Politics and Socializing

[danaeris]

Tonight at the politics gathering, several folks expressed frustration with the custom of avoiding discussions pertaining to politics and/or religion at social gatherings.

The conclusion was that this custom was an American one, but I do not know if that is an accurate conclusion. Those of you who are from other countries (if any or many), do you have any thoughts?

It seems to me that this custom of not discussing politics may (big stress on the may) be at the heart of what ails America. Perhaps if more people had the guts to be unpleasant, rock the boat, and have some friendly debate and discussion, everyone would be better informed, and more exposed to alternative perspectives, and thereby, more open-minded. Instead, we quietly wallow in our own limited spheres of experience, and politely interact with those around us, rarely experiencing the exhiliration of a friendly intellectual debate or the pleasure of dawning realization as we finally see another person's point.

Take all of the above with a big grain of salt. It is rhetoric, random unresearched opinion, and should be taken as such. I am not particularly attached to this opinion although I always appreciate it when others give my opinions due consideration rather than dismissing them out of hand.

And now it is sleepy time. nini!

Comments

[cos]

I find it to be a peculiarly American attitude, that "politics" is some separate sphere of life that good people can ignore or avoid, that talking about politics is not especially polite. I find it frustrating. I think a lot about why it is, because it seems very dangerous - a Democracy cannot function effectively unless its people treat politics as an important part of every aspect of day to day life.

(Certainly in Israel, where I'm from, you can expect any and every social gathering to include discussion of politics.)

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

Actually, most of the gatherings I've been to have had some degree of political discussion, as well as at work, and certainly all of the online forums I frequent (from LJ to mailing lists) have had heavy political discussion for the past month. In fact, I'd say it's been given more airtime than the Red Sox, which is pretty impressive when you consider my current location ;P.

Religion, OTOH, is rarely discussed. I suspect this is because there's a large scism between the athiests/agnostics and the pagans. Whereas politics is about logic and reason and thus no hard feelings (in theory at least), religion is usually treated as an extremely personal thing and is no more discussed than who you fucked last night. I have seen it discussed at length on a mailing list, but that particular mailing list (CTY-l) never ceases to impress me for its ability to discuss any topic and *not* devolve into a flame war. I'd love to try to figure out why that is the case (it's not that we all know each other, because we don't, and from what I've heard of certain goth lists that doesn't necessarily help anyway).

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

I was going to sayh something similar. I never shy away from politics when it gets brought up and it doesn't get brought up terribly infrequently.

Religion I think doesn't get discussed because there are groups that send out missionaries to try to convert people and generally are frowned upon. Trying to convert people is, IMO, rude. And it's hard to discuss your religion without coming off like you're trying to convert. I sometimes take part in discussions about what we think OTHER religions believe. But generally not in the presence of people who actually hold that religion.

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

Mmm, good point on the religion discussion thing. Fundies of all stripes, from christian to athiest, often do not show obvious signs of being fundies until you start talking religion and by that point it's too late - they're right and anyone who disagrees is wrong and the whole thing devolves rather rapidly. There is actually a similar problem in discussing politics, but with politics there's the possibility for non-faith-based discussion of issues and topics, whereas all religion, as far as I can tell, is faith-based (and I include athiests in that distinction - it's as much about faith in a lack as behaviorism is).

[auros]

I know a fair number of open-minded Catholics, Episcopals, Jews, Unitarians, Muslims, and so on. One of my favorite people is a heretical former-Catholic priest. *g*

All of them take their religions quite seriously, and I've never quite managed to wrap my mind around what exactly their faith means to them, given that they do accept evidence-based logic in the rest of their lives. But they're good people, and interesting to talk to.

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

I would say that none of those people are fundies, and thus a religious discussion with them would be useful and interesting. It's is one thing to say "Here is what I believe and why" and quite another to say "If you don't believe this (if you believe that) you are wrong/bad/a moron!". Fundies seem focused on the latter statement - it's not about what they themselves are and believe, it's all about what *other* people believe. The former interests me far more than the latter, but then I also don't terribly much like it when people tell me what to do ;P.

There are cases in which a group of people, many of whom have different beliefs, can have a discussion about religion or politics or even macs vs. pcs without having it devolve into "my way is better!" "no it's not!", much less "you suck if you think your way is good and/or better than mine!". If you find such a group, consider yourself blessed (heh) and try not to let them go - such a thing is truely more valueble than gold.

[mikz.livejournal.com]

I agree that politics does get brought up here a fair bit, at least in the circles I mix in. However, only in America have I been around people who try to quell political discussion—in Europe, Canada and Australia, people seem to revel in it, regardless of how much education they've had.

