"Perhaps we should be teaching some humility as well."
When an organization I volunteer for was undergoing a make over a few years back, including crafting mission statements, vision statements, values documents and all of that - on of the values was "humility". I kind of wondered about it then, as it was unlike the other values, and sou…
"Perhaps we should be teaching some humility as well."
When an organization I volunteer for was undergoing a make over a few years back, including crafting mission statements, vision statements, values documents and all of that - on of the values was "humility". I kind of wondered about it then, as it was unlike the other values, and sounded more Christian (this was a very liberal California organization).
But I have since come to see that it's a critical value, being the antithesis (and possible partial antidote) to self righteousness. Whenever we are tempted to become a zealot or self-righteous, it's good to remind ourselves that we don't know the full truth, that some of our beliefs may be inaccurate and may need changing, that our prescriptions may have side effects we haven't realized.
I have come to see belief that one has the moral high ground as a spiritual and intellectual pitfall from which springs many injustices and misguided policies.
We kind of have to believe that our own take on things is likely more right than wrong, or we wouldn't forge ahead and engage with the world. But we don't have to be smugly sure of it, we can qualify our support of individual ideas or policies with our current degree of confidence, we can openly recognize which of our opinions should be treated as hypotheses we are trying out for now (with good reason to think are probably good, but no certainty). We need to be open to other views, and to feedback from reality. In short, we need some thoughtful humility or we become tyrants (or would-be tyrants waiting for a change to be on top, in control).
I very rarely see this kind of humility in neo-progressivism, and have never seen it valorized as a positive (let alone essential) trait. There is a poor facsimile in terms of fostering guilt and self doubt among those labeled "privileged" - but that's more like trying to break down all resistance and discard critical thinking, not a reasoned and nuanced balance. And those trying to tear down the "privileged" evince the opposite of humility, a smug certainty that they are on the right side of history and supporting designated oppressed folks, which means there is no need for respectful discourse - just execute the program as you have been told.
So I want to distinguish functioning humility from outwardly imposed (or internalized) self-abnegation. One is about fostering more awareness and moderation, the other about someone else seeking to gain power over us.
I would guess that I question myself several times a week, as I read and watch political things. I question whether I'm certain my take is right or is it possible that I'm wrong in part or whole. I question whether I'm setting up a strawman, or demonizing an opponent, or over simplifying. I have my own biases, and am subject to confirmation bias. And sometimes I rewrite or revise my internal dialogue. Less often, I try within myself to "steelman" an argument clumsily or emotionally made by an opponent - is there some nugget of (inconvenient?) truth buried under even an infuriatingly dishonest or inept argument?
And I do an imperfect job of all that.
Alas, I do not find this form of good faith discourse to be the norm, or even common. So we muddle on.
Absolutely. Your post inspired me to look it up. The connotation I was promoting is "freedom from pride and arrogance." Thanks for unpacking this further. Good stuff!
"Perhaps we should be teaching some humility as well."
When an organization I volunteer for was undergoing a make over a few years back, including crafting mission statements, vision statements, values documents and all of that - on of the values was "humility". I kind of wondered about it then, as it was unlike the other values, and sounded more Christian (this was a very liberal California organization).
But I have since come to see that it's a critical value, being the antithesis (and possible partial antidote) to self righteousness. Whenever we are tempted to become a zealot or self-righteous, it's good to remind ourselves that we don't know the full truth, that some of our beliefs may be inaccurate and may need changing, that our prescriptions may have side effects we haven't realized.
I have come to see belief that one has the moral high ground as a spiritual and intellectual pitfall from which springs many injustices and misguided policies.
We kind of have to believe that our own take on things is likely more right than wrong, or we wouldn't forge ahead and engage with the world. But we don't have to be smugly sure of it, we can qualify our support of individual ideas or policies with our current degree of confidence, we can openly recognize which of our opinions should be treated as hypotheses we are trying out for now (with good reason to think are probably good, but no certainty). We need to be open to other views, and to feedback from reality. In short, we need some thoughtful humility or we become tyrants (or would-be tyrants waiting for a change to be on top, in control).
I very rarely see this kind of humility in neo-progressivism, and have never seen it valorized as a positive (let alone essential) trait. There is a poor facsimile in terms of fostering guilt and self doubt among those labeled "privileged" - but that's more like trying to break down all resistance and discard critical thinking, not a reasoned and nuanced balance. And those trying to tear down the "privileged" evince the opposite of humility, a smug certainty that they are on the right side of history and supporting designated oppressed folks, which means there is no need for respectful discourse - just execute the program as you have been told.
So I want to distinguish functioning humility from outwardly imposed (or internalized) self-abnegation. One is about fostering more awareness and moderation, the other about someone else seeking to gain power over us.
I would guess that I question myself several times a week, as I read and watch political things. I question whether I'm certain my take is right or is it possible that I'm wrong in part or whole. I question whether I'm setting up a strawman, or demonizing an opponent, or over simplifying. I have my own biases, and am subject to confirmation bias. And sometimes I rewrite or revise my internal dialogue. Less often, I try within myself to "steelman" an argument clumsily or emotionally made by an opponent - is there some nugget of (inconvenient?) truth buried under even an infuriatingly dishonest or inept argument?
And I do an imperfect job of all that.
Alas, I do not find this form of good faith discourse to be the norm, or even common. So we muddle on.
Absolutely. Your post inspired me to look it up. The connotation I was promoting is "freedom from pride and arrogance." Thanks for unpacking this further. Good stuff!