What do you think?
Rate this book
Quarterly Essay #87
Uncivil Wars: How contempt is corroding democracy
In this original, eloquent essay, Waleed Aly and Scott Stephens explore the ethics and politics of public debate – and the threats it now faces.
In a healthy democracy we need the capacity to disagree. Yet Aly and Stephens note a growing tendency to dismiss and exile opponents, to treat them with contempt. This toxic partisanship has been imported from the United States, where it has been corrosive – and a temptation for both left and right. Aly and Stephens analyse some telling examples and look back to heroes of democracy who found a better way forward.
This compelling essay draws on philosophy, literature and history to make an urgent case about the present.
In a healthy democracy we need the capacity to disagree. Yet Aly and Stephens note a growing tendency to dismiss and exile opponents, to treat them with contempt. This toxic partisanship has been imported from the United States, where it has been corrosive – and a temptation for both left and right. Aly and Stephens analyse some telling examples and look back to heroes of democracy who found a better way forward.
This compelling essay draws on philosophy, literature and history to make an urgent case about the present.
123 pages, Paperback
Published September 5, 2022
15 people are currently reading
65 people want to read
About the author
Waleed Aly
5 books15 followersWaleed Aly is a broadcaster, author and academic. His social and political commentary has produced an award-winning book and multiple literary short-listings, and appears in newspapers such as The Guardian, The Australian, The Sunday Times of India, The Australian Financial Review, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. He is the author of What’s Right? The Future of Conservatism in Australia. His debut book, People Like Us: How Arrogance is Dividing Islam and The West (Picador, 2007), was shortlisted for several awards including the Queensland Premier’s Literary Awards and for Best Newcomer at the 2008 Australian Book Industry Awards.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
September 14, 2022
With their deep knowledge of philosophy, history and social sciences, Waleed Aly and Scott Stephens are members of the very small group who can rightly be called Australian public intellectuals. That they wrote this together, questioning each other as they did so, no doubt accounts for the level of editorial excellence frequently lacking in this publication. They cogently argue that social debate and disagreement has been replaced by personal contempt, a process facilitated by social media – and this process is corroding democracy. Although often drawing upon Australian examples, the authors also look closely at American and international experience, which makes this work relevant to a global readership.
September 13, 2022
Internally contradictory, impractical, naive.
February 19, 2023
I've never read the Quarterly before, and this issue made me want to buy a subscription.
In this essay, Waleed Aly and Scott Stephens draw on recent cultural events and a breadth of philosophers to provide a cogent case for why contempt is bad for democracy. In their words, ‘Democracy is about cultivating a common life even in the presence of serious disagreement. Contempt is about having no life in common at all.’ They argue that the contemptuous find moral persuasion unnecessary, instead presuming that anyone who disagrees with them does so in bad faith.
A number of fellow reviewers find their argument to be feeble centrist bollocks but I didn't read it like this at all. To me they suggest that wherever you're arguing from, do it in good faith and with the presumption that you might be able to change the minds of others. Despise the sin but not the sinner.
I particularly enjoyed what the authors gleaned from James Baldwin and Simone Weil.
Drawing on Baldwin (particuarly his novel Tell Me How Long the Train’s Been Gone, 1968), they offer the following: 'one of the many problems of giving oneself over to contempt for the other is that you thereby consent to the contempt of the other. Embracing contempt means agreeing on it as the moral currency of our social interactions - making it the coin of the realm.’
Following Weil and others, they describe democracy - or politics, as being akin to marriage. Where 'persons, who are bound together by nothing more substantial than a reciprocal devotion, discover through their life together the "ethical conditions" that allow their union to persist.'
In this essay, Waleed Aly and Scott Stephens draw on recent cultural events and a breadth of philosophers to provide a cogent case for why contempt is bad for democracy. In their words, ‘Democracy is about cultivating a common life even in the presence of serious disagreement. Contempt is about having no life in common at all.’ They argue that the contemptuous find moral persuasion unnecessary, instead presuming that anyone who disagrees with them does so in bad faith.
A number of fellow reviewers find their argument to be feeble centrist bollocks but I didn't read it like this at all. To me they suggest that wherever you're arguing from, do it in good faith and with the presumption that you might be able to change the minds of others. Despise the sin but not the sinner.
I particularly enjoyed what the authors gleaned from James Baldwin and Simone Weil.
