Don't Judge a Book by its Cover...

After a great Sunday filled with my Chicago Bears actually winning a football game, I am excited to examine the old opinion-as-identity standing in the way of rhetorical change question. First, what does the statement, "opinion-as-identity stands in the way of rhetorical change," from Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee (the authors of my surprisingly interesting Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students textbook) mean? While their wording is intimidating at first, their message is very simple: too often individuals are labeled and judged based on their opinions, preventing any successful or productive argument from taking place. If you can't allow yourself to open your mind and listen to somebody else's viewpoint, even if you have a conflicting viewpoint, you are "...undermining the principles on which our democratic community is based." (Crowley 6) 

I agree with Crowley that America needs internal argument and debate to sustain itself as a world super power and a democratic society. Why? Because these arguments bring necessary discussion and open new doors to potential solutions to problems. Just because a majority of people may agree on something does not mean that they are correct.

Unfortunately, it is often difficult not to connect opinion as identity. People, myself included, are quick to judge others at the first opportunity given. This practice goes against the cliche, don't judge a book by its cover, but is hard to avoid. Far too often this form of stereotyping occurs and in many places leads to violence or hatred. 

I think in this case the word opinion is ambiguous, standing not only for an individual's thoughts or beliefs, but also one's appearance. Judging another based on their beliefs is deeper than judging based on appearance, but is based on the same principle. In both cases, the guilty party is bypassing the opportunity to allow another individual to showcase his or her own unique traits or abilities, instead, stereotyping that individual based on a single opinion or physical feature.

Take for example the KKK or Nazis, who took opinion-as-identity to an extreme and murdered those that had different beliefs, despite the fact that they never knew any of their true identities.  

We see the opinion-as-identity crisis occur in politics all the time. The media is constantly creating portrayals of prominent figures based on their opinions or even appearances. This results in an inability for American's to truly debate these politician's merits at times, because that individual's political entity in the public's eye is based solely on one opinion. Yes, avoiding this can be difficult in politics, as the general public does not have much chance to get to know their political candidates and leaders on a personal level, but I think it's important not to judge any one candidate too strongly based on their own personal beliefs. It is fair to not like that person as a candidate for political office, but it does not mean that candidate is a "bad" or "evil" person. For example, you may not agree with the anti-choice beliefs of Sarah Palin, but just because she is opposed to abortion does not mean she is a horrible person. She simply has views that contradict some Americans and coincides with others.

To wrap up this, my second blog, I can't see an end to instant judging based on opinion anytime soon, but just being aware of the issue is a step in the right direction...in my opinion.