I know "dogmatism" is definitely loaded towards the negative here but that's really the only way I can think to refer to it.

For a specific example, the idea of shutting down and avoiding all criticism of America's geopolitical enemies. I certainly understand where people are coming from with this, and how even leftists aren't immune to state propaganda, but at the same time I have to fall on the "dogmatism is always bad" side. To me it seems like even within a warped and propagandized discourse, shutting down any line of thought uncritically is both a bad general practice and an ineffective way of opposing that line of thought.

  • ssjmarx [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    I think during the Jordan Peterson debate, Zizek made a point where he insisted that some dogmatism is required in society - for example, wouldn't you want to live in a society where people simply know that rape is bad, instead of having to litigate it every single time and so on. There are definitely lines of argument where the density of bad actors is so high and the effects they have on discourse is so great that the act of shutting down critical thought is preferable to letting them say their piece.

    Switching over to your example, dogmatically insisting that the opponents of US Imperialism are good and the US is bad will often get you better results than trying to litigate the point with libs. Sure, if I'm talking among fellow leftists who I know are on the same side I am in opposing US hegemony then I might take a more nuanced position because I know that the conversation will be productive - but when talking to libs Assad is the fucking Lion of Damascus and the US is the eternal Satan, etc.