The (Not So) Good Old Days
39
STRUCTURAL INEQUALITY: LIBERAL DISCOURSE
In discussions of both racism and lesbian and gay issues, the liberalism
inherent in the structure of the old style, while allowing for relatively civil
dialogue, appeared to impede counter-normative understandings of related forms
of inequality. Liberalism focuses on the individual and, correspondingly, tends
to define oppression not as the struggle of one class to dominate another, but the
struggle of individuals to achieve privacy, independence, and understanding. It
is rooted in the belief that all individuals are essentially the same at the core, and
that this core is rational and well meaning. Therefore oppression would be the
result of perceiving others to be inherently different, and could be undone by
education and dialogue. The focus on individuals rather than classes means
inequality becomes naturalized, and only the most overt instances of oppression
are recognized. Struggle against inequality is represented as an individual
endeavor, through the modification of individual lives, not the social
environment that produced them. Liberalism’s strengths are its emphasis on
equality for individuals, on the right to live freely, and on rational debate rather
than violence as a way of resolving conflict. Liberalism goes much farther than
many political and cultural systems in protecting civil rights, yet it doesn’t go far
enough in ensuring current freedoms, and often impedes the possibility of
creating greater freedom in the future by misdiagnosing the causes of inequality.
Liberal accounts of inequality dominate the TV talk show world.
Because liberalism minimizes the role social structures play in inequality,
the tolerance it requires is one that cannot explain competing positions, other
than to say, isn’t it wonderful that we all can agree to disagree? Donal Carbaugh
argues that the discourse of old-style shows like Donahue draws on a particular
rhetorical pattern that assumes everyone has a right to speak, as long as their
speech is individualized, referring only to their own experience, without offering
an opinion on anyone else’s (30). While the talk show may appear at first to be
an open forum, Carbaugh sees its dialogue as being fairly restricted. This is
because the worldview which the talk show endorses is one which fails to
distinguish “nonjudgmental and tolerant” speech from “respectful” speech,
which asserts respect for persons and their right to speak, then criticizes their
opinions. The liberal version of tolerance implies that one should respect all
opinions, as a way of respecting the people who voice them, with the result that
“substantive issues therefore were not resolved, but avoided” (38). Differences
of opinion are viewed as being inherently irreconcilable, because no mechanism
is recognized with which differences could be evaluated. What begins, then, as a
very public demonstration of the public’s right to openly debate important social
issues, ends up being an empty ritual, an anti-conversation, where points of view
can be articulated but don’t quite interact.
The liberal norms of public speech on old-style shows like Donahue also
require that speech be individualized. The basis for the right to speak is
individual experience, rather than experience as a member of a class or cultural
group, or one’s beliefs about groups or social structures. Any kind of theorizing