Harris' View of Countering

To Harris, “countering” is not what I suspect that one would typically think. Most would think that when countering, you would offer an argument against a point of view. The term countering seems to have somewhat of a negative connotation in that it is a method of “fighting back” against something that has attacked you. However, in Harris’ view of countering, it is more of a peaceful way of responding to someone else’s idea. He defines it as “not to nullify but to suggest a different way of thinking” (56). He also breaks the term up into three ways of attaining this: arguing the other side, uncovering values, and dissenting. Arguing the other side is the process of noting problems with a term or idea that the author has argued for. Uncovering values is the process of bringing forth a word or idea that the text has failed to completely define or examine. Dissenting is the process of identifying a similarity with your own views that the text possesses in order to note its limits (57). So, as you can see, Harris’ view of countering is probably not as in-your-face or aggressive as you would think.

Countering is evident in Andrew Sullivan’s blog, “The Daily Dish” in his post entitled “The Development Cure.” This post is in response to the DiA’s (Democracy in America blog) critique of John Nagl’s prescription for Afghanistan. The DiA agrees with Nagl when he says that threats are not coming from the overpowering states, rather they are coming from the weak states. They also agree with him when he says that responses need to be made economically and political-diplomatically, not militaristically. However, they criticize him when he suggests to build an enormous organization to solve the problems through heroic expeditions. This is an example of dissenting, because the DiA shows where they agree with Nagl, but they then point out where they believe that his view are limited.