How To: Use a Buzz-word

It’s always nice to find friends in ‘right’ places.  Young and Conservative, an essay-based blog by college students, has pieces on subjects from the social contract to reflections on Reagan and the Cold War. Our friends over at Y&C recently took on the concept of ‘meaningful dialogue.‘  While we always hear this term at Cornell, usually in reference to Program Houses or Chi Alpha, Y&C author Cicero examines it in the reference frame of modern-day conservatives and socialists.

I find that the term “meaningful dialogue” must be set off in quotes, not because I do not intend to give the topic an honest appraisal, but because it is completely unclear as to what it can, does, or should mean.

…

As we all know, the Socialists have been calling for meaningful dialogue simply to try and get Conservatives to stop voicing their opinions. The process works like this. There is a protest going on somewhere about government spending or healthcare regulation. The liberal media and the Socialists in government then do their best to spin it as being angry, racist, and homophobic, and then talk about the need for meaningful dialogue. This results in the Conservative media responding that we haven’t been able to have a meaningful dialogue because the Socialists won’t listen.

Dialogue, discussion, and exchange of ideas are all certainly basic requirements of any successful society.  However, at Cornell, we always here about the importance of ‘meaningful dialogue’ and ‘thoughtful discussion.’  Most commonly heard in the debate on Program Houses, such terms are often employed in the same sense that Cicero brings up: as an attempt to strike down an idea which threatens the stability of one side of the argument.  The Review is frequently accused of prohibiting such meaningful discussion, as we are the strongest voice of opposition to racially-based programs at Cornell, namely the dormitories.

The buzz-word ‘dialogue’ certainly holds some legitimacy, of course, but in the most empirical sense.  Actually creating events and seminars where students are able to debate issues such as Program Houses, suicide fences, and campus /national health care are crucial to developing a solution to each issue.  This holds a distinctly different meaning from what PH proponents often deem ‘meaningful.’  For them, meaningful means that opponents stop saying things like ‘racial self-segregation.’  In fact, PH spokesman Zach Murray called for the abolition of that term during the PH discussion event this year.

The ‘meaningful discussion’ that is so often referenced by writers (including myself in the past) will probably never occur in the sense that it facilitates some sort of moderate solution which appeals to both parties.  The only solution comes when one side of the argument is more persuasive than the other. The way I see it, ‘meaningful dialogue’ is nothing more than a buzz-word used to delay action and suppress thought. I call for its abolition.  Or at least begin a meaningful discussion about its existence.