Drawing on Baldwin (particuarly his novel Tell Me How Long the Train’s Been Gone, 1968), they offer the following: 'one of the many problems of giving oneself over to contempt for the other is that you thereby consent to the contempt of the other. Embracing contempt means agreeing on it as the moral currency of our social interactions - making it the coin of the realm.’
Following Weil and others, they describe democracy - or politics, as being akin to marriage. Where 'persons, who are bound together by nothing more substantial than a reciprocal devotion, discover through their life together the "ethical conditions" that allow their union to persist.'
November 26, 2022
I'm really not clear what the point of this QE is? There are no final conclusions apart from the already acknowledged point that social media has increased polarisation. Not sure why it required the undoubtedly keen intellects of the authors to render this message? Perhaps Black Inc could start to commission more meaningful commentary, particularly after the carcrash of White's disaster in QE86.
The rightful bollocking that White receives in the correspondence redeems the volume somewhat.
The rightful bollocking that White receives in the correspondence redeems the volume somewhat.
February 9, 2023
2.5 stars rounded up to 3 (rather generously). I usually enjoy Quarterly Essay publications but this one left me a bit underwhelmed. I just don't the feel the authors added much to the issue under discussion. They just make a few rather obvious statements such as social media has facilitated and amplified the ability for people to be nasty to each other, to treat each other with contempt, but really don't provide much material to make it a truly thought provoking essay.
October 18, 2022
The essay itself is solid, and I do love the reveries on James Baldwin, but it’s nothing to write home about.
What really sets this issue of quarterly apart are the responses to Hugh White’s provocative quarterly essay. Very interesting counterpoints to White’s thesis, ranging from self-justification (Turnbull), to glib and self congratulatory (Rudd), to insightful (Vargese and others).
What really sets this issue of quarterly apart are the responses to Hugh White’s provocative quarterly essay. Very interesting counterpoints to White’s thesis, ranging from self-justification (Turnbull), to glib and self congratulatory (Rudd), to insightful (Vargese and others).
September 22, 2022
Another good Quarterly essay. The level of public debate in Australia is appalling. This is quite a good examination of the issue. Solutions are hard to come by but. Getting the Murdochs out of Australian media might be our only hope.
December 29, 2022
This was one of my worst Quarterly Essay experiences in several years. In this review I'm going to try to explore why that was.
To start with, I think my main problem is how little the authors achieve compared to the useful discussion they could have done. Their thesis basically boils down to: people should be nicer to one another. They argue that perfusive contempt is threatening our very democracy. Contempt, in their formulation, is basically an outright dismissal of another - seeing (and treating) people with whom one disagrees as bad, irredeemable, and not worthy of engagement.
I do think the question of contempt, or shaming, is good to write and talk about. But the authors seem to miss the mark. They flippantly gesture to "cancel culture" which is an ill-defined and often over-hyped notion. In subsequent correspondence in the next QE they go a bit deeper, describing the phenomenon of progressive people who are nominally on the same side cutting each other down for failure to align with some set of (it is implied) arbitrary rules. This is a more interesting argument, and I think could have ended up being a more useful and original contribution.
But more fundamentally, they are basically saying "you know that person you disagree with? instead of acting as if they are subhuman, maybe treat them nicely and accept that you are joint partners in a democratic project." What's so ridiculous about this is this weird relativistic notion that there is no such thing as truth and that we should all just keep up with our own beliefs, that even *persuasion* is pointless. At the very least I think the authors could have talked about how an unwillingness to have persuasive debates is a problem, and we should be more open to the fact that people can change their minds. An even better version of the argument would be that we shouldn't just be trying to persuade others, but that we should in fact be open to the fact that our own beliefs could be wrong, and the process should be less one of persuasion and more one of joint truth-seeking. But the authors' formulation focuses on issues that are divorced from facts (such as religious identity, or whether an unborn fetus is a human) and so their interest in actual truth seems minimal.
It can be hard to realise how shallow the actual thesis is because the authors do excel at endlessly quoting philosophers and writers. It's very unclear what this is meant to achieve. If an argument is wrong, does it become correct because James Baldwin said it centuries ago? I'm not averse to quoting someone when they make a point eloquently, but the authors seem to be, for example, using the very fact that Baldwin believed X as evidence of the fact that X is true. The absurdity of this is compounded in later correspondence (again, in the subsequent QE) in which a respondent disputes what Baldwin believed and the authors engage in a contrived argument against that. In the context of the argument, who gives a shit what Baldwin thought? Actually express your own views and marshall evidence for them!
