Vlerchan
May 19th, 2016, 01:09 PM
This is a first draft I decided to put together on some thoughts I have had as of late. It's all open to significant change. It's also put across in brief, to maximise the number of readers.
Honour, Victimhood and Mediocrity
In this post I plan to outline some thoughts that I hope explain the current direction that the kulturekampf, prominently in the United States, has taken. I'll then attempt to connect this to modern political culture and positions on both the left and the right.
I'm writing this on an old edition of Microsoft word and when I attempt to type the phrase 'Microaggression' it tells me to correct away. That's because it's a relatively new introduction in the socio-political lexicon. In fact, a lot of the posters here are old enough to remember a time where no-one used it. But of all the words I could have referred to it perhaps sums up the current culture of social activism best. Microaggressions are events that – at first instance – seem at most to prove relative slights but – it's argued – serve to delegitimise the character of another.
Sometimes it's phrased as 'undermining one's inherent dignity' but of course that's nonsense: You can't undermine an inherent characteristic. That characteristic is, well, inherent. Now, inherent dignity of man is posed in the UN Charter of Human Rights, perhaps the most earnestly and forthright document of 20th century Liberalism, and one might reasonably take the ideal as the cornerstone of classical liberal political-philosophy. It's the starting assumption behind all modern human-rights discourse, but it's not the starting assumption behind the discourse of modern social activist culture.
In fact it's the antithesis, and this culture requires its negation. You might remember when you were younger your parents told you to 'turn the other cheek', be 'the bigger man', or warned that whilst 'sticks and stones might break your bones, names will never hurt you'. Those phrase are steeped in the idea that your character has an inherent dignity. You could turn the other cheek because of a confidence in your own value, holding distinct from your social setting. This – like classical liberalism – was actually a product of the last century (though, the tactic of turning the other cheek is, if I remember correct, mentioned in the bible).
Before this we had what has been referred to as honour-culture, which whilst it dissipated during the 19th century, offers a certain amount of insight into the culture of modern social activism. Here, one's integrity of character was not assured, not inherent, but rather must be demonstrated through heroic deeds or acts of strength. It must be constantly reinforced or otherwise it will decay. So, when someone slighted you, to whatever extent, you took your gun, you headed out to a field, and you duelled the bastard. The onus was on you to maintain your honour and your moral-worth.
For a number of reasons that changed. Broadly it had to do with the extension of institutional outreach. Institutional remedies replaced the court of public opinion. Honour-culture still persists in some regions: take, for example, inner-city Chicago, or Hicksville, or actually: your school's playground, where institutional-penetration is well below average. But for the largest part it has been replaced by dignity-culture, where vigilantism or taking the law into our own hands is frowned upon. We're in the middle of a third shift, a shift towards what I'll call victimhood-culture. In victimhood culture, one's moral-worth is not inherent, and must be ensured through institutionalised remedies. Your access these institutionalised remedies is dependent on your state of victimhood, as determined in the court of public opinion.
Now, victimhood-culture is the product of a number of factors including, (1 modern mass-communication and the restoration of the court of public-opinion, 2) atomisation and the deletion of society-centric solutions to minor slights, its persistence relies upon 3) accessible institutionalisation of remedies (universities), and its it's self-perpetuating insofar as it (4 creates a culture of mediocrity, which reinforces the lack of self-confidence that creates perceived-victims.
Unlike honour-culture, moral-worth isn't demonstrated through strength but rather through weakness: groups compete to pose themselves as the bigger victim of a turn-of-events. For example, I recently discussed with a friend a situation where a woman had claimed sexual harassment after someone had threatened to rape her. This was controversial as questions were raised as to whether it was privileging middle-class discourse, rape-threats being a smaller affair amongst the working class. In such a case, are middle-class woman or working-class people the object of disprivilege, or victimhood.
Both sides must attempt to emphasise how weak they are, and from there we calculate their moral worth.
You can see this repeated ad nuseum elsewhere. In the discussion over bathroom laws, where the argument made on both sides was that either transpeople, or woman now open to being oogled, where disprivledged. In the discussion over free-trade, the tactic is to emphasise the victimhood of the heroic white proletariat. It's a similar case in immigration. It's abundantly obvious is more-or-less all social activist rhetoric. In the past moral discourse was centred around the rights of people, their capabilities. With victimhood-culture, it's centred around their statues as victims, their weakness.
Moral-superiority is gained through reflections on one's weaknesses. This creates competition to demonstrate victimhood, and that in-turn encourages people to react to all slights. But it creates issues, the emerging privilege of victimhood prizes weakness. Unlike in honor-culture, where ones worth is dependent on their strengths, or dignity-culture where increased worth might have been gathered through intelligence, entrepreneurship, or positive interactions with others, victimhood-culture provides social rents for the weak.
Thus, it creates incentives to remain mediocre, which only reinforces victimhood.
Honour, Victimhood and Mediocrity
In this post I plan to outline some thoughts that I hope explain the current direction that the kulturekampf, prominently in the United States, has taken. I'll then attempt to connect this to modern political culture and positions on both the left and the right.
I'm writing this on an old edition of Microsoft word and when I attempt to type the phrase 'Microaggression' it tells me to correct away. That's because it's a relatively new introduction in the socio-political lexicon. In fact, a lot of the posters here are old enough to remember a time where no-one used it. But of all the words I could have referred to it perhaps sums up the current culture of social activism best. Microaggressions are events that – at first instance – seem at most to prove relative slights but – it's argued – serve to delegitimise the character of another.
Sometimes it's phrased as 'undermining one's inherent dignity' but of course that's nonsense: You can't undermine an inherent characteristic. That characteristic is, well, inherent. Now, inherent dignity of man is posed in the UN Charter of Human Rights, perhaps the most earnestly and forthright document of 20th century Liberalism, and one might reasonably take the ideal as the cornerstone of classical liberal political-philosophy. It's the starting assumption behind all modern human-rights discourse, but it's not the starting assumption behind the discourse of modern social activist culture.
In fact it's the antithesis, and this culture requires its negation. You might remember when you were younger your parents told you to 'turn the other cheek', be 'the bigger man', or warned that whilst 'sticks and stones might break your bones, names will never hurt you'. Those phrase are steeped in the idea that your character has an inherent dignity. You could turn the other cheek because of a confidence in your own value, holding distinct from your social setting. This – like classical liberalism – was actually a product of the last century (though, the tactic of turning the other cheek is, if I remember correct, mentioned in the bible).
Before this we had what has been referred to as honour-culture, which whilst it dissipated during the 19th century, offers a certain amount of insight into the culture of modern social activism. Here, one's integrity of character was not assured, not inherent, but rather must be demonstrated through heroic deeds or acts of strength. It must be constantly reinforced or otherwise it will decay. So, when someone slighted you, to whatever extent, you took your gun, you headed out to a field, and you duelled the bastard. The onus was on you to maintain your honour and your moral-worth.
For a number of reasons that changed. Broadly it had to do with the extension of institutional outreach. Institutional remedies replaced the court of public opinion. Honour-culture still persists in some regions: take, for example, inner-city Chicago, or Hicksville, or actually: your school's playground, where institutional-penetration is well below average. But for the largest part it has been replaced by dignity-culture, where vigilantism or taking the law into our own hands is frowned upon. We're in the middle of a third shift, a shift towards what I'll call victimhood-culture. In victimhood culture, one's moral-worth is not inherent, and must be ensured through institutionalised remedies. Your access these institutionalised remedies is dependent on your state of victimhood, as determined in the court of public opinion.
Now, victimhood-culture is the product of a number of factors including, (1 modern mass-communication and the restoration of the court of public-opinion, 2) atomisation and the deletion of society-centric solutions to minor slights, its persistence relies upon 3) accessible institutionalisation of remedies (universities), and its it's self-perpetuating insofar as it (4 creates a culture of mediocrity, which reinforces the lack of self-confidence that creates perceived-victims.
Unlike honour-culture, moral-worth isn't demonstrated through strength but rather through weakness: groups compete to pose themselves as the bigger victim of a turn-of-events. For example, I recently discussed with a friend a situation where a woman had claimed sexual harassment after someone had threatened to rape her. This was controversial as questions were raised as to whether it was privileging middle-class discourse, rape-threats being a smaller affair amongst the working class. In such a case, are middle-class woman or working-class people the object of disprivilege, or victimhood.
Both sides must attempt to emphasise how weak they are, and from there we calculate their moral worth.
You can see this repeated ad nuseum elsewhere. In the discussion over bathroom laws, where the argument made on both sides was that either transpeople, or woman now open to being oogled, where disprivledged. In the discussion over free-trade, the tactic is to emphasise the victimhood of the heroic white proletariat. It's a similar case in immigration. It's abundantly obvious is more-or-less all social activist rhetoric. In the past moral discourse was centred around the rights of people, their capabilities. With victimhood-culture, it's centred around their statues as victims, their weakness.
Moral-superiority is gained through reflections on one's weaknesses. This creates competition to demonstrate victimhood, and that in-turn encourages people to react to all slights. But it creates issues, the emerging privilege of victimhood prizes weakness. Unlike in honor-culture, where ones worth is dependent on their strengths, or dignity-culture where increased worth might have been gathered through intelligence, entrepreneurship, or positive interactions with others, victimhood-culture provides social rents for the weak.
Thus, it creates incentives to remain mediocre, which only reinforces victimhood.