ASSUMPTIONS – HELP & HINDER US, PART III. . .

A problem with much contemporary discourse at the personal level (think: relationships) and at the public level (think: the media or politics) is that affirmations frequently wear the mask of arguments [our affirmations are rooted in our deep tacit assumptions].  Consider, gentle reader, that in exchanges based upon simple affirmation, no understanding of alternative viewpoints is possible.  The case I state is not open for discussion, debate or dialogue.  Often these exchanges are characterized by ‘premature ultimates’ or ‘premature declarations’– statements uttered with such finality and conviction that the possibility of counter statements is severely reduced (if not entirely blocked).

Here is an example of a ‘premature ultimate/declaration’:  ‘A strong national defense will guarantee that democracy will be preserved!’  Folks who challenge this ‘ultimate’ might well be labeled as un-democratic (think: un-American).  Consider the many contemporary conflicts that are full of ‘premature ultimates/declarations’: the morality of abortion, teaching values in public schools, issues of gender identity, issues of immigration, issues regarding what is a ‘civil right’, etc.  The ‘premature ultimates/declarations’ are uncritical affirmations pretending to be reasoned arguments.

When ‘premature ultimates/declarations’ are exchanged (think: verbally and violently heaved at the other) those involved believe their views to be so self-evidently truth-full that articulating the assumptions underlying them is unnecessary.  Complementing this belief (walking hand-in-hand with it) is the conviction that opponents of one’s views are operating rooted in some irrational thinking (my view is ‘common sense’ and your view is ‘non-sense’).  I cannot recall the number of times I have said (to myself and to others): ‘If only they could see the real world, the world as it really is, they would surely agree with me.’

I have listened to folks tell me that people are poor because they are lazy and, furthermore, that welfare rewards them for being lazy.  Others have told me that being addicted to ‘reality T.V. shows does not dummy-down one’s brain and, furthermore, this addiction reinforces other addictions.  My knee jerk reaction to these – and other such ‘premature ultimates/declarations’ – is that anyone expressing these views is fundamentally misguided.

Yet, when I take the time to reflect I conclude that these folks are not ‘irrational’ (or ‘intellectually unhinged’).  In my better moments, I remind myself that what I am contesting are the others’ frameworks for understanding his/her world – the deep tacit assumptions regarding how their/the world works.

I have learned that before I accuse the other that ‘watching reality T.V. does not rot your brain’ I have to do two things: (1) I must lay bare my own deep tacit assumptions and (2) I must strive to enter into the other’s mental framework of understanding so that I might come to understand the idea from his or her viewpoint.  I must seek to appreciate the framework within which the other is forming his or her beliefs about their/the world.

In one sense the challenge is simple: With help, reveal one or more of my deep tacit assumptions and then commit to a process that will confirm or disconfirm each assumption.  This is a simple process until one actually engages the process.