Or better yet - be open to the fact that you could be wrong! The ultimate irony is that the authors, who are so contemptuous of contempt, are utterly incapable of taking on board criticism. Immediately after reading their essay I read the correspondence in the next edition of the QE, including the authors' own response. Their response shows no self-reflection, no ability to take on board criticism. Instead, they dismiss those who disagree with them, accusing them of misreading and misrepresenting the authors' own arguments. Surely the very form of democracy we should be aiming for is one in which, when challenged, we can take a step back and review our own beliefs. The authors are hypocritically unable or unwilling to do this, using the criticism as a chance to embed their own doctrine further. The irony is overwhelming.
To start with, I think my main problem is how little the authors achieve compared to the useful discussion they could have done. Their thesis basically boils down to: people should be nicer to one another. They argue that perfusive contempt is threatening our very democracy. Contempt, in their formulation, is basically an outright dismissal of another - seeing (and treating) people with whom one disagrees as bad, irredeemable, and not worthy of engagement.
I do think the question of contempt, or shaming, is good to write and talk about. But the authors seem to miss the mark. They flippantly gesture to "cancel culture" which is an ill-defined and often over-hyped notion. In subsequent correspondence in the next QE they go a bit deeper, describing the phenomenon of progressive people who are nominally on the same side cutting each other down for failure to align with some set of (it is implied) arbitrary rules. This is a more interesting argument, and I think could have ended up being a more useful and original contribution.
But more fundamentally, they are basically saying "you know that person you disagree with? instead of acting as if they are subhuman, maybe treat them nicely and accept that you are joint partners in a democratic project." What's so ridiculous about this is this weird relativistic notion that there is no such thing as truth and that we should all just keep up with our own beliefs, that even *persuasion* is pointless. At the very least I think the authors could have talked about how an unwillingness to have persuasive debates is a problem, and we should be more open to the fact that people can change their minds. An even better version of the argument would be that we shouldn't just be trying to persuade others, but that we should in fact be open to the fact that our own beliefs could be wrong, and the process should be less one of persuasion and more one of joint truth-seeking. But the authors' formulation focuses on issues that are divorced from facts (such as religious identity, or whether an unborn fetus is a human) and so their interest in actual truth seems minimal.
It can be hard to realise how shallow the actual thesis is because the authors do excel at endlessly quoting philosophers and writers. It's very unclear what this is meant to achieve. If an argument is wrong, does it become correct because James Baldwin said it centuries ago? I'm not averse to quoting someone when they make a point eloquently, but the authors seem to be, for example, using the very fact that Baldwin believed X as evidence of the fact that X is true. The absurdity of this is compounded in later correspondence (again, in the subsequent QE) in which a respondent disputes what Baldwin believed and the authors engage in a contrived argument against that. In the context of the argument, who gives a shit what Baldwin thought? Actually express your own views and marshall evidence for them!
Or better yet - be open to the fact that you could be wrong! The ultimate irony is that the authors, who are so contemptuous of contempt, are utterly incapable of taking on board criticism. Immediately after reading their essay I read the correspondence in the next edition of the QE, including the authors' own response. Their response shows no self-reflection, no ability to take on board criticism. Instead, they dismiss those who disagree with them, accusing them of misreading and misrepresenting the authors' own arguments. Surely the very form of democracy we should be aiming for is one in which, when challenged, we can take a step back and review our own beliefs. The authors are hypocritically unable or unwilling to do this, using the criticism as a chance to embed their own doctrine further. The irony is overwhelming.
February 22, 2023
A centrist naval gaze.
January 13, 2023
Honestly, this book is a case study as to why men who use the phrase "heroes of democracy" should never be referred to as "public intellectuals". Hot garbage. Aly and Stephens spin a contradictory thesis that can ultimately be condensed to "be nicer to intolerant conservatives, lest you risk fraying
the fabric of democracy". Ultimately they argue that both the contenmed and contemnor are equally as morally bankrupt as each other, even if the dynamic fits within an oppressor/oppressed party context. The burden of forgiveness and patience is placed upon the contemned (marginalised group), without guarantee of reciprocity from the contemnor (oppressor group). They frame contempt as wholly unacceptable, but never really engage with the fact that racism/sexism/homophobia/etc. are just systemic forms of contempt. At one point, they rally against progressives "reading into things",
and suggest that text should be taken at face value. Perhaps media literacy (or lack thereof) is more corrosive to democracy than contempt? A correspondent (in QE#88) touches on this in her review, and Aly and Stephens accuse her of not taking their argument at face value, and reading to much into it. What????? This essay could have been so much better if it engaged (in good faith) with ideas of intersections of oppression and economic anxiety, AND YET, they rely on centerist rhetoric and horseshoe theory BS wrapped up in invocations of long-dead philosophers, and topped off with a pretty bow made from big words. Lol i am so done.
