The Loss of the Spoken Word and Distinction in the age of COVID-19

04-09-2020

By Scott McLain

Last week Donald Trump ignited a twitter storm, when he pronounced on Fox News, “I would love to have the country raring to go by Easter Sunday”.[1]  To the “Orange Man Bad” half of our nation, Trump’s only objective was to save the Dow Jones by risking the lives of his fellow Americans. To the other half of our republic, the “Deplorables”, who consider Trump- “Mr. President”, his calling for an economic resurrection on Easter morning was simply an overly optimistic “call to arms”, its purpose to light a fire under the pants the corporate powers that be. To the MAGA hat wearing pipe fitter in Akron or the truck driver in Waco, the President did what all bosses do when they want the job done yesterday-set an overly ambitious deadline. To them, it was presupposed that the actual date Trump would turn on the economic faucet would in all likelihood flex based on conditions-on-the-ground. On the Atlantic seaboard, the “Left” coast, and a few islands of “rationality” in between, genuine fear that Trump would actually snub the social distancing recommendations of Surgeon General Jerome Adams, Doctors Fauci, and their assembled COVID team and thereby flood the nation’s streets on the morning of April 13 was compounded the following day when Dan Patrick, the Lt. Governor from the state of Texas suggested that those over 70 years of age, including himself, would chance infection if it would save a generation from living in a ruined economy. He finished by stating  “I am not living in fear of COVID-19. What I am living in fear of is what’s happening to our country.”[2] To the blue stater, Patrick actually suggested sacrificing grandma. Their view was perhaps best expressed that evening when CNBC’s Joe Scarborough righteously denounced the Lt. Governor extorting,  “Right now, these conservatives are making Democrats, who are pro-choice, actually look more pro-life, because they are only worried about the unborn. It is the born — it is the weakest among us, it is senior citizens — who they are ready to euthanize, because they want Boeing's corporate earnings to not dip too low.”[3]  Scarborough’s claim that Republicans want to sacrifice their elders at the alter of the Dow gave nice boost to the trending hashtag #NotDying4WallStreet. Meanwhile in “fly-over” country, Lt. Governor Patrick’s assessment was received as a clumsy and “too early” attempt at evaluating the catastrophic economic  consequences of a complete economic collapse in utilitarian terms, a question that our nation will surely face before a vaccine is discovered. These polar responses to President Trump’s and Lt. Governor Patrick’s statements represent two disparate views of the same events, that in a time, not so long ago, could be vigorously debated with nuance in the spoken word. That time is quickly fading away.

In Silicon Valley, our nation’s second capital, ‘We the People’ have been algorithmically nudged and instantaneously funneled into digitally designated political tribes. Concurrently and literally at the speed of light, we are partitioned from each other in some weird cloud. Each of us has become the other. The digital tools of partition, “@fortywordsorless”, “the like”, and the “#thehashtag”, allow each of us to electronically launch arrows of righteousness at the other from our own serotonin fed oasis of validation and comfort. This radical shift from conducting face-to-face conversations-of-depth in the spoken word, to the ever growing and universally adopted truncated emoji speak of the under 30 set, presents now, in real time, a real threat to our socio-cultural and political landscape. I believe this threat could lead to the break up of our great nation. We can change that and the words of Hannah Arendt give us a clue how.

I posit that our shift from spoken discourse (long-form writing included) to digital short speak is an unprecedented disruption of the human condition akin to Arendt’s notion of the loss of authority in the modern world. In her 1954 essay, “What is Authority?”, she not only gives weight to the ramifications of this loss, but also provides a solution. I would ask that you read the following excerpt from “What is Authority?”.

Authority, resting on a foundation in the past as its unshaken cornerstone, gave the world the permanence and durability which human beings need precisely because they are mortals–the most unstable and futile beings we know of. Its (authority’s) loss is tantamount to the loss of the groundwork of the world, which indeed since then has begun to shift, to change and transform itself with ever-increasing rapidity from one shape into another, as though we were living and struggling with a Protean universe where everything at any moment can become almost anything else.[4]

It is important to understand that key features of authority in the political realm include not only its hierarchical nature, but also that its source is “always a force external and superior to it own power”.[5] Roman authority, authority’s first political model, was anchored in foundation, a beginning from which its authority was tethered through the ages. Similarly, the United States of America’s durability is anchored in foundation, her Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 and her written constitution which is in itself anchored in the concept of free exercised of speech. The spoken word is foundational to both our republic and way of life.

