Going Meta

Crowley describes an interesting problem in America today. People can’t even begin to decide what they are arguing about, let alone find a “civil” way to argue. I think there are a lot of ways for the very people who are in the center of the destructive discourse to pretend like they are not part of the problem. One interesting maneuver is the meta-move.

For instance, Thomas Frank is cited in Toward a Civil Discourse because he has something to say about hegemony. Indeed, his book, Whats the Matter with Kansas?, is concerned with hegemony and how social/moral issues such as abortion have gotten the attention of so-called red-staters so that they now vote for conservative Republicans (against their own economic interests). But Frank is as much a pundit as an analyst. Socially and economically, he presents very “liberal” arguments. However, because he removes himself from the discourse just enough to comment on it, he could probably claim that he is not part of the problem Crowley has defined. It’s a really interesting sort of metacommunicative move.

Perhaps a more obvious example is Michael Moore. He’s stated in Dude, Where’s My Country? that “Horatio Alger Must Die.” He has lamented that people have been deceived into voting based on their aspirations and not their current economic circumstances. He too tries to stand outside the situation in order to comment and define it. He communicates about the communication. Therefore, it would seem unlikely to his readers that he could also be part of the communication. In fact, we know that there are few individuals as polarizing as Michael Moore. He is undoubtedly part of the problem Crowley describes.

“Going meta” (as it was called by Herbert Simon in a QJS article) allows a speaker/writer to step outside or above a context and therefore look as though they are above and beyond the fray. I think all pundits and social/political commentators probably do this – O’Reilly, Hannity, Franken, etc. These commentators break down an opponent’s remarks everyday in order to tell their audience what’s really going on in particular comment or decision. I think it’s a phenomenon that’s really interesting, and also hard to describe, especially in the context of Crowley’s discussion. Sure, the meta-move is probably just another strategy for advancing a particular ideology, but it’s interesting that these rhetors also claim to know how these ideologies work. In fact, if we accept Faith’s interpretation, it would seem that Crowley is guilty of this herself.