Seize the Means of Community

In previous posts, we explored Richard Rorty’s concepts of final vocabularies and how they shape our beliefs and identities. In this post, we will delve into conversation stoppers and introduce conversation deflectors. We will also provide specific examples that Rorty offers for how certain terms can function as stoppers in public discourse, as well as examples of how conversation deflectors subtly redirect dialogue.

Final Vocabularies in Rorty’s Philosophy

A final vocabulary is the set of words and descriptions that an individual uses to make sense of the world. These words are “final” in the sense that they are the bedrock of that person’s worldview, and questioning them can lead to deep existential discomfort. Final vocabularies are contingent, meaning that they are shaped by historical and cultural circumstances, and can change, but they are often held deeply by individuals.

Rorty’s famous examples of final vocabulary terms include words like “justice,” “truth,” “freedom,” and “rationality”—terms that, for many people, carry a sense of ultimate meaning or authority.

Final Vocabularies in Rorty | The Communitarium Wiki

Conversation Stoppers: Specific Examples from Rorty

Conversation stoppers occur when certain terms from a final vocabulary are invoked to halt further discussion. These terms carry such weight for the speaker that they shut down further questioning or challenge. Rorty provides examples of these stoppers, including:

• “Human rights”: In many contexts, invoking “human rights” can serve as a conversation stopper. Once this term is invoked, it often closes off further debate because questioning it can seem immoral or unreasonable.
• “Objectivity”: When someone claims that their perspective is “objective,” it can act as a conversation stopper because it suggests that the viewpoint is impartial and beyond subjective critique.
• “Freedom”: The word “freedom” can also function as a stopper, particularly in political discourse. Invoking freedom as a justification for a policy or action often ends the conversation, as opposing it seems to imply support for oppression or authoritarianism.

These terms are difficult to challenge without appearing to reject the fundamental principles they represent, which is why they effectively stop further debate.

Conversation Deflectors: Shifting the Tone

While conversation stoppers halt dialogue, conversation deflectors work more subtly by redirecting the tone or focus of the discussion. Deflectors may not shut down the conversation completely, but they reduce its seriousness or shift its trajectory in a way that prevents deeper engagement.

Examples of deflectors include:

• Humor or mockery: When someone raises a controversial or challenging issue, others might respond with humor, subtly suggesting that the topic isn’t to be taken seriously. This deflects the conversation from serious discussion to something more trivial.
  • For example, in debates about climate change, skeptics might use humor to mock scientific models or predictions, which can lead to the issue being framed as speculative or overly dramatic.
• Disgust or moral sensationalism: Topics deemed disgusting or taboo may enter conversation but are often met with sensationalized reactions that prevent sober discussion. For instance, discussions about certain medical procedures or human rights abuses might be deflected by expressions of disgust, making the topic harder to engage with rationally.

By employing deflectors, participants can divert the conversation from a potentially meaningful exchange to something less productive, without appearing to shut it down outright.

Conclusion

Both conversation stoppers and deflectors are important to understand when discussing final vocabularies. They show how deeply held terms and emotional reactions can limit meaningful discourse. In the Communitarium Project, understanding and managing these mechanisms can help foster more open and reflective dialogues, where final vocabularies are engaged rather than used to shut down or deflect conversations.

In the next post, we will synthesize these ideas into a Rortyan statement of the Communitarium Project.