Printer-friendly versionWords can shed light or generate heat.
This week, in the aftermath of the assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, there’s been a lot of talk about talk and the nature of our civil discourse.
Along with many others, Teaching Tolerance expressed concerns about vitriolic language. Along with many pundits and commentators, we were accused of making a direct causal link between the increasingly nasty rhetoric of our national politics and the shooting.
In fact, we were—and are—worried about the communications environment we all live in. Teaching Tolerance has been advocating on behalf of a healthy discourse, with people listening to and understanding each other, for a long time.
Traumatic events, whether in our personal lives or for the nation, often lead to introspection and self-reflection. The fact that so many people immediately began thinking about the nature of our tone and rhetoric tells us that it’s a topic worth talking about.
Paraphrasing Jon Stewart of The Daily Show, the problem with our civil discourse isn’t that it led to the shootings in Arizona; the problem is that it doesn’t help us engage very effectively in democracy.
President Obama said as much in his speech at the Arizona memorial service last night, far more effectively than we can. We urge teachers to share the speech with students, in print and on video. Talk with them about the crucial role that free and reasoned speech plays in self-government, and in helping us to bridge the barriers between us.
Here’s one idea about how to proceed. Take this excerpt from the speech:
"But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized—at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do—it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds."
Words can heal or wound, Obama said. We began this essay by suggesting that they can shed light or generate heat. We can think of other comparisons—do we speak to convince others or to understand them? Do we want speeches that inspire hope or fear?
Ask your students to work together to come up with different pairs of contrasting outcomes. They can use any of these prompts.
Words can … or …
We speak to others to … or …
We can hear … or …
In what other ways do you plan to use this speech with your students? And how do you plan to encourage a conversation about civil discourse? Tell us by leaving a comment.
Costello is director of Teaching Tolerance.
Comments
Reconsidering tolerance
Reconsidering tolerance
There is a difference between "Choosing the right word" and trying to convince ourselves and others that "the word we chose is right." Such is the case with tolerance. For so many years now, Nobel Laureates, other civic and religious leaders, and scores of people who have been oppressed have told us that they are offended by our promotion of tolerance. Why? Because its condescending tone is antithetical to equality. They have implored us to abandon it in favor of the numerous and less ambiguous alternatives such as acceptance, respect, understanding, compassion, equality, appreciation, etc.
Our response? We defend the concept rather than honor their requests. We "correct" them by noting that those in authority (e.g., UNESCO) have decided that it is a positive term. By doing so, we insult their intelligence and invalidate any negative feelings they have when they are told (by Sarah Palin for example) that she is willing to "tolerate" gays.
Let us use the shooting in Tucson and King's birthday/Civil Rights Day as an opportunity for self-reflection. We should ask ourselves the question proposed by Maureen Costello: "Do we speak to convince others or to understand them?" For it is not only hate mongers who need to be careful about their use of language. In fact, offensive language is even more damaging when used by the "good guys" because we are less likely to defend against it. We are likely to suffer silently. It is time for that to change.
When I was in Los Angeles I visited the Museum of Tolerance. After hearing the slogan "Never forget the power of words" I asked one of the tour guides (who was a holocaust survivor) "Why tolerance?" Her response: "I know tolerance is awful. I'm just afraid that that is the best we can hope for." Let's prove her wrong. Let's realize that (contrary to popular belief) tolerance is not the opposite of intolerance and therefore not the solution to hatred. Let's move past tolerance and intolerance to a less hostile world. And the SPLC is just the organization to take us there. Thank you for your continuing efforts to make this a better world for us all.
(For more information see "Tolerant oppression: Why promoting tolerance undermines our quest for equality and what we should do instead," 2010, Dog Ear Publishing.)
Lets remember that the words
Lets remember that the words we use reflect on what kind of person we are. Words are our individual choice and our personal responsibility. Speaking up to make a difference and stepping out of our "comfort zone" is a reflection on our individual choices and empowers us to make a difference.
All of us have the "power" within us to be responsible with our words and our actions.
I am a docent at the Museum
I am a docent at the Museum of Tolerance and I talk to my students about choices and their personal responsibility. We also encourage our students to observe different exhibits and form opinions about there ability to make a difference. We do this with open ended questions so that they can come up with their own viewpoints. Tolerance also means to accept those that may be of a different culture, race, and color.
Tolerance=Acceptance?
Tolerance=Acceptance? "Tolerance also means to accept those that may be of a different culture, race, and color." That was exactly my point about the danger of using ambiguous terms such as "tolerance," especially when less problematic terms such as "acceptance" are readily available. Australian researchers found that tolerance could mean either acceptance or total lack of acceptance (e.g., "I don't accept you at all, but feel that I am being forced to 'put up with' you"). So my question is this: If what we really mean is "acceptance" (when we say "tolerance"), then why not just use acceptance instead of tolerance so that we can avoid any misunderstandings and hurt feelings? What would be the risk? Elie Wiesel made a similar point to the graduating class at Dartmouth during the 2006 graduation when he said that he preferred the word "respect" to "tolerance" because of tolerance's condescending tone. So did Mahatma Gandhi when he said "Tolerance implies the gratuitous assumption of the inferiority of other faiths to one's own." (If someone considers you to be inferior, do you feel "accepted" by them? Not me.) And who knows more about the experience of the oppressed than these two Nobel Laureates?