By Micah Watson
Department of Political Science
Ezekiel Bulver, a 5-year-old boy, listened to his parents talk. His father, scribbling diagrams on a sheet of paper, was insisting on some mathematical axiom to his mother.
Mrs. Bulver’s response struck young Ezekiel like a lightning bolt: “Oh, you say that because you are a man.”
Looking back on this event as an adult, Bulver described his great discovery.
“At that moment there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument.
“Assume that your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet.
“Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.”
Ezekiel Bulver is, of course, fictional. He is a creation of C.S. Lewis of “Narnia” fame in a little-known essay titled “Bulverism.”
But while Bulver the person is fictional, “bulverism” the phenomenon is all too real, and what Lewis warned against in 1941 has become so prevalent today that one need only observe everyday conversation for a moment to recognize it.
“He’s only in favor of the war because he’s in ROTC.”
“She feels abortion is wrong only because she’s Baptist.”
“He is against gay marriage because he is homophobic.”
Thus any sort of proposition or argument is rendered superfluous.
We can explain, or better yet, label, the psychology, and so we don’t need to engage an idea.
The last statement above is perhaps the premier example of contemporary bulverism.
Rather than admit that reasonable people can differ about the morality of human sexuality and public recognition of various sexual relationships, some will employ the “homophobic” label for a broad swath of people from the truly homophobic to those who believe that though homosexual orientation is a sort of disorder and homosexual actions are morally wrong, gay men and women still are made in God’s image and deserving of respect.
Of course, how that dignity and respect translate into public policy with regard to marriage and the like is at the heart of the debate.
But good-faith debate is hobbled from the beginning by the description of one entire side as suffering from a phobia.
And to have a phobia is, by definition, to have an irrational fear.
Another, less polite, word for irrational is “crazy.”
One doesn’t debate crazy people. One ignores them, or discredits them, or has them medicated.
Bulverism is an equal-opportunity phenomenon.
The conversational examples listed above bulverize more conservative positions, but conservatives can be equally guilty in psychologizing and dismissing liberals.
When we bulverize, we undercut the civil discourse necessary for the health of any democratic society or university.
We treat those with whom we disagree as mere subjects of our amateur psychologizing rather than as persons with ideas in their own right.
It may very well be that upon reflection, we will conclude their ideas are false, or misguided, but we will not know unless we give them a fair hearing, and in the process we’ll likely learn more about our own positions.
More important, we’ll engage in the sort of argument that can produce light and not merely heat.
Dr. Micah Watson is an associate professor of political science and director for the Center for Politics and Religion at Union University.
