The assumption, all too often taken for granted in academic circles, that scholarship takes place in an “ivory tower” that has no relationship to the real world, is problematic in light of Said’s thorough critique of the discursive practice of Orientalism and his advocacy of “worldly” criticism. As I have attempted to demonstrate in this essay, all scholars and public policy arguers, myself included, cannot escape the cultural embeddedness of their positions, authority and work. If it is the case that human beings are constantly shaped by their surroundings, and form attitudes, beliefs, and values in response to their circumstances, then it seems clear that attempts to “objectively” discover and communicate knowledge are doomed to fail. It is my belief that formalist argumentation theory, with its goals of accurately describing arguments and applying “rational” tests to determine whether they warrant assent, clings to the goal of objectivity. Furthermore, presuming that “rational” argument takes place between equally empowered voices in an “ideal” civic and democratic society, obscures the role of power relations as they are culturally and historically coded in society. Once it is granted that academic discourse circulates throughout culture and becomes part of the taken-for-granted assumption that drive society, then it is imperative that scholars who produce such discourse are vigilant and aware of the power and implications of their work. In this essay, I have attempted to illustrate the ways in which public policy argumentation (scholarly and otherwise) concerning the threats posed by nuclear proliferation, and the potential deployment of ballistic missile defense as a way of alleviating those threats, depict “other” nations in ways that are racist and sexist, and which serve to perpetuate global inequalities. Some might argue that it is easy to point fingers, lay blame, and complain about the current state of international relations without offering any concrete solutions to the dangers that face our world each day. Adopting a critical stance to the evaluation of arguments, however, represents a first step toward constructive change, in that awareness of the ideological power of argumentation opens up possibilities for reconceptualizing the role of scholarship. Listening to the voices of “others,” with sensitivity to the particular situations from which such voices emerge, seems to be logically prior to suggesting alternatives.
The assumption, all too often taken for granted in academic circles, that scholarship takes place in an “ivory tower” that has no relationship to the real world, is problematic in light of discursive practice of Orientalism and his advocacy of “worldly” criticism all scholars and public policy arguers cannot escape the cultural embeddedness of their positions, authority and work. If it is the case that human beings are constantly shaped by their surroundings, and form attitudes, beliefs, and values in response to their circumstances, then it seems clear that attempts to “objectively” discover and communicate knowledge are doomed to fail. formalist argumentation theory clings to the goal of objectivity presuming that “rational” argument takes place between equally empowered voices in an “ideal” civic and democratic society, obscures the role of power relations as they are culturally and historically coded in society. Once it is granted that academic discourse circulates throughout culture and becomes part of the taken-for-granted assumption that drive society, then it is imperative that scholars who produce such discourse are vigilant and aware of the power and implications of their work public policy argumentation concerning the threats posed by nuclear proliferation depict “other” nations in ways that are racist and sexist, and which serve to perpetuate global inequalities. Some might argue that it is easy to point fingers, lay blame, and complain about the current state without offering any concrete solutions to the dangers that face our world each day. Adopting a critical stance to the evaluation of arguments represents a first step toward constructive change, in that awareness of the ideological power of argumentation opens up possibilities for reconceptualizing the role of scholarship. Listening to the voices of “others,” with sensitivity to the particular situations from which such voices emerge, seems to be logically prior to suggesting alternatives