Social media seems to have given us a new paradigm: everyone, no matter how uneducated or unprepared for public discourse, posts political opinions, and we’re supposed to respect them, even if they’re moronic.
So what we end up with is that someone with perhaps four working brain cells posts a political statement which is based on a popular view or a piece of news fabricated by the Huffington Post or by Fox News – both sides are equally stupid when it comes to this, so not making any distinctions by party today). Perhaps they just copy and paste some one-sided meme. Then, an equally ignorant individual from the other side jumps in and refutes the argument.
No one, of course, uses the media bias chart where everything under the midpoint of the yellow rectangle needs to be ignored if you have aspirations to being an intelligent human being… And any news further to the right or left of “skews” is worthless.
Eventually, the discussion dissolves into name calling in which people who aren’t racists get called racists, people who aren’t Nazis get called Nazis, and people who aren’t Communist get called Communist. Of course, all of the people who call people these things are idiots…
Like all religions, politics has become dogmatic: if you don’t agree with the virulent left, you are a racist, if you don’t agree with the virulent right, you are a commie.
And then there’s Trump, who stirs the pot for unknowable reasons of his own which only makes things worse. But this isn’t limited to the US… it’s a worldwide phenomenon.
in 1928, things were different. Back then, political discourse was for thinkers. There were expendable idiots even then, of course, but they were just rank-and-file members of different political parties who could be counted on to grab king’s horses or die trying. But the actual thinking was done by individuals with qualifications.
Which is why, ninety years later, A Room of One’s Own holds up so well.
Now, those who know me well, know that I think extreme leftist thought (like extreme rightist thought) is hugely unproductive. Making everything about identity politics, attempting deconstruction and brushing off a hundred years of evidence that shows that certain economic models simply don’t work unless you hold the population to them at gunpoint don’t strike me as the actions of intelligent people with everyone’s best interest in mind. In fact they are more akin to the thinking of the religious fanatics they supposedly oppose.
Worse, I’ve gone on record disagreeing with Woolf’s opinions about Middlemarch, so I’m emotionally invested in disagreeing with her in particular…
Nevertheless, any fair reader will admit that Virginia Woolf wrote a revolutionary, angry book that is, at the same time, cogent and calm in its delivery. As a means to attain a goal it strikes me as a hugely superior method than going out and calling everyone a racist.
In fact, this book-and the speech it was based on-are a political tract disguised as a bit of advice given to a group of women who wish to make their way in the world as writers. It highlights an inequality by way of a series of remarks about a fictitious women’s college and then focuses on the one thing that would help the women in her audience overcome that unfortunate reality. It doesn’t put everyone in a position to help them in the role of the enemy (which, at best is counterproductive and at worst can lead to Trump and Brexit).
So, am I recommending that you read a political essay from ninety years ago, from a side of the spectrum that isn’t my favorite? Yes, I am. I believe more people need to read this and to think about why it works, and why it hasn’t been out of print since its initial publication in 1929 – and long after its initial goals have been reached (remember that, today, there are many more female writers than male writers being published).
Maybe if more people did so, political discussion would return to something approaching semi-evolved subhuman intelligence. Even that would be a vast improvement.
Gustavo Bondoni is an Argentine novelist and short story writer who prefers to explore the ramifications of technology as opposed to politics. This makes him very different from almost all science fiction writers published today. His novel Outside is a prime example of this preference.