In Man Against Mass Society Gabriel Marcel warned of the improbability of having effective discourse in a politically polarized environment, adding:  “The … fanatic never sees himself as a fanatic; it is only the non-fanatic who can recognize him as a fanatic; so that when this judgment, or this accusation, is made the fanatic can always say that he is misunderstood and slandered.”  Regardless whether we are Liberal or Conservative, “Progressive”, Leftist or Tea Partier, business actor or Environmentalist, Black Muslim, Black Lives Matter activist, White Supremacist or Klan member, a pervasive and disturbing pattern of behavior has emerged throughout American society.  We have become bigoted, angry and, too often, ignorant fanatics.  We can’t even admit what we have become.  A result of this pervasive societal disease is that we can only shout at each other, condemn anyone who has different views, and have lost the ability to communicate with each other.

 

A prescient Albert Schweitzer argued a generation ago that: “the fettering of the collective spirit … by modern organizations, [by] modern unreflectiveness, and [by] modern popular passions, is a phenomenon without precedent in history.”   The situation has worsened considerably since Schweitzer voiced his concerns.  As our communications and message shaping skills have expanded exponentially during the “Internet Era” so has the ability to engage in propaganda.  The ability to manipulate our beliefs, values and awareness has reached a level where emotive messages using powerfully “framed” stereotypes are being embedded deeply within our psyches without ever coming into contact with our rational minds.

 

Deborah Tannen describes what has developed as the “Argument Culture”.  In the “argument culture” we are fanatics, unable and unwilling to engage in the kinds of fact-based reasoned discourse that we always were told was at the core of the democratic system.   Tannen explained that she first realized what was happening when she questioned another panelist after a presentation who she thought was out of line and misstating what Tannen had said.  The other woman simply responded, “It’s an argument.”  At that point Tannen realized that the mindset was one where: “when you’re having an argument with someone, your goal is not to listen and understand.  Instead, you use every tactic you can think of—including distorting what your opponent just said—in order to win the argument.”