What exactly is privileged about certain types of discourse? Academics tend to use a specialized language for discussions with academics within the same field or a related field. Even discussions between academics from different disciplines can remove the conditions necessary to engage in privileged discourse.
Consider the ramifications of randomly engaging in discussions with strangers about various academic theorists considerations on the street or at restaurant? Some conversations allow for the possibility of explaining the viewpoints of different academic theorists to define a definitive starting point. Certain discussions are simply complex enough to preclude engaging in exhaustive discourse.
Political dialogue is generally a good place to find examples of truncated conversations. Within the context of political dialogue complex thoughts are generally reduced to axioms and soundbites. Even in televised debates or town hall meetings individuals to not have the capacity to engage in protracted dialogue with the community at large. Modern presidential addresses cannot fulfill the function of mass communication.
One potential method of encouraging political communication would involve requiring local and national political candidates to engage in written dialogue during campaigns. As a mechanism for achieving dialogue between candidates every Saturday and Sunday during the entire campaign the candidates would be responsible for providing about one thousand word essays to all relevant newspapers. For the most part modern politicians do not engage in direct dialogue with the people or other candidates. Providing a written forum for dialogue would change the way information is presented and disseminated.
Most people who take the time to research individual political candidates become frustrated. Determining what a political candidate actually stands for is inherently a complex and frustrating process. For the most part political candidates avoid providing definitive plans and proposals. Perhaps expecting the representatives of the people to provide a definitive representation is overly optimistic.
Part of the essence of early political dialogue during the formation of the United States of America involved the publication of essays and papers. Maybe someday the conditions will exist again to foster the development of another federalist/anti-federalist debate. Perhaps modernity obscures the abilities of the modern essayist to encapsulate the greater ambitions of society.
At what point will society reach the point where complex discourse will be common? Perhaps one single truth defines modern society. Philosophy has reached a degree of complexity that precludes casual conversation. Right now the possibility of philosophy influencing practical discourse does not exist.
Related posts with score (high relevance to low):
