It goes without saying that manh liberals are annoying in that they have condescending attitudes towards working and poor people. That's practically definitional. What are "liberals" or "progressives" anyway?
We tend to be, more or less, well (formally) educated (perhaps privileged) people with positions (or backgrounds) in the professions, management, academia, or the arts. But most of all we are motivated by a particular understanding of our human obligation to "help".
It is possible of course to be helpful without condescension (or contempt) but when "helping" defines one's career or character, it takes special efforts and qualities to avoid that trap. But "help" is always problematic in other ways that go well beyond sentiments of "condescension", "contempt", or "resentment". Essential problems arise even when the need for "help" is acknowledged and welcomed, never mind when it isn't. Reframing "help" as "service" does nothing to elide the pitfalls and complications of this vital aspect of our humanity.
Whether we're of the "helping" professions or not, liberals tend to be more supportive of systemic and institutional approaches for offering assistance. It's important to note how different this is from personal relationships - or even perfunctory "face to face" interactions. Consider how many self-professed "conservatives" would literally give the shirts off their backs, even to someone who is not a friend or relation, IF they believed the recipient would genuinely benefit. Such a "conservative" might even explain her actions by claiming an "obligation" to help.
The obligations conservatives most likely to be rejected by conservatives are the legalistic impositions of other humans who are either beneficiaries - or (worse) the type who benefit from keeping others in dependence. This is a huge component of the vital distinctions between individualized and bureaucratized human interdependence. And it is a major part of how liberals and conservatives differentiate themselves from each other - in a democracy or not.
A related problem with "helping" unavoidably arises when “help” is habitual and asymmetrical. That's when it gets tough to distinguish interdependence from dependence, - or dependence from exploitation. Codependence is a useful term for describing relationships detrimental to both parties in the long run. Coexploitation is not a widely used term, but something like it (or better) should be available to describe relationships that are mutually parasitic or predatory in ways that don’t apply to conventional codependence.
These issues impinge on anyone whose circumstances (or limitations) have led them to see themselves more as “help givers” rather than as members of mutually enabling (and ennobling) circles of interdependence . . . with some circles smaller and tighter in terms of spacetime - and others much vaster in both known and unpercievable dimensions.
One of these circumstances is “privilege”. And apparently those who accept the term “liberal” are also much more likely than modern “conservatives” to allow themselves to be labeled that way. “Noblesse Oblige”, a concept that (by the way) has always been used to justify privilege, certainly motivates many “liberal” impulses whether they arise from “compassion”, from fear of tumbrils and pitchforks, or from a wider variety of manifestations of guilt or shame.
There is a debatable assertion that the term "privilege" is best reserved to describe differences in inherited wealth and opportunity extending beyond innate "gifts" such as talents or physical attractiveness. A more generally accepted and encompassing term is "advantage." Still, even that simplifies nothing. People, out of pride (complacence, or just good sense) are as likely to bridle at being called "disadvantaged" as others are to reject the label "disabled". But when the "differently advantaged" are forced to know who they are (whether or not they like it - or even accept the premise) there are problems that go beyond mere contempt and resentment (which may or may not be mutual).
Restricting the term "privilege" to those with unearned wealth or opportunity seems one powerful way to make the case for a more equitable distribution of resources. For one thing, applying "privilege" to race and gender seems ideally suited for creating divisions and conflicts between all sorts of individuals who could make a heartfelt case that any privileges they might "enjoy" don't really amount to much. Such divisions are a well proven way for frustrating democracy.
Restricting the term "privilege" this way might also be helpful for dealing with questions of "democracy". Movie stars, maestros, and savants can (just like top ranked athletes) give the world the benefits of their advantages without denigrating the rest of us. It's to their benefit to do so even if they strive mightily to increase the gulf between their gifts and those of the rest of us in any particular field of endeavor. No one is helped if the brilliant fail to distribute the benefits of their advantages, and so that's what they do - because they can. What they can't do is distribute the benefits themselves. "From each according to their ability; to each according to their need." This was the gleefully Marxist message of Kurt Vonnegut's much misunderstood "Harrison Bergeron".
