Polemic and History
From: at
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:42 pm
Subject: Polemic and History
Polemic and History
I have accused Peter Staudenmaier of writing
polemic, and he appears puzzled as to why that should be a bad
thing. And certainly, from one point of view there is nothing
'bad' about polemic; it is what it is, after all. I have further
argued that polemic history has important differences from standard,
or what I even might call "ideal" history. Should someone
attempt to point out that all history is necessarily polemical,
I beg to differ. Whether something is or is not polemical has
to do with the intention of the author, not the effect of the
work.
Examining the etymology of the word, as shown
in the dictionary entry at the end of this post, the word polemic
is derived from the Greek "war" and was originally
used in theological contexts. To indulge in polemic is to wage
war against an idea and those holding the idea. Originally, it
was theological (religious) ideas that were so attacked, but
in the present, polemic is an attack on any sort of idea. So
while in on narrower sense the word also means "argument",
perhaps even in the sense of "to formulate a case against"
it clearly has stronger connotations, as a glance at the list
synonyms (also listed below) makes clear. A polemical argument
is not one that is necessarily couched on reason, nor is reason
the only tool at the disposal of the polemicist. And a polemical
argument is certainly not one that will consider all sides of
an issue in an attempt to find truth. That is, a polemical argument
is by definition not objective. Being objective (or fair) is
not the objective of polemical writing.
History is an examination of the past, done
from the present. History goes beyond merely cataloging details
of events, and involves an attempt to put these events into a
meaningful context, and answer questions involving "Why?"
If (big if) you subscribe to a philosophical realist or idealist
position, then there will be some answers that are more correct,
and others less correct. The relativist historian, on the other
hand, sees the past a collection of raw material to be assembled
into whatever order pleases him or her and/or suits his or her
conscious or unconscious agenda. No explanation is any more right
or wrong than any other, they are merely more or less effective.
All is merely a matter of how you choose to look at things. If,
on the other hand, some versions of history are correct, and
others incorrect, then this implies that those who care about
truth are seeking a more correct version. Pursuing the goal of
truth for its own sake, the more objective and fair you can be,
the closer you are likely to come.
That is worth repeating. If you believe in
truth and pursuing truth for its own sake, then the more objective
and fair you can be, the closer you are likely to come. How does
polemic fit into this? With polemic you are waging war against
an idea, and probably for some reason. Any and all tools, tricks,
and methods are at your disposal, including selective presentation
and even outright and deliberate distortion, to extremes of fabricating
of charges against those you are attacking. While all polemical
writers do not necessarily employ these less savory methods –
some may even eschew all of them - there is a long history of
such tactics within the genre. Nor is objectivity and fairness
a helpful in to the goals of polemical writings. They may appear
inadvertently in some polemical pieces, but they don't help the
effectiveness of such a piece as polemical writing (on the other
hand, the appearance of objectivity and fairness, is just another
trick in the bag of the polemical writer – call it camouflaged
polemic, or polemic masquerading as objective presentation).
And even if no deliberate distortion or even selective presentation
is employed (in which case the piece is arguably no longer polemical)
there is still the question of the writer's intention.
A polemical writer has the intention of convincing,
of changing the opinion of their readers on some subject or other.
While they may hope to convince by force of reason rather than
intellectual subterfuge, if in the end either method is considered
valid in pursuit of the goal (a variation of "the ends justifies
the means" morality) then the goal is no longer truth, but
power. Or put another way, if winning is more important than
how you play the game, you desire victory over sportsmanship,
or power over truth. When does writing cross the line from elucidating
to polemical? When the author crosses the lines of sportsmanship
and resorts to dirty tricks to win the point, whether in such
mild a manner as selective quotation that alters the original
author's intent only slightly, or as strong as outright fabrication.
We can discern two opposing attitudes on the
part of an author. The author may be offering the results of
their research for consideration, fully respecting the freedom
and integrity of their readers, or an author may be determined
to convince the reader, sway them to a certain viewpoint and
away from another viewpoint. The second is the source of polemical
writing, the first of objective, or elucidating writing. Consider
further the consequences of error in the two types of authors.
A writer who is honestly seeking truth for its own sake, and
sharing the results of their struggle as an offering to their
fellow human beings may in some instances be wrong, but their
intention is not coercive. A writer who is seeking only to convince,
to marshal an argument, may also be wrong, however the moral
quality of such a coercive untruth is quantitatively different.
