{"id":3930,"date":"2016-01-20T17:19:21","date_gmt":"2016-01-21T00:19:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.newcoolthang.com\/?p=3930"},"modified":"2020-01-09T04:08:30","modified_gmt":"2020-01-09T11:08:30","slug":"honor-dignity-and-victimhood","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.newcoolthang.com\/index.php\/2016\/01\/honor-dignity-and-victimhood\/3930\/","title":{"rendered":"Honor, Dignity and Victimhood"},"content":{"rendered":"

This post that consists of three parts: \u00a0First, I will give a brief review of Jonathan Haidt<\/a> and his publications – this section is optional and can be skipped if you like. \u00a0Second, I will summarize “Microaggression and Moral Cultures,”\u00a0an article by Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning concerning the nature of microaggressions and the emergence of “victimhood” culture – this is the main meat of the post. \u00a0Finally, I will use Nietzsche’s master\/slave moralities to apply Campbell and Manning’s paper to\u00a0the differences between victimhood culture and the gospel.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Jonathan Haidt<\/strong><\/p>\n

I’m a big fan of Jonathan Haidt in that I deeply applaud his efforts at building bridges of mutual understanding and communication across political and ideological divides. \u00a0(The degree to which he has succeeded in these attempts is another issue.) \u00a0This is not to say that I agree with everything he says. \u00a0For starters, I think that he limits himself far too much to American ideologies within the very recent past – even by American standards. \u00a0It is only within this very limited \u00a0scope that one can call the PC left “liberal” and the free-market right “conservative”. \u00a0A better way of seeing the political divisions, I suggest, is by acknowledging that 95% of Americans are liberal in some form or another in that they strongly value freedom; it’s just that some of these liberals tend toward the egalitarian\u00a0direction of socialism\u00a0while others tend toward the stratified\u00a0direction of conservatism.<\/p>\n

Within this broader scope, one can better appreciate where Haidt himself stands, ideologically speaking: he is a moderate liberal, probably close to John Stuart Mill. \u00a0Consequently, whereas at times he claims to have “stepped out of the political game,” and become an impartial observer, at other times it becomes quite obvious that he has done no such thing. \u00a0Nothing has made this more clear, I suggest, than his recent efforts at stemming the recent resurgence of political correctness and identity politics. \u00a0Within these efforts he still strives to facilitate understanding, but the appearance of\u00a0neutrality seems to have been left behind.<\/p>\n

It is tempting to think that the objections that the PC left have with him largely boil down to the\u00a0packaging of his ideas, not the content of the ideas themselves. \u00a0Unfortunately, the left-wing Marcusians (as Haidth calls them)\u00a0do not recognize any significant difference between form and content since either one can function as a kind of domination in society. \u00a0Thus, whereas Haidt is explicitly aimed at opening a space\u00a0that is safe for uncensored\u00a0speech and dialogue, his opponents are centrally concerned with how opening a space that is safe from the domination of uncensored speech and “dialogue”. \u00a0These politically motivated objections to Haidt are evidence enough that he is not as politically neutral as he would probably like.<\/p>\n

While I would love to unpack the differences between Haidt’s traditional conception of theory and Herbert Marcuse’s critical theory, I will resist the temptation for the time being. \u00a0Instead, I will merely point the reader to Traditional and Critical Theory<\/a> by Max Horkheimer for a decent intro to\u00a0the theoretical differences at play between Haidt and the leftist intellectuals who object to him. \u00a0The point that I want to make in this context is that Haidt’s attempts at building bridges of communication breaks down largely because he does not cast his ideological net\u00a0wide enough to accommodate the different types of reasoning that are native to\u00a0non-liberal socialism (and non-liberal conservatism, for that matter).<\/p>\n

Microaggression and Moral Cultures<\/strong><\/p>\n

I would now like to briefly summarize a paper which Haidt links to and summarizes\u00a0<\/a>at his website: Microaggression and Moral Cultures<\/em> by Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning . \u00a0First, I will discuss two common types of microaggressions and the social contexts in which they are moralized. \u00a0Second, I will summarize the historical emergence of three moral cultures that largely correlate with the cultures of conservatism, liberalism and socialism.<\/p>\n

Campbell and Manning categorize microaggressions into two types: overstratification and underdiversification. \u00a0A microaggression of overstratification is an expression – though rather small and non-threatening in and of itself – of a systemic<\/em> stratification according to which one “higher” group repeatedly and systematically dominates a “lower” group. \u00a0While the individual act itself may not be an obvious case of whites dominating blacks, men dominating women, rich dominating poor, etc., the act is still interpreted as an expression or reminder of the systematic<\/em> domination of one group over another. \u00a0While microaggressions of stratification are cases of one group being positioned beneath others, microaggressions of underdiversification are when a\u00a0group is systematically excluded from some space. \u00a0Put differently, a mere lack of domination is not enough (think ‘separate, but equal’); an active integration of marginalized groups is also necessary. \u00a0A space in which a diverse range of underprivileged classes are both well-integrated and free from systemic domination is often called a “safe space.”<\/p>\n

