In my previous blog (Kindly Inquisitors) I discussed a dangerous principle that threatens our civil liberties. In this blog Campbell and Manning take up the challenge by identifying some trends within Western societies that relate to cultural identity and meaning.
Language
We have all come across the phrase, 'Sticks and stones may beak my bones but names will never hurt me'. As a young child I would use this to minimise the impact of unwanted name calling and put-downs. Language expressions can be hurtful at times even when they are said in jest or when they are well intentioned but inappropriate for a particular situation. Language expressions in the form of micro-aggressions are, however, viewed by a certain moralistic sub-cultural group as not being mere slights but are seen as offensive and aggressive acts in themselves (also see a previous Blog - The Righteous Mind).
Microagressions
Microagressions are often ordinary and brief verbal expressions (see a previous blog - Limits of Critique) of environmental or personal indignities that intentionally or unintentionally communicate hostile insults to persons or groups of people. Often these slights convey hidden attitudes that may have been inherited or culturally appropriated and have a negative racial, gender, sexual or religious bias. Some examples of miocroagressions are as follows: A white man or woman clutches purse or checks his wallet as a black or latino passes by them. Whistles or cat calls are heard as a woman walks down the street. Two gay men walk down the street holding hands and are told not to flaunt their sexuality.
Nomenclature
Having labels for verbal harms can make people more mindful of prejudice and insult and can help then avoid offensive language. Expressions such as 'mansplaining', 'whitesplaining', 'slut shaming', 'fat shaming' and 'cultural appropriation' are also terms that highlight perceived biases in the language. Some other terms are not so subtle such as 'transphobia', 'homophobia' or 'hate speech', for example. As a result, our understanding of abuse has now been expanded to include trivial and ambiguous instances. It is important to be aware that some public behaviours may be inappropriate and that some people may not even notice that they are being offensive to some.
This form of moralistic labelling, according to Cambell and Manning often stems from people assuming the moral high ground. They tend to focus on language or gesture without taking into consideration the actual intentions of the speaker. This type of labelling is essentially a self-righteous act that magnifies small offences and marginalises the offending groups within our society. The propensity to call out faults and label others may seem virtuous but there is the real danger that the caller may become blind to their own inappropriate behaviours while calling out others. As a consequence, those that are exposed to such extreme stereotypical and judgemental labels for trivial offences may be prevented from voicing their opinions and may stop engaging in the public space altogether. The Biblical injunction to 'take out the log from your own eye before looking for the speck in another's eye would seem to put this type of behaviour into perspective.
Victimhood culture
Cambell and Manning have identified three types of subcultural trends that can be seen operating within modern Western cultures: victimhood culture, honour culture and dignity culture. Honour cultures dominated the pre-Christian era in Europe. Honour cultures are also prevalent throughout the Arab world and are commonplace within gang cultures in present-day Western societies. They are overly sensitive to insults, value aggression and have a proclivity for violence in order to appease perceived wrongs. This perspective is opposed to dignity culture, which has prevailed in the liberal west, at least until this postmodern period. The notion of dignity comes from Western Judo/Christian tradition that places worth on the individual no matter what identity group or groups they may belong to (see a previous blog - Inventing the Individual). Dignity is inherent within the individual and exists independently of what others think, thus, honour is of less importance and minor grievances are often ignored.
Cambell and Manning suggest that microagressions are associated with a third cultural perspective or victimhood culture. Those ascribing to victimhood culture see themselves as individuals or as disenfranchised group members who often take offence to opposing views of some priveledged person or persons who use their position to disenfranchise their supposed victim or vitims. Their concerns are usually legitimised by way of appeals for help to authorities or to the digital masses on social media. Victimhood thrives on gossip and grievance to elicit the attention and sympathy of others. Victimhood culture differs from honour and dignity cultures as it highlights its own victimhood and exagerates personal discomfort. Gossip is often used in the form of trial in absentia whereby the gossiper attempts to publicly shame and exclude the offender. When this is applied to a prominent personality it may often lead to bad publicity, arrest, imprisonment and the destruction of reputation. The power of denunciation is self-reinforcing as it highlights the virtuous nature of the accuser. In some situations it can lead to serious legal consequences for the accuser, particularly if the alleged (see the Jussie Smollette saga) offence is exaggerated or untrue. Victimhood culture sometimes encourages hate crime hoaxes and the resulting moral panic can lead to further false accusations and bitter consequences. In the past we have seen the results of witch hunts and pogroms. If left unchecked it will produce a climate of moral puritanism, mistrust and injustice (see the Joe Biden saga).
Safe spaces
How does this victimhood culture develop and how does it spread throughout our society? Cambell and Manning believe that it does not necessarily come from those that have been the down-trodden and those who are the victims of prejudice. Victimhood culture tends to be popularised in the Western universities and colleges and is generally found amongst upper middle class and well-off students particularly in the fields of study such as journalism, humanities, sociology and psychology. It is championed by cultural and philosophical theories that have roots in social justice, feminist theory, post-modern and Marxist philosophies. Many tertiary institutions provide safe spaces for students so they can be protected from microagressions and others forms of predjudice (see a previous blog - Springtime for Snowflakes). They are places where students can go to feel secure in a non-threatening environment. However, there may be a very serious down side to this. In seeking to help students stay safe institutions often assume an extended parent like role. Instead of preparing students for the wider world they homogenise and overprotect students to the degree that they are unable to adequately cope with any opposing views and opinions.
What these higher institutions should be doing is developing resilience and preparing their students to think critically, to debate, and to use rational argument to challenge what they perceive as bad or dangerous ideas. This is the essence of free speech and creativity. New and productive ideas often arise when old ideas are challenged and debated. The use of labels such as 'microagressions' will only lead to the stifling of debate and moral stagnation. It must be kept in mind, that at the end of the day, these students will eventually hold prominent leadership roles within society and, in part, determine the future for us all.
Other links that may be of interest:
The rise of victimhood culture on campus: Jonathan Haidt
The appeal of Victimhood
Postmodernism and the left
Ben Shapiro forgivenes
Joe Rogan and Sam Harris on the Liam Neeson Controversy
Fake Bigotry: The American Mind
No comments:
Post a Comment