In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile
than usual.
IC and I watched a video the other day. Not
in the same room, because we live many miles apart and can’t get together as
often as we’d like. But we share many interests and tend to bounce links back
and forth, and this was one of them.
I’d like to think we could learn something from it.
Tom: IC, I think we might be better off leaving out the names of the
principals, because I’m going to be blunt about issues that have to do with
body language and manner, as opposed to the content of a man’s argument, and
since ‘the internet is forever’, I’d rather not go on record with those sorts
of criticisms of people whose overall Christian testimony and handling of the
word of God I respect and value. Cool?
The Apologist and Two Professors
Immanuel Can: Oh; you mean the thing with the apologist and
the two other professors?
Tom: Precisely. Maybe you could describe what we were looking at a bit.
IC: Well, it was a bit of a hash, actually. I think that the
apologist’s idea was that he would be required to give a little argument in
favor of God being essential to life having a meaning. Then there was a woman
whose focus seemed to be divided between arguing that she felt herself to have
meaning anyway, and that she knew just enough about philosophy to name-drop a
few ideas about it. And the last guy seemed a little asleep, and wanted to
redefine meaning a different way: not as feelings or subjective choices, but
rather as a sort of anthropological myth. And none of them were really speaking
the other’s language.
What the audience thought, I suspect, was something different again.
YouTube and Information Exchange
Tom: Right. Let’s keep using “the apologist” for our Christian friend,
because he had all my sympathies in this exchange, most of which was with the accredited
feminist you mention. And I wondered how he ended up in this mess in the first place.
Here’s why I think this is important.
Social media is taking over the world. YouTube is the new virtual soapbox. It’s
one of the most vital and effective mediums of information exchange on the
planet and as long as it remains even a little uncensored, Christians are going
to air their views on it. Further, anyone with the will and a laptop with a camera and microphone can do it, which is both the best and worst thing about it. But when we put ourselves out there, we are in an
entirely new world, and most of us — frankly, the BEST of us —
haven’t a clue how to handle ourselves effectively. And when you’re standing on
a soapbox, you don’t want to take a tumble.
So maybe there’s value in discussing what we might do and not do as Christians in a hostile new media world to best
present the words of life with which we have been entrusted.
Dominant Impressions Trump Truth Value
IC: Okay. Well, Rule 1: In that
world, the dominant impressions given off by a speaker tend to be more
influential than the truth value of what he or she says.
Tom: Now, this is admittedly a sad reality. We Christians would like
(and often expect) a world in which you show up looking like you look, being
who you are when you get out of bed in the morning — being “authentic”, if you
prefer — and everyone is awed by the effervescent, inarguable truth of
your words. Because we DO have better arguments, and we’ve all seen other Christians use them convincingly on video. So it’s hard to grasp the fact that people may actually pay more attention to your orange shoes or the way you crossed your legs at a weird angle than to what you have to say.
But that’s YouTube ... or any other visual medium.
IC: The camera has its own rules. I’m not saying they’re
good rules, or that a Christian can always play by them. But the fact is that
most of what we view on computers is composed of what is called “impulses”. And
that’s true in more than one sense. So if we are going to be on YouTube, we
need to be aware that that’s how people process things: by impulse first, and
usually only by reason second.
Who’s Got the Last Edit?
Tom: This is a particularly important consideration when engaging in
debates. It’s one thing if you’re doing your own video and have control of the
various production elements and of how you appear onscreen. It’s another if
you’re debating someone in a friendly forum, and it’s another thing entirely if you’re debating in a
situation where someone promoting an adversarial agenda controls the camera and
the editing. In the latter situation, bad optics can dwarf a terrific message.
How you sit, what you wear, body language and so on can be huge. And you may
not find out until after the thing is airing that you have been made to look
awkward or ridiculous, or that the normal courtesies a production team would
extend to people whose views they agree with have simply been ignored in your
case because it was useful to make you look … off, in some way.
Now, I suppose we might argue that “God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong,” so maybe we shouldn’t
care about such things as camera angles, posture and lighting … but they can
be a major distraction to a viewing audience, to the point where in some cases
the net effect is such that you might have been better off not to show up
at all.
Should We Care?
IC: I believe that biblically speaking, the world’s perception of
“foolishness” is to come from “the message preached”, not from clothes, posture, haircut, facial expressions, and so on. So I don’t
think that verse is an excuse to appear silly or out of place on principle.
Rather, we need to think about how NOT to make those things any issue at all,
in order that any offence we give comes solely from the truth of the
Word, no?
Tom: Oh, I think so. And even if I come across on camera as an awkward,
goofy nerd, if I am speaking the truth of God, the audience is accountable for what they do with that message. So I’m not knocking people who are
less-than-stellar physical specimens and telling them they have no place in
front of a camera speaking for God. It sounds like both the Lord Jesus and the apostle Paul were likely somewhere between physically unimpressive and nondescript. In fact,
someone who is too good-looking or especially compelling can also be a
distraction. The ideal scenario is when we create no impediments to
communication at all with our appearance and manner.
