The 'Cult of Dialogue'

Princeton is awash in dialogue. On countless announcements, course descriptions, and personal statements, "Dialogue" has become a magic word. It is the universal signifier of what's cool, what's sophisticated and what's smiled upon by the powers that be. USG candidates promise us dialogue and circuses in earnest tones. The Tilghman administration has even appointed administrators for dialogue and set up the immensely chic Dialogue@Princeton.

All this makes me uneasy. It's not that I want a system of silent monastic learning, where solitary apprentices cringe over illuminations of Pliny in the bowels of Firestone. Hardly. Only it is the Cult of Dialogue that holds Princeton in thrall, inhibiting the vigorous clash of ideas that Princeton should enjoy.

Of course, dialogue's dictionary definition is perfectly benign. I am concerned with its effective meaning on campus. By "dialogue" I mean a certain intellectual pathology, one that may be distinguished from debate, and one that mires us in fuzzy thinking.

This distinction is crucial. Dialogue is not debate. Debate entails a process of reasoning, of banging two arguments against each other until one gives way and a conclusion survives. We need more debate. Dialogue doesn't imply the same kind of rigor. Dialogue is mushy. The connotation is that one can continue dialogue forever without reaching a conclusion. So long as one expresses how one feels one is contributing. In dialogue, there are no right or wrong answers, only points of view; and all points of view are equal. Persons engaged in dialogue do not make judgments, but merely acknowledge each other's points of view. It is not necessary to reach a conclusion; it is sufficient to announce: "That's how I feel, please respect that." By eliminating the need to choose between two ideas, dialogue creates an ethos under which disapproval amounts to bigotry, and strenuous disagreement is at best bad mannered.

There are practical consequences to this. Dialogue makes us perform poorly. When someone in precept says "Yell, yeah, sure, but where do you draw the line?" or something equally vacuous, don't explode at them. If your precept colleague were debating instead, he'd tell you where to draw it. Unfortunately, he has overdosed on dialogue. Dulling our minds, this relativist virus leads us to mistake Pollock for Art, Rand for Philosophy, or anti-Americanism for worldly sophistication. Dialogue weakens thought by making things too easy. It is also a wonderful way to dissolve responsibility. Whether it's a roommate's unpleasant habit, underage drinking at the Street, or weightier issues of class and race, it is easy to make the problem go away by calling for dialogue. Unlike a debate over "what must be done" which implicitly suggests an endpoint and action, a dialogue about "how we feel" may be indefinitely sustained without result.

Despite, or indeed, because of its intellectual mushiness, dialogue also comes in useful for the cultural left. Its relativist assumptions smooth the way for a radical social agenda. When all ideas are equal, it is easier for bad ones to gain ground.

Take a look for example at Prism, Princeton's well-funded magazine of "Diversity, Dialogue and Difference." The editor's introduction urges us to "actively engage" with the articles, some of which turn out to be very extreme. These grow out of resentment and identity politics more than any serious reflection. One student appeals to class warfare, writing "Get this man [President Bush] out of office... before dad has to take from your trust fund to pay your tuition." Other articles make wild racial insinuations: "Okay, so you've never uttered a racial slur. Maybe that doesn't make you a racist. But who is that I see that you're holding hands with?"

If this lunacy were uttered in a spirit of debate, clearer thinking would squash it. Yet here, and in countless other cases, the invocation of dialogue shields sloppy thinking and tricks us into "acknowledging" its legitimacy. The cult of dialogue would have us believe that it is somehow inappropriate to dismiss arguments that are, in fact, worthy of little else.

This column is not an incitement to dialogue, but part of what I hope will be a short, swift, and decisive debate. As such, it will not be sustained indefinitely, but ends with a full stop.