|
Keeping
the Unity of Civil Discourse and Common
Interest
As
a longtime manager of a mailing list
for musical endeavors, and a member of many
others, I have struggled more and more recently
with the tension between the freedom to
express our
concerns as citizens, and
the laudable principle of keeping an
interest-based forum focused on the scope
for which
it was created and for which people sign
up and participate. I've resolved this
tension
in various ways in the past by sending
out
individual messages to my list when
I felt very strongly moved, but trying to
remain
respectful
of
different views. I've learned not to
make
assumptions about people's political
or religious views based on other common
areas of interest.
But
the urgency of these
times
is such that I feel a desperate
and growing need for more sustained avenues
of dialogue. I fear for the state of our
civil
discourse when our open discussions
as citizens wind up only taking place
among the "already converted," while in
our other contacts around work, hobbies,
passions, we maintain a careful and cautious
silence. I worry that we will wind up fiddling
while Rome burns. I long for the days when
we gathered in the barber shops and taverns
and let fly with opinions without always
looking over our shoulder.
It's
precisely when we come
together around some common interest that
makes
us rub up against people of very different
backgrounds and beliefs,
that we
have a chance of hearing these diverging
views while hanging on to our sense
of the humanity and basic goodness of
the speaker. Without that grace of shared
time and task, I worry that the extreme
polarization we see around us will only
get worse, and I shudder to think of the
interests that only such divisiveness serves.
So
I think it's important that we create transitional
forums where we can discuss (and debate
if need be) the important problems of our
time, specifically through the "lens" of
a particular area of concern. These would
not be self-selected "fellow traveler" groups
formed for a political purpose; nor would
they be carefully maintained non-partisan
interest groups. (In
fact, I don't even know what to call these
beasties yet. I
just hope we bring them more into existence—soon!)
Rather, they would explore the implications
of broad
and general
issues
for specific areas, be they localities (neighborhood
groups) or less geographically defined interests
(orchid societies, fiddlers' lists). And
they would seek to unearth
insights
springing from those particular concerns
that might help to enlighten that broader
and more general conversation.
I
can't think of a common interest more powerful
in this regard than music. And I
think those with an interest in traditional
folk music have a special opportunity, since
this is music that does bring together people
from diverse cultures and backgrounds. All
of those years of good old boys from North
Carolina putting up with Northern college-boy
longhairs, and vice versa, and somehow finding
a basis for mutual respect when it came to—can
they
actually
pick? could stand us in good stead now.
|
