Chapters 2 & 3       I remember a lesson in American history when we were learning about the breakdown of United States politics into political parties immediately after President Washington emphatically directed, in his Farewell Address, that this not happen. Washington deplored this factionalism as a regression from stable government. But, Thomas Jefferson was one source of support for this factionalism. He understood that in differences there is strength and I remember a quote, paraphrased here for lack of precise memory: Factionalism is a blessing.        It can perhaps be considered common sense to realize that no person or entity can remain indefinitely and perfectly correct. I would also say it is unreasonable to believe that any person or entity can remain permanently and completely wrong(in line with the thinking that even a dead clock is right twice a day, but then we went digital). In fact, at most times most individuals are least partially right about some things and partially wrong about others; and the specificity of these things will be different among them. Therefore it would seem that Thomas Jefferson would have agreed with Iris Marion Young's assertion that, "The only remedy for false or invalid arguments is criticism"(Young 79).       It is becoming increasingly clear, through the combination of Young's own analysis and her representation of communitarian, liberal nationalist, and socialist opinion, that  complete division and multi-ism can be detrimental. But, this sort of socio-politico-factionalism can also be valuable, she says. "A strong communicative democracy, I conclude, needs to draw on social group differentiation, especially the experience derived from structural differentiation"(Young 83). Just as it was not a good idea in Jefferson's time to keep North separate from South or rural separate from urban, it is not a good idea to politically divide and exclude along the lines of gender, sexuality, race, etc. because, "A democratic public arrives at objective political judgment from discussion not by bracketing these differences, but by communicating the experiences and perspectives conditioned by them to one another" (Young 83).       This raises a problem, at least implicitly acknowledge by Young: communication. As a Public Communication major I am reading entire textbooks simply on how to communicate with other people. Examples of social, interpersonal, and intercultural communication breaking down are common as the opportunities for misunderstanding are many. Communication by nature is symbolic and ambiguous. The symbols differ between cultural enclaves and lead to misunderstanding and misgiving. It is easy to imagine how those in power would want to exclude people different from themselves because they are more difficult to understand than people they are used to. With this in mind, Young's assertion "communicating the perspectives and experiences" of society's many different parts is the only way we can strive for political inclusion. Back to review of Iris Marion Young's Inclusion and Democracy Back to Current Affairs page Back to Philosophy page Ryan's Writings main page