| Abstract: | Is it always ethical to ask a person to be “open‐minded” in volatile political contexts? What might open‐mindedness entail and when might such an expectation be harmful? Drawing on observations and interviews related to a controversial dialogue that occurred in Charlottesville, Virginia, following the violent Unite the Right rally of August 2017, Rachel Wahl argues, first, that whether we might consider someone “open‐minded” has little to do with their participation in processes that formally affirm and even genuinely aim for this virtue. Second, the division between people who view civil dialogue as the key to social progress and people who aver that direct resistance is what is called for is rooted in deeply different conceptions of the social world and what ails the nation. This divide is at once a response to the political moment and to the human condition, as it is a manifestation of an enduring tension between openness and commitment. Third, the disposition to be what one might call “open‐minded” about this division is premised on how one understands one's self and life. While popular and philosophical conceptions of this division tend to valorize either openness or commitment, Wahl draws on René Arcilla's conception of a life of education in order to articulate how these might be integrated. The possibility of understanding one's life as an education illustrates what may have made it possible for one exemplary participant in the Charlottesville dialogue to be open‐minded even about the value of some expressions of open‐mindedness while maintaining his principled commitments. |
