The Coddling of the American Mind: A review and reflection.

The Book
Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2018). The coddling of the American mind: How good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure. N.Y.: Penguin Press.

Changes
As recent as 2015 and up till the present there have been powerful and disruptive forces at work in Western society typified by widespread unrest, the depth of which has not been seen since the 60s. During this period we have witnessed the fragmentation of society as formerly shared core beliefs are challenged and discarded, institutional child abuse,  Black Lives Matter,  #MeToo, Terrorism, Trump, Far right protests, and the progressive left's disruption of free speech on campuses. For the young, future economic prospects are uncertain with many changes brought about by globalisation, wage stagnation, high University fees, and artificial intelligence. These changes have meant that many of the jobs that exist today will be automated and redundant.

Overprotection
Against this backdrop is the modern obsession of parents in overprotecting their children. Lukiaoff and Haidt believe that this obsession with the overprotection of children is one cause contributing to a  rapid rise in the number of adolescents suffering from depression, anxiety, and suicide. Nietzsche once said that "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger." However, the children of the iGeneration are not getting this message. The message that iGens have been reared to believe is "What doesn't kill me makes me weaker." This is an unconscious slogan that reinforces the concept of safetyism: the widespread notion that children need to be protected from the harmful effects of unsafe spaces, bullying, child abuse, and hurtful words. Instead of producing a generation of healthy young adults our society has nurtured a generation of young adults who are susceptible to depression, anxiety and, in some cases are more prone to suicide than previous generations. The unrealistic hyper-concern for safety promotes emotionally fragile young people who exhibit traits of unreasonable fear and a tendency for a lack of sufficient resilience to ward off mental distress.

Victimhood
Students today, for example,  are more likely to believe that misogyny and rape culture are endemic on college and university campuses. They are more likely to be immersed in an academic culture that propagates the notion of masculine toxicity and the poisoning effect of white male privilege. This heightened cultural perspective assumes that a person's privileged upbringing or tribal identity may prevent them from empathising with those that are viewed as belonging to a victimised group or groups. Often the so called people of privilege may inadvertently say things that are commonly referred to as microagressions that hurt others (see previous blog: Victimhood culture ). Universities in many Western countries foster a culture of safetyism that seeks to protect students from ideas that may challenge their beliefs and attitudes. Many of these campuses provide safe spaces where students can go to feel protected from harmful ideas. Another common strategy is to de-platform speakers with dangerous ideas that could be upsetting to students. This protected culture is so sanitising that it provides the conditions that enable a form of emotional bracket creep. Such a situation as this fosters the notion that almost anything can be perceived as harmful or violent.

Social media
'Those ascribing to victimhood culture see themselves as individuals or as disenfranchised group members who often take offence to opposing views of some privileged person or persons who use their position to disenfranchise their supposed victim or victims' (see a previous blog - Victimhood Culture). Anything that can be considered as an attack on student groups or as being offensive in any way may be an opportunity to exercise collective punishment by ostracising or stigmatising, often by labelling someone as being racist, or cis white males, for example. Social media has become an effective tool used to appeal to and influence group-think (or mob) mentality (see Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying's harrowing experiences at Evergreen State College - PART THREE: The hunted individual).

The digital social behaviours are often confrontational, adherents are inclined to be less inhibited in saying what they think about social issues. Those with opposing views are often shamed by using unsavoury language or specified derogatory labels. Those that are shamed in this way can incur the wrath of the mob and suffer an avalanche of citiscism for the perceived offence. Not only does this promote a group think mentality but also an intersectional reality whereby groups or tribes of victims intersect and support one another against the perceived oppressive opinions or violent ideas. The premise is that the more intersectional that you are the more social prestige you gain, for example, a trans person who is black will have more social and tribal credit that say a white, conservative male. The perception is those who are considered as belonging to more than one intersectional tribe may need more protection, affirmation and affirmative action by some compensatory process.

Over-parenting
The ME generation were fed on a diet of Dr Spock who emphasised that children should be permitted to develop at their own pace. This was often executed in a protected and scheduled fishbowl environment. However, when their children left home they would often feel like fish out of water and  not cope with the diversity of ideas in the real world. 'Always trust your feelings' is a typical phrase that iGenners would have heard time-and-again. The focus on feeling rather than reasoned thought makes this generation susceptible to conflicting emotions and an intolerance to the ideas of others.  