Now I ask that you read Arendt’s excerpt again, this time mentally replacing the word authority with the phrase the spoken word.

The spoken word, resting on a foundation in the past as its unshaken cornerstone, gave the world the permanence and durability which human beings need precisely because they are mortals–the most unstable and futile beings we know of. Its (the spoken word) loss is tantamount to the loss of the groundwork of the world, which indeed since then has begun to shift, to change and transform itself with ever-increasing rapidity from one shape into another, as though we were living and struggling with a Protean universe where everything at any moment can become almost anything else.

This excerpt, read either way, is if nothing, prophetic.

I make the following contention. The transcendent source of authority of our republic has its foundation in the Constitution of the United States and that the free exercise of speech is the cornerstone of that foundation. Moreover, because of the spoken word’s eroding status we can meaningfully insert the phrase the spoken word in the place of word authority in Arendt’s essay. Thus the spoken word is the “unshakable cornerstone” that has provided the American citizen a sense “permanence and durability” and that it’s erosion into the truncated digital world is already shaking the “groundwork of the world”, creating a “Protean” world where everything is unpredictable.

If, as I believe, the freedom of the spoken word instantiated in our constitution is the “unshakable cornerstone” upon which our nation rests, has the art of conducting political discourse in the spoken word been doomed to digital destruction? Has the first amendment turned on itself and made the spoken word obsolete? Is there no going back to the way that things used to be? As for authority, Arendt reads to be pessimistic. Like her grim diagnosis on authority, I too believe that there is no going back on our digital conversion, nor do I believe that it is necessary, but am not convinced that all is lost. For there is hope in Frau Arendt:

But the loss of worldly permanence and reliability–which politically is identical with the loss of authority–does not entail, at least not necessarily, the loss of the human capacity for building, preserving, and caring for a world that can survive us and remain a place fit to live in for those who come after us.[6]

What can Hannah Arendt teach us? Is there a way to shore up the foundation of the spoken word? Can we as a nation restore the luster and vibrancy to the fading colors of the spoken word- words that have radiated brilliantly for two millennia through the works and speech of Plato and Aristotle, Hobbes and Rousseau, Roosevelt and Reagan, Sesame Street and South Park? How can we, in Arendt’s words, leverage the “human capacity for building, preserving, and caring for a world that can survive us…”?[7] Frau Arendt’s answer is this. We must have the “conviction” to make distinctions.

That’s the challenge for people of all political stripes- to recognize nuances and make distinctions. Hannah Arendt’s explanation of how the liberal and conservative thought process works and how they logically and  paradoxically arrive at the same conclusion by failing to make distinctions is a worthy read, but beyond the scope of this piece.  What we must learn from Frau Arendt is that we must distinguish. One would think that it is obvious that the ability and necessity to make distinctions is vital for difficult conversations or as Arendt eloquently writes, “to stress such a conviction seems to be a gratuitous truism in view of the fact that, at least as far as I know, nobody has yet openly stated that distinctions are nonsense”.[8] But as obvious as that conviction was to Hannah Arendt and I believe most people, Arendt already noticed some sixty-six years ago an erosion in the meaning and implementation of the concept of distinction. She makes note of this,

There exists, however, a silent agreement in most discussions among political and social scientists that we can ignore distinctions and proceed on the assumption that everything can eventually be called anything else, and that distinctions are meaningful only to the extent that each of us has the right “to define his terms”.[9]

Articulating thought loaded with nuance, by definition, is not short and concise and cannot be chopped down into bits of nothingness. Today’s social media platform is, however, a perfect nest for the shallow character of digital short-speak; a perfect launching platform for the ideologue who on his tablet or smart-phone and backed in the ether with an army digitally matched allies can with a just few key strokes, not only disapprove or disagree with the other but ruin her reputation, get her fired, or decimate her friendships. The recipient, you see, is nothing. She is nothing more than a screen name, an invisible enemy to be slaughtered with hashtags and doxed in the pursuit of unearned righteousness.  This perversion of the good encourages silence through fear. Frau Arendt sums up the danger well by continuing,

