>"For if I declare unimportant what you deem important, then I have attacked you. It has always been so, and it always will be so"
No, that is untrue. A large number of personal and political decisions have to do with differing priorities (or importance), about which we can disagree; and that happens around the world throughout history. …
>"For if I declare unimportant what you deem important, then I have attacked you. It has always been so, and it always will be so"
No, that is untrue. A large number of personal and political decisions have to do with differing priorities (or importance), about which we can disagree; and that happens around the world throughout history. THAT is not new.
However, I believe that the current level of reframing any disagreement as an attack one one's personhood is a new dysfunction in our politics.
In regard to group affinities, of course we have always had group affinities, that's not in question. My assertion is that there is a new (to our culture) tendency to reframe individual traits into an unbounded set of group identities - a fairly dramatic expansion of group identities accompanied by corresponding reduction in use of individual personality traits, proclivities, etc. This is a significant shift in emphasis, but not a toggling between binary alternatives.
As an example, I am on LGBTQIA+ Medium groups where young people are constantly trying to understand themselves by finding some new identity group to identify with, even if they have to invent a new "orientation" or "gender". The most recent new "gender" I've seen explained to the uninformed is "cake" gender, which is described as an identity group which feels light and fluffy, perhaps with many layers. I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP. Others are being invented every day, literally. That is not "just what we've been doing forever". And the kids trying to find themselves in this morass are not sounding healthy, but fragile and anxious. (I sometimes try to give advice or reassurance, but I never attack such young people or tell them they are wrong; they didn't create this problem, they inherited it).
When I say that I wish to challenge an intellectual assumption or framing in a subjective interpretation of today's politics (and then proceed to do so), that is not analogous to challenging gravity - such a reframing is not a well evidenced scientific theory and has not earned equivalent respect.
Let me be clear that when I assert that the framing of some trait or desire as an unquestionable "identity" can be a tactic, it need not be a fully *conscious* deception. That is entirely compatible with somebody, as you say, "genuinely" feeling their identity is under attack; after all, their political cohort normalizes and models that interpretation as the morally correct one. So I am not much swayed in my own analysis of the situation, by the supposed "genuineness" of their subjective "feelings".
Consider a related context. If somebody insists that not setting the office thermostat to the level they want is "crossing their boundaries", I don't place a lot of weight on that strategic reframing, no matter how genuinely they "feel" it to be boundary crossing. I need a more substantial argument than that to be persuaded. Otherwise they are on a level playing field with others in the same office in finding a compromise setting for all.
You phrase this as: should we "tell them they need to change their sense of identity...?" and say we don't have the moral high ground to do so. Fine, but I never said anything about telling them what to think; I'm talking about my not accepting their asserted reframing as definitive for myself or as controlling my own actions, and I don't need "moral high ground" for that. If somebody wants to identify as a pumpkin, that's fine, so long as they don't require me to agree - (or else...). I do not find this position "morally suspect", in your terms.
I do tend to treat people with courtesy. I have friends who are into anti-vax conspiracy theories; I treat them with courtesy and kindness. I have friends who really believe in astrology, or in "DNA level healing practices" with aromatherapy; I can even be emotionally close to them. In general in these personal interactions, I'm usually pretty high on the agreeability scale and try to be tactful and to find positive common ground whenever possible. I don't get into shouting matches with conservative relatives. So I also don't go in telling people how they must self-identify either. But that doesn't mean I must agree with the vaccination conspiracies, astrology, or people's reframing of personality traits as memberships in identity groups. Such issues may not come up unless (1) they seem amenable to a constructive discussion, or (2) they want to control me based on their belief system.
I think I may need you to rephrase your point #2, as I'm not parsing it with any confidence and I'd rather not respond to a low confidence interpretation of it.
Please do not assume that I speak the same to people in my daily life, as I feel able to speak in the space that Steve has created here, where I feel I can (politely) speak what I really think and receive similar in return, without having to walk on eggshells to avoid triggering somebody with a dissenting view. It's like being able to talk or even argue real science with colleagues, rather than having to be circumspect about things when talking to a friend who is deeply into astrology. Different modes of communication depending on the co-participants. Here I can openly say that I don't buy astrology, and I have deep reservations about woke reframings and explain why - and listen to any dissent or refinement or whatever.
Nice chatting with you, dan. I can see that you are seeking a humane, caring and yet intellectually reasonable path through the semantic jungle around us, and we can help each other by sharing notes like this.
As you say, no need to walk upon egg shells we are among friends in this substack; constructive (and blunt) discussion/debate is what we all want. You mention in passing that you are active in the LGBTQIA+ community, but then kinda of disparage identity politics. That is quite interesting! Can I pry? Do you count yourself a member of that community in some way? (It just informs my understanding of your perspective on the topic... no issues if that is too forward!)
You made a lot of good points... I found myself agreeing or at least having sympathy for many points you made. I won't enumerate them all. (and my head is kind of swirling with the abstraction of this thinking too.)
Not that you claimed otherwise, but I will state this: I do agree we have made a shift in how identity is formed in recent years. Agreed. But I don't think folks are strategically CHOOSING an identity in order to be bolstered with extra outrage ammunition. Still I do concede that is it all too easy to reach for that tried and true nuclear option when one is debating. So the consequence is that we are having alot more such outrage confrontations. (I think perhaps you see this the same way??)
> I do tend to treat people with courtesy. I have friends who are into anti-vax conspiracy
And I think this is the thrust of my original thought. As long as acknowledging someone's identity is restricted to words you use in addressing them, and maybe symbolic gestures like bowing when you meet, or not touching the person, etc. I would be inclined to say that everyone gets to make up the rules as applies to their own person. The world is not obliged to know about and follow these rules, but as a courtesy it seems one should try to.
This would not extend to anything beyond symbolic. e.g. changing the thermostat is not the same. So that example as you provided would not apply here.
To summarize: Each person gets to choose their identity in any silly way they want.
-- It is a FAVOR for members of society to learn about and acknowledge this identity, and perform symbolic actions as required. as a FAVOR to the individual.
-- I would reject the notion that one is ENTITLED to such behavior from others. Indeed I would frame it as an imposition that you are placing on others. But an imposition that since it matters so much to you, others considerate folks will often honor.
-- I would also want society to frame being hung up on other people's acknowledgment of ones identity as a kind of frailty. Its not that it is wrong, but one is stronger if one simply has whatever identity one has, and one is not shaken by other's acknowledgment or lack there of.
-- The failing I see in today's society is that we have elevated non-acknowledgement of ones identity to epic proportions. today it is almost a failure of your character if you are NOT outraged any misalignment with ones identity. This is just a recipe for tons and tons of angst.
(this is actually an intellectually confusing discussion for me.. as I have to keep asking myself what I really think about each of these things!)
1. You ask if I count myself as part of the LGBTQIA+ community. That's not easy to answer. Does factually being Lesbian, or Gay, or any other category make one an automatic "member" or is there some expectation of subcultural enrollment? As to the other, I am not a political "activist" in that area at present (tho I have worked against anti-gay referenda in the past); my more recent posts within such a space on discussion sites have been more like offering requested advice and commentary to some young folks seeking to find their path - more offering human to human help, than seeking political change. And also being an observer of trends and ways of thinking/framing common in such communities.
2. I suspect that consciously pre-planning an identification as a way to gain outrage cred is probably not common, but many of our motivations are not conscious. For example, I suspect that very few young folks fitting the ROGD pattern are attempting conscious deception, but their psyches can still have observed the status benefits that friends get when so identifying, and that may influence one's self-interpretation. One in that situation might "discover" that they are also trans, and gratefully receive the resulting attention, in all sincerity - at the conscious level. (This human dynamic of unconscious reward seeking is far broader than trans issues of course!). Since we don't like to think of ourselves as deceitful or false, cognitive dissonance would tend to work against *conscious* pre-planning.
And - even if a given motivation or payoff was not present in an initial move towards an identification, it could become more relevant later in sustaining or expanding it. In a different but related sphere, I don't think that most neo-progressives are seeking to have the moral high ground initially - typically they are just adopting a worldview which they see as more caring and empathetic; but nevertheless after getting in, they may be seduced by the payoffs of being able to look down at opponents from an unquestionably morally superior viewpoint. (Speaking of general trends, not about everybody of course).
3. I find your nuanced approach to discerning courtesy versus entitlement to be well considered. And I agree about the frailty of desperately needing external validation being a weakness rather than a strength.
(To be clear: We all have weaknesses so my point is not to disparage anybody who has a weakness (I well know that I have my own weaknesses); rather it's to question whether those weaknesses should be valorized and encouraged, versus aspiring to be more robust when we can. I am not hasty to judge most human weaknesses, but I do question treating them as more desirable than empowerment.)
I am reminded of the (not unchallenged) Duluth model of domestic abuse. My summary of the relevant thought: person 1 (more often but not always male) may not have the skills to self sooth or sustain their self esteem, and may become dependent on their partner, person 2 for that. They then wind up resenting the partner's 'control' over their own internal landscape, and needing to control that partner, in order to control their fix. In the domestic context, this is thought to sometimes lead to the point of emotionally or physically abusing the partner (person 2).
Similarly, in the context under consideration, if somebody excessively needs external validation of their identity, they may find themselves needing to control that fix too. That could explain some of the strong need for power-over, which is often framed as a search for "safety" but in my view clearly goes beyond obtaining safety into seeking unwarranted control over the behavior, speech and even thought processes of others. In this context, it rarely leads to physical abuse of cis friends or family, but some of the other dynamics may apply. (This is a fresh hypothesis for me, not yet integrated).
I'm glad to share with you the incremental puzzling out of pieces of this complicated puzzle - and the questions you are asking yourself are good ones.
Wow! honored at the amount of thought here. Not that this was the goal, but I think we have reached consensus in our thinking. Two things to highlight:
> I find your nuanced approach to discerning courtesy versus entitlement to be well considered.
thanks, clarity on this really evolved in this conversation. And my initial "eye-roll" reaction to all of this identity politics did not include this courtesy aspect for some number of years.
> ... rather it's to question whether those weaknesses should be valorized and encouraged
Enthusiastic agreement from me here. This valorizing weakness, only begets more weakness, and CREATES insult where there was none. This is the key thought that the left is getting very wrong. After many words I think we have pinned it down well!
>"For if I declare unimportant what you deem important, then I have attacked you. It has always been so, and it always will be so"
No, that is untrue. A large number of personal and political decisions have to do with differing priorities (or importance), about which we can disagree; and that happens around the world throughout history. THAT is not new.
However, I believe that the current level of reframing any disagreement as an attack one one's personhood is a new dysfunction in our politics.
In regard to group affinities, of course we have always had group affinities, that's not in question. My assertion is that there is a new (to our culture) tendency to reframe individual traits into an unbounded set of group identities - a fairly dramatic expansion of group identities accompanied by corresponding reduction in use of individual personality traits, proclivities, etc. This is a significant shift in emphasis, but not a toggling between binary alternatives.
As an example, I am on LGBTQIA+ Medium groups where young people are constantly trying to understand themselves by finding some new identity group to identify with, even if they have to invent a new "orientation" or "gender". The most recent new "gender" I've seen explained to the uninformed is "cake" gender, which is described as an identity group which feels light and fluffy, perhaps with many layers. I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP. Others are being invented every day, literally. That is not "just what we've been doing forever". And the kids trying to find themselves in this morass are not sounding healthy, but fragile and anxious. (I sometimes try to give advice or reassurance, but I never attack such young people or tell them they are wrong; they didn't create this problem, they inherited it).
When I say that I wish to challenge an intellectual assumption or framing in a subjective interpretation of today's politics (and then proceed to do so), that is not analogous to challenging gravity - such a reframing is not a well evidenced scientific theory and has not earned equivalent respect.
Let me be clear that when I assert that the framing of some trait or desire as an unquestionable "identity" can be a tactic, it need not be a fully *conscious* deception. That is entirely compatible with somebody, as you say, "genuinely" feeling their identity is under attack; after all, their political cohort normalizes and models that interpretation as the morally correct one. So I am not much swayed in my own analysis of the situation, by the supposed "genuineness" of their subjective "feelings".
Consider a related context. If somebody insists that not setting the office thermostat to the level they want is "crossing their boundaries", I don't place a lot of weight on that strategic reframing, no matter how genuinely they "feel" it to be boundary crossing. I need a more substantial argument than that to be persuaded. Otherwise they are on a level playing field with others in the same office in finding a compromise setting for all.
You phrase this as: should we "tell them they need to change their sense of identity...?" and say we don't have the moral high ground to do so. Fine, but I never said anything about telling them what to think; I'm talking about my not accepting their asserted reframing as definitive for myself or as controlling my own actions, and I don't need "moral high ground" for that. If somebody wants to identify as a pumpkin, that's fine, so long as they don't require me to agree - (or else...). I do not find this position "morally suspect", in your terms.
I do tend to treat people with courtesy. I have friends who are into anti-vax conspiracy theories; I treat them with courtesy and kindness. I have friends who really believe in astrology, or in "DNA level healing practices" with aromatherapy; I can even be emotionally close to them. In general in these personal interactions, I'm usually pretty high on the agreeability scale and try to be tactful and to find positive common ground whenever possible. I don't get into shouting matches with conservative relatives. So I also don't go in telling people how they must self-identify either. But that doesn't mean I must agree with the vaccination conspiracies, astrology, or people's reframing of personality traits as memberships in identity groups. Such issues may not come up unless (1) they seem amenable to a constructive discussion, or (2) they want to control me based on their belief system.
I think I may need you to rephrase your point #2, as I'm not parsing it with any confidence and I'd rather not respond to a low confidence interpretation of it.
Please do not assume that I speak the same to people in my daily life, as I feel able to speak in the space that Steve has created here, where I feel I can (politely) speak what I really think and receive similar in return, without having to walk on eggshells to avoid triggering somebody with a dissenting view. It's like being able to talk or even argue real science with colleagues, rather than having to be circumspect about things when talking to a friend who is deeply into astrology. Different modes of communication depending on the co-participants. Here I can openly say that I don't buy astrology, and I have deep reservations about woke reframings and explain why - and listen to any dissent or refinement or whatever.
Nice chatting with you, dan. I can see that you are seeking a humane, caring and yet intellectually reasonable path through the semantic jungle around us, and we can help each other by sharing notes like this.
As you say, no need to walk upon egg shells we are among friends in this substack; constructive (and blunt) discussion/debate is what we all want. You mention in passing that you are active in the LGBTQIA+ community, but then kinda of disparage identity politics. That is quite interesting! Can I pry? Do you count yourself a member of that community in some way? (It just informs my understanding of your perspective on the topic... no issues if that is too forward!)
You made a lot of good points... I found myself agreeing or at least having sympathy for many points you made. I won't enumerate them all. (and my head is kind of swirling with the abstraction of this thinking too.)
Not that you claimed otherwise, but I will state this: I do agree we have made a shift in how identity is formed in recent years. Agreed. But I don't think folks are strategically CHOOSING an identity in order to be bolstered with extra outrage ammunition. Still I do concede that is it all too easy to reach for that tried and true nuclear option when one is debating. So the consequence is that we are having alot more such outrage confrontations. (I think perhaps you see this the same way??)
> I do tend to treat people with courtesy. I have friends who are into anti-vax conspiracy
And I think this is the thrust of my original thought. As long as acknowledging someone's identity is restricted to words you use in addressing them, and maybe symbolic gestures like bowing when you meet, or not touching the person, etc. I would be inclined to say that everyone gets to make up the rules as applies to their own person. The world is not obliged to know about and follow these rules, but as a courtesy it seems one should try to.
This would not extend to anything beyond symbolic. e.g. changing the thermostat is not the same. So that example as you provided would not apply here.
To summarize: Each person gets to choose their identity in any silly way they want.
-- It is a FAVOR for members of society to learn about and acknowledge this identity, and perform symbolic actions as required. as a FAVOR to the individual.
-- I would reject the notion that one is ENTITLED to such behavior from others. Indeed I would frame it as an imposition that you are placing on others. But an imposition that since it matters so much to you, others considerate folks will often honor.
-- I would also want society to frame being hung up on other people's acknowledgment of ones identity as a kind of frailty. Its not that it is wrong, but one is stronger if one simply has whatever identity one has, and one is not shaken by other's acknowledgment or lack there of.
-- The failing I see in today's society is that we have elevated non-acknowledgement of ones identity to epic proportions. today it is almost a failure of your character if you are NOT outraged any misalignment with ones identity. This is just a recipe for tons and tons of angst.
(this is actually an intellectually confusing discussion for me.. as I have to keep asking myself what I really think about each of these things!)
all good stuff!
--dan
In rough order:
1. You ask if I count myself as part of the LGBTQIA+ community. That's not easy to answer. Does factually being Lesbian, or Gay, or any other category make one an automatic "member" or is there some expectation of subcultural enrollment? As to the other, I am not a political "activist" in that area at present (tho I have worked against anti-gay referenda in the past); my more recent posts within such a space on discussion sites have been more like offering requested advice and commentary to some young folks seeking to find their path - more offering human to human help, than seeking political change. And also being an observer of trends and ways of thinking/framing common in such communities.
2. I suspect that consciously pre-planning an identification as a way to gain outrage cred is probably not common, but many of our motivations are not conscious. For example, I suspect that very few young folks fitting the ROGD pattern are attempting conscious deception, but their psyches can still have observed the status benefits that friends get when so identifying, and that may influence one's self-interpretation. One in that situation might "discover" that they are also trans, and gratefully receive the resulting attention, in all sincerity - at the conscious level. (This human dynamic of unconscious reward seeking is far broader than trans issues of course!). Since we don't like to think of ourselves as deceitful or false, cognitive dissonance would tend to work against *conscious* pre-planning.
And - even if a given motivation or payoff was not present in an initial move towards an identification, it could become more relevant later in sustaining or expanding it. In a different but related sphere, I don't think that most neo-progressives are seeking to have the moral high ground initially - typically they are just adopting a worldview which they see as more caring and empathetic; but nevertheless after getting in, they may be seduced by the payoffs of being able to look down at opponents from an unquestionably morally superior viewpoint. (Speaking of general trends, not about everybody of course).
3. I find your nuanced approach to discerning courtesy versus entitlement to be well considered. And I agree about the frailty of desperately needing external validation being a weakness rather than a strength.
(To be clear: We all have weaknesses so my point is not to disparage anybody who has a weakness (I well know that I have my own weaknesses); rather it's to question whether those weaknesses should be valorized and encouraged, versus aspiring to be more robust when we can. I am not hasty to judge most human weaknesses, but I do question treating them as more desirable than empowerment.)
I am reminded of the (not unchallenged) Duluth model of domestic abuse. My summary of the relevant thought: person 1 (more often but not always male) may not have the skills to self sooth or sustain their self esteem, and may become dependent on their partner, person 2 for that. They then wind up resenting the partner's 'control' over their own internal landscape, and needing to control that partner, in order to control their fix. In the domestic context, this is thought to sometimes lead to the point of emotionally or physically abusing the partner (person 2).
Similarly, in the context under consideration, if somebody excessively needs external validation of their identity, they may find themselves needing to control that fix too. That could explain some of the strong need for power-over, which is often framed as a search for "safety" but in my view clearly goes beyond obtaining safety into seeking unwarranted control over the behavior, speech and even thought processes of others. In this context, it rarely leads to physical abuse of cis friends or family, but some of the other dynamics may apply. (This is a fresh hypothesis for me, not yet integrated).
I'm glad to share with you the incremental puzzling out of pieces of this complicated puzzle - and the questions you are asking yourself are good ones.
Cheers
Wow! honored at the amount of thought here. Not that this was the goal, but I think we have reached consensus in our thinking. Two things to highlight:
> I find your nuanced approach to discerning courtesy versus entitlement to be well considered.
thanks, clarity on this really evolved in this conversation. And my initial "eye-roll" reaction to all of this identity politics did not include this courtesy aspect for some number of years.
> ... rather it's to question whether those weaknesses should be valorized and encouraged
Enthusiastic agreement from me here. This valorizing weakness, only begets more weakness, and CREATES insult where there was none. This is the key thought that the left is getting very wrong. After many words I think we have pinned it down well!
I enjoyed the nuanced discussion!