The quelling of discussion is particularly prevalent when there is disagreement, even respectful disagreement. The fact that enlightened debate is discouraged here really bothers me, and I believe it's partially to blame for the sorry state of political affairs in this country. It seems that to many, only collective bitching about that state of affairs is acceptable in polite company. It's not very constructive.

[cos]

[coming back here long after the discussion happened...]

One key difference: Religion can be private, but politics is by definition collective. We don't have to care about each other's religion if we don't want to. It can be a fascinating conversation to have, but if we don't have it, we can go about our ways. As members of a Democracy, we are responsible for each other's politics, and our views, actions, and votes all affect each other collective. Talking about religion is a choice, talking about politics is a duty.

[jadia.livejournal.com]

I know why politics and religion aren't discussed at work, and I think that reasoning makes a lot of sense. True, talking about politics is an important part of democracy. But politics and religion can be very inflammatory. You don't want to be royally pissed at someone you are going to be working with for the next N years.

Now, if we could discuss these issues without degenerating into argumentative flaming, that would be great. But any time you have issues which people care very strongly about, you're going to degenerate into flaming a significant percentage of the time. And social occasions are supposed to be pleasant.

This is actually one of the things that annoys me - there seem to be plenty of people on both sides who think "discussing" things means "fighting". Discussion is pleasant but fighting isn't. They will assume that you're either with them, or against them - if you're with them, you get a lot of rhetoric and shouting about the other side. If you're against them, they will use every fact and trick they have to try to convince you that you are WRONG WRONG WRONG and the only way to think is their way.

Until we know that people we are with will actually talk rather than fight, talking about politics and religion will be unpleasant and can make the entire social occasion or work environment very uncomfortable. And sadly, I see too many people who are firmly entrenched and refuse to actually talk about things.

[mikz.livejournal.com]

This is actually one of the things that annoys me - there seem to be plenty of people on both sides who think "discussing" things means "fighting".

Heh. I agree, but I think I'm reading that differently than you intended.

From what I see, many people here see discussion as fighting. There's a world of difference between a discussion, even a heated discussion, and fighting. I don't know why people are so distrusting. Just because two people have passionately opposing views on topics they feel strongly about doesn't mean they're going to want to beat the crap out of each other. They might even like each other. Hell, some of my lovers and best friends are libertarians, capitalists and anti-choice types. I have two friends in a relationship in Australia: both are wave-making political animals, but one is an anarchist and the other is a communist.

I reckon, if people don't trust their friends not to get nasty about their disagreements, maybe they shouldn't be friends with them.

[jadia.livejournal.com]

Oh, I should also add that there's this guy at work who does instigate political discussions a lot, and I think the overall effect is a good one. But there have certainly been many times when he's pissed me off, or gotten upset, and we've all had to step back some. And in fact, it's double good for me because it's taught me how I can disengage from the things he's saying, and how to turn arguments into discussions.

But going through all this, I understand why people don't want to talk about it. And honestly, if I had to do it again, I would rather not have been drawn into engaging with him in many of these discussions. I'm happy to hear the opposing viewpoint, but I don't really want to be in the position of arguing either side with someone, because it always ends up being something where neither of you can convince the other.

[random-vamp.livejournal.com]

My take on the matter is that its not an avoidance of politics in particular. The root of the aversion to discussing politics in certain settings is much more general, its the social norm of not bringing up topics that can be devisive.

With politics, religion, and a few other issues, people tend to hold certain beliefs very strongly. Discussions in which those beliefs are strongly questioned tend to be unpleasant for all involved. Thus, the root problem is that people tend to deal very poorly with perceived attacks against their beliefs. Its ingrained into the standard human mindset, and thus affect social conventions.

[vokzal.livejournal.com]

You know that wasn't the case when our country was first started. Check out Tocquville's Democracy in America.

[auros]

I think the fundamental problem is the one outlined in the recent UMD study, which I mentioned in my journal. Our politics are incredibly polarized, because the two factions don't even agree on the underlying facts. When people are so woefully and willfully ignorant, it's impossible to actually discuss the potential impact of policies. You just end up having the buffoons telling the educated people that they're lying, and the educated people throwing up their hands in disgust.

I can have a civil discussion with eviladmin, who is a registered Republican and is far more fiscally conservative than myself, because he is still a "member of the reality-based community" (and, as such, a Bush-opponent).

And when I'm among a crowd that is just in general not ignorant, I discuss politics quite freely. My co-workers and I have actually been checking electoral-vote.com together at my cube each morning for the last couple weeks, while the morning coffee brews.