While it might be counter-intuitive to some, Campbell and Manning found that complaints of microaggression actually\u00a0increase\u00a0<\/em>as a community becomes less stratified and more diverse. \u00a0The more equal a community becomes, the more loudly people will complain about inequalities and the more diverse a community becomes, the more loudly people will complain about infringements upon diversity. \u00a0Thus, the most egalitarian and diverse environments in our country – university campuses – are exactly the places\u00a0where we find the loudest complaints about inequality and a lack of diversity. \u00a0The reasoning behind this is somewhat complex and worth exploring in the original paper. \u00a0The basic idea is that as a community comes to embody the values in question, the costs of moral indignation decrease\u00a0while the benefits increase. \u00a0In other words, the more a community comes to embody equality, the more incentive<\/em> a person has within that community to portray themselves (and others) as victims of inequality.<\/p>\n

Within their history of moral cultures, Campbell and Manning call communities that have come to incentivize victimization in this way\u00a0“cultures of victimhood.” \u00a0(Again, I really dislike the negative connotations associated with this particular label.) \u00a0This culture of victimhood is currently clashing with a moral culture of dignity in the same way that the latter clashed with a moral culture of honor roughly 300 years ago. \u00a0A brief discussion of the similarities and differences between these cultures is in order.<\/p>\n

A moral culture of honor is one in which social status is attached to a refusal on one’s part to be dominated by anybody else. \u00a0One thinks of Aristocrats, knights, Samuraii, the old west, or any other community that approaches\u00a0Nietzsche’s master morality<\/a>. \u00a0A person within such a society is very sensitive to microaggressions of stratification in their interpersonal relations, but – and this is what sets it apart from victimhood – places full responsibility on the offended individual to avenge\u00a0such offenses on their own. \u00a0Indeed, to not fight back or retaliate in response to\u00a0a perceived dishonor is considered immoral cowardice. \u00a0To advertise one’s victimhood, or even to appeal to legal authorities in some cases, is proof that one has no honor at all.<\/p>\n

With the rise of more centralized legal authorities and (especially) political constitutions came cultures of dignity. \u00a0Within such cultures, moral worth is not something that must be earned and defended, but is instead something that each person is born with. \u00a0Within such a community the “good opinion” of others is not as valuable such that people will often be praised for their “think skin” and tolerance – virtues that have no place within an honor culture. \u00a0When a person is offended, they are expected to either let it go\u00a0and move on\u00a0or, if the offense is egregious enough, report it to a centralized\u00a0third party. \u00a0These authorities, usually the legal or administrative authorities, will thus negotiate the proper compensation between the involved parties. \u00a0The ideal for this culture, then, is to use the legal system as “quickly, quietly and rarely\u00a0as possible.”<\/p>\n

A culture of victimhood combines different elements from the honor and dignity societies in a way that cannot be reduced to either one. \u00a0As in the case of the honor culture, people are very sensitive to stratifying acts of domination, but, more like the dignity culture, people will address such offenses through appeals to a third party. \u00a0This combination of caring deeply for\u00a0one’s social status while at the same time seeking to establish and preserve this status through appeals to a third party\u00a0incentivizes a kind of public self-victimization\u00a0that is very foreign to both honor and dignity cultures. \u00a0Unlike the dignity culture, on the one hand, perceived offenses will not be “tolerated” within a culture of victimhood. \u00a0Unlike the honor culture, on the other hand, such offenses are repaired by advertising one’s weak and exploited nature rather than one’s strong and exploitative nature. \u00a0Since people depend upon a third party rather than themselves for their moral standing, and since people are no longer willing to quietly tolerate offenses to their moral standing, this places an immense burden upon and corresponding power within the hands of\u00a0this third party in the form of centralized control or\u00a0unchecked populism.<\/p>\n

The Gospel: A Culture of Honor, Dignity or Victimhood?<\/strong><\/p>\n

My question at this point is this: which of these cultures does the gospel advocate? \u00a0I referenced above Nietzsche’s distinction between the master morality of the Aristocrats and the slave morality of the Christians. \u00a0While I did equate the culture of honor with master morality, I balked at equating slave morality with the cultures of dignity or victimhood – although there is certainly some overlap. \u00a0 \u00a0Both dignity and victimhood cultures\u00a0are based in the presence of a strong third party that is capable and available to correct offenses, while slave morality based around the immediate absence of such a third party. \u00a0Moral status is to be measured and redeemed in heaven, not this mortal life. \u00a0Christian morality, as Nietzsche understood it, probably best corresponds to the underprivileged majority within honor cultures.<\/p>\n

With the rise of centralized legal authorities, however, I think the gospel adapted quite seamlessly to a\u00a0dignity culture. \u00a0The slave morality ideal of “turning the other cheek” in active toleration was generalized such that pretty much every group could expect to offend and be offended by somebody. \u00a0In the case of egregious offenses, the church did and still does make some appeals to legal authorities, but such appeals are indeed, quick, quiet and rare. \u00a0Such tendencies of the dignity culture match up pretty well with what the church teaches and expects from the world around it today.<\/p>\