On debate and conversation

(The following is my response to Gibby Gorres, who seems to think our school silences dissent. I give my nuanced agreement.)

Gibby, "discursive comatose"? I like the sound of that phrase!

I think that talking about UNITAS is a little like talking about the weather without a thermometer. What "thermometers" are we using? Camaraderie? Family? Granted; but how do you measure them? Beso beso absence of conflict no dissent? That's fine--for fairyland. But on earth, what? To me, UNITAS is not about the absence of conflict. Much less their prevention: I think the more competent people are in an institution the more conflict--or more precisely, disagreement--there SHOULD be. What good institutions have is a process of turning conflicts into productive activities. In institutions of inferior quality, where there are no such processes, silenced conflict gives rise to backbiting and dissent of the bad kind; loss of unity and corruption set in.

I equate the saving process with debate and conversation.

Debate and conversation are the public and private versions, respectively, of the act of "sifting opinion". Sifting opinion is not the same as "exchange of facts", "lectures", or "Q&A". People talking animatedly in the promenades or exchanging comments on blogs are not necessarily conversing (your blog is unique because it TRIES to promote conversation, although many comments sent to you show that few people catch on). Sifting happens when the parties put all their doctrines, tastes, and prejudices on the table for everyone to dissect, the purpose being for the parties to go away transformed.

We should enjoy the transformation; but what keeps us from benefiting are our lack of knowledge, poor language skills and mismanaged emotions.

You may ask, with 26 units a semester of liberal arts why don't people have facts at their fingertips? Some try to mask their poverty with pedantry. From my experience as a teacher, I think one of the roots of the problem is that many don't know how to read--or generally, many don't know how to LEARN. I think my diagnosis is reasonable because there is a correct way of reading that alone ensures that facts become part of oneself, not just part of one's memories. You and I know that the correct way is to read a minimum of 3 times: 1) to grasp the essential point; 2) to understand the logic; and 3) to critique the work as a source of knowledge. Most people read once and underline. No wonder.

How about language skills? Many people have a message, but we don't see it. Why such lack of articulate self-expression? Because we don't make the effort to speak straight. Our problem as Filipinos, the writer Paul Dumol once said, is not that we don't speak English well; it's because we don't speak Filipino well, either. In this university, if you speak straight English or Filipino you are considered elitist. No matter. In my classes, grammatical and punctuation errors--not to mention errors of logic and vocabulary--can mean a failing mark for the course. But I understand the problem, so I give students the chance to revise. However, I can not correct their papers in other subjects, their text messages, and their blogs. (There are exceptions of course: some students actually teach me things; they're the ones I respect the most.) We try to hide our lack of language by hiding behind "art" and "creativity". I've heard it said that our students are creative; to me it's not a good sign.

How about emotions? We know friends who get into an argument once and then refuse to talk to each other for the rest of their lives. No wonder we fear debate. You and I once got into a "shouting match" and enjoyed it. Why? Because we both followed rules that ensured courtesy and respect.

We use rules such as the Asian Parliamentary format to manage knowledge, language, and emotion. Conversation, too, has rules. I think that people today are simply not familiar with them. Thus, they come to fear what would otherwise be enjoyable and productive conflicts had these rules been known. You must consider that this "discursive comatose" is, in part, a problem of skill. I would not ascribe it to policy.

You understand these rules, that is why you can write so passionately about these things. Understand, however, that the Danube wasn't cleaned in a day. But at least you have a thermometer to propose to the people: the KNOWLEDGE OF THE RULES. This is UNITAS. This is where you must begin.