The reading from Nina Lozano-Reich and Dana Cloud really stood out to me, because I think the issues they described have been omnipresent over the past couple of years. One of the main points of the paper was that civility should "not be advocated" as a gameplan for oppressed people looking for change (Lozano, Cloud, p 224). The authors are arguing here that invitational methods of dialogue and conflict, although meant to create "ethical discourse in difficult situations", can also be considered an oppressive standard for a desire for change, because it limits and lessens the voices of the oppressed (p. 220 & 221). the issue lies in the fact that most of the time, it seems that the dominant parties get to decide when and how conversation with marginalized groups will be successful (p. 221). The article finds also finds issue the Bone et al groups together persuasion and violence, when separate persuasive tactics like disobedience can be considered persuasion as well (p. 221). Lozano and Cloud argue that because it is rare for the powerful to invite the less powerful to communicate, invitational rhetoric becomes an ineffective method of changing the minds of those at the top, who profit off of oppression (p. 222). It seems to point out that these 'civil' methods of dialogue rarely benefit the people who want change the most, because if the people in power aren't forced to change, they won't.
I think this type of issue, whether or not civil means of dialogue do anything, is really interesting. I think based off of the experiences of the past couple of years regarding incivil actions and disobedience, this type of conversation has come up of "how do we make effective change?". Over the past 2 years now, we've had the issues of police violence, abortion rights, gun control, voting rights, and a list of other injustices met with protests, and while some things changed in marginal ways, it feels like we are kind of standing in the same place, if not back a couple steps. I think in very rare situations have I seen invitational rhetoric and civility work effectively in changing a paradigm for something. I think its also interesting that in situations of civil disobeidience or peaceful incivility, the people in power always call for "more civil ways" of solving a problem. The issue is that these civil ways of solving a problem don't catch the attention of those in power frequently, so people get caught in a loop trying to get things done.
Throughout the past two years there have been numerous big changes that have been made in our country. This week's readings helped me understand how people combat these issues. It seems that we see the biggest change is with people who can get the most attention. Sometimes these groups turn do things they normally wouldn't solely based on that fact that they aren't being heard. I think most people mean good but get so frustrated that nothing is being done for them and they feel as if they are in a revolving cycle with no change.
ReplyDeleteWhat I would like to bring to the conversation is trying to find a way to get a broader audience without acting incivil. This is so interesting to me because it hasn't been very successful in the past thus why people have had to such disobedient acts. So I pose the question how can we give these people and group a louder voice to make change? I think it all starts with better communication habits between all people.