Dear Assembly Members,
I have sent the following letter in response to an L.A. TIMES
editorial. If language shapes our thinking, grammar shapes the
framework in which our thinking takes place. We are at a crossroads
where narrative meets process, where past, present, and future meet
the eternal present, surrounded by infinite possibilities. I send
this to you in hopes that it resonates with your thinking.
I look forward to reading your responses.
Sincerely,
Gregg Heacock
Dear Editor,
Jonah Goldberg in “Obama’s rhetoric, American realities” is
right to raise the issue of whether a diverse community with a
history of individual grievances could come to the same table to plan
together for their common future. Quoting Robert Putnam, author of
“Bowling Alone,” he says, “In the presence of diversity, we hunker
down,” and he interprets this lack of “social trust” as possibly
being a form of “realism.” As a teacher of English, I respect our
realistic inclination to challenge other people’s thinking by saying,
“Yes, but . . . ,” “So what!,” and “Oh, yeah? What makes you think
so? How do you know?” These challenges, based on logical conditions
of sufficient grounds, relevance, and acceptability, are filters that
protect us from intellectual pollution. The question is whether our
filtration system gets so clogged with lack of basic trust that it
never lets any new information get through. Do our histories and
personal grievances get in the way of being realistic? What makes
Obama such an agent of change is that he has found a way to move us
beyond ourselves.
Grammar provides us with two frames through which we view
our lives. Scientific, or process, paragraphs are written in the
eternal present: We do this, then do that to bring about a desired
result. Historic, or narrative, paragraphs are written in the past
tense, exploring how the past affects the present and could repeat
itself in the future. Most of us a pleased to imagine ourselves in
the eternal present for we are never lost in the here and now and the
possibilities before us are infinite. Our decisions, therefore, are
guided by hope. When we think of the harm we have suffered in the
past and contemplate how we might continue to be harmed in the
future, our decisions in the present are guided by fear.
Because Obama is a pluralist, honoring all groups and all
proposals and setting criteria for discerning which ideas are
presently acceptable, he is about process, not about grievance.
People who come to the table may carry resentments, but, relevant
though they may be to evaluating the worth of a plan, they are
subsumed by the criteria agreed upon by all. Obama has already shown
us how this process works. In the pre-Nevada caucus debate, John
Edwards challenged him on his willingness to include the nuclear
power industry in negotiating our energy policy. He said the history
of the nuclear industry showed it could not be trusted. Obama
countered by saying that one of the conditions for any energy plan is
that it must be safe. So far, the nuclear industry has not shown
itself to be able to dispose nuclear waste safely. Edwards agreed,
then, that their positions were essentially the same. Excluding the
nuclear power industry from the table would not be fair. Telling the
nuclear industry that it must meet certain safety criteria is
straight-forward and honest.
Politics of the past has been based on excluding people and
proposals from the table. Obama’s way of thinking is new on the
American and international scene. Its newness makes it hard for us
to understand. But, it is inherent in the very language we use that
shapes our thinking. It is what makes Obama a uniter, not a
divider. That’s why we trust him to serve as our agent of change.
Respectfully,
Gregg Heacock
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|