In my estimation, a true historian is someone
interested in the past who offers results of their research for
consideration, no strings attached, in a spirit of openness and
desire for truth. In such true historical research, contrary
viewpoints would be first and foremost interesting, and therefore
included, rather than distained and dismissed. The polemical
historian, on the other hand, is fighting for a cause, against
another cause, and is simply abusing history as the raw material
in support the argument. Beyond the moral quality of the attempted
coercion, the polemical historian has every reason to mislead
the reader by ignoring additional perspectives or distorting
them to blunt their effectiveness. For this reason alone they
are not to be trusted.
I hope I have been clear on this subject.
Peter Staudenmaier's acknowledgement that his own writing is
polemical is reason enough to distrust it. The numerous factual
errors and inconsistencies in his published work are further
grounds for doubting his expertise and/or his integrity, and
his studied obtuseness and evasiveness to any and all objections
(despite a façade of openness) is final proof of that
his writing is primarily polemical, and historical.
Daniel Hindes
The NEW OXFORD Dictionary of ENGLISH (2003
Edition)
polemic
noun a strong verbal or written attack on
someone or something: his polemic against the cultural relativism
of the Sixties | [MASS NOUN] a writer of feminist polemic.
(usu. polemics)
the art or practice of engaging in controversial debate or dispute:
the history of science has become embroiled in religious polemics.
adjective another term for POLEMICAL.
DERIVATIVES
polemicist noun
polemicize (also
-ise) verb.
ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: via medieval Latin
from Greek polemikos, from polemos ‘war’.
The NEW OXFORD Thesaurus of ENGLISH (2003
Edition)
Polemic (noun)
1 this is not just a polemic against injustice
DIATRIBE, invective, denunciation, denouncement,
rant, tirade, broadside, attack, harangue, verbal onslaught;
reviling, railing, decrying, condemnation, brickbats, flak, criticism,
censure, lecture, berating, admonishment, admonition, abuse,
stream of abuse, battering, stricture, tongue-lashing, vilification,
vituperation, obloquy, fulmination, castigation, reprimand, rebuke,
reproof, reproval, upbraiding; informal knocking, blast; Brit.
informal slating; rare philippic.
2 (polemics) skilled in polemics
ARGUMENTATION, argument, debate, contention,
dispute, disputation, discussion, controversy, altercation, faction,
wrangling; formal contestation.
Polemical (adjective)
Brunner published a polemical tract against
Barth
CRITICAL, hostile, bitter, polemic, virulent,
vitriolic, venomous, waspish, corrosive, biting, caustic, trenchant,
cutting, acerbic, sardonic, sarcastic, scathing, acid, sharp,
keen, tart, pungent, stinging, astringent, incisive, devastating,
piercing; rare acidulous, mordacious.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Patrick
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 8:19 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Polemic and History
Dear Daniel,
Thank you very much for this post. It is most helpful. Thank
you also for your previous comments in this discussion and your
willingness to own your mistakes though they be but few. Thank
you for the depths of your research and for taking up certain
threads of my arguments.
Patrick
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 9:05 am
Subject: Re: Polemic and History
Daniel, what you wrote about polemic versus
history fails the test of the thesaurus definitions you yourself
pasted in (which I leave in here hopefully to obviate the typical
"but you shortened my post" retort).
I have accused Peter Staudenmaier of writing
polemic, and he appears puzzled as to why that should be a bad
thing.
Well, sweetie, because "polemic"
has two definitions, fairly distinct ones. One is "diatribe"
(stream of abuse, ranting, haranguing etc.), and the other, quite
different, is "argumentation" (synonyms including "criticism/discussion/argument/debate/dispute").
Writing that is polemical is not necessarily untrustworthy. To
use an example given from the thesaurus, if someone writes a
"polemic against the cultural relativism of the Sixties,"
it is probably safe to assume upfront that they are going to
say negative things about the culture of the Sixties. It means
they are taking a pronounced and probably negative stance toward
the subject; it does not mean they are lying, distorting facts,
etc.
Even with all the negative words such as "tongue
lashing," "attack," "vilification,"
etc., note that not one of them suggests dishonesty. (Well, okay.
I am not sure of the meaning of the word "mordacious."
