2003-10-25|2:16 p.m.
I wrote a midterm paper about an interesting article titled �Left Speechless� by John McWhorter. The assignment asked us to take what we�ve read of other theorists and to write what they might have thought of this article. I choose The Phantom Public by Walter Lippmann and The Public and its Problems by John Dewey.
Here�s the paper:
The ovations following President George W. Bush's "casual speak" public announcements, the popularity of Schwarzenegger's catchy one-liners in the more recent California gubernatorial recall, and the trends of "sound bite" political talk shows are symptoms of what John H. McWhorter, author of the article "Left Speechless," believes to be an ever-growing anti-intellectual sentiment in the American public concerning politics that makes plain-speaking language more popular to the public. He further notes that this degradation of language threatens the future of politics and the culture of America in general. Essentially, there are two relevant theorists, Walter Lippmann and John Dewey, who would likely agree with McWhorter's observations, but perhaps not his conclusions.
Beginning in the 1960s, McWhorter argues that the public�s move away from reverence for the spoken word to �no-nonsense� speech continues to this day, which he believes hurts American politics. The movement began out of a �questioning authority� fever born out of the highly protested Vietnam War and since then, the public has sought to find the authentic in unpolished and off the cuff language. The result, in McWhorter�s mind, is a fear of the educated and eloquent person. Favorable politics are colonized with Bush-isms and familiar movie one liners. McWhorter seems nostalgic for the language of the past when people memorized poetry and were enchanted by the speeches of Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. He draws a parallel to this past and its reverence for language to that of a veneration that exists in Russia and Turkey still today. There, he contends, the love for eloquent orations is alive and well, far outshining the ten minute yelling matches of American political television shows of today. (1-2)
Lippmann writes in The Phantom Public that there is a growing detachment between the citizens and the functions of their state as the modern world becomes larger and more complex. For that reason, Lippmann argues it is a misleading notion that public determination governs America. He maintains that it is impossible to expect the public to serve as �omnicompetent citizens� and that it is too difficult for individuals to know everything about the system, to take in all information about all issues of the day, and to participate on each of those issues (27-29). To solve those problems people side themselves with groups, like political parties, in which they side with one of the real actors in an issue. It is reasonable that citizens have neither the time nor the interest nor the capability to participate to their functional expectation.
Interestingly enough, in 1925 when he wrote The Phantom Public, Lippmann saw a similar movement that McWhorter observed more recently. Voter turn out had reached an all time low in the 1920s when they fell to 50%, which Lippmann interpreted as the result of citizens seeing their own role as �a pretentious, a second rate, an inconsequential [thing].� (5, 7) In effect, voters had become jaded and turned off by their own role in democracy, seeing the process as a fa�ade. If Lippmann saw this movement in 1925 it makes for an argument that perhaps the cause for disconnect between citizens and their process may have been occurring before the counterculture of the 1970s. Lippmann offers explanation to McWhorter in The Phantom Public. According to Lippmann, because citizens find the process overwhelming and increasingly so over time, the complications a citizen faces in an ever-increasing technological environment and responsibilities in his private life such as raising a family and working long hours limit his role as an �omnicompetent citizen.� (14-15) In this way, Lippmann and McWhorter have shared similar observations; both note the same trend: the disenchanted voter, who either ignores his role in the government or seeks out sincerity in simple language.
McWhorter makes excellent observations of a growing anti-intellectual trend in which citizens seek the simple in order to find authenticity. McWhorter�s concern that this may not provide desirable results is valid because �casual speak� is not necessarily �honest speak.� Lippman would agree. Citizens realize that politicians and the system itself are not by any means inherently honest. A politician, according to Lippmann, has little incentive to �forfeit his advantages in an election and speak plainly.� (148) Speaking �plainly� in this case does not mean simply. In fact, the dynamic between honest versus dishonest and casual versus formal are not the same for this reason. For the reason that there are advantages a politician may have to withhold and alter information whether it is for security reasons or his own advantage, the public faces a difficulty in obtaining the truth, delivered in casual or formal speech. (149) McWhorter and Lippman would agree that the public�s anti-intellectual movement is sincere, but misguided.