Expanded view
Lukianoff and Haidt give some suggestions as to how this situation can be alleviated with some creative thinking from parents, educators, schools and university administrators. We need to foster a sense of adventure and resilience by gradually giving our children freedom to venture beyond the over protective environment of the home. More opportunities to play with others rather than just through organised play dates. Schools need to have plenty of recess time so that children can learn how to socialise with diverse individuals. Parents and teachers need to limit the amount of time spent on screens and increase the child's experience of the outside environment; they should be taught how to manage risk. In terms of coping with others is the notion that when they draw a circle to exclude them they should draw a wider circle that includes them.

Links that you may find of interest:

Listening at the Great Awakening: Areo

PART THREE: The hunted individual

The Scruton tapes: an anatomy of a modern hit job: The Spectator

Interview by Brendan O'Neill with Johnathan Haidt: Fragility and Division: Sound Cloud

Victimhood Culture: My thoughts and reflections

Campbell, B., & Manning, J. (2018). The rise of victimhood Culture: Microaggressions, safe spaces, and the new culture wars. Los Angeles: Palgrave Macmillan.

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

The Limits of Critique

Cover image from Amazon

Modern-day critics
Modern day critics of literature unmask and delve between the lines to determine hidden truths and repressed beliefs. It stems from Marxist critical pedagogy, that requires consumers of literature to adopt a critical and questioning approach to reveal embedded social and political power relationships that lie, often unnoticed, within text and other works of art. Critique is now the dominant form of interpretation in literate circles. Rita Feleski examines critique and situates it among other forms of literary examination and credits it with a worthwhile contribution. However, it does have its obvious limitations. It is essentially a poststructuralist notion of language whereby the practitioners of critical literacy search for discourses and reasons why they are included or left out of texts.

Suspicion
Interpretation is often motivated by a spirit of disenchantment and skepticism or outright condemnation. Freud and Nietzsche join Marx as the creators of this art of critical interpretation. They have instantiated a system of suspicion of motives.

To the postmodern critic meaning is not always apparent. It must be disentangled and discerned. Rather than revealing ultimate truth it seeks to unveil hidden meanings and power relationships. This view has been given impetus by post-structuralist language thinkers such as Foucault and Derrida, who have entrenched the notion of suspicion and made truth a relativist quagmire, particularly when combined with Marxist and Freudian thought. "This entrenching of suspicion in turn intensifies the impulse to decipher and decode. The suspicious person is sharp-eyed and hyper alert; mistrustful of appearances, fearful of being duped, she is always on the lookout for concealed threats and discreditable motives. In short: more suspicion means more interpretation".

Society and contemporary culture
The consequences are catastrophic because the focus on suspicion and skepticism serves as a catalyst for political dissent. Those that are marginalised and victimised are more likely to harbour mistrust of the motives of others. What now pervades contemporary culture is a sense of disbelief. "While poststructuralist critique rejects hidden truth and dogged or naive pursuit of ultimate meaning, it engages nonetheless in what I (Felski) call a second-level hermeneutics - a method of reading that looks beyond the individual text to decipher larger structures of cultural production." Emotional cues in text and film, for example, are intertwined with inferences and judgements that give vital clues to the characters and their world view. However, we must be cautious about imposing their own ideas and prejudices, in effect this has a serious ethical and moral dimension. In the end it comes down to an austere exercise in demystification rather than attention to aesthetics and associated affective qualities of a work. of art.  In other words, it is a metaphorical act of 'digging-down' rather than 'standing-back'.

Postcritical interpretation
Felski maintains that the act of criticism is an integral part of Western civilisation. Part of being a responsible individual in society is having the privilege to dislike and have a desire to bring about change. However, forms of disagreement in democratic societies has been couched in particular and acceptable forms that legitimate diverse views. Felski believes that ..."critique, as we have seen, is not one thing but an eclectic array of philosophical tenets, political ideologies, and modes of interpretation." Moreover, we in the west have built walls around cherished world views and interpreted art and public discourse through a narrow sense of mistrust and disbelief. The antidote to the critique of suspicion is what Felski calls a 'postcritical interpretation.

Postcritical interpretation takes into consideration a variety of critical perspectives and traditions. Rather than 'digging down' and 'standing back' critiques should engage with works of art and  appreciate aesthetics. This wider approach seeks to recontextualise what we know and to view our world with new perspectives. Often works of art, whether the written word, film, art, etc have the potential to reorient and refresh our situational perspectives. Such works may often stem from different regions, periods and personal world views but are always embedded within various religious, philosophical and cultural contexts. Thus, critique should not only be concerned with skepticism but should also consider beauty and creative work's inherent ability to challenge our own thinking and to open up new possibilities. Without this tolerant and wider view of critique we will become slaves to narrow ideology and dogmatism.

Felski: R. (2015). The Limits of critique. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

See also:
Postmodernism is dead -what comes next - Alison Gibbons