{"id":1173,"date":"2021-04-05T10:00:29","date_gmt":"2021-04-05T09:00:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/?p=1173"},"modified":"2021-04-02T15:31:53","modified_gmt":"2021-04-02T14:31:53","slug":"normative-entanglement-in-public-discourse-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/normative-entanglement-in-public-discourse-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Normative Entanglement in Public Discourse (Part 1)"},"content":{"rendered":"

In an episode of The West Wing, a comment is made to the press that the fictional US President, Josiah Bartlett, is not particularly fond of green beans.[1]<\/a> On the day in question, the president\u2019s staff confront the usual mayhem of low- and high-octane problems, among them the problem of what should be done about a bunch of Oregonian green bean farmers who are objecting to the president making negative claims about green beans, in case such a claim should decrease their profits and threaten their livelihood. Perhaps a green bean related photo op would repair the damage, or perhaps the president should issue a mea culpa<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Press Secretary CJ Cregg rejects the need for such an ameliorative response. She says:<\/p>\n

\u201cHe doesn\u2019t enjoy <\/em>[green beans]. He doesn\u2019t think they\u2019re bad for you, and he doesn\u2019t think the people who make them are evil. They\u2019re simply not his cup of tea\u2014he doesn\u2019t care for them! Why don\u2019t we think the adults of Oregon will be okay with that if put to them just that way?\u201d<\/p>\n

In matters of public debate, especially surrounding high-octane problems, we reflexively reach for ways to anchor the debate. We check in with fact-checkers, to see what claims in the debate are untrue. We entrench behind simple declarative statements of objectively observable phenomenon, using phrases like \u2018Given the fact that\u2026\u2019 We hunt for rationality in arguments, and appeal to each other to trust that \u2018we can all be reasonable.\u2019 When stakes are high, we reach for the stabilising ground of epistemic considerations: facts, knowledge, truth. When context and social circumstances make debates messy, the clean hard lines of \u2018objective fact\u2019 can be wonderfully reassuring.<\/p>\n

But that very reassurance can also cause us to miss some of what is most important in a public debate. The green bean situation was not driven by a problem around what is true or what we know, namely, that the president does not care for green beans. This fact is not in doubt, and responses to the matter which suggest the president actually does enjoy green beans would be untruthful responses. The problem driving the green bean situation was a question about what the plain fact of the president\u2019s vegetable preferences might mean <\/em>for other parties in the discourse. CJ Cregg\u2019s comment highlights the issue: people are not worried about the facticity of the claim, but about what the claim might mean for them. If a public figure as influential as the president comes out against green beans, the Oregonians worry, then a normative shift may be brought about which would motivate others to avoid green beans. CJ\u2019s proposed response involves making these unwanted implications explicit (implications that green beans are bad for you, or that those who grow them are evil) and explicitly disavowing them, so that Oregonian bean farmers need not worry about the introduction of anti-green-bean norms into public discourse.<\/p>\n

The microcosm of the fatuous, fictional green bean debate is a prime example of the kind of shift in thinking which, I argue, can help us move past the gridlock in far weightier public debates. Like CJ, we need to see past the tidied questions of what is known, to the far messier questions of what people care about, and what particular claims mean for them. In spirit, I am arguing against reductivism about public debate: we often need to keep the mess and complexity in view if we want to sort things out. What I offer is a specific way of handling the mess and complexity in our appraisals of public debates.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n

Let\u2019s start simple. Take the statement: \u2018It\u2019s cold in here.\u2019<\/p>\n

Is it true? Sure. We are happy for environmental perception of this kind to vary from person to person, so even if you are comfortably warm, I might find it to be cold in here. But if in response you simply say, \u2018I believe you,\u2019 I might be warranted in looking at you strangely. I\u2019m glad you believe me, but being believed is not really the point of saying \u2018It\u2019s cold in here.\u2019 Rather, according to Quill Kukla and Mark Lance, the point is to enact some kind of change to the normative context<\/em>.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

The normative context tells us about how things should be; who is obligated to do what; and who is entitled to what. If we are sitting in your home and I say, \u2018It\u2019s cold in here,\u2019 I might be asking you to close a window, or to hand me a blanket. This being your home, I am not entitled to tell you what to do; nevertheless, my statement is a polite way of introducing an obligation\u2014on pains of being thought rude\u2014for you to make some change to alleviate my chill.<\/p>\n

Now, change the context. It is a sweltering hot day, and you are walking by with a pack on your back, sweating and weary. I lean out my window, gesturing with a pitcher of chilled lemonade, and say, \u2018It\u2019s cold in here.\u2019 By saying this, I am inviting you to come into my home for a rest and relief from the heat. Ordinarily, you are not entitled to enter my home simply because it is a hot day. When I invite you in, you become entitled by that invitation to enter my home as a guest at that particular time.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

To properly respond to someone else\u2019s speech act, we need to know not just what they are saying and whether to believe them; we also need to understand what changes they are enacting to the normative context. These are the kind of changes that CJ sought to block by specifying that the president was not against <\/em>green beans; the normative discouragement of that vegetable applied only to his own kitchen and plate, not to the plates of the nation. CJ\u2019s strategy is one of resisting what I call normative entanglement<\/em>, stripping the claim down to an epistemic fact (\u2018the president does not enjoy green beans\u2019) so that it makes no changes to the normative context (\u2018people should not eat\/grow\/buy green beans\u2019) except by entitling people to form a belief about what the president happens to enjoy eating.<\/p>\n