I don't feel like finding the dictionary. I'm probably thinking
of "mendacious.") Most of them do not suggest
dishonesty. Dishonesty is not implicit in "polemic."
Unless, of course, you believe that nothing should ever be attacked,
and you feel that a polemic in itself is indefensible. I doubt
that you really think this. I suspect there are many subjects
on which you appreciate a good polemic yourself. Arguably on
subjects on which a person feels strongly, a "polemic"
is a more ethically appropriate form of discourse than an approach
that purports to be dispassionate and objective about which the
author does not reveal his or her strong personal opinions or
involvement.
Diana
The NEW OXFORD Dictionary of ENGLISH
(2003 Edition)
polemic
noun a strong verbal or written attack
on someone or something: his polemic against the cultural relativism
of the Sixties | [MASS NOUN] a writer of feminist polemic.
(usu. polemics) the art or practice of engaging in controversial
debate or dispute: the history of science has become embroiled
in religious polemics.
adjective another term for POLEMICAL.
DERIVATIVES
polemicist
noun
polemicize
(also -ise) verb.
ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: via medieval Latin
from Greek polemikos, from polemos ‘war’.
The NEW OXFORD Thesaurus of ENGLISH
(2003 Edition)
Polemic
(noun)
1 this is not just a polemic against injustice
DIATRIBE, invective, denunciation, denouncement,
rant, tirade, broadside, attack, harangue, verbal onslaught;
reviling, railing, decrying, condemnation, brickbats, flak, criticism,
censure, lecture, berating, admonishment, admonition, abuse,
stream of abuse, battering, stricture, tongue-lashing, vilification,
vituperation, obloquy, fulmination, castigation, reprimand, rebuke,
reproof, reproval, upbraiding; informal knocking, blast; Brit.
informal slating; rare philippic.
2 (polemics) skilled in polemics
ARGUMENTATION, argument, debate, contention,
dispute, disputation, discussion, controversy, altercation, faction,
wrangling; formal contestation.
Polemical
(adjective)
Brunner published a polemical tract against
Barth
CRITICAL, hostile, bitter, polemic, virulent,
vitriolic, venomous, waspish, corrosive, biting, caustic, trenchant,
cutting, acerbic, sardonic, sarcastic, scathing, acid, sharp,
keen, tart, pungent, stinging, astringent, incisive, devastating,
piercing; rare acidulous, mordacious.
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 9:40 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Polemic and History
Diana:
Dishonesty is not implicit in "polemic."
Unless, of course, you believe that nothing should ever be attacked,
and you feel that a polemic in itself is indefensible.
Daniel:
True, polemic alone does not equate automatically
to dishonesty. But the polemical approach is one that offers
many temptations to dishonesty, especially to the historian.
Some may be able to navigate the road with their integrity intact.
Others fail. The reader should be aware of this in reading a
polemical writer.
Further, it is hard to remain an effective
polemical writer and at the same time remain an honest historian.
As a historian, it is your responsibility to consider objections
and additional complementary material that is brought to your
attention. As a polemical writer, it is not in your interest
to consider these objections and additional complementary material.
Doing so weakens your argument. One way out of this is to "play
dumb" and not actually "hear" any objections.
That is the path Peter Staudenmaier has chosen. In his mind,
his integrity is intact, because he has never met a serious objection
to any of his work. At this point that game is starting to look
utterly ridiculous. It also demonstrates that he in no measure
can claim that he is an honest historian trying to understand
a phenomenon of the past. He is merely a polemical writer with
no interest in hearing anything that doesn't support his hypothesis.
In as much as he claims to the contrary, his is impinging his
own integrity.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:16 am
Subject: Re: Polemic and History
Thanks for your thoughts, Daniel. I think
you still have a shaky grasp of what objectivity means to a historian
and what role it plays in historical writing. I also think that
a large chunk of your argument depends on the notion that persuasion
is a kind of coercion. I think that idea is entirely wrongheaded.
The part of your post that struck me most was this:
In such true historical research, contrary
viewpoints would be first and foremost interesting, and therefore
included, rather than distained and dismissed.
