[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: RAT Politics, Theatre Audiences, and the Medici
If it's tolerable, I'll throw a couple of media references into this
interesting thread.
> why is it necessary to show someone their own
> viewpoint before trying to change their mind?
Lew Hill, founder of the only -- somewhat* -- remaining non-corporate radio
network in the U.S., Pacifica, had an interesting take on propagating a
point of view in order to achieve positive social change (in this case, an
end to war, Hill was a pacifist).
Hill felt that by creating a space where two sides of an issue could go at
it, you could bring more people onto your side. People tend to be
skeptical, and put up more defenses if they feel like someone is preaching
at them. If they get to hear two opposing arguments, they tend to listen
in a more open way.
And Hill also wanted more listeners, he was a radio man, two opposing
forces is more dramatic, more conflict.
The main benefit of this approach, to Hill, is that if someone chooses,
after hearing both sides, to change their minds, they hold that new opinion
more strongly, having made it themselves.
You could also make a good argument that Rush Limbaugh helped foment a
significant righter-than-right sea change in our political landscape just
by mobilizing the core converted. His argument for one-sided radio was
that all media was "liberal," so he didn't need to provide a forum for both
sides. To Rush, his voice _was_ "equal time."
* The Pacifica Network is currently under attack, and is on the verge of
becoming just another watered-down, corporate friendly network ala
NPR. www.savepacifica.net is one p.o.v. on the topic. Incidentally, in
the early days, Pacifica was not just news and talk, they actually
broadcast live theater performances.
At 09:34 AM 06/01/2001 -0700, Ruthanne Price wrote:
>--- Cat Hebert <virtualdrama@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > The question, though, is how you go about inciting
> > *political* change in
> > a theater audience member. That usually implies
> > helping people to change
> > their point of view on a particular issue -- largely
> > through making such
> > a compelling argument within the piece that the
> > individual goes home and
> > re-thinks their point of view.
> >
> > To be able to effect "change" of this sort, a
> > theater piece must present
> > the point of view currently held by the audience
> > member and then show
> > cogent reasons for switching point of view --
> > usually by showing how the
> > effects of the new point of view will make changes
> > for the "better".
> >
> > Theater which shows only one side of an issue
> > (doesn't represent the
> > audience member's current point of view) can't
> > effect *change*, it can
> > only reinforce the belief system of those already
> > committed to a
> > particular point of view (a valuable function).
>
>
>
>why is it necessary to show someone their own
>viewpoint before trying to change their mind? if one
>presents one's point, one's opinion, one's ideal with
>passion capable of touching people, why should it be
>necessary to approach them first on their own ground?
>in fact, if what you are trying to do is lead them
>into your territory in a way that provokes thought and
>change, should you not just walk to the edge of where
>you are which is closest to the edge of where they are
>and then try to engage them across those edges?
>
>my father is a strong rational man who believes that
>homosexuality is wrong - or at least a bad choice. he
>is blessed with this lesbian daughter who is
>constantly trying to normalize the idea to him. i
>designed sound for a recent dallas production of diana
>son's _stop kiss_, which he came to see, without my
>mother, on closing night. he was very nearly the only
>straight man there. he watched the show, which made
>no concessions to his idea that homosexuality is wrong
>or a bad choice, and came away thinking about it in
>just this manner that leads to changing minds. he may
>not have changed his mind that night, and he may not
>change it tomorrow. but the seed is planted. and it
>was planted without any sort of nod to how he might
>feel about this given issue now.
>
>i do not think that it is necessary to stand on both
>sides of anything to change minds. in fact, i think
>that the most important thing is to stand. (the
>popularity of many of evangelical religions defies the
>idea that one must present both sides of something.
>bringing an idea to a person where they are is not the
>same thing.)
>
>peace,
>ruthanne
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
>a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------
>To [un]subscribe to the rat-list, send an email to
>"majordomo@ratconference.com"
>with [un]subscribe rat-list" in the body of the message.
>For information on other functions send a message containing the word
>"help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
>---------------------------------------
>You may also [un]subscribe on the web at
>http://www.ratconference.com/cgi-bin/web_domo.pl?list=rat-list
---------------------------------------
To [un]subscribe to the rat-list, send an email to "majordomo@ratconference.com"
with [un]subscribe rat-list" in the body of the message.
For information on other functions send a message containing the word
"help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
---------------------------------------
You may also [un]subscribe on the web at http://www.ratconference.com/cgi-bin/web_domo.pl?list=rat-list