Among the myriad misreaders of Vonnegut are those who claim "equality" is a plot to handicap the best, the brightest, and the most beautiful among us. No matter the intention, this (just like the "privilege" meme) has the effect of distracting attention from wealth and income inequality. This inequality also causes resentments which our society, so far, has been very adroit at managing and redirecting. Who, after all, is really in favor of restricting the liberty of those with great talents whether for singing, dancing, drawing, telling jokes, or making great gobs of moolah. Aren't these talents we would all love to possess? Celebrate diversity, why doncha?
Yes, differences in (even unearned) innate gifts can lead to wealth and income inequality. But only wealth inequality itself is democracy's oldest and most potent foe. This is true even of wealth earned exclusively through years of diligent, exacting effort assiduously employed to develop and exploit certain abilities. And it's true even if those with the most dough are also the wisest and kindest known specimens of humanity.
Who should be the helpers? Who should be the helped? How shall we decide? What shall we do when disagreements about all this threaten comity and good feeling among compatriots? These are questions not likely to ever be worked out with finality. They can only be managed through the agony of democracy.
It is possible of course to be helpful without condescension (or contempt) but when "helping" defines one's career or character, it takes special efforts and qualities to avoid that trap. But "help" is always problematic in other ways that go well beyond sentiments of "condescension", "contempt", or "resentment". Essential problems arise even when the need for "help" is acknowledged and welcomed, never mind when it isn't. Reframing "help" as "service" does nothing to elide the pitfalls and complications of this vital aspect of our humanity.
Whether we're of the "helping" professions or not, liberals tend to be more supportive of systemic and institutional approaches for offering assistance. It's important to note how different this is from personal relationships - or even perfunctory "face to face" interactions. Consider how many self-professed "conservatives" would literally give the shirts off their backs, even to someone who is not a friend or relation, IF they believed the recipient would genuinely benefit. Such a "conservative" might even explain her actions by claiming an "obligation" to help.
The obligations conservatives most likely to be rejected by conservatives are the legalistic impositions of other humans who are either beneficiaries - or (worse) the type who benefit from keeping others in dependence. This is a huge component of the vital distinctions between individualized and bureaucratized human interdependence. And it is a major part of how liberals and conservatives differentiate themselves from each other - in a democracy or not.
A related problem with "helping" unavoidably arises when “help” is habitual and asymmetrical. That's when it gets tough to distinguish interdependence from dependence, - or dependence from exploitation. Codependence is a useful term for describing relationships detrimental to both parties in the long run. Coexploitation is not a widely used term, but something like it (or better) should be available to describe relationships that are mutually parasitic or predatory in ways that don’t apply to conventional codependence.
These issues impinge on anyone whose circumstances (or limitations) have led them to see themselves more as “help givers” rather than as members of mutually enabling (and ennobling) circles of interdependence . . . with some circles smaller and tighter in terms of spacetime - and others much vaster in both known and unpercievable dimensions.
One of these circumstances is “privilege”. And apparently those who accept the term “liberal” are also much more likely than modern “conservatives” to allow themselves to be labeled that way. “Noblesse Oblige”, a concept that (by the way) has always been used to justify privilege, certainly motivates many “liberal” impulses whether they arise from “compassion”, from fear of tumbrils and pitchforks, or from a wider variety of manifestations of guilt or shame.
There is a debatable assertion that the term "privilege" is best reserved to describe differences in inherited wealth and opportunity extending beyond innate "gifts" such as talents or physical attractiveness. A more generally accepted and encompassing term is "advantage." Still, even that simplifies nothing. People, out of pride (complacence, or just good sense) are as likely to bridle at being called "disadvantaged" as others are to reject the label "disabled". But when the "differently advantaged" are forced to know who they are (whether or not they like it - or even accept the premise) there are problems that go beyond mere contempt and resentment (which may or may not be mutual).