Where Lippmann and McWhorter part, however, is in what these movements mean. According the McWhorter, �rhetorical eloquence, once the mark of the educated person, is considered quaint and even threatening� to the public. (2) The counterculture he observes is almost anti-intellectual and thus watchful of its signs: skilled oration. This anti-establishment reaction, McWhorter argues, threatens the functions of politics. Lippmann would disagree. In relation to his concept of the �omnicompetent citizen,� Lippmann maintains that scholars such as Robert Michels, who believe that raising the intellectual level of the masses will solve coordination problems and �counteract the oligarchical tendencies,� are too optimistic. In fact, Lippmann holds that being a fully functional citizen is impossible. Even scholars and politicians themselves cannot know every detail concerning the state and its functions and act upon it in within the limits of time. (13-14) Furthermore, Lippmann, when confronted with McWhorter�s concerns for the death of eloquence, may argue that the anti-intellectualism movement is neither necessary nor sufficient in causing the collapse of American politics. In fact, Lippmann states �the work of the world goes on continually without conscious direction from the public opinion.� (56) To Lippmann, citizens only take action when problems that concern them arise and in all other situations the state serves as an agent working in the service of the principle, the public. (56-58) Thus, Lippmann may have agreed with McWhorter�s observations, but may have disagreed with their implications for American politics.
Interestingly enough, John Dewey�s The Public and its Problems makes an attractive argument against Lippmann�s claim that the public is somewhat inefficient in its participation in government and policy. The Public and its Problems explains that although the public is subject to stagnation due to its likelihood to follow socio-cultural �habits,� which he believed threatened the dynamics that democracy depended upon, these obstacles can be overcome. (160) Dewey contends that the majority of the public can indeed make rational decisions regarding the modern technology-focused culture. To accomplish this, the public must have access to either an impartial or a variety of represented sources of information. Only with a relatively independent conduit of information can the masses make informed decisions on complex subjects. If Dewey would agree that the mass media today, being almost wholly owned and controlled by mass media conglomerates, was a limitation to communications and ideas, he might view today�s system inadequate. It was for this reason that Dewey argued that to preserve the integrity of the state and its interests of the people, the multiplicity of arts and communications must be preserved. (181-84)
In Dewey�s defense of the role that the public plays in governance, he might agree with McWhorter�s observations that communication, both artistic and informative, plays a vital role in how well a democracy functions. Comparing the Gettysburg address in 1863 to the more recent �Bring it on� speech by George W. Bush bringing us into the Iraq War, McWhorter places a great emphasis on the quality of communication and its role in politics. (1-2) Yet, where Dewey agrees that communications are invaluable to democracy, he holds a different view than McWhorter on why it is significant. For Dewey it is not the quality of communication that is the concern so much as the fact that public discourse exists at all. In fact, in 1927, Dewey blamed the inaccessibility of specific and quality information on the system in which intellectuals and scholars produce their work in academic journals as opposed to public news sources. (180) In this respect, it was not some counterculture movement opposing intellectual discourse that was tarnishing the system, but instead it was the very source of the information that was failing their public.
When examining the use of language, McWhorter also looks to other cultures from around the world like Russia and Turkey to compare to the United States. In Russia, students have studied and memorized the poets of their past and are proud to recite them and, similarly, in Turkey it is praiseworthy when one speaks with eloquence. He points out that the admiration of eloquence in these other cultures differs greatly from the anti-intellectual development here in the US. (1-2) Dewey might see this phenomenon as a valid concern, but not for the same reason. Again, recognizing that the opportunity to have discourse is more valuable than quality itself, Dewey might point out to McWhorter that a culture with a deep respect for language might have little to do with the quality of the system of politics itself; in fact, Russia and Turkey are perfect examples. Russia and Turkey are still struggling in their transitions into democracy and the censorship of their prior systems still linger. Acknowledging the argument Dewey makes that it is essential for a populace to have open and active communication, scholars today are concerned that these censorship laws limit the citizens� ability to play an active and educated role in their developing democracies. (Walsh 1) So whether or not Russians and Turks have a profound respect for their language and culture, Dewey might claim that the quality of language is neither necessary nor sufficient in producing a functioning democracy, but instead might suggest that Russia and Turkey remove censorship policies in order to foster the participation of their populaces.
In many ways, McWhorter�s article �Left Speechless� is the modern observation of what Lippmann and Dewey saw developing in the 1920s. They all seem to agree that there is, in fact, a growing disconnect between the public and its institutions, whether it is based on the quality of speech, the complexity of the system, or the availability of discourse. Where they diverge is on what it means. To McWhorter, the degradation of language is a path to destruction. Yet, to Lippman and Dewey, the fact that the public has developed a counter-culture in response to the language of politics is simply a sign that citizens are either frustrated with the system�s complexity or desire a more efficient way to participate in its discourse. However, if McWhorter has not found what this counterculture means for the future of politics, he, Lippmann, and Dewey have found one thing�that the public faces great limitations in their role as citizens of democracy.