Refusing talk to facilitate talk – the paradox of Islamist dialogue:

[bemildred]

Xpost from Editorials. Extra points for reading the whole thing.

---

In short, what we have to do if we want to have a serious peace process, it is necessary for us - the West - to recognise ourselves as subjects of what we are saying and what we are thinking and doing and be more realistic in seeing what we’ve become. Is the only answer within the present Western limits of thinking to the challenge of Iran and the Iranian revolution … to bomb it? Is that where we have got to? Do we not have to see and think that this is the limit to what we have become? Moving beyond these limits also requires listening to some of the insights that others have.

Muslim thinkers and philosophers are presenting a serious and substantial critique of Western thinking and society. It is a critique not a critique of the Enlightenment per se, but what we have turned the Enlightenment into in terms of its power relationships and the concentration of power within Western societies. They see this as being far from the original Enlightenment model which has now entered into myth that somehow we all live in a society which is encouraging creative new dynamic thinking in the West. We all know this is not true. Many in the West find it difficult to hear the ideas that are coming out of this part of the world and when they do they say “and you believe them? And you listen to this nonsense, this babble?”

The ability to actually think and look critically at ourselves is probably the missing element in this political process of talking. We do need, if we want to move away from this conflict, to escape from our current conditioned thinking - what Foucault described as the ‘blackmail of the narrative of history’ - of our narrative of the enlightenment, which is no longer possibly as real as it was when the Enlightenment started.

We need to challenge our acquiescence to Western language and norms which we all submit to. I speak from my experience of having worked in the European Union and in the diplomatic arena that some things are just not possible to say in the West anymore. You notice the silences in the Annapolis process; what word about the siege on Gaza or Hamas? Does anyone remember hearing about this? Saying these things in Western diplomatic circles have become unacceptable. Someone at a gathering in Washington recently raised the question about Hamas and everyone said, ‘we simply cannot discuss that here, not in this meeting; it’s not acceptable’. Is this what we mean when we talk about living in the age of the Enlightenment?

http://conflictsforum.org/2008/refusing-talk-to-facilitate-talk-%e2%80%93-the-paradox-of-islamist-dialogue-an-overdue-task-or-an-exercise-in-appeasement/

[Vegasaurus]

1. I get the prize, since I read the whole thing

Lots of comments, but not much time. I do think that the Islamists' complaint about "power" relationships in Western society is misguided, considering that they run rogue dictatorships with no rights for anyone...talk about POWER relationships; except that it is all in the hands of a few.

[bemildred]

2. You just made this fellows point for him. nt

[Vegasaurus]

4. Oh?

He says Islamists don't like the Western power hierarchy.

They have issues aplenty with power hierarchies in Islamic regimes.

[bemildred]

7. No, that isn't what he said.

That isn't even remotely what he said.

[Vegasaurus]

8. certainly a part (it's long so of course there is more)

They also believe that the pervasive power relationships that exist within Western societies both at governmental and working level in terms of working in a corporation or an enterprise actually limit and do not increase an individual’s well being.

They also don't accept that the West is advanced, and I challenge that too, against their standards.

[bemildred]

11. That is merely an example, it is not what the OP is about.

And I remember well the "tune in, turn on, drop out" sentiments of 40 years ago, which was a similar sentiment, and the Luddites long before that. (Edit: well, I don't remember the Luddites ...) Many people don't like leading regimented lives, and don't like being told that they ought to like it.

[LeftishBrit]

3. It seems to me...

that a lot of the points being made are not so much about a difference between 'Islamists' and 'the West', as between 'the religious right' and 'secular liberals'. I could easily imagine this being said by followers of Pat Robertson and the Christian Right, with some very slight changes (my changes are in capitals):

'SECULAR LIBERALISM sees nothing more important for itself than what has been called its ‘fettish of the individual’...
. Nothing is more important than the primacy and freedom of individuality. Individualism is the basic entity around whom social processes, fears, passion and reason and propensities for good and evil all circulate.

CHRISTIANS are saying that LIBERAL thinking in this fashion is flawed - these wants and needs of man that we are all so familiar with and that get catered to so well in LIBERAL WELFARE STATES are actually diminishing man himself. They diminish him and the single-minded pursuit of these needs diminishes others. Individuals become simply a means to an end, whether it’s a means of simply satisfying our individual economic, social or sexual needs. Elevation of this personal and material welfare of the individual objectifies the human being and is, in a sense, a result of trying to put the individual before others in our contact with the outside world. ....


