The Evolving Division of American Discourse
An Original Essay by Stephen G. Adubato
An Introduction from the Editors
Stephen G. Adubato, the originator and curator of the sometimes-enigmatic, but always-enlightening, Cracks in Postmodernity, joins us again to provide his timely insights into the capacity for playfulness and nuance in both right- and left-leaning publications—each of which seems to be changing their stance on such notions as freedom of speech and the value of transgression by the hour.
As the placement of right vs left viewpoints along our political landscape grows increasingly difficult to reduce, the effect on our news media and cultural commentary—not to mention the literary landscape—also becomes difficult to unravel into a cohesive framework. But here, Stephen presents a new way of understanding the complicated division between the left/right divide in public discourse—in attempting to understand the apparent moral divide, one must remember to consider the actual moral content and moral integrity of each “side” before reducing to unfounded labels of censorship and free expression.
Thus, what Stephen provides is a typically nuanced reflection on navigating such divisions: is free speech ultimately the preferred approach even if it invites, and perhaps even glorifies, morally insincere, even dangerous points of view? or does that which proclaims moral righteousness and integrity, even at the expense of some degree of free speech, accomplish more for the common good?
If you enjoy this essay, be sure to check out Cracks in Postmodernity’s live event on December 11 in Washington DC, in which he joins Mana Afsari and Shadi Hamid to discuss how these questions can help illuminate the future of public discourse in America.
Stephen G. Adubato Navigates Morality in Public Discourse
Many have had a hard time pinning down our ideological commitments at Cracks in Postmodernity, the multimedia platform I run which is dedicated to exploring the intersection of religion, philosophy, mass media, and pop culture. This is partially by design: my hope was that by prioritizing matters that are pre- or meta-political, it would be harder for readers to reduce our content in any partisan boxes.
And yet, we’ve had a variety of epithets slung at us. For example, we’ve published content celebrating the value of queer culture, grassroots co-ops, Pan-Africanism, and Islamic mysticism, and for this we are written off as “heretical blasphemers” and “retarded leftist scum.” When expressing reservations about anti-natalism, corporate DEI, and the morality of non-procreative sex, we were called “conservative doofuses,” “tradtards,” and “crypto-fascists.” I take pride in the fact that our content both speaks to people across political, religious, and ideological spectra, and that it pisses off those determined to peg us as allies or enemies of their “side.”
I’ve written as a freelancer for very left- and right-leaning publications, which has garnered me the label of being an “ideological cypher.” Part of the reason I publish so widely is because I believe Truth transcends partisan categories, and that today’s ideological factions are increasingly determined by corporate elites aiming to divide the masses among each other.
Because I believe it’s a writer’s mission to challenge all people to think more critically, I do not believe in preaching to the choir. I find it to be morally problematic to tell people what they want to hear. Thus, when I write for right-leaning publications, I always try to make a slightly progressive argument using right-coded language . . . and vice versa for left-leaning ones, using a tool I like to call “political code-switching.”
Furthermore, I think it’s more beneficial for society on a pragmatic level to challenge people to think about things through a different lens, which might potentially open them up to understanding and finding points of agreement with “the other side.” Especially given the intensity of the hysteria cycle that dominates today’s mass media, it’s important that writers prioritize offering “clarification of thought,” as Peter Maurin would say, over regurgitating partisan scripts. Ultimately, people who know how to build bridges and communicate across partisan/ideological lines are more likely to “get the job done” and accomplish more for the common good.
But I also must admit to having less noble motivations for publishing widely: I like to be a contrarian troll who keeps things interesting by keeping readers guessing. What can I say? I’m a recovering narcissist who wants to be viewed as different from the rest, and I have a taste for playing with fire.
Yet as much as I love citing Oscar Wilde’s anti-moralistic assertion in Lady Windemere’s fan that “it is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious,” I know that provocation for its own sake—devoid of any moral point of reference—is self-indulgent and effectively nihilistic, and it risks yielding dangerous results. I think of fellow dandy Milo Yioannopolous’s excessive defense of free speech—his taste for political incorrectness leading him to say things that are downright useless and cruel.
Puritanism may breed boring prudes, but provocation for its own sake equally fails to yield many genuinely fascinating insights. As one viral meme asks, is it worth voting authoritarians into power just so you can say taboo words like “gay” and “retarded” again without losing your job? Or as one friend—whom I complimented for his fresh, innovative writing—recently put it: “[it’s] not too hard to sling ‘fresh’ ideas I suppose, but am I wise and right-believing?”
