The Distinct Difference between 'Liberal' and 'Open-Minded'
Today in academia, liberal thought is the norm. According to Nicholas Kristof, a columnist for the New York Times, four studies found that the proportion of professors in the humanities who are Republicans range between 6 and 11 percent, and in the social sciences between 7 and 9 percent. In an environment where liberal thought is so heavily the majority, it is easy to accept these views as the only acceptable way of thinking. In WGST 307 Feminist Theory, I realized the depth and complexity of this issue. We read a variety of works by respected feminist theorists, and applied the concepts as they related to the election process. There were quite a few supporters of Trump in the classroom, and when they explained their points of view, they were virtually shut down. In one specific instance, a boy in the back row raised his hand and said that he believed that Donald Trump won the second half of the first presidential debate, and justified his opinion with specific points. In response, our classmates groaned, and made their blatant disapproval of his statement obvious. As the semester progressed, these individuals spoke up less and less, which I feel largely hindered the class debate and the opportunity to engage and interact with those with different opinions. This story struck me, because it highlighted the distinct difference between ‘liberal’ and ‘open minded’. The common opinion among liberal thinkers is that we are, by default, open minded. Liberal thought promotes equity for all people, and takes oppressions such as race, sex, and socioeconomic status into consideration. When preaching a rhetoric that aims to address all individuals, we mistakenly automatically identify as open minded.
The definition of open minded is “receptive to arguments or ideas; unprejudiced”. In WGST 307, our liberal-majority classroom was not unprejudiced. We were not willing to listen to the students who supported Trump. We were not open minded. In recent time, voices of the historically underrepresented in academia have emerged and brought valuable knowledge and experience to the discussion. Feminist theory as well as academic work to combat the white, western narrative of history as truth has gained support and prevalence, and hopefully will continue to do so. However, if we simultaneously shut those with more conservative views out of this newly emerging discourse, we will again lose the diversity that makes academia so valuable, and we are perpetuating the very injustice that we have warned against. We cannot discount their views as worthless, because in doing so we neglect to recognize the complex social influences that encouraged them to develop these views. By not seeking to understand their arguments, and further, by not seeking to understand them, we are not practicing open mindedness.
In Speech 140, we studied Aristotle’s elements of persuasion. The three elements of persuasion are logos (logic), ethos (ethics), or pathos (emotion). If we as liberals strive to change the opinions of others, we cannot do so by shutting them out. If we insult them, we do not appeal to their logic, ethics, or emotion. As my within the classroom artifact, I have attached an essay I wrote analyzing the rhetorical devices used by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. If anybody had mastered the ability to capture and persuade a crowd, it was Dr. King. He was able to utilize elements of logos, ethos, and pathos to convey an opinion while appealing to all individuals.
I once had a conversation about social issues with a group of American friends from my study abroad program. We were discussing a variety of controversial issues. One of our friends declared that she was Pro-Life due to religious beliefs. She clarified by saying that if she had a friend that needed to be driven for an abortion, she would do so, but she would not outwardly support her decision. The only male in the group let her know just how wrong it was that she did not fully support abortion, even though she made it actively clear that she would not stand in the way of others demonstrating their right to choose. A little later in the conversation, the death penalty was brought up. I stated that although I had very little statistical knowledge about the financial pros and cons of the death penalty, I personally had no moral issue with it, as long as there was indisputable evidence that the individual was guilty. Immediately, the same male said “That’s just wrong. You’re wrong.” In this situation, his statement carried no element of persuasion. Saying “you are wrong” does not employ any element of logic, ethics, or emotion. Instead, it humiliated me and made me feel as though I could not speak up anymore. By telling me that I was wrong, he did nothing to make me want to understand his point of view, and for this reason, we learned nothing from one another.
This individual justifies his opinions through a strict promotion of human rights, and this perspective is well intended. However, despite his liberal views, he was close minded to opinions he did not agree with. He made no effort to ask why, or even to engage in a discussion to discuss why he felt so passionately against the death penalty. Had he listened to my point of view, and responded using Aristotle’s elements of persuasion to explain to me why he felt so strongly, we may have had a productive conversation. I may have even changed my point of view. Instead, I left the conversation feeling resentful and having learned nothing substantive.
Last year, I was enrolled in Phil 532, a Social Justice class. This course was discussion based and made up of junior and senior undergraduate philosophy students as well as master’s and PhD students in philosophy. In this course, we discussed affirmative action, global women’s rights, and a variety of other controversial social issues. Although students brought different opinions to the table, justified through various facts and philosophers, no one was shut down for expressing their view. The classroom was accepting of all opinions, as long as they could be justified through course material or outside thought. Claims utilized Aristotle’s various elements of persuasion in order to produce sound opinions. This environment portrayed a truly open minded setting, prefaced upon a dynamic of respect for all people and a willingness to listen to those we do not agree with. As a result, I became more passionate and confident in my opinions while also understanding the justification of those who take a different perspective.
Practicing open-mindedness is something that should be done not only during conversation, but also in daily actions. When I was 13 years old, I became a pescatarian. Morally, I do not feel right supporting the meat industry. However, my liberal beliefs and actions may be taken offensively in other cultures. While I was in South Africa, a few friends and I visited a township called "Imizamu Yethu," which translates to "Our Struggle." The individuals who live in this township still feel strong effects of apartheid, and live in very small spaces without running water. While we were there, some citizens offered us chicken feet to eat. Although I felt discomfort on both a moral and a cultural level, I tried the chicken feet in order to practice open-mindedness. I wasn't fond of the taste, but I hoped that this small action would show these individuals that I valued and respected their traditions.
As liberals, we aim to be defenders of social justice. But, to truly do so, we need to embrace open-mindedness. These are not synonymous, and may take intentional work to respond with respect to opinions we so readily disagree with or are unfamiliar with. However, by practicing open-mindedness, we are presented with situations that allow us to learn and grow. By utilizing Aristotle’s elements of persuasion, we may even be able to convince others to see value in the opinions that we find so valuable.