CHRISTIANS also are increasingly recognising that SECULAR LIBERALISM in the fashion that I’ve just described it has exhausted its resources. LIBERAL secular life is no longer the future that beckons ... This sense of isolation, of moral loneliness, creates a sense of illusory freedom and anxiety experienced by so many people in OUR SINFUL MODERN SECULAR SOCIETY.

.... In short, CHRISTIANS are offering a fundamental disagreement..., aThey do not accept that the success and advance of the individual is the litmus of advance in society versus their view that it is actually the cohesiveness of society and community which should be the test of progress. For CHRISTIANS, they view progress in terms of progress towards community cohesion and not simply the progress of an individual....

This is a question that is being widely asked by many CHRISTIANS: they query the SECULAR claim to the universality of its rationality based on its foundations in empiricism and scientific methodology. They do not accept that this basis for SECULAR rationality is somehow more objective and therefore superior to other forms of rationality; FOR EXAMPLE PROMOTING EVOLUTION OVER CREATIONISM....

I believe we need to think afresh, to go back to some of the foundations of SECULAR culture not simply to diminish or criticise them, but this is the means by which we can step beyond our present impasse. Unless there is an internal critique of what is happening, we shall remain stuck....'


With these few changes, it sounds very familiar and tied into an important side of Western culture. Actually, it sounds not unlike the rants of Mark Steyn! The main differences are that the religious right are actually in power in some Muslim countries, while in Western countries they have too much influence, but far less real power. Religious right-wingers in Western countries may think that gays and feminists are evil and deserve death, but they do not and will not get into a position where they can order their execution by the state - whereas in some Muslim countries, they do have such power.

Religious right-wingers are generally not primitive or barbaric; they are *reactionary*. They are not stuck in the past; they are from their point of view stuck in the present, looking back nostalgically to a real or imagined past when morality was imposed, society was 'under God', and social cohesiveness was placed above individual freedom (this very word 'cohesiveness' is a common term among British right-wingers who dislike secularists and Muslims alike). They are well aware of a move toward secularism and liberalism in the world; they just don't like it. Muslim Righties tend to blame it on the West; Western Christian Righties tend to blame it on left-wing non-Christians within their societies. Both groups wish to keep their own communities or countries as enclaves against this encroaching secularism; but the Muslim Righties have far more power to achieve this, at least for the moment.

So where does this lead us? Not, I think, to a view that the Religious Right has a view that is just as valid as that of secular, or tolerant religious, liberals. We would not accept the view of a Paisley, a Robertson, a Huckabee or a Feiglin as being just as valid as that of the liberal left - so why should we accept the views of those religous right-wingers who just happen to be Muslim?

At the same time, bombings and forced regime change will, at least under most circumstances, make matters worse for all. Disagreement with and disapproval of right-wingers does not mean that we need to, or should, go to war with them. To ' proceed by bombing Iran and possibly killing another two hundred thousand people' would NOT be a moral thing to do. But diplomacy; international criticisms; in serious cases sanctions; CAN be appropriate moves against extreme religious right-wingers. And we must all remember that all societies have in them the seeds of religious-right control, and that this must be carefully averted. Even seemingly secular and left-wing ideologies can readily become hideously corrupted into something akin to theocracy, once dictatorship replaces democracy, and social 'cohesiveness' becomes a justification for infringements on the freedom and welfare of the individual (e.g. Stalinism; Maoism). It is not only Muslim countries that should IMO be vigilant against the dangers of totalitarianism, theocracy and quasi-theocracy, and the Far Right in all its forms.

[Vegasaurus]

5. That's the point though

I am not thrilled by the theocrats who want to run Washington (including Mr. Bush, who makes decisions after he speaks to God, or so he says), but as yet, people are not executed in the US or other western countries for not following Christian law.

While I think that the efforts of the evangelicals to turn the US more religious and non-secular are dangerous, they will not lead to the kinds of hideous restrictions in life under Islamic law. Americans would never put up with a government that puts gays to death, no matter how much fundamentalists don't want them to marry.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

9. I would have to vehemently disagree with you.

At least in the USA... flip through a fundy religious channel. It's all about YOU! How can YOU be happy? Successful? Peaceful? It's all about making change to better the individual life. You, you, you. Submit to God so YOU can be happy! Send me money to do your duty so YOU can be peaceful, etc. It's all about achieving that inner, singular joy.

I would argue that American fundies buy into the "individualist" western thinking hook, line and sinker.

