Gratuit avec l'essai de 30 jours

  • Quarterly Essay 87: Uncivil Wars

  • How Contempt Is Corroding Democracy
  • Auteur(s): Waleed Aly, Scott Stephens
  • Narrateur(s): Scott Stephens
  • Durée: 2 h et 50 min
  • 4,0 out of 5 stars (1 évaluation)

Choisissez 1 livre audio par mois dans notre incomparable catalogue.
Écoutez à volonté des milliers de livres audio, de livres originaux et de balados.
Accédez à des promotions et à des soldes exclusifs.
L'abonnement Premium Plus se renouvelle automatiquement au tarif de 14,95 $/mois + taxes applicables après 30 jours. Annulation possible à tout moment.
Page de couverture de Quarterly Essay 87: Uncivil Wars

Quarterly Essay 87: Uncivil Wars

Auteur(s): Waleed Aly, Scott Stephens
Narrateur(s): Scott Stephens
Essayer pour 0,00 $

Après 30 jours, 14,95$/mois. Annulable en tout temps.

Acheter pour 13,44$

Acheter pour 13,44$

Payer avec la carte finissant par
En confirmant votre achat, vous acceptez les conditions d'utilisation d'Audible et la déclaration de confidentialité d'Amazon. Des taxes peuvent s'appliquer.

Description

Is our democracy corroding? In this eloquent original essay, Waleed Aly and Scott Stephens explore the ethics and politics of public debate—and the threat it now faces.

In a healthy society we need the capacity to disagree. Yet Aly and Stephens note a growing tendency to disdain and dismiss opponents, to treat them with contempt. This toxic partisanship has been imported from the United States, where it has been a temptation for both left and right. Aly and Stephens discuss some telling examples, analyse the role of the media, and look back to heroes of democracy who found a better way forward.

Arguing that democracy cannot survive contempt, they draw on philosophy, literature and history to make an urgent case about the present.

‘So what do we owe those with whom we might profoundly, even radically, disagree? In our time, the answer increasingly seems to be: Nothing. Absolutely nothing. We've come to regard our opponents as not much more than obstructions in the road, impediments standing between us and our desired end. We have grown disinclined to consider what it might mean to go on together meaningfully as partners within a shared democratic project. To put it bluntly, we see no future with our political opponents because we feel we have nothing to learn from them.’ (Waleed Aly & Scott Stephens, Uncivil Wars)

Waleed Aly is a writer, academic, lawyer and broadcaster. He is a lecturer in politics at Monash University and a co-host of Network Ten’s The Project. He is the author of People Like Us and Quarterly Essay 37: What’s Right? With Scott Stephens, he co-hosts Radio National’s The Minefield program.

Scott Stephens is the online editor of Religion and Ethics for the ABC. He has been a lecturer in theology and ethics, and is editor of several books.

©2022 Waleed Aly and Scott Stephens (P)2022 Audible Australia Pty Ltd.

D'autres livres audio du même...

auteur:

Ce que les auditeurs disent de Quarterly Essay 87: Uncivil Wars

Moyenne des évaluations de clients
Au global
  • 4 out of 5 stars
  • 5 étoiles
    0
  • 4 étoiles
    1
  • 3 étoiles
    0
  • 2 étoiles
    0
  • 1 étoile
    0
Performance
  • 5 out of 5 stars
  • 5 étoiles
    1
  • 4 étoiles
    0
  • 3 étoiles
    0
  • 2 étoiles
    0
  • 1 étoile
    0
Histoire
  • 4 out of 5 stars
  • 5 étoiles
    0
  • 4 étoiles
    1
  • 3 étoiles
    0
  • 2 étoiles
    0
  • 1 étoile
    0

Évaluations – Cliquez sur les onglets pour changer la source des évaluations.

Classer par :
Filtrer
  • Au global
    4 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Histoire
    4 out of 5 stars

missing potential

while I enjoyed this essay and thought it was well argued, it's hard to escape the nagging suspicion that the authors are missing the point. they are almost certainly correct that contempt is an entirely destructive political emotion which is inappropriate in a democracy. they are also correct about social media's role in producing contempt Within nominally Democratic subjects. but the question of whether democracy can survive contempt is naive.

in fact, Democratic institutions have been declining long before social media was ever on the scene. the focus on contempt obscures this decline and its material causes. instead of analyzing the decline of democratic institutions or arguing for their revitalization, they focus on policing the political subjectivities of citizens. given this background, I think we should reformulate the question. will refusing contempt save democracy? how is the manufacture of contempt related to the decline of democratic institutions?

it is of course impossible to answer these questions without making concrete claims about politics which may alienate some readers, but it has the upshot of being more relevant.

Un problème est survenu. Veuillez réessayer dans quelques minutes.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation.