"Lastly, we are disappointed in students like ourselves, who were scared into silence... We are no longer afraid to be voices of dissent."
Lebron says that shame can be both introspective and extroverted. For Lebron, shame - pointing out how someone's "how" is not in line with their "why" - and outrage - denouncing someone's "why" are two separate concepts. While it's difficult to imagine outrage against oneself, Lebron talks about how people can be disappointed in their own behaviors afters self-evaluation. While the reliability of introspection is definitely questionable, Lebron also offers the example of Socrates when evaluating shame. In asking the difficult questions, Socrates asks as the voice within - the personification that helps his subject uncover his own shortcomings.While Lebron might disagree with the message of We Dissent, he would agree that its strategy - self-shaming - is effective. We Dissent acts as both introspective and extroverted shame. When we talk about shame, sometimes it's difficult for us to imagine separating the stigma of shame and mere self-evaluation. Lebron thinks that you can imagine one without the other.
Hey Daniel,
ReplyDeleteA good example to illustrate this is Kanye West's third-person shame on President Bush versus his first-person shame on page 153. As you said in the tutorial, third-person shame may not be effective, but the first-person shame is, as people self-reflect at night, during sports commercials, and other occasions.
I enjoyed our tutorial a lot, and I think that was a good point to highlight. Looking back, I wished I'd flushed out the point about introspection and infallibility (in other words, can we trust our own "mental states"?) and could use that as an attack against Lebron's argument about 1st-person shame.
DeleteHey Daniel,
ReplyDeleteThe rhetorical strategy of the We Dissent article was not shame in the sense that Lebron is speaking of. Lebron speaks of shame as such: we should find shame with ourselves for not living up to our own ideals. The We Dissent article, however, wafts in an air of superiority against the racial movement. The authors act as if they are the only true adults in the room capable of properly assessing, from a higher tower, the simpleminded rashness of a large population on campus. Perhaps this superiority derives from a normative backbone assumption about which voice matters most -- manifested in a tone of condescension. Yes, certainly we should be shamed for utterly marginalizing the Claremont Independent for our fear tactics in suppressing their free speech and discouraging debate -- while -- at the same time, major news networks (Fox News, National Review, CNN) broadcast their message to the whole world while completely neglecting to give a podium to the students on campus who were trying to articulate the very discrimination Lebron speaks of. Yes, we should feel shame. We should feel shame for promoting fair debate and free speech (our universally accepted values) and simultaneously denying certain groups on campus from participating in this system fairly in practice (No, the Claremont Independent is not the silenced voice). Then, and only then, when we realize that the normative backbone of our culture systematically belittles and ignores the opinions attempting to shed light on itself under the guise of free speech, democracy, and open debate -- then, maybe racial justice can be addressed.
I am no longer afraid to be a voice of dissent against We Dissent.
Jacksón