Quotable 4 - The Politics of Listening

A while back I briefly talked about Nancy Fraser’s conception of justice and how she integrates the cultural dimension into how claims are made. Today’s quote continues thinking about justice, this time through Iris Marion Young. The work of this brilliant theorist culminated in the publication of Justice and the Politics of Difference, which I will be quoting from, before her untimely death in 2006.    

I want to focus on a theme which occasionally emerges in Young's work but which has received little attention, the politics of listening. The skill of listening has been completely lost in political conversation to the degree that some have called it the 'new democratic deficit' (Dobson, 2012, p. 834). The concept of interest-group pluralism exemplifies this deficit, where groups centred around specific interests vie for limited resources. The aim of discussion is not to understand the other and solve common problems but to secure one's share of resources. Listening on the other hand is a more egalitarian process which provides space within which oppressed groups can speak. In this manner, listening becomes a political act of inclusion by allowing others to express themselves. Certain practices and pragmatic moves are necessary however to ensure the meaningful participation of individuals and groups.   

Rational reflection on justice begins in a hearing, in heeding a call, rather than in asserting and mastering a state of affairs, however ideal.
Iris Marion Young (2006) Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton University Press, p. 5   

Young's first move in developing her notion of listening is an attack on the rationalist premises of political conversation, in which speakers must make claims from the perspective of a 'universal reasoner'. This is a viewpoint which seeks impartiality to make objective and morally just decisions, and purges all non-rational processes – individuality, emotion, and feeling – which leads to the denial of difference and individuality.    

This happens because impartiality reduces diverse perspectives to single viewpoint, that of the rational subject. This feeds cultural imperialism by privileging the viewpoint of dominant and privileged groups as universal, and thus more valid than specific claims. In removing all personal elements from discourse, it erases the social context which surrounds a claim, ultimately leading all moral situations to be treated according to the same rules. Finally, it creates a dichotomy between reason and feeling, leading discussion to proceed through the 'force of the better argument'.   

Dominated groups are often ill-equipped to express themselves in this form due to economic dependence, political domination, or lack of knowledge on conventions and procedures. Such cases often result in the devaluing of their claims in political conversation and means they are unable to participate equally. Impartiality returns as a tool of domination rather than liberation since it reinscribes social power in a supposedly objective and impartial arena, thereby promoting competition rather than mutual recognition.   

Do you listen to opposing viewpoints?  Source.     

Political conversation for Young on the other hand requires listening to another's claims and responding to their position. She suggests that greeting, rhetoric and storytelling should be integrated as legitimate elements of democratic debate alongside critical debate. Greeting constitutes a fundamental mode of communication that creates the mutual recognition and respect of parties before engaging in dialogue. Engaging such processes is the first step to ensuring that parties will respectfully listen to each other. Rhetoric addresses the form of speech employed and serves to set the context of communication. It announces the speaker's relation to the audience by allowing personal and group characteristics to emerge, and which become related to the context of speech. By invoking specific meanings and symbols speakers establish themselves as both separate from the audience and as sharing certain understandings. 

The final element is storytelling. This element is important as we understand and describe the world and our experiences through stories, and is therefore our first approach to account for an event. In political debate, it allows the creation of understanding across differences by recognising the particularity of individuals and groups within the frame of a common problem. Mutual understanding is created in three ways. Narrative allows groups to describe their experiences and situation to other groups in a way that makes sense in a particular context. It is the sharing of subjective experience in a common historical setting, and which allows the creation of empathy and understanding. Second, it reveals the values, culture and understandings which speakers bring to the discussion. Rather than seeking impartiality, including individuals' cultural repositories in political conversation can help explain to outsiders the meanings of the practices, values, and symbols of those individuals or groups, and why they have the needs and priorities they have. Lastly, storytelling provides groups with an external point of view on their actions, values, and meanings. As well as promoting the questioning of group practices, including a diversity of perspectives produces greater collective knowledge than possible from a single perspective.  

Expanding accepted forms of political communication, especially through storytelling, challenges the divisive tendency of impartial reason. Because a story, infused with rhetoric and coming from a known speaker, bears the imprint of context and personality, it resists being objectified and brings discussion back to human problems. It also allows participants to enter the discussion on a more equal footing since it recognises the legitimacy of different perspectives and styles of communication.  

This is not to say however that groups can adopt and completely understand each other's perspectives. While each perspective is equally legitimate, they are all unique and grounded in specific experiences and can therefore not be assumed as universalisable. But the idea remains that Young's rules of discussion may provide an arena within which oppressed, disenfranchised and dominant groups may know each other and respond to each other's claims on an equal footing.  

What are your thoughts on the matter? Do you also think there is a deficit in listening in the public sphere? What about the private sphere? How does this notion work with other understandings of justice and domination?    

If you liked this, don’t forget to upvote, resteem and follow!    

More Political Philosophy 

Capitalism, Counter-Culture and Contradiction   

Eugene Holland and the Origins of Capital Accumulation   

Raoul Vaneigem and Stereotypes  

Nancy Fraser and Justice 

References 

Dobson, A. (2012) Listening: The New Democratic Deficit, Political Studies, 60(4), pp. 843-859 

Young, I.M. (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton University Press, Princeton    

Have a flick through Justice and the Politics of Difference. It's a great read that covers much more than just oppression and listening to delve into conceptions of reason, their link to capitalism and democracy, and how this affects the private as well as public sphere.

 uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1327&context=disclosure

(this is a link to a pdf of the book)