Interview #1 - Polemic

Polemics can act as a catalyst for thinking because it magnifies certain aspects of a topic and thus makes them more visible.

Jo: Hey Julian how are you?

Ju: I’m fine thanks. And how are you?

Jo: I’m great! What is Polemic? And why do you think it’s important?

Ju: In the best case scenario, polemics mean presenting one's opinion on a subject in such an exaggerated, provocative and trenchant manner that it irritates others, perhaps makes them aggressive and challenges them to respond. Perhaps one can say: polemics are caricatures in prose form. Its provocative aspect is always a kind of acrobatic number on a free-floating rope. You can master it brilliantly, but there is always the possibility of falling. That is what makes polemics so exciting.

It is also important to note that polemics can act as a catalyst for thinking because it magnifies certain aspects of a topic and thus makes them more visible. Besides, the other side feels challenged not just in terms of content, but also formally.

Some annoying people (Left to right: Nietzsche, you know who, Houellebecq, Chomsky)

The response to a successful polemic must be measured against the former in argumentation and style. I believe that these are good enough reasons to view the polemic as something positive and therefore important.

How would you define Polemic, Yonatan?

Jo: For me it’s probably taking a fundamental or even an extreme position in a discussion. Which is done in order to provoke the other side to rethink their position. It can be extremely hurtful when done or taken personally. But it is also an instrument for challenging social gestalts or breaking a magical circle in which some social dilemma is going.

I’d like to give an example. Michel Houellebecq’s ‘Submission’ has “broken” the European discussion about Islam and it’s place in Western society, by taking a central idea in Islam -the idea of conversion- to an extreme. You could say, only Houellebecq took what Islamists say at face value (meaning the Idea of Jihad, the holy war to convert all non believers), and in doing so he hampered and silenced a series of automatic responses from different sides of the political spectrum. The left couldn’t condemn him, the right couldn’t completely agree with him, and the Islamists wanted him dead… maybe it didn’t work on everybody...

Jo: How would you design a discourse which is polemic but doesn’t discriminate on the basis of gender or minorities?

Ju:  It is impossible to guarantee in advance. One can of course take certain “precautionary measures” and point out that one is required to argue objectively and not personally. At the same time, this line is very fine in polemics and the question of when it has been exceeded can only very, very rarely be determined objectively. There are really no laws of nature here. Any open discussion is always an open-ended adventure.

Jo: Would you like a different set of questions?

Ju: Ok

Jo: Describe in two sentences your relationship with Anton Bruckner (1824-1896).

Ju: It began at the age of twelve and continues to this day. While Gustav Mahler expresses life on our earth in music, I hear the cosmos resound with Bruckner.

Jo: Are you happy about the name and picture of our new blog-newsletter?

Ju: Of course, since it’s your work. And you know that I consider you not only a great Mensch but also a great and gifted artist!

Jo: Do you have a question for me?

Ju: Do you have an alcohol problem? 

Jo: 2 cl Gin, 1 cl Vermouth, 1 cl Lemon Juice. Stir on ice and serve with a slice of Onion.

Thank you Julian! Until next time!

Ju: Is this meant as a threat? Anyway, thank you, Yonatan!