Restricting the term "privilege" to those with unearned wealth or opportunity seems one powerful way to make the case for a more equitable distribution of resources. For one thing, applying "privilege" to race and gender seems ideally suited for creating divisions and conflicts between all sorts of individuals who could make a heartfelt case that any privileges they might "enjoy" don't really amount to much. Such divisions are a well proven way for frustrating democracy.
Restricting the term "privilege" this way might also be helpful for dealing with questions of "democracy". Movie stars, maestros, and savants can (just like top ranked athletes) give the world the benefits of their advantages without denigrating the rest of us. It's to their benefit to do so even if they strive mightily to increase the gulf between their gifts and those of the rest of us in any particular field of endeavor. No one is helped if the brilliant fail to distribute the benefits of their advantages, and so that's what they do - because they can. What they can't do is distribute the benefits themselves. "From each according to their ability; to each according to their need." This was the gleefully Marxist message of Kurt Vonnegut's much misunderstood "Harrison Bergeron".
Among the myriad misreaders of Vonnegut are those who claim "equality" is a plot to handicap the best, the brightest, and the most beautiful among us. No matter the intention, this (just like the "privilege" meme) has the effect of distracting attention from wealth and income inequality. This inequality also causes resentments which our society, so far, has been very adroit at managing and redirecting. Who, after all, is really in favor of restricting the liberty of those with great talents whether for singing, dancing, drawing, telling jokes, or making great gobs of moolah. Aren't these talents we would all love to possess? Celebrate diversity, why doncha?
Yes, differences in (even unearned) innate gifts can lead to wealth and income inequality. But only wealth inequality itself is democracy's oldest and most potent foe. This is true even of wealth earned exclusively through years of diligent, exacting effort assiduously employed to develop and exploit certain abilities. And it's true even if those with the most dough are also the wisest and kindest known specimens of humanity.
Who should be the helpers? Who should be the helped? How shall we decide? What shall we do when disagreements about all this threaten comity and good feeling among compatriots? These are questions not likely to ever be worked out with finality. They can only be managed through the agony of democracy.
And agony is central to democracy which is, after all, about people with their gifts, their needs, their differences, their loyalties, their confusions, their divisions, and their resentments. Most of those are not nutritious for democracy, but they cannot be done away with either. We can only manage them. But managing them is so much more agonizing when our thinking and relationships are being intentionally muddied and perverted by malefactors of great wealth. We are, after all, perfectly capable of muddling ourselves without their malign interference. We can also manage wealth inequality. We've done it before, but only in the context of world wide war and depression.
Over the last forty years our democracy (or whatever passes for it in the real world of state capitalism) has stumbled between two types of leadership. Sometimes we have empowered those who would deliberately and joyously obliterate a century's work of (the often elitist and condescending) progressives. The other type of leadership are the ideological heirs of those progressives. They've done their damage much less deliberately or, at least, more joylessly.
It's hard not to pity those who don't notice this - especially when they are the most vulnerable to the ills resulting from this vandalism. Yet pity, even for the most inadvertent of self inflicted injuries, is always tinged with a contempt that even the better angels of our nature can banish only temporarily.
What can't be ignored is that contempt for large swaths of our society - even when it's only only a taint on some humane impulse - is surely not helpful for democracy. Responsible measures surely don't exclude compassionate motivation. But antics, tantrums, and sulks (reactions we are all liable to) are rarely good guides for the types of responsible self governance we must rely on each other to build.
It's hard not to pity those who don't notice this - especially when they are the most vulnerable to the ills resulting from this vandalism. Yet pity, even for the most inadvertent of self inflicted injuries, is always tinged with a contempt that even the better angels of our nature can banish only temporarily.
What can't be ignored is that contempt for large swaths of our society - even when it's only only a taint on some humane impulse - is surely not helpful for democracy. Responsible measures surely don't exclude compassionate motivation. But antics, tantrums, and sulks (reactions we are all liable to) are rarely good guides for the types of responsible self governance we must rely on each other to build.
No comments:
Post a Comment