This is something Chesterton and C.S. Lewis worried less about, I’m sure, in the days when persuasion was primarily written rather than visual.
IC: What’s the next rule, Tom?
Be Careful of Debating Women
Tom: Rule 2: There is no good way for
a man to debate a woman in a public forum. You will lose every time.
IC: True, for two reasons. Firstly, the political environment in which
we live takes a dim view of any situation in which a man one-ups a woman: so if
you lose, you lose; and if you win, you lose. There is no good reason to engage
at all when truth will be trumped by politics in this way.
Secondly, for a man even to question a woman’s views, opinions, claims and other diversions from the discussion comes
across as ill-tempered. Man-to-man controversies are expected to include a
level of verbal combat and sparring, but sparring with someone who is clearly
female, physically smaller and dealing in feelings rather than data looks like
bullying. So to avoid appearing misogynistic and mean, you are forced to
respond to both logical and irrational statements with beyond-polite deference,
and a feigned receptivity to weak ideas, if that’s what's being offered.
Tom: Now, there are rare exceptions. You or I, for instance, could have
a go at debating someone like Camille Paglia, because the perception would be
that we’re punching up rather than punching down, and because she debates like
a man. But I’m not sure Camille would be all that interested …
IC: Well, actually I wasn’t thinking this was a problem that was created by any particular women being incapable or unworthy of debate. As you say, there are some very able female debaters around. But Camille Paglia is one of the few women who has absolutely no chance of coming off as a victim ... ever.
No, the problem has to do instead with the dynamic that is created when a man and a woman are pitted against one another in a public forum: from an audience perspective, it just tends to ends up looking bad on the man, no matter whether his arguments are weaker or stronger than hers. This danger often forces the man to feign excessive receptivity and deference, regardless of the quality of the ideas being offered; and pulling one’s intellectual punches to avoid being seen as a bully is simply dishonest.
Lean In?
Tom: Incidentally, this is precisely the dilemma you and I observed in
the video. Our friend the apologist was leaning in deferentially the entire
time, even when his opponent was spouting irrelevancies or falsehoods. He couldn’t even bring himself to roll his eyes. And the problem
with giving that sort of riveted attention to substandard arguments is that while it
may be intended as nothing more than politeness and respect, it may come across to the audience as giving tacit assent to false propositions. He was doing nothing of the sort with the other (male) professor,
with whom I’m sure he disagreed as well.
Now, I think it can be done. The Lord did it. A woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the
womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” But he
said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” We can’t read his
tone into Luke’s account, but he flatly contradicted her (“Blessed rather”) and
moved right on. If you’re going to do it, that’s the way. But I don’t know that
many of us are cut out for it.
If the format, or politics, or the person you’re debating, or your own natural politeness make it impossible to bluntly
refute a point when the point is crazy, you’re in the wrong place.
IC: Fair enough. So I think the general principle is this: it's not
worth debating if the debating cannot be done in an honest, frank,
truth-seeking, and where necessary, direct and even confrontational way.
Truth requires confronting error. It just does.
Now, what else?
A Subject in Hand is Worth Two in the Debate Notes
Tom: One more. Rule 3: Stick to
the subject being discussed, even if it isn’t what you came to talk about. All
these folks seem to have shown up with something to say to the audience, and
then insisted on saying it even when it had nothing to do with what the
previous person was talking about. So you had three different, unrelated
conversations going on, with only the slightest bit of logical connective
tissue holding them together.
If you want to have a profitable
engagement, you need to answer the questions you are asked, not the ones you
wish you were being asked. Christians would be well served to learn to apply
that one in situations outside of YouTube too.
IC: Oh, yes … and here’s another rule: Learn to listen, and listen very carefully. Proverbs tells us that
it’s very foolish to answer a matter before one has heard what it actually is, but I’ve got to think it’s even more foolish to be trying to answer questions
that nobody has asked at all.
Tom: Absolutely. You’re better off to respond to a question as asked,
and clarify it if necessary, than to assume the other person’s intent based on
your own preconceived notions about a subject, even if your answer is only “I
don’t know” or “That’s not really my area of expertise”. At least that responds
to the question directly. Controlling the other guy is the moderator’s job, and
a discussion is a whole lot easier to follow if it has some intellectual
coherence and flow.
Let’s call it a day there, IC. What do you
think: do we go weekly on YouTube once you retire?
IC: Our own? Maybe. But not everybody’s, and not in every way. As a Christian, you’ve got to be
smart about both the messages you’re conveying, and the metamessages —
the little peripherals, such as manner, attire, responsiveness and so on, that
either adorn or inhibit the message you hope to send.
No comments :
Post a Comment