“Dogmatic” is a slippery word. It’s root, “dogma,” means an established set of opinions or beliefs. Every person lives by a set of dogmas. When we get angry at the behaviors of others, our dogmas are showing.
The word, “dogmatic,” on the other hand, usually carries a negative connotation. “Pig-headed” works as a synonym. To be dogmatic is to be argumentative, inclined to claims of certainty, and in the habit of making mole hills into mountains.
Of course, being called dogmatic doesn’t make it so. Calling someone dogmatic may only be an example of argumentum ad hominem (argument byinsult).Insults are often slipped into debates but they are mostly about psychological warfare. Cool heads recognize them for what they are: evidence of a lack of pertinent arguments. “You may call me an idiot…but my intelligence has no bearing on whether the moon landing was a hoax.”
In any case, one person’s dogmatism can be another person’s water shed. Truth can appear to be crazy. Appearances are deceiving. Twelve Angry Men.
Another aspect of dogmatism is that it values regulations over relationships. When people gather with others they don’t know well, there is some testing of the waters. If ideologies seem to match up, the birds of a feather have a loud splash-about in the pond. If the testing reveals an ugly duckling or two, look for a quiet evening of safe topics. There’s something to be said for keeping the peace but there is not much relational joy in this kind of superficiality.
We live in a dogmatic age. The U.S. is politically polarized. When we approach the extremes of the right or the left, the people we find there are just batty. This battiness has been nurtured in the 21st century by technological algorithms that feed into confirmation biases.
I’m convinced that people never act without first justifying their actions to themselves. In other words, all people are helplessly moral. This would work out nicely except that people live in structures with radically different moral architectures. We don’t hear much these days about walking in other people’s moccasins. The Spirit of this century is to holler first and loud about the evil in others. Besides putting the others on the defensive, this strategy subtly suggests that the one who hollers is morally superior. He who cries first and loudest must be the victim. (More likely, the one who hollers first and loudest is more manipulative.) Of course, when everyone is shouting, no one is listening. Our national harvest has been the politics of bold, imbecilic initiatives, followed by power swings and equally damaging counter-initiatives.
Recently, I have been mulling over this thought: We never get smarter when we’re talking, though there is a possibility of it when we’re listening. Advantage to the listener.
When we listen, we learn. Sometimes we learn ideas that beneficially shape our thoughts. Sometimes we learn to be sympathetic to bad ideas by, at least, recognizing the thread of reasoning. Sometimes listening only confirms that some ideas are hydrogen zeppelins. No matter what, though, advantage to the listener. When more people listen, advantages multiply.
Recent Comments