Area	progressive leadership

	genuine political theater gary e. davis	February 7, 2019

Political space is essentially theatrical: backed by large-scale interests and importances that normally remain implicit; serving domains of shared projects that are shared long term; involving episodes that advance shared concerns. Political dramactionality is basically rhetorical, in the admirable sense of genuine communicative engagement, but also in the ambiguous sense of risking unseemly duplicity that may or may not be validly the case. All communication is posturing, because scenic genuineness is oriented by presence of each other with-and-to each other. A speaker expresses a stance, representing a view, responding to situational relevance, etc. Impression managment may be educational; it may be ethically instrumental (serving a good purpose); it may be ethically duplicitous (getting good results from an unreliable agent); or it may be unethical. But communication is always a matter of temporal stance. Sensitivity to the dignity and integrity of others’ stage of understanding is a hallmark of thoughtful communication. So, when addressing a widely-diverse audience briefly (common in political sound bites), it’s prudent to be vague, which also serves duplicity; but the prevailing reality is that communication almost always renders in time-limited oversimplification that requires extended interaction to address fairly. To a citizen ear, what’s said is relative to one’s own sense of horizon, but political communication is often in an uncomfortable situation of populational sensitivity relative to free-wheeling reaction. So, the appearance of duplicity as unethical is often invalid, but unavoidable—unless we give each other time to convey fairly, be questioned fairly, and be given fair time to respond—which may be seldom. Genuine leadership forebears brash reactionism, with teacherly patience (often with others who don’t want to be made to feel like students). But one is rightly impatient with another’s persistent blindness about interpersonal context or insisting that a complex situation should be addressed in a short moment. So, generally, instrumentality in communication is not equivalent to instrumentalism (“means justifies ends”). At best, political rhetoric is norm-formative or value advocative. This is common in political speeches or campaigning or arguing for a policy. At worst, political rhetoric is cathartic protest, which is not constructive (though sometimes dramatically apt). We should want solidarity in constructive engagement, not solidarity in anger. Truly “political” communication is constructive. It contributes to enabling an opinion topography that advances progressive values. But the landscape is vastly complex.

next—> universCity

 

 

Be fair. © 2019, gary e. davis