Thursday, October 30, 2008

Democracy

I voted today.

It took five minutes and in some ways was just as routine as filling out the order form at the Armadillo Grill downstairs. I'd be lying, though, if I said that it wasn't an emotional experience for me. When we vote, we are exercising our most basic and important right, one that is the very organizing principle of our country. Though voting is by necessity a partisan act, it is in the act of casting a ballot that we are each of us -Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Anarchist- unified as American citizens involved in something greater than any one person or party.

Perhaps it's my post-voting high, but since returning to my (so-called) desk here at the Gothic, I've been thinking about democracy. Specifically, I've been thinking about the democracy of ideas and how the best bookstores seek to embrace that. Now, I'll be the first to admit that I have very strong ideas about politics, and like anyone else with well-entrenched beliefs I think that I'm right and that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. But whenever I've had a conversation (or even a knock-down, drag-out fight) with someone who has well thought-out but opposing viewpoints, I've come away the better for it.That's because one's ideas become more nuanced, more complex, when encountering not just agreement but opposition.

In general, we Gargoyles tend to keep our politics to ourselves. Our customers embrace a broad spectrum of beliefs, and we don't wish to create a hostile environment for any of them. But a couple of days ago I found myself in conversation with a colleague and friend whose political leanings are in many ways the polar opposite of mine. This colleague (I'll call him "Wrong-O") and I spent a very pleasant half-hour or so exchanging our points of view. We actually listened to each other and found ourselves agreeing on many principles but differing dramatically on who we thought would be best equipped to run the nation. At the end of the exchange, Wrong-O said, "Now that's how you have a political discussion."

It was encouraging that the two of us could work alongside each other and continue to respect (even admire) each other while disagreeing. A bookstore should be a place that can accommodate a wide range of ideas, and we at the Gothic should strive to ensure that our stock reflects that variety. It's not our job to endorse one point of view over another. It's our job to create an atmosphere in which books and ideas seem exciting and in which customers can choose for themselves what they want to read.

Recently we were discussing a revamping of our under-browsed humor section. It needs more relevance and less hokum. As we discussed what would improve the section, I imagined P.J. O'Rourke on the shelf beside David Rees. Sure, they're at opposite ends of the political spectrum, but both are satirists of the highest caliber. And caliber is, for this bookseller at least, the sole criterion for deciding whether a book belongs on our shelves.

So go vote, Gothic shoppers. It's important, and it's fun. Then come by the bookshop and cast your vote for what belongs in our humor section, our politics section, or any section in the store. Remember: it's everybody's store, not just ours.

1 comment:

laurenlivingalone said...

I agree that by discussing or arguing over politics with someone else one's ideas become, as you said, more "complex and nuanced." To that point, I have done a lot of reading this semester on political discourse in the media for my classes. One of my readings "The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election: Divided They Blog" by Lada Adamic and Natalie Glance actually spoke to the fact that political bloggers tend to link to other blogs that fit with their political views. Conservatives link to conservative blogs, and so forth. And actually, according to their paper, bloggers in general had a higher tendency to link to conservative blogs. But returning to my main point, there is a problem of a divided blogosphere. There is not enough sharing of views and information between different sides. In fact, Cass Sunstein in her article "Fragmentation and Cybercascades" acknowledge this blogging phenomenon as breeding greater group polarization. And greater group polarization is a good or bad thing depending on which argument you decide to follow. On one side group polarization helped fuel socially beneficial outcomes like the Civil Rights movement, but on the other it can cause self-insulation which ultimately results in extremism and marginality. She also states that this polarization is less likely to happen if there are intermediaries sharing information between the two groups.

Either way, I believe that the exchange of any view points in everyday conversation is helpful on an individual level. By defending one's own view, it will only help the individual better understand the issue at hand. So bill, I think you are doing a good thing by sharing your political beliefs at the Gothic. And I think it's okay to share them with customers as well, as long as you remain respectful. I know that I'll always share my opinions when a customer asks!

Works Cited:
Adamic, Lada, and Natalie Glance. "The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election:
Divided They Blog." Mar. 2005. http://www.blogpulse.com/papers/2005/AdamicGlanceBlogWWW.pdf

Sunstein, Cass. "Fragmentation and Cybercascades." 2001. http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777122307/