the fabric of democracy". Ultimately they argue that both the contenmed and contemnor are equally as morally bankrupt as each other, even if the dynamic fits within an oppressor/oppressed party context. The burden of forgiveness and patience is placed upon the contemned (marginalised group), without guarantee of reciprocity from the contemnor (oppressor group). They frame contempt as wholly unacceptable, but never really engage with the fact that racism/sexism/homophobia/etc. are just systemic forms of contempt. At one point, they rally against progressives "reading into things",
and suggest that text should be taken at face value. Perhaps media literacy (or lack thereof) is more corrosive to democracy than contempt? A correspondent (in QE#88) touches on this in her review, and Aly and Stephens accuse her of not taking their argument at face value, and reading to much into it. What????? This essay could have been so much better if it engaged (in good faith) with ideas of intersections of oppression and economic anxiety, AND YET, they rely on centerist rhetoric and horseshoe theory BS wrapped up in invocations of long-dead philosophers, and topped off with a pretty bow made from big words. Lol i am so done.
February 27, 2023
Excellent stuff. A very detailed and clever analysis of the problems we are having with our democracy, specifically the dangers of contempt.
September 11, 2022
It's been really interesting to read this Quarterly Essay in the wake of contemporary events...
In the Uncivil Wars, How contempt is corroding democracy authors Waleed Aly & Scott Stephens unpack the decline in public debate, identifying changes in the way contemporary philosophers have reconsidered contempt as a reactive moral emotion, giving examples of its corrosiveness, and identifying three kinds of contempt, which they say pose a threat to democracy:
Patronising contempt: it's one way, top down, a form of knowing without being known; of speaking without being addressed. The example given is Turnbull's response to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which mischaracterised the Voice, rejected a proposal the Uluru Statement never made, and declared the matter closed without any public debate.
Disgust: the contempt of racists, of segregationists and anti-miscegenationists. (Interestingly, anti-Semitism is not included in this list; it should have been.) The example given is slavery, in which humans are conflated with animals, chattels, and fauna. Again, this form of contempt is hierarchical.
Moral superiority: a form of censure, of judgement, an affirmation of one's moral superiority over another.
[LH: Is this form of contempt the one that more of us would admit to, though for a variety of reasons, perhaps keep it private or are circumspect about it? Most of us, I suspect, would be upfront about our contempt for Nazis or Hansonism, but maybe not about vaccine refusal within families.
One example the authors give is Hillary Clinton's contempt for Trump's 'deplorables', but they also give the example Robodebt:
Moral contempt is everywhere: it is the kind of contempt we are likely to encounter in the maelstrom of culture wars or the trench warfare of politics. It is a staple of the tabloid media. 'Cancel culture' (which, who knew? began as a joke) is a an example of moral contempt:
To read the rest of my review please visit https://anzlitlovers.com/2022/09/11/u...
In the Uncivil Wars, How contempt is corroding democracy authors Waleed Aly & Scott Stephens unpack the decline in public debate, identifying changes in the way contemporary philosophers have reconsidered contempt as a reactive moral emotion, giving examples of its corrosiveness, and identifying three kinds of contempt, which they say pose a threat to democracy:
Patronising contempt: it's one way, top down, a form of knowing without being known; of speaking without being addressed. The example given is Turnbull's response to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which mischaracterised the Voice, rejected a proposal the Uluru Statement never made, and declared the matter closed without any public debate.
Disgust: the contempt of racists, of segregationists and anti-miscegenationists. (Interestingly, anti-Semitism is not included in this list; it should have been.) The example given is slavery, in which humans are conflated with animals, chattels, and fauna. Again, this form of contempt is hierarchical.
Moral superiority: a form of censure, of judgement, an affirmation of one's moral superiority over another.
[LH: Is this form of contempt the one that more of us would admit to, though for a variety of reasons, perhaps keep it private or are circumspect about it? Most of us, I suspect, would be upfront about our contempt for Nazis or Hansonism, but maybe not about vaccine refusal within families.
One example the authors give is Hillary Clinton's contempt for Trump's 'deplorables', but they also give the example Robodebt:
a signature example of moral contempt, literally automating the judgement of people as welfare cheats (often incorrectly) and then depriving them of a human ear to which to make their case. By relegating people to the unaccountable calculation of machines in this way, the government was instituting a program of bureaucratic shunning. (p.17)
Moral contempt is everywhere: it is the kind of contempt we are likely to encounter in the maelstrom of culture wars or the trench warfare of politics. It is a staple of the tabloid media. 'Cancel culture' (which, who knew? began as a joke) is a an example of moral contempt:
Perhaps nothing better fits the definition of moral contempt than online 'cancel culture', whereby someone whom internet users deem to have transgressed a sacred moral standard finds themselves at the bottom of an online pile-on, a rapid swarm of public shaming, often accompanied by calls for them to be shunned, boycotted, fired from their jobs or worse — in short, "cancelled". The contempt is embedded in the language: cancellation carries with it the sense of something being annulled, destroyed, undone, neutralised, erased or terminated; in other words, it is to delete both the thing itself and its very memory. (p.17)
To read the rest of my review please visit https://anzlitlovers.com/2022/09/11/u...
January 23, 2023
While I think I liked the idea of this essay - hell, just the fact that it was published on this particular platform - more than the essay itself, I think it would be dishonest to rate it any lower than four stars. Though I've never watched The Project - and probably would rather keep it that way - I do confess to being a bit of a fan of Waleed Aly.
This is a joint effort from him and Scott Stephens, of whom I have never heard before. Stephens was also the reader on the Audible version I listened to, and actually I didn't like his narration, so perhaps - though it might not be accurate - I will hold the smaller things I didn't love about this against him.
Really, anyone who generally hovers around the centre of politics has heard the arguments this essay makes before. Many, many times. But we may take hope that finally the centre-left likes of these writers are also beginning to tire of the excesses of cancel culture, partisan point-scoring, and the general gutter politics that have corrupted America, and to a lesser extent other Western countries like Australia, since the rise of social media.
I did find it a tiny bit annoying, if crafty, that the prime example they go for in lambasting cancel culture was the unjustified backlash against Muslim activist, Yassmin Abdel-Magied. Truth them to cite one of the rarer examples of conservatives losing their shit and howling for blood online. This isn't to say that overblown outrage is not a thing of the Right as well, but I find it disingenuous that they should try to frame cancel culture subtly as something right-wingers are more prone to inciting. It just confirms my own suspicions that, when we finally have done away with that nonsense, it will have been re-presented as something conservatives were the torchbearers for - thus allowing the true mongerers to save face and not feel like they are being forced to admit an error.
This is a joint effort from him and Scott Stephens, of whom I have never heard before. Stephens was also the reader on the Audible version I listened to, and actually I didn't like his narration, so perhaps - though it might not be accurate - I will hold the smaller things I didn't love about this against him.
Really, anyone who generally hovers around the centre of politics has heard the arguments this essay makes before. Many, many times. But we may take hope that finally the centre-left likes of these writers are also beginning to tire of the excesses of cancel culture, partisan point-scoring, and the general gutter politics that have corrupted America, and to a lesser extent other Western countries like Australia, since the rise of social media.
I did find it a tiny bit annoying, if crafty, that the prime example they go for in lambasting cancel culture was the unjustified backlash against Muslim activist, Yassmin Abdel-Magied. Truth them to cite one of the rarer examples of conservatives losing their shit and howling for blood online. This isn't to say that overblown outrage is not a thing of the Right as well, but I find it disingenuous that they should try to frame cancel culture subtly as something right-wingers are more prone to inciting. It just confirms my own suspicions that, when we finally have done away with that nonsense, it will have been re-presented as something conservatives were the torchbearers for - thus allowing the true mongerers to save face and not feel like they are being forced to admit an error.
February 21, 2023
In the Quarterly Essay Uncivil Wars, Aly and Stephens claims that it is contempt that is corroding democracy. Aly and Stephens looks at contempt from many angles and through the writings of a number of philosophers. At its most basic, a major understanding of contempt appears to be about judging people as people and not just their acts. It is the person who is dismissed and diminished, not just their ideas, values or behaviours.