Yet does not this curious right (to define one’s terms), which we have come to grant as soon as we deal with matters of importance–as though it were actually the same as the right to one’s own opinion–already indicate that such terms as “tyranny,”“authority,”“totalitarianism” have simply lost their common meaning, or that we have ceased to live in a common world where the words we have in common possess an unquestionable meaningfulness, so that, short of being condemned to live verbally in an altogether meaningless world, we grant each other the right to retreat into our own worlds of meaning, and demand only that each of us remain consistent within his own private terminology?[10]

This ‘curious right’ of defining terms on a whim is live and well today. Once meaningful terms like racist, homophobe, and xenophobe have been weaponized and branded on digital arrows as if they were a corporate logos. Arendt’s assertion that we no longer live in common world seems spot on, when terms like racists, fascist, and communist once reserved for the worst among us are assigned to people like name tags at a meet-up. But what to do? Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are here to stay. A whole generation knows nothing but short speak. Google and its comrade in arms YouTube are intent on making the world a better place by nudging our thoughts in the “correct” direction. And prime time news has taken the cue. The the good-natured political fisticuffs days of “Hannity and Colmes”, “Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow”, and Cross-fire with “Bob Becker and Tony Snow” are dead and gone? To be honest, I am not sure what to do, but I’ll take a shot at it while keeping the concept of making distinctions in mind. Here are three ideas.

Demand that the social media giants guarantee free expression. Free speech and thereby the notion of plurality is being stifled by private corporate Goliaths. Unfortunately, these mega social media platforms are not only curbing thought-for speech itself is thought, but they also provide a woefully inadequate space for distinction making and if you attempt to you risk being banned or demonetized for violating their “community standards”. As a business owner, I believe that businesses should freely operate in accordance with their own values, speech included. However, it seems to me and many others, that platforms like Facebook and Twitter have become the de facto public square and thus free speech should not be violated. Companies worried about ad revenue like Facebook and YouTube should simply funnel advertisers to videos that they won’t object to and give the advertiser a way to drop a class of videos or even a single objectionable video. YouTube could make a real difference creating a space of plurality by not funneling the watchers of political videos to similar videos with the same perspective but a to videos with variety of perspectives. What about not censoring comments but instead only allow comments to be posted after watching at least 75% of the video. Or consider a requirement that comments must consist of at least one or better yet two or three complete sentences. Either get rid of the “like” or add ten more emojis with a range of meanings- that would at least be more nuanced. I am not sure how to make this happen, but I am on board with the person who can lead this effort.

While the shallowness of these platforms are inadequate for depth, nuance and distinction, they do provide a powerful tool for those who don’t want us to have difficult conversations. And that leads to my second recommendation. Whether you are a Democratic Socialist or a Neo-Conservative or somewhere in between, abandon network news. If you are a watcher, like I was and you are honest with yourself, you almost certainly watch the network that confirms your bias. I admit that I did. Consider instead long-form videos on YouTube (yes the “evil” YouTube since there is no alternative). You can find there quality material with interesting discussions and heated debate. Have you seen an IQsquared or Monk debate? Or join an online reading group like the virtual reading group at the Hannah Arendt Center.

Lastly, even if we do successfully implement the aforementioned modifications to our digital communication platforms and offer genuine spaces for long form digital speech, the comfort of the oasis afforded by even the most worthy digital platform will tend to encourage each of us to refrain from performing a function so vital to the social cohesion of our nation; that is our requirement-our duty for all of us to lay down our digital arrows and to take the first step from the edge of our oasis onto the first yard of sand and then wander on-foot across the desert to meet the other on their patch of green, to simply say hello, to shake their hand, to break bread, to ask difficult questions and engage in uncomfortable conversations, risking saying wrong things in the hopes of getting things right and while doing so giving the other the benefit of the doubt and accept that he of radically differing views is more than likely a person of good will.

Notes
[1] Breuninger, Kevin. “Trump wants ‘packed churches’ and economy open again on Easter despite the deadly threat of corona virus”, CNBC.com, March 24 2020

[2] Beckett, Lois. “Older People Would Rather Die Than Let COVID-19 Harm US Economy”, The Guardian, March 24, 2020

[3] Rozsa, Matthew.”Joe Scarborough: Democrats “look more pro-life” than Republicans amid calls to “euthanize” elderly”, Salon, March 26, 2020

[4] Hannah Arendt, Between Past and Future Eight Exercises in Political Thought, (New York, New York, 2006), 93.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.,94.

[7] Ibid.,93.

[8] Ibid.,94.

[9] Ibid.,94.

[10] Ibid.