Click here for the introduction to the Round and Square series "Remonstrance"
 |
| [a] Refractory RF |
So where is the "conversation?"
We considered a bit of that yesterday in the midst of a larger discussion about remonstrance. The concept is best explained by a quick trip to the introduction to this series, but the key idea is that someone with less power or leverage critiques someone (or some group) with more. It is a vital idea, and has powered a significant (if sometimes misunderstood) pattern of social and political action throughout Chinese history. I have studied the concept for thirty years, and have developed a deep appreciation for its rich possibilities. If you wish to learn more about it in its original cultural-and-historical context, you should read the first nine posts of this series.
 |
| [b] Engagement RF |
I think that it has everything to do with social engagement, management, and the ways we might lead our lives in richer and more coherent ways. It is a profoundly social concept that is able to move far beyond the individualistic strains of thought common in everything from Western fantasies to philosophies. Remonstrance engages individuals in a social setting. In other words, it's a lot like life...only more direct, and often much more painful.
If you are still confused, look it up. Just click the links. It will change your life—adding a powerful notion to the collection you already hold and use.
And that brings me to school shootings, mental health, and gun violence.
I noted yesterday that there hasn't been much remonstrance lately, even in the wake of one of the most horrific events in recent American history. You may say "au contraire," noting the speeches, editorials, and television appearances in the news since Friday. Yesterday's post made the point that it won't be much use if people move on to the next news cycle in a few days or a week. Of course, that is one of the biggest problems we face when confronted with something as big and awful as the Newtown school shooting.
 |
| [c] Even RF |
If you recall, though, I mentioned something else, almost in passing. I noted that I am less interested in the big factions making their points than in remonstrance taking place within the factions. What do I mean by that? Well, it is one thing to say "we need to handle this." Don't get me wrong; that is important, and it needs attention. It is another thing to say "guns don't kill people; people kill people." Have you noticed anything about these statements, though?
Have you noticed that they have stayed pretty constant for the last forty years?
I want remonstrance, and here is precisely what I mean. I wish I could pretend that it was evenly balanced, and that "both sides" (dominant factions—ban 'em/keep 'em) needed to spend equal amounts of time dealing with the incongruity in their own positions. It would be hard for anyone to say truthfully that the internal challenges—the need for remonstrance—are "even."
One side, perhaps because of political realities, has had to deal with the internal contradictions of its message more than the other. If you want gun control in some form, you likely have had to consider a wide range of issues that lap up against the shores of your arguments. What about hunting? What about families that have made firearms a cornerstone of their shared lives, and have lived responsibly (and safely) for many generations? What about the fact that one of my anthropology professors—one of the fiercest pacifists I have ever known—bought a gun in West Africa in the 1960s so he could hunt for his family during two years of fieldwork. Yup. The voices of remonstrance (subtlety, nuance, argument) within the "gun control faction" are not hard to miss, and they are most often brought up by people within the faction—people who generally share the same goals, but remonstrate about the details.
It happens all of the time.
Especially if the kids want antelope goulash on Wednesday night.
 |
| [d] Even...vague RF |
What follows may sound partisan, but anyone who has followed these matters will know that it is not especially so. It is just a basic observation, and the flip-side is not parallel. You see, there is not a whole lot of remonstrance on the other side of the matter.
Do you doubt me on this? How often do we hear serious discussions among gun owners about the propriety of things such as extended clips, and (semi-)automatic weapons (and even the myth, or not, of "cop-killer bullets"). This latter item so shocked me back in the 1980s that I could not believe it was something that anyone could defend. Police organizations fought against it, but a rather large and influential lobbying organization (it rhymes with Zen Are Play) defended it to the point that the bullets are still the very stuff of contention. I have linked the disclaimers (this is what we do on RSQ—we try to be "fair"), but the controversy is not gone (despite the prevalence of the myth-meme in Internet searches).
The myth (this time) is not my concern. My question is different. Where is the discussion—remonstrance—within the community that cares about the Second Amendment?
I would be lying if I said that the first question doesn't matter at all to me. It does. What I can't shake in a "professional" sense, though, is why there is not a rich and vibrant discussion of these matters within the larger sphere of gun owners? Does everyone agree, and that's-that? I seriously doubt it. Where is the rough equivalent of what I have heard over-and-over among people interested in some kind of gun control (what about freedoms?, what about law-abiding citizens who never break the law?). These conversations (indeed, remonstrances) take place all of the time within the community of people who want some regulation. Where is its parallel on "the other" side?
 |
| [e] Broken RF |
That's what I mean by remonstrance.
If you interpret this post as an anti-gun Jeremiad, you don't know me at all, and you have missed the point entirely. Either Round and Square is just not for you or you, too, immediately assume that discussion of difficult topics must lead to simplistic points of view. I assume that readers of Round and Square know better than that. I want to know how the dynamics of "in-group" discussion (conversation, remonstrance) work.
I want to understand political nuance...and its lack.
And I have just the solution to this peculiarly thorny mix of constitutional and personal angst. You do, too. You probably just haven't realized it (yet). I'll conclude with the reasonable solution tomorrow. I for one, would sign on immediately to it.
You (probably) would, too.
How could anything this vexing be that clear? It's all about conversation, debate, and remonstrance.
See you tomorrow.
This is part of a multi-post series dealing with the Newtown school shootings and American political culture. Click below for other posts in the series:
 |
| [f] The opposite of social RF |
No comments:
Post a Comment