“What do you mean by _______?”
An enlightening video of Berkley Law Professor Khiara Bridges and Senator Josh Hawley emerged on the internet this summer. In this video of the senate judiciary hearing on abortion access and the law, a tense exchange between Prof. Bridges and Sen. Hawley ensued.[1] The debate centered on transgenderism and the ability of men to become pregnant. Senator Hawley asked about the issue of abortion being a women’s issue, to which Prof. Bridges clarified that other people groups (transgender men and nonbinary people) have the capacity for pregnancy. He then asked who the abortion conversation affects. Prof. Bridges let Sen. Hawley know that his “line of questioning is transphobic and opens up people to violence.” The shocked Senator Hawley combatted this statement of him opening up people to violence. Prof. Bridges then proceeded to inform him that this violence stemmed from the denial of a trans person’s existence.[2]
This video is an example of the kind of dialogue that is both unproductive, and all too present in our culture: a contentious debate without common definitions. Sen. Hawley was surprised at the accusation of his line of questioning being a denial of trans persons’ existence, thus opening them up to violence. I would argue that Prof. Bridges and Sen. Hawley were speaking different languages. They are after all in different contexts – Sen. Hawley a Missouri republican congressman, and Prof. Bridges a progressive from an elite west coast liberal institution. This video displayed to the world what an argument looks like when common vernacular is absent. I would argue that the conversation could have been more productive and respectful had either of them asked for definitions.
In this blog, I will share how Shelby Steele, author of Shame,[3] does the same thing with the word phrase “American exceptionalism” and how this compares with other authors’ understanding of this phrase. After this, I will close with making the case for healthier, more intelligible dialogue in which people establish common language in ideological disagreements.
Steele writes about the way America’s past sins of racism have been used by the left to paint America solely as a nation of hypocrisy and evil. In doing so, the left then makes sure to disassociate from the past sins. Steele, a conservative, attacks this notion of America being a characterologically evil country. He tells a story of a dinner at which he gave a speech. He used the words “American exceptionalism.” Upon uttering these words, there were boos as well as cheers from the audience. When I came across his words on American exceptionalism, my intellectual (and moral) defenses shifted to high alert. Dr. Soong-Chan Rah and Mark Charles of the Navajo Nation, discuss in great length the myth and the racist underpinnings of the concept of American exceptionalism in their book Unsettling Truths.[4]
However, Steele goes on to define American exceptionalism not as “a hubris that evokes white supremacy” but “the largess of our character as with our great wealth and power, and that causes like the one at hand only enhanced our reputation in the world as a fundamentally decent nation – a beacon, as it were, of human possibility.”[5] He clarifies that it is not about the people of America being superior, but rather “that its wealth and power bestowed upon it a level of responsibility in the world that other nations did not have to bear. Exceptionalism as a burden, not a vanity, was my point.”[6] Though I still struggle with the phrase “American exceptionalism,” after reading Steele’s definition, I was far less disturbed. In fact, from Steele’s definition, one ought to feel not an arrogance of being American, but rather a weight of responsibility because of the great wealth and power America has. “To whom much is give, much is required.”
There is much I agreed with in this book. However, there is also much I disagreed with. For example, one must ask how America became so powerful and wealthy. Yes, there are great examples in history of America leading the way in creating a just society. However, we must not celebrate these great moments in history without also lamenting the heinous sins of racism, slavery, land theft, and ethnic genocide of the first peoples of the land (to name a few). All that to say, from Steele’s book I am taking away this: if we are ever going to experience intelligent, respectful, and productive dialogue amid diverging ideologies, we must ask the question “What do you mean by_____?” rather than hearing one another based on our own understanding of what words mean.
[1] “Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Abortion Access and the Law | C-SPAN.Org,” accessed December 1, 2022, https://www.c-span.org/video/?521318-1/senate-judiciary-committee-hearing-abortion-access-law.
[2] Your Line of Questioning Is Transphobic, 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fed5RzXyU20.
[3] Shelby Steele, Shame: How America’s Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country (New York: Basic Books, 2015).
[4] Mark Charles and Soong-Chan Rah, Unsettling Truths: The Ongoing, Dehumanizing Legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery (InterVarsity Press, 2019).
[5] Steele, Shame, 160.
[6] Ibid., 159.
About the Author
David Beavis
David is Australian by birth, was raised in Southern California, and is the Youth and Young Adults Pastor at B4 Church in Beaverton, Oregon. David and his wife, Laura, live in Hillsboro with their dog, Coava (named after their favorite coffee shop). M.A. Theology - Talbot School of Theology B.A. Psychology - Vanguard University of Southern California5 responses to ““What do you mean by _______?””
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
David, what a great example of how semantics plays a part in misunderstandings. How often do we have arguments based on a lack of understanding one another. I keep thinking, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” (Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride) We could get so much farther if we make sure we understand one another – language, context, culture. I like your question, “What do you mean by___?” I also think we would do well to remember the quote often attributed to St. Augustine, “In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity.” What would it look like if we sought understanding rather than dissension?
Hey Becca,
Thank you for your response! In regards to your question about what it would look like if we sought understanding rather than dissension, I imagine we would be a lot more loving of a society. However, your question caused me to think back on Friedman’s Failure of Nerve. My guess is the instinct for dissension rather than understanding is because our society is prone to herding. This is a result of our regressive societal state because of our increase in anxiety. Those who have the maturity to seek understanding rather than dissension are those who will help lead our society into a more non-anxious future.
David,
Learning to ask questions seems to be a theme of great leadership in all of the books that we have read so far. I appreciated you connecting it to race within our country as well.
I really loved when you said:
“if we are ever going to experience intelligent, respectful, and productive dialogue amid diverging ideologies, we must ask the question “What do you mean by_____?” rather than hearing one another based on our own understanding of what words mean.”
Do you remember the tug ropes where you had people on both side to see which group could pull the mark over to their line…. This was my visual reading your blog! We have to learn to work together in our questioning so that the marker stays in the middle and we don’t over pull the other person in our views or questioning.
David,
I absolutely love reading your posts. I always learn something new.
I am struggling though with Steele’s definition of American Exceptionalism. Part of the issue with America’s inability to confront its racist past is the intentional re-writing and white-washing of history. (I call your attention to the discussions around critical race theory and what actions some governors are taking to make sure their version of history is taught.)
With that as a back drop:
America’s exceptional wealth was built on the backs of slaves, stealing land and now private prisons. Is the generosity displayed to other nations a matter of guilt being manifested or from a deep sense of altruism? Is the definition Steele uses another attempt by a segment of people in this country to reframe the truth? Does it cover over the fact that the wealth was gotten by unethical and illegal means and attempts to negate the responsibility of owing any reparations.
Lastly, I would think as a moral nation we would be inclined to be responsible citizens of the world based on our inherent kindness and desire to see others prosper. And, have we used our wealth for nation building without looking for anything in return.
David,
You are spot on with the need for common language and understanding of meaning. So many things in our society have taking on different meanings over the generations. Not only do you find different possible understandings add in the generational and cultural differences and you have a perfect recipe for miss understanding leading to discord. Thank you for noting this important piece of communication and how missing this can lead to miss information and ultimately the tensions we feel today.