I don't say that as a critical Muslim, but as a seminary graduate and student of Christianity. I think "selling individual happiness" is what has American non-denominational mega-churches bursting at the seams with new converts.

Mainline churches, which emphasize community and traditional Christian values of agape are losing congregants faster than you can imagine.

[LeftishBrit]

13. Examples of what I was thinking of...

Here's a link to an article by conservative Catholic James Likoudis.

http://credo.stormloader.com/Morals/moraledu.htm

The most relevant paragraph is the last one:

In conclusion, the concept of "moral education" as understood and propagated in "A Secular Humanist Declaration" is one which undermines man's intrinsic dignity (stemming from his existence in this world as a creature made in the image and likeness of God). Doctrinaire Secular Humanists are utterly opposed to Christianity, and in their radical attempt to divorce morality from theistic religion, actually destroy the idea of a universal moral law binding man to act in a certain way. As a consequence, when they attempt to establish some norm of morality for man, they can appeal to nothing more than an enlightened self-interest. Unfortunately for them, such "enlightened self-interest" quickly dissolves into subjectivity; society is plunged into chaos since the "enlightened self-interest" of individuals will vary profoundly from person to person. It is ironic that this dream of a secular liberal society contains the seeds of its own destruction for it is continually exposed to the disease of moral and sexual permissiveness, thus making social cohesion impossible. It is well-known that moral permissiveness in our society is already far advanced. Its destructive consequences with regard to the intrinsic dignity of the individual, the welfare of the family and the common good of entire nations can be met only by the establishment of a genuine Christian social order...'


And here is a link to an article on 'Britain in Sin' in 'Christian Voice', a fundie Protestant British site, which campaigns against the secular nature of British society (we are indeed far more secular than the USA):


http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/sin1.html

It's a long article which will probably not be of great interest as a whole; but the most relevant passages are:

'It is plain that, despite greater life-expectancy, more consumer goods and more free time, as a nation, than ever before, the material things in which people appear to put their trust do not satisfy. The superficial emotionalism seen after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales betrays a nation seeking something, or some-one, in whom to believe. That some-one could and should be God in Jesus Christ, but in general, the Christian Church in our land is unwilling to preach the Commandments of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The people are left to try to make sense of the world on their own, and no-one in spiritual or temporal leadership appears able to articulate or address the concerns about which they told the Gallop researchers...

The alienation and fragmentation of society resulting from the disintegration of God's primary social institution (the family) in our land is as worrying from a sociological point of view as it is miserable for those involved..

There is only one conclusion to be drawn. This is a generation gone a-whoring. On present trends, it will get worse, as homosexuality is fully legalised by this Parliament and its values are more fully absorbed by the nation. The present generation will thereby be cursed by God to conduct an experiment to see what happens to a society which adopts a 'modern' value system based on godlessness, dishonesty, hedonism, individualism, consumerism, fatalism, indecency, degradation, sterility and lack of respect, restraint or concern with anything except me and now.'

[ProgressiveMuslim]

14. I don't consider Roman Catholics fundamentalists.

They are also losing congregants, at least in teh USA.

People are leaving to go find themselves in the fundy churches.

I think the Catholic Church has a rich philosophical history. While there may be conservatives like you're quoting, there are also liberation theologians who spur on economic and political revolution.

I would maintain my point that in this country, Christian fundamentalism is the "spiritual" expression of rampant individualism.

[LeftishBrit]

16. I wasn't singling out Catholics.....

There are religious righties - and extreme liberals - among both Catholics and Protestants. I have now found relevant quotes from a British Protestant site, and edited my previous message to include them.

I am sure that the televangelists who 'sell' Jesus are advertisers as much as anyone else, and do make the same type of appeal to individual self-interest: "Buy this great bargain, and YOU can have your soul saved more cheaply than your neighbour!" In Britain - and Europe generally - this is probably less of a phenomenon nowadays than in America. But there are certainly many Christian conservatives who regard religion as the source of traditional values that can alone unify society, and secular liberalism as a source of 'radical individualism' that leads to the breakdown of the family and society.

[Vegasaurus]

17. Except that American evangelicals do not favor the individual

over the family, and in fact, use the family as one of their cultural wedge issues in politics. They are against women working or having abortions,for example, because they believe that these women are compromising the family in the face of their own individual interests.

[bemildred]

19. I see your point.

However it is true that a snout-in-the-trough materialism is dissatisfying for many, and it is not just the religious - or the religious fundamentalists - that make that point. Many people are not satisfied with life on the corporate plantation.

