National parliamentary debate styles differ sharply in formality and heat

Evidence

If the adherents of a religion enter the public sphere, can their entry leave the preexisting discursive structure intact? The public sphere is not an empty space for carrying out debates. It is constituted by the sensibilities—memories and aspirations, fears and hopes—of speakers and listeners. And also by the manner in which they exist (and are made to exist) for each other, and by their propensity to act or react in distinctive ways. Thus the introduction of new discourses may result in the disruption of established assumptions structuring debates in the public sphere. More strongly: they may have to disrupt existing assumptions to be heard. Far from having to prove to existing authority that it is no threat to dominant values, a religion that enters political debate on its own terms may on the contrary have to threaten the authority of existing assumptions. And if that is the case, what is meant by demanding that any resulting change must be carried out by moral suasion and negotiation and never by force? After all, “force” includes not only degrees of subtle intimidation but also the dislocation of the moral world people inhabit. — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular, 902 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Similar capacity-democracy positions still yield sharply divergent national repertoires — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1315; The power to set the etiquette of debate is itself political power — Nina Eliasoph, Avoiding politics: how Americans…, 161; Entering public debate may require disrupting its inherited assumptions, not accommodating them — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular:…, 902 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Entering public debate may require disrupting its inherited assumptions, not accommodating them #complicates (0.76) — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular, 902