencement Exercises of the University of the Philippines in Diliman last April 17, 2011, John Gabriel Pelias, a BS Math graduate, delivered the valedictory address on behalf of the graduating class. A poor but very brilliant student, Pelias graduated summa cum laude, the highest honour a student can possibly receive, with a general weighted average of 1.016, the second highest in the history of the university.

 

Pelias asked his fellow graduates: “What can a UP graduate be proud of? What aspect of the UP culture can he or she show off that others do not have?”

Above everything, the youthful Pelias said the university has prepared every student how to respond to challenges and the most significant of these challenges is how “to overcome our responsibility to contribute to society as products of this nation’s premier state university, which may involve sacrificing our dreams of extravagant ways of life that ironically might have motivated us to work hard in our college education. The true challenge is to be able to use the critical thinking skills and knowledge we learned through UP education in the solution of the problems haunting the bigger world outside the university.”

Pelias in his closing remarks, challenged every graduate to “become part of a larger society, of a larger world.” Being UP graduates, he said, “does not mean living just our own everyday lives without regard for society’s quandaries. We cannot confine ourselves in our own boxes away from society.”

When one critically scrutinizes the arguments, including the statistics that that one member of our chat group has been espousing in his lengthy emails, it is easy to conclude that he was making good use of the critical thinking skills and knowledge that Pelias attributed to in his valedictory speech. That he learned these skills through his UP education was clearly evident in his elaborate analysis in helping solve real problems outside the university. An example is the problem of raising funds for scholarship for future UP students. While his proposal might have stirred a heated debate, which others may have found nauseating to their taste, it was a mere consequence of the need for more rigorous examination. 

Debate should not be considered repulsive and detestable, even if it takes a longer process to reach a consensus. To retreat and seek refuge in silence is a betrayal of our training at university. We cannot eternally argue in favour of the comfort and cosiness of our present situations, and to deflect anything that might seem to disturb the status quo. 

The letter-writer challenges each one of us not to be content with the argument that there’s no need to reinvent the wheel. This is an argument that kills innovation on sight. Oftentimes, going with what is known leads to stagnation. Although it is quite human to like the familiar, if we don’t innovate and think of new ways of doing things, nothing will grow or change; otherwise, we will all go the way of the dinosaurs. It is the uncertainty of the unknown that drives debate or exchange of opinions. It is the only way we can test out and get an understanding of what is true.