Public discourse is becoming ever more fractious, and what passes these days for 'public debate' has come to resemble something more like a play of alternating monologues — each shamelessly appealing to its tribe of the already-convinced.

Perhaps this is because the point of public discourse is no longer to persuade; rather, the goal of so many public pronouncements seems to be to signal one’s position, to 'take a stand' for some cause, to 'raise awareness' or to 'bear witness' or to 'demand change'. This is invariably followed by a decision to break off political communication with others — to declare that there is nothing more to say to one’s opponents.

We are a long way from what John Rawls’s called a mutual commitment to 'public reason': a humble ambition to be persuasive — that is, to offer sufficient grounds for one’s convictions — and, in turn, an openness to being persuaded. For Rawls, it wasn’t just a matter of reasonableness, but of disposition, a commitment to reciprocity, a preparedness to maintain fellowship with one’s political or ideological opponents over time.

Can such a discipline be recovered? When is one permitted to pronounce a fellow citizen or member of a political community ‘beyond the pale’ or beyond the reach of political communion? Can we ever truly say, ‘the conversation is over’?