Humans are social creatures, they don't do well in isolation, so the proper argument is about what the mutual obligations are between a person and the society he/she lives in. That fact that various such belief systems are popular IS an indication of the failure of society to engage it's members, to provide that sense of meaning and purpose in some other way.

[breakaleg]

6. I'd say this phenomenon is rampant in this forum.

"Statements that people make are erased of content and meaning because when they say things, they don’t really mean what they say because we understand their true nature and understand that it is simply a struggle for power."

[ProgressiveMuslim]

10. What a fascinating piece. I'd love to hear Lithos' take on it.

I find that the notion of our current cultural configuration as the be-all and end-all of human culture kind of short-sighted, and definitely lacking.

[bemildred]

12. "The West" just exhibits the usual disconnect between what we say and what we do.

Between our pretensions and where we came from. If there is any message there, it's that we are no different in any fundamental way. Every rooster that climbs to the top of the dungheap thinks that he's the best and last one.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

15. In conversations here

about this topic -- cultural relativity, many of the posters simply cannot understand the existence of another paradigm around which to organize human culture.

I find the inability to discuss that fascinating.

[bemildred]

18. If you are opposed to cultural relativism, does that make you a cultural absolutist?

:headbang:

[ProgressiveMuslim]

20. LOL in this forum it makes you a liberal ;)

[breakaleg]

21. I agree. The notion that our way is the best is arrogance in the extreme.

It's one thing to prefer your way of life and government, but it's entirely another to force it upon another culture against their will. How often have we seen people defend this idea in this forum?

[pelsar]

23. if i understand correctly....

as a principle you have no problem with the cast system of india as it should be protected? as should the women in Saudi Arabia.....or perhaps you believe the poor ignorant indians/saudi should be "educated" in the western culture of civil rights....sort of cultural colonialism?

i believe those are the two basic options.....are there others?

[breakaleg]

25. You rarely understand anything I say correctly. nt

[pelsar]

27. i try to "translate it"

to actually facts on the ground...what does it mean for the person.....be it on the receiving end of the kassams of the person in a culture where they have no civil rights......
_______
how about this....what is your opinion if anything should be done about the women living under taliban rule?

[breakaleg]

31. Please.

How does one translate coherent English into something unrecognizable? Isn't it supposed to go the other way around? I'm feeling snappy because this pattern of yours to find things that aren't there is so old.

The question is this: Are you so arrogant that you believe your way is best and you are prepared to shove it down everyone else's throat by force? Because that is what you are advocating. This idea that your way is best. That the "other" can't think for themselves. Did you even read the OP?

Over a million people dead in Iraq. Do they still need our type of democracy at that price?

[pelsar]

33. how about this...

i will answer....and then you will...fair enough?

Are you so arrogant that you believe your way is best and you are prepared to shove it down everyone else's throat by force?

yes i am arrogant in believing that the wests version of civil rights for all is the best way and that it should be spread in various ways.

_____

your turn:
do you believe that cultures such as the talibans version or that of saudi arabia should be respected? (i.e. the western version of civil rights is not for all)

....or are you so arrogant that you believe that they should be changed to better fit your version of a better culture?

[breakaleg]

34. I think that if someone isn't happy with their version of culture, then it's up to them to

change it from the inside. I do not believe that any outside country has the right to step in and tell a country what is best for them. As we've seen, that will only lead to disaster. As ProgressiveMuslim said, there are positive things about that culture you despise.

I am not so arrogant.

[pelsar]

35. so....if i can clarify...

if the women of the taliban cant change their culture they are are to remain within the burkas, uneducated and separated from society.....from your point of view...thats just the way it has to be....

cause if they cant demand and get their own civil rights, then i guess they dont deserve them...that seem to be what your saying.

[breakaleg]

37. Let's look at what you are saying. How many people have to die to force our version of

culture on Afghanistan? How many have died? Do the people there think it's worth it? After all, shouldn't we ask the people who are the ones who actually have to pay the price? That's the question.

Honestly, looking at some of the things you've posted here I can categorically say that I would not want you speaking for me. I would not want your rules and your idea of justice forced down my throat. Is it inconceivable that an entire country may not either?

[pelsar]

43. you really should read what i write....

instead of just making things up....

I would not want your rules and your idea of justice forced down my throat....so where did i actually write that?