Aly and Stephens' philosophical discussion is complex and highly stimulating and Schwartz media should be congratulated in devoting a Quarterly Essay to this important topic. For me, however, it is the solutions offered in dealing with contempt that are a little disappointing and underdeveloped.
In the concluding section of the Essay, Aly and Stephens ask “How, then, might we describe the bond that must exist between democratic citizens for democracy to flourish?” Their answer is to invoke the metaphor of a good marriage in which the habits of patience, reciprocity and free exchange are practised; for it is these traits that are the “lifeblood of any healthy democratic culture.” While perhaps a fine ideal, I’m wondering the extent to which these traits could ever have been practised with those who stormed the Capitol on 6 January 2021.
Aly and Stephens' philosophical discussion is complex and highly stimulating and Schwartz media should be congratulated in devoting a Quarterly Essay to this important topic. For me, however, it is the solutions offered in dealing with contempt that are a little disappointing and underdeveloped.
In the concluding section of the Essay, Aly and Stephens ask “How, then, might we describe the bond that must exist between democratic citizens for democracy to flourish?” Their answer is to invoke the metaphor of a good marriage in which the habits of patience, reciprocity and free exchange are practised; for it is these traits that are the “lifeblood of any healthy democratic culture.” While perhaps a fine ideal, I’m wondering the extent to which these traits could ever have been practised with those who stormed the Capitol on 6 January 2021.
December 19, 2022
This is a strong and intriguing analysis, but a Quarterly Essay was a poor choice of format.
As other reviews point out, this essay was twice as long as it needed to be. But I'd argue it is also half as long. The first half is a brilliant review of philosophical deconstructions of the moral emotion and processes of contempt, its potential uses and justifications. The second half becomes a far more pithy analysis of contempt's place in a democratic society. This leaves us with two choices:
Were the essay halved, it would be a wonderful long-form article on the philosophical implications of contempt. Were its length doubled, with effort made to seek solutions for a contempt-ridden society, it could be a genuinely constructive mass-marketed book, with the potential to aid in the healing process. Alas, this essay is a setup with no punchline, like a
As other reviews point out, this essay was twice as long as it needed to be. But I'd argue it is also half as long. The first half is a brilliant review of philosophical deconstructions of the moral emotion and processes of contempt, its potential uses and justifications. The second half becomes a far more pithy analysis of contempt's place in a democratic society. This leaves us with two choices:
Were the essay halved, it would be a wonderful long-form article on the philosophical implications of contempt. Were its length doubled, with effort made to seek solutions for a contempt-ridden society, it could be a genuinely constructive mass-marketed book, with the potential to aid in the healing process. Alas, this essay is a setup with no punchline, like a
June 15, 2023
A very interesting essay that combines elements of philosophy, history and politics that challenges contemporary moral battlegrounds and the stubborn defensiveness of opinion. This essay validated my hiatus from social media but also challenged me to reflect on when I too held on to my views to the detriment of constructive discussion. An important reminder, and a cautious warning for Australia’s ever growing divisive political spectrum.
July 18, 2023
Something everyone should read. Really puts life into perspective and how we should be treating others to ensure we have a better future where all sides are view equaly and understood without the contempt for one another. Cause continuing down the path we are on will just lead to further issues that will get stronger and stronger.
November 6, 2022
Very interesting essay hitting some critical points about society’s inability to maintain healthy debate. Contempt is explained and illustrated very well, although the text could have been half the length without losing any of the key points.
3.5 rounded up to 4 stars.
3.5 rounded up to 4 stars.
December 8, 2023
Really fascinating for me whilst traversing the families path with a member with severe mental illness. Applying the concept of contempt to this situation has assisted me to be more attentive and seek to understand whilst concerned for the outcomes of others caught up in this volatile cyclone.
November 19, 2022
This was a really well written and thoughtfully constructed essay. I like the time the authors took to examine the meaning of contempt, philosophically, before examining implications and examples.
December 10, 2022
I’m sure the premise is accurate but this collection of sentences was just boring.
January 9, 2023
The retorts at the end were better
February 18, 2023
Why bother to decipher the post-Trump landscape for your audience if you conclude with an academic and dismissive argument about ‘contempt’.
July 7, 2023
thought provoking, highly articulate discussion around contempt, media/social media and how it impacts on future democracy.
January 8, 2023
A really thought provoking exploration of how the tendency to attack and vilify people who disagree with us is damaging democracy. Certainly challenging for me and I recognise I have a tendency to jump to contempt - learned from dear daddy.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews