Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Passion guided by reason's avatar

I find truth and some confusion in both sides of this exchange.

1. I do think that a lot of what is ascribed to "racism" today, but certainly not all, is better described as either familiarity bias, or as in-group bias, so it's valuable to make that distinction if one wishes to understand rather than just to "reinforce the narrative" (which I consider the Prime Directive of neo-progressivism).

2. The distinctions held to be salient in defining an in-group vs out-group vary between cultures as well as between eras. The proclivity may be innate, but the specifics of what factors determine the group boundaries evolve.

3. Skin color and various other visible features have likely been used countless times in determining "who is like us who is not" (by different sides), over the course of history and pre-history. This should not be any surprise - ANY highly visible signal is likely to be adopted at one time or another, even ones that are cultural and not innate. There is evidence, for example, that it factored into Roman attitudes.

4. The modern conception of 4 (or 5) vaguely continental "races", and the creation of a hierarchy, was indeed one of those examples; and it was used to rationalize heirarchical societal arrangements. This was not the invention of a new fundamental concept, just one of many in-group/out-group distinctions being weaponized by an ideology. Put another way, it was an invented instantiation of a much broader, universal proclivity.

As another example, as far as I know, all cultures have incest taboos. However, which relationships are taboo varies by cultures, and a powerful group within a culture could change the accepted understanding of which cases are considered taboo. That's not inventing a new dynamic, it's harnessing an existing dynamic with edited trigger criteria.

5. So yes, I'm suggesting that the invention of race was intended to be a new instance of long standing in-group/out-group dynamics. Without in/out bias, that racialized division would not have worked (some other species?) Other cultures might use religion or hair styles. One of the "moral foundations" handy for instantiating this bias is "disgust", as your correspondent suggests.

6. It's unlikely that humans will ever fully eliminate in-group bias; it had enough evolutionary payoff to likely be genetically encoded. But human culture can influence when it comes into play - both how often and on what basis it occurs. What are the limits of our ability to do that? I'm not sure yet.

7. One of the historic trends, with advances and backtracking, has been towards ideologies stressing a larger "us". That is, increasing our affective domains to include more people who were formerly conceived of as "unlike us". We likely started with bands of 50-100 people, expanding to larger tribes, city-states, fiefdoms, ethnic groups, nations and empires, multi-national ensembles, and by the 20th century beginning to move towards planetary identification including our whole species. This shift in the us/them boundary accounts for many of the ways in which we have had some success in reducing the in-group preference bias - perceiving a larger "us" with whom we can have relatively more empathy and less prejudice.

8. The neo-progressive fixation on identity politics and culture is corroding the 'bigger us' perspective, instead substituting tribes and tribal conflict as the core vehicle by which to achieve a better society. Identity politics divides us into warring tribes motivated largely by trying to optimise the outcomes for the tribes on our side, in a moral struggle for power, within the framing of a conceptual zero-sum game. In this tribalized struggle, the strategy of the "oppressed" tribes is to paralyze "oppressor" tribes from perceiving their self interest through guilt, so that the unrestrained self interest of "our side" can prevail, whether they have the numbers or power to do so if the gloves really all came off. That is, "we don't have any empathy for you oppressors or respect for any of your legitimate needs - but it's obligatory that you defer to our perspective and act caringly towards us (on our terms)".

I do not see that strategy ending well. The paralysis is only partial (concerntraed among neo-progressives, with lesser amounts among liberals and still less among concervatives), and even there the paralysis can be shaken if things get bad enough.

To some limited degree that's happening now, as people in the most liberal regions of Virginia get upset when neo-progressives start coming for their kids. It's on thing to confess your white privilege on Medium or in the workplace, and another to see your kids self-image and worldview being sabotaged.

I much prefer to return to expanding the "us" and emphasizing the common values and humanity which incentivize us to seek compromise and connection over warfare. Of course there are problems which need to be given more emphasis, and there will still be conflicts of ideas and perceived self interest, but if the core ideology is about the bigger us, then we don't need to hate each other as much.

Today, the largest tribal animosity is between conservatives and liberals, each of whom routinely demonizes the other, and turns "I disagree" into "I despise". The portion of the population who would be upset if their kid married somebody of the other party now exceeds the number who would be upset about race.

The escalating reliance upon an us/them tribal division in race relations has to be seen in the larger context of this escalating polarization - it helps fuel the latter, but the latter also reframes the racial divide in ways that make any compromise or win/win steps (much less outcomes) less feasible. Too many people on both sides feel that you can't compromise with the devil and the other half the country is demonic.

From this perspective, I find partial agreement with each of you - and I think part of it may be more like each seeing one facet of the whole - and unfortunately feeling somewhat as if you have to discount the facet that the other is seeing.

Still, I feel there is some mutual respect in your exchange, and it's refreshing to see people actually seeking a nuanced truth - in this case through bouncing arguments off another mind, trying to make your best case (rather than play framing and definition gains in seeking the moral high ground from which to discredit your opponent without engaging with their ideas). Shocking! Given human nature, neither is likely to concede this issue, but either or both of you may nevertheless be influenced by the ideas of the other, in ways that could manifest in a completely different discussion a year from now. As a bystander, I learn from each of your perspectives. And I've offered my own reflections to the mix, along with other readers. Thank you.

Expand full comment
Peaceful Dave's avatar

Year ago, I asked a man why he was so opposed to school integration. He said if you let the children be together when they are young, they'll think they are the same and like each other. He was an honest racist. They must be "taught" because racism isn't the default state of small children. He knew that quite well.

Expand full comment
19 more comments...

No posts