What do you debate?

As with so many ideas, this one was triggered by someone else's opinion article. Laurie Penny, a respected and sensible journalist, was moved by her recent experiences to explain that joining bigots for a debate shows them too much respect and gives them a platform that they do not deserve.

https://longreads.com/2018/09/18/no-i-will-not-debate-you/

In this, she's right. But isn't it interesting that she writes 'I will not debate you'? When I was young I debated ideas, and I still like to. I might even debate about a subject. But I tend not to debate people. Is a person a proposition?
"Spending money now will grow the economy so much that the young will pay off our debt and thank us."
"I find that debatable."
That makes sense. That's because there's a proposition which is debatable. But could you say the following?
"Donald Trump"
"I find that debatable."

It's nonsensical. Or rather, it's nonsensical if we use 'debate' the way we should (and by 'should', I mean with the meaning it always used to have, the meaning that makes most sense and the meaning I prefer). Verbs usually take as their object the target of the verb. I open the door, not the hinge, even though without the hinge I can't open the door. I run the distance or the route, not the ground, even though I can't run without the ground to run on. I debate the subject, even though without an opponent there is no debate.
But nowadays we don't debate an idea. We debate someone else. It says a lot about what we focus on as a society. The idea is not the idea! The idea is to enjoy the conflict; to focus on personality and victory or loss. Debate is about scoring status points, humiliating the other person and making people want to be on the status-winning side, not the humiliated side. Ideas and logic are a minor way to do this, not the focus. Society is focussed on style, human interest and status, not ideas and reason.
Laurie Penny reinforces that approach by misusing the word 'debate'. Perhaps next time she refuses to allow a shift in normality that would make a bigot's ideas acceptable she can also refuse to allow a shift in usage that makes a focus on emotion and status more reasonable than a focus on reason.


As I read her well-argued, and otherwise hugely insightful piece, I was also struck by the assertion that debate, in the modern format of point-scoring status-seeking and humiliation, is macho. That's an easy thing to say: it's easy to imagine two male loudmouths on television sniping at each other whilst saying nothing of substance. Because that's what our television debates mostly are.
But is that macho? I understand that patriarchy, for feminists, is a great and nebulous force behind a lot of evils in the world. I even agree that a lot of what we might think of as masculine behaviours are bad, especially in the modern, civilized world. But I also think that we need to be careful about ascribing every problem to our favourite enemy; if we're wrong, not only will people be less inclined to believe us when we're right, but we'll also miss another enemy, which will carry on happily.
Yes, men love to show off and gain status. But I can definitely think of macho men who scorn intellectual pursuits and think that poncing around in a debating chamber isn't very manly. I can also vividly remember the macho respect I got at school for never engaging in insult-trading, but being ready to beat up people who actually attacked me. It is girls who are stereotypically the ones who engage in status warfare, humiliating others and enjoying wars of words and PR.
I don't think it's right to say that modern debate is just another symptom of patriarchy and it's yet again men and men's instincts that are to blame; or that women in general would do it all better. The focus on status and humiliation is a deeply human, not male, drive. It's the worst side of our psyches, but it's in all of us, and it's brought out in all of us by the society in which we live. After all, without the ability to sell products as statusful in some way, most advertising would be worthless.
If we conflate capitalism (or our version of it) with macho culture, we're mislabelling the problem. As the Iranian activist Masih Alinejad said 'in all religions and in all societies, first they come for the women'. It's not that sexism is the driving force; it's just the first type of oppression to emerge.
No doubt sexism and neoliberalism intersect, and dumping all the problems of the world on sexism's door might help motivate women to change things... but it will motivate them to change the wrong things. If we want to do good, we should be sure we're aiming to do the right good, and the best good.

Ms Penny later in her article goes on to deride Bannon's approach to debate as like the host of con-artists and scammers out there. It's utterly immoral; she rightly says that his lack of integrity is part of his ideology. I understand where women are coming from when they look at the mass of oppressive forces in the world, overlapping and reinforcing their effects, but I also think that the best commentators make sure they don't mix things up. If women start to think of men, and maleness, as being the same as having a complete lack of integrity, they also start to lose the goodwill of those of us who regard a stubborn devotion to principles even in the face of society as quite a male thing. Men are good at disregarding social rules. That is a male thing. But social rules can be wrong. If you have a principle behind you, and you go about things in the right way, your maleness is good.

 I've already said that I hate a lot of what we might call stereotypical masculinity. But I am a man, and I won't be made a scapegoat for all the evils of society. That's what the Conservatives are for.