Why do you say "rather than"? The proper approach is
to include contrary viewpoints and then criticize them and explain
why you think they are mistaken. There is nothing wrong with
disdaining and dismissing arguments that you think are erroneous,
especially ones that you think are silly and pointless.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:36 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Polemic and History
Peter Staudenmaier:
Thanks for your thoughts, Daniel. I think
you still have a shaky grasp of what objectivity means to a historian
and what role it plays in historical writing. I also think that
a large chunk of your argument depends on the notion that persuasion
is a kind of coercion. I think that idea is entirely wrongheaded.
The part of your post that struck me most was this:
Daniel:
Peter, my essay on the subject suggested that
the determining factor in whether persuasion is coercion is the
intention of the writer. This is consistent with a number of
schools of thought in the fields of ethics. I am applying it
specifically to polemical writing here.
It surprises me not in the least that you would claim my solidly
grounded discourses on objectivity are "shaky" to your
eyes. I would expect nothing less of you.
Daniel wrote:
In such true historical research, contrary
viewpoints would be first and foremost interesting, and therefore
included, rather than distained and dismissed.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Why do you say "rather than"?
The proper approach is to include contrary viewpoints and then
criticize them and explain why you think they are mistaken. There
is nothing wrong with disdaining and dismissing arguments that
you think are erroneous, especially ones that you think are silly
and pointless.
Daniel:
It is all about intentions again. And attitude.
If you find contradictions interesting, you are more likely to
try to understand each viewpoint on its own merit. If you find
contradictions stupid, it is unlikely you will spend much time
trying to properly understand them, and your chances of succeeding
are slim. And it all goes back to whether your goal is truth
or power.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 7:11 pm
Subject: Daniel - history and polemic
Daniel:
True, polemic alone does not equate automatically
to dishonesty. But the polemical approach is one that offers
many temptations to dishonesty, especially to the historian.
I disagree, I think you are confusing basic
human nature with objective descriptions of different writing
styles or types of analysis, and despite the careful, measured
tone you maintain with such care, you're only getting away with
not acknowledging that your own work on Rudolf Steiner is largely
polemical because most of the list shares your particular biases,
i.e., general unreceptivity to any unflattering interpretation
of anything said by Rudolf Steiner (and generally hostile reaction
to having this pointed out).
Some may be able to navigate the road with
their integrity intact. Others fail. The reader should be aware
of this in reading a polemical writer.
The reader should be aware of this in reading
any writer.
Further, it is hard to remain an effective
polemical writer and at the same time remain an honest historian.
As a historian, it is your responsibility to consider objections
and additional complementary material that is brought to your
attention. As a polemical writer, it is not in your interest
to consider these objections and additional complementary material.
I don't understand. Why would it not be in
the interest of someone writing a polemic to consider the objections
that might be raised or all complementary material?
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Tue Mar 16, 2004 12:53 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Daniel - history and polemic
Daniel:
True, polemic alone does not equate automatically
to dishonesty. But the polemical approach is one that offers
many temptations to dishonesty, especially to the historian.
Diana:
I disagree, I think you are confusing basic
human nature with objective descriptions of different writing
styles or types of analysis, and despite the careful, measured
tone you maintain with such care, you're only getting away with
not acknowledging that your own work on Rudolf Steiner is largely
polemical because most of the list shares your particular biases,
i.e., general unreceptivity to any unflattering interpretation
of anything said by Rudolf Steiner (and generally hostile reaction
to having this pointed out).
Daniel:
My point is that polemic in particular tempts
human nature, because of what the writer is attempting. It is
the difference between the writing of a politician and a political
analyst. And please, inspect my statements with the same careful
analysis that you apply to Peter Staudenmaier's writing.
Daniel:
Further, it is hard to remain an effective
polemical writer and at the same time remain an honest historian.
As a historian, it is your responsibility to consider objections
and additional complementary material that is brought to your
attention. As a polemical writer, it is not in your interest
to consider these objections and additional complementary material.
Diana:
I don't understand. Why would it not be
in the interest of someone writing a polemic to consider the
objections that might be raised or all complementary material?
Daniel:
For the same reason that a defense attorney
does not make the prosecutions case more effectively than the
prosecution. If you are trying to win an argument, you want to
present your case more strongly that the case against your case.
The jury (the readers) ought to know who is the attorney for
the defense and who is the attorney for the prosecution. Polemical
writing operates on the same level.
Daniel
[Continued in the thread
"Association Smear Tactics"]
...................................................................................................................................
Association
Smear Tactics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
March/April
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
