Harris claims that in order to effectively counter, one first must assess the text’s strengths and aims. He explains that once the author’s aims are identified, then the weaknesses can be expanded on, which in turn pushes the conversation in a new direction.
The three ways texts counter, according to Harris, are by arguing the other side, uncovering values, and dissenting. He stresses that the most effective way to counter is with graceful finesse, not by force. Harris explains that generosity is key when countering because it adds a sense of legitimacy to one’s argument.
The Daily Dish, a socially liberal blog whose principle writer is a self-proclaimed conservative, countered an article by conservative commentator David Brooks regarding how technology has changed the way people date today. The writer from The Daily Dish did an effective job of countering Brooks as evident by the illustration of the weaknesses in Brooks’ claims.
I read Brooks's column and thought of the 80 and 90 year old slaves
interviewed by the WPA. There is a lot in those oral histories that is, as they
say, old and true. But there's a lot that's old and false. A constant refrain is
the notion that the "moving pictures" were ruining young people, and the next
generation wasn't worth anything. To be clear, that would be the same generation
that gave us Martin Luther King, and effectively finished the Civil War.
This is a theme residing in the conservative soul--a professed,
thinly-reasoned skepticism of the [messed]-up now, contrasted against a blind,
unquestioning acceptance of the hypermoral past. This is a human idea--most
people, like those slaves, believe some point in the past was better. And
indeed, in some case the past was demonstrably better. But the writer who would
argue such has to prove it. He can't just accept his innate hunch. He has to
bumrush and beat down his theories of the world, And should they emerge
unbroken, that writer might have something to tell us. It's got to be more than
justifying your prejudice. It's got to be more than those meddling kids.
The writer from The Dish didn’t make too much of an attempt at generosity, which could’ve potentially added strength to his argument. Because The Daily Dish is a blog that leans to the social left, the somewhat-aggressive attack on the conservative Brooks appeared slightly partisan. The Dish strongly disagrees with Brooks’ belief that ‘kids these days’ don’t have the same moral standards that older generations had. The arguments made by The Dish are sound and they effectively show the limits of Brooks’ claim while moving the conversation in a new direction; however, the arguments perhaps could have benefitted from more generosity.
I found that Hot Air, which is conservative, also isn't very generous toward the opposition. When you so strongly support a certain idea, it's difficult to gravitate toward the center to thoroughly acknowledge the other side, before returning to push your own point. Doing so would not only strengthen the authors' arguements, but could create a wider demographic.
ReplyDelete