____

more to the point i see you cant seem answer the question directly...so i shall try again i shall simplify it:

do you believe in the UNs/HR, etc version that all people of the world shall have basic civil western style civil rights?....

or do you believe that for example women in talibans afganistan, until they revolt if ever, must learn to accept the talibans version of "womens rights?" (uneducated, etc)

___

i do believe you answered, by NOT answering my question....., so I just want to clarify it

[ProgressiveMuslim]

32. It depends on what you consider basic human rights.

Is the right to be educated? To have a family? To vote? To vote on elected representatives?

What about states who provide rights for their own, but deny those rights to peole they're subjugating?

[pelsar]

44. basic human rights..

yes to all of your questions ..and that includes the Palestinians in the WB and gaza..which is why israel has to leave in my viewpoint (not because of religion or land ownership issues or history....but because israel will not be giving the residents the full civil rights package)...there is also the right to live in security which in the hierarchy of human rights is a step above individual human rights (and yes here it gets "fuzzy")...hence we dont get to leave and let the Palestinians "decide their own fate at the hands of their own leaders, until we get that.

but i believe you already know that about me.

[pelsar]

22. around that paradigm...

comes the basic question if there are "fundamental rights that must be present in all cultures?

a yes...then puts in the next question of which culture decides what those rights are?.....a hamasnik, hassid, mormom, hinduist, fundamentalist catholic, white liberal middle class suburbanite, etc will all have the same strong belief that there version in fact does uphold the proper set of values....

trouble is with all of those above...they cant live in the same society without compromising some of their values....wife burning, barefoot and pregnant, covered faces, short skirts and profession etc

which one gets the lead?

__

if the answer is no, that there is no fundamental rights for all, then the question is mute....the stronger one gets to say.....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

24. Pelsar, I wouldn't dispute that I personally prefer to live in a society

where I can drink, watch porn, expose as much of body as I choose in public, have a same-sex relationship, or, even have an operation to change my gender.

I also recognize the downside to living in that kind of isolated, individualist culture, namely, extreme pressure on kids to be sexualized, rampant drug and alcohol abuse, high rates of domestic violence, high rates of child molestation, social isolation, outlandish pressure on women to achieve an ideal appearance, such that having one's appearance surigically altered is quite common, etc.

On balance, it's still a paradigm I prefer to live in, because it's what I know.

The fundamental rights that we should all have, isn't the right to parade on main street in Daisy dukes, but the right to live with representative gov't, the right to work and be educated, the right to provide for a family. And even people who prohibit booty shorts still have a right to those other basic human rights.

[pelsar]

26. but that is the problem....

And even people who prohibit booty shorts still have a right to those other basic human rights.

the problem is there are those who prohibit shorts and others (taliban) who prohibit far far more...and both of them and you and i are right in our demands for our culture to be allowed to exist if not flourish.

as i see it...only one culture today on this earth allows for other cultures to exist within as a value of its culture. The others have to put up barriers to keep other cultures out, be it laws or customs or peer pressure.

you cant have it both ways....keep a culture that restricts basic rights because its preserving that culture...... A story: a very good friend of mine was born into a hasidic family...it wasnt for him. Given his education (limited) his social skills (limited) he felt trapped, with no skills to get out. Lucky for him he was born in a democractic country where the liberal laws gave him the option to leave his culture.....eventually he did and hes happily divorced, eating pork with me and making leud remarks at passing girls (ok...just to me).

had he been born in a country where the culture was not liberal (talibans afaganistan, saudi arabia, etc)...he would not have had that choice....and that is not right.

___

i agree with you on the downside of the freedom and i cant say sometimes I''m not a bit jealous of my brother who has a close larger religious family, where the holidays are far more close than i'll ever have. At the sametime, i just couldnt keep up with the synagogue and the god is great stuff.....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

29. What you don't see however

is the fact that *for you* individual choice is the bedrock. I agree that for Western countries in the 21 centurty that is true.

But look at the big picture of human cultural history. Are you not able to see that your views are entirely a product of the time and place in which you live? Your notion of "individual freedom" as a core value will not necessarily be here in 2000 years.

I'm not asking you to denounce your values or judge your value system. Just to recognize that it's one of many, conditioned by time and culture -- just like other values systems are!!

I'm glad for your friend. I share those values of individual choice.

I also feel (and here is where you and I have tassled before) is that there *is* a line. Requiring a chador as in Iran is one thing; locking women in their homes and refusing them education or work, as the Taliban did, is another.

The problem is that we can't all agree on where that line is.

[pelsar]

30. yes that is exactly it

where is that line between individual choice vs the preservation of the culture.....this must be a first for us, because in principle we do agree. I do think cultures have a right for self preservation.....(surprised?)