Thus, I always try to channel my contrarian impulse toward noble ends. Like the court jester of medieval times, I try to poke fun at conventional norms in order to point my audience toward that which transcends the norm—and thus gives substance to it.
The reality is that I’ve found that right-of-center publications tend to be much more open to my playfulness and intellectual creativity than left-of-center ones. In addition to being able to inject more humor and “edge” into my writing for conservative publications, they also tend to be more open to publishing my more left-coded arguments—provided I dress it up in right-coded language. Sadly, I can’t say the same about the left-leaning publications I’ve written for. Not only is there less room for play, but they tend to be less amenable to me left-coding conservative arguments. Indeed, this is why others who prioritize intellectual curiosity over partisan loyalties like Mana Afsari have discovered, “with at least a little discomfort,” that the “intellectual vitality” is “increasingly to be found in post-liberal or conservative spaces—in other words, on the right.”
Of course, this represents a reversal of the 1960s and 70s, when the left was known for defending freedom of speech and transgressing against the conventional mores upheld by the moralistic right. But the tables turned after the left’s capture of mass media and the universities, and the subsequent mainstreaming of woke platitudes, which has incited the right to become the space for both transgression and intellectual creativity.
As much as I’ve found it easier to write for the right-leaning publications that are more open to taking risks on my outside-the-box ideas, I often have serious reservations about their lack of moral integrity and the sometimes-abhorrent ideas they promote. Admittedly, it can be hard to draw a clear line between disagreeing with the content a publication puts out and believing that they lack moral/journalistic integrity . . . and even harder to decide when you think it is morally and professionally dangerous for your name to be associated with said publication. I tend to be a relativist when it comes to the guilt-by-association criterion . . . but sometimes you truly are guilty for associating yourself with certain outlets. Yet as much as I do respect the higher ethical standards I tend to find in left-leaning publications, their aversion to risk and the puritanism of their ideological gatekeeping renders their content drably predictable and a bore to read.
I fear that public discourse in the US is caught in an ideological deadlock between those overly-committed to the cause of assuring speech be either righteous—to the point that it excludes discussion of any ideas that don’t fit within a narrowly defined idea of what is “good” or socially expedient, or free—to the point that it aims to provoke for provocation’s sake. We see the excesses of these positions among those on the left who want to cancel any speech they deem to be “problematic,” and among those on the right whose sole aim is to say politically incorrect things in order to “own the libs.” When commitments to ideology occlude the imperative to foster speech that is inherently interesting and meaningful, it impedes the possibility for speech to genuinely construct something of real value for the public.
Of course, identifying what kind of speech counts as substantially meaningful or “good” is quite difficult in a liberal democracy like the United States. In his latest book, The Case for American Power, Shadi Hamid goes as far as asserting that “in an ethnically and religiously diverse society . . . there is simply no way to reach agreement on what the good actually entails.” Indeed, we live in a pluralistic society that has enshrined the freedom to publicly espouse ideas that are factually questionable or even morally problematic in our constitution. Yet this freedom to “disagree on foundational questions,” Hamid continues, is “precisely what gives [us our] vitality.” Further, he challenges those who insist we’d be better off with a more authoritarian government that silenced speech that ran contrary to the common good—however the leader defined the common good. Liberal democracies may have their problems, he concedes, but would we really be better off living under autocratic rule without freedom of speech?
As a platform dedicated to rising above the discord in today’s divisive, self-serious discourse by prioritizing matters that transcend the merely ideological, Cracks in Postmodernity has highlighted Mana Afsari’s writings about her encounters with the “sensitive young men” drawn to MAGA, which shed light on those who are fed up with groupthink and conformism, and who are in search of a space for intellectual vitality; and Shadi Hamid’s frankness about his shifting attitude toward the American project, from his outright skepticism toward attempts to import the glories of American liberalism abroad, to his more recent embrace—albeit a measured one—of American dominance as “the world’s best hope.”
If you’d like to witness in person our attempts to unravel the future of American public discourse, join Shadi, Mana, and Cracks in Postmodernity on December 11 for our first-ever event in Washington DC. RSVP here.
Stephen G. Adubato is a writer and professor of philosophy based in New York. He is also the curator of the Cracks in Postmodernity blog, podcast, and magazine. Follow him on Twitter @stephengadubato and Instagram @cracksinpomo
 | A guest post by
|