Dissent, Injustice, and the Meanings of America.

• Author: Cummings, Kevin
• Position: Book Reviews

Dissent, Injustice, and the Meanings of America. By Steven H. Shiffrin. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1998; pp. xiv + 220; $41.50; paper $19.95.

There is a growing divide in the field of rhetorical criticism between scholars who privilege radical pluralism and those who embrace civic idealism and political community. The former falls under the aegis of postmodernism and argues for protecting difference. The latter promote a public sphere or political community where citizens may gather to critically decide matters of the public good. As the chasm between scholars continues to grow, members on each side are labeled neo-conservative and relativistic or tyrannical and fascist. Joining the rhetoricians and argumentation theorists who seek to bridge the divide is law professor Steven Shiffrin, author of Dissent, Injustice, and the Meanings of America. In arguing for a deliberative democracy, Shiffrin seeks to mediate between a politics of difference and political community. By focusing on dissent, his text postulates a political community that constantly encourages the disenfranchised to speak out against injustice. The main focus of the text is to protect radical liberal protest groups from a state animus against free speech and to stop the rightward drift of First Amendment theorizing. Shiffrin's position draws primarily on two arguments that are advanced in the two parts of the book. The first argument deals with cultural struggles over the meanings of America and the second argument advances dissent as a tool for combating injustice.

Part One of the text is divided into three chapters. Each chapter discusses a free speech debate as it relates to political identity in America. Chapter one deals with flag burning and subsidies for the arts. Shiffrin defends both flag burning and subsidies for arts. Each is acceptable based on a protection of dissent and on a view in support of liberal nationalism where progressives can defend what they believe America stands for. Chapter two analyzes free speech in the cases of alcohol, tobacco, and advertising. Powerful corporate speech generally represents the establishment rather than a form of dissent and Shiffrin argues that these organizations are less deserving of free speech protections than dissenters are. Chapter three examines racist speech. While Shiffrin acknowledges that some racist groups identify themselves as beleaguered dissenters, he does not...