There is no doubt that i am a product of the 20th century...and my acquaintances from hebron (i love them for giving me a perspective on life) will argue just how wrong those 20th century values are and how we need king david back over here. And i also do recognize that the western culture and my values may infact be a minute moment in time before the klingons discover us and remove the planet earth or we drown ourselves in our global warming...

well pm....now what do we do?...we actually agree

[bemildred]

28. Look, this isn't about letting them do whatever they want.

It's about understanding what they have to say in the way they mean it. The fact that they prohibit things has nothing to do with whether they have valid criticisms to make, criticisms that one would be well served to listen to. If you have not noticed, there are things prohibited in the west that one can do freely in various non-western places, and we throw a heck of a lot more people in jail too, and we kill and have killed way the heck more. Freedom isn't an abstract thing, it is always freedom to do what. It ought to be clear by now that people like OBL, for example, DO have a wide audience. Would it not be wise to understand why that is? Do you think it is just because they live in a "culture of hate", or some other such propaganda dismissal? What are you going to do when the time comes to welcome your new Chinese masters? What will your kids do?

[pelsar]

36. to understand and listen....

is crucial and OBL obviously has a large audience..and why he does is very important to understand......but that has nothing to do with accepting his message.

cultures are not equal, nazi and taliban represent cultures that as far as i am concerned have no place on this earth. OBL and his vision, also find little sympathy with me. And when the Chinese come?....if they're coming with their present culture than they have to be fought off....if they've adapted my version of civil rights, democratic rule, then they join in.

[bemildred]

38. So what are you going to do with all the people that OBL's message resonates with?

You cannot kill them all, and you cannot kill the message. You have to be able to win the argument, and you cannot do that if you refuse to engage in argument on terms that are seen as honest by the audience you need to address. I don't care for OBL, or his politics, or the world he wants to create, but I understand perfectly well what he says and the point of view from which he says it, and I can see why it resonates with the audience he is addressing. If you want to defeat him and his message, then you have to deal with that message in the terms that it is stated in. You have to have a better message and you have to sell it. There are real issues that are not being addressed, and he uses them for his own purposes. Violence will only take you so far. Look at Iraq. It's not a new situation. Napoleon invaded and occupied Spain 200 years ago. It was vicious beyond belief. Napoleon lost. Oppressed people NEVER accept their oppressed status as a permanent situation, and they are right to do that. There will be trouble.

I don't mean to rag on you in particular, I know you are just stuck in the middle, like me, but the first step to other solutions is to let everyone have his say, to let everyone be heard. There will be NO resolution to the I/P conflict until everyone gets to be heard. Talk is way the heck better than violence. If you talk enough, people can start to think about what might work, what might be fair. If you don't talk, all there is is violence. There should be continuous, ongoing talks between Israeli leaders and Palestinians leaders all the time, they should be trying to help each other work out a solution. That is what leaders are for. All the rest of is self-serving crap.

[subsuelo]

39. It is interesting

One of the more interesting aspects of the article for me, was the analysis of the way power in the West has manipulated language to it's own advantage. I think when people consider power in international relations they think mostly in terms of military and economic advantages. But language as a tool of the powerful is extremely effective and the comments on how we use language to demoralize and dehumanize others were on point.

But I'm not sure the author has the right answer, with the whole 'refusal to talk' bit. Honestly I'm not quite sure what the whole point there is. "Refusing talk to facilitate talk" is never really explained.

[bemildred]

40. Well, it's called "framing the debate".

Refusing to talk is about refusing to allow your opponents to frame the debate. What he means by "refusing to talk" is using other means to insist on being heard. That would include, but not be limited to, violence. You use "other means" than talk, to demand honest talk. If you agree to talk in a rigged debate, you lose, so you have to refuse to talk until you can say what you mean. That's his argument anyway.

The I/P debate is a good example, there are two opposing discourses about it. You can't work towards any sort of resolution until you allow both discourses to be heard, they both have merits and defects. Unless you can discuss that, all you have is violence, and everybody loses.

[subsuelo]

41. ah, yes I understand better now

But you still can't quite discuss things if one side is refusing to talk. I totally get the argument about framing the debate. However -- that framing itself can never be challenged through any other means but talk. No?

[bemildred]

42. Well no.

There are many ways to challenge attempts to force a framing of the debate on you. Talking is what you do when you think it will work better than other means, or you are a nice person and don't want to resort to the other means. But it is certainly true that you cannot force people to have an honest talk if they are unwilling. That's sort of the point of the OP.