The Privilege Of ‘Civilized’ Political Discourse
By Ijeoma Oluo
From the days of Hobbes and Locke, the idea of the social contract — and with it, the value of political discourse — has been central to western democracy. The ideal scenario of a civilized meeting of the minds, in order to find compromise and consensus, has been viewed as the gold standard for political society. We get together, we debate vigorously. The best ideas win and we move forward together as one country.
This election cycle, the civilized, adult debate of the past has been thrown out the window and replaced with reality-TV-style antics, angry protest, and online harassment. Talk to your friends or coworkers about this election and one of them is sure to say something about how far we’ve fallen from our civilized roots.
“Whatever happened to political discourse?” they say as others shake their heads sadly.
We use this lamentation to not only mourn the past, but to shame the present. We invoke history’s friendly meetings of the mind in order to chastise those who just can’t seem to get along today. But this argument — its cries for the return of civilized debate, its reverence for the power of the social sphere to find a happy medium — is not only rooted in a wholly incorrect interpretation of our political history, but is also incredibly privileged and unjust.