By contrast, when protestors declare that #BlackLivesMatter, they are enacting a set of normative changes to the discourse context. The claim is uttered against an implied context in which black lives are treated as if they do not, in fact, matter, and so the claim imposes an obligation to address widespread injustices against black lives.<\/p>\n

When counter-protestors declare that #AllLivesMatter, they are bringing a different normative context into focus which is meant to neutralise that obligation. The slogan is true; they are not epistemically wrong about all lives mattering, according to prevailing notions of human rights. Reduction to facts and truths does not help us to see what is going on in this public debate. #BlackLivesMatter creates normative entanglement; #AllLivesMatter resists normative entanglement.<\/p>\n

In Part II of this series of posts, we will take a deeper look at substantive political debates and how the play between epistemic defences and normative entanglement can help us parse what is being said and what is at stake.<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> https:\/\/www.imdb.com\/title\/tt0745623\/<\/a><\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Notess, 2021 available at: http:\/\/etheses.dur.ac.uk\/13943\/1\/Notess_-_Thesis_-_Final_for_Upload.pdf?DDD24+<\/a><\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Rebecca Kukla and Mark Norris Lance, \u2018Yo!\u2019 and \u2018Lo!\u2019: The Pragmatic Topography of the Space of Reasons <\/em>(Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2009).<\/p>\n

image: Thomas Faed, A Woman Standing in a Doorway, National Galleries, Scotland https:\/\/www.nationalgalleries.org\/art-and-artists\/11673\/woman-standing-doorway<\/a> (pictured, Creative Commons)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"In an episode of The West Wing, a comment is made to the press that the fictional US President, Josiah Bartlett, is not particularly fond of green beans. On the […]","protected":false},"author":1319,"featured_media":1177,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"Susan Notess on \"Normative Entanglement in Public Discourse (Part 1) on Open for Debate","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[199,234,283],"custom_author":[290],"class_list":["post-1173","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","tag-language","tag-public-debate","tag-speech-act","custom_author-notess-susan"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-iV","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":249,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/good-democracy-needs-good-questions\/","url_meta":{"origin":1173,"position":0},"title":"Good Democracy Needs Good Questions","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"September 25, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIf you were president, what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo?\u201d This question was asked to both candidates at the second U.S. presidential debate, during the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. As per the \u2018town-hall\u2019 format of the debate, the question was asked by\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Changing Attitudes"","block_context":{"text":"Changing Attitudes","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/changing-attitudes\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/09\/questions.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/09\/questions.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/09\/questions.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":921,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/ethicists-hold-your-horses-part-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":1173,"position":1},"title":"Ethicists, hold your horses (Part 2)","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"June 1, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Fleur Jongepier\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Karin Jongsma In Part 1 we have argued that it\u2019s better if ethicists do not publish their takes on triage at this moment. A democratic\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/05\/lego.2_0_image003-300x169.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":516,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/why-even-bother-with-political-debate\/","url_meta":{"origin":1173,"position":2},"title":"Why even bother with political debate?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"October 8, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Debates about politics, whether in public forums or in private conversations, often seem to go nowhere. This is particularly true when the participants have diametrically opposed perspectives on how the world works and how it should work. Even when people manage to stay civil, which of course is not always\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/laid-table-1317457.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/laid-table-1317457.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/laid-table-1317457.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/laid-table-1317457.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/laid-table-1317457.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/laid-table-1317457.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":456,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/ruminating-on-fake-news-online-education-and-intellectual-humility\/","url_meta":{"origin":1173,"position":3},"title":"Ruminating on Fake News, Online Education, and Intellectual Humility","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"June 18, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"From 2015 until last month (May, 2018), I was involved with a project at the University of Edinburgh, which aimed to produce a massive open online course (or MOOC) on intellectual humility. One of the central goals of the project was to give various academics who are producing extremely valuable\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/06\/park_white_black_water_rain_tom_oregon_canon-296566.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/06\/park_white_black_water_rain_tom_oregon_canon-296566.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/06\/park_white_black_water_rain_tom_oregon_canon-296566.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/06\/park_white_black_water_rain_tom_oregon_canon-296566.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/06\/park_white_black_water_rain_tom_oregon_canon-296566.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":112,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/collaboration-versus-point-scoring\/","url_meta":{"origin":1173,"position":4},"title":"Collaboration versus point scoring","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"June 5, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Last Monday we held the first workshop associated with the project Changing Attitudes in Public Debate. The workshop was by invitation and designed to bring together some philosophers, social psychologists and linguists that analyse the verbal and non-verbal aspects of conversations. The main aim was to figure out whether there\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Changing Attitudes"","block_context":{"text":"Changing Attitudes","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/changing-attitudes\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/06\/insensitivejpg.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/06\/insensitivejpg.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/06\/insensitivejpg.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":426,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/trust-and-trump-investigating-sincerity-and-accuracy-in-discourse\/","url_meta":{"origin":1173,"position":5},"title":"TRUST and Trump: investigating sincerity and accuracy in discourse","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"April 9, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"When exploring discursive untruthfulness, modern American politics is an obvious example. Donald Trump\u2019s presidency has been continuously criticised for his use of falsity, with the aim of promoting his own biased views. However, untruthfulness is irrefutably underpinned by the notion of \u2018lying\u2019, an act that is near impossible to identify:\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/04\/trump.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/04\/trump.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/04\/trump.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/04\/trump.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/04\/151872.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1173","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1319"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1173"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1173\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1178,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1173\/revisions\/1178"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1177"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1173"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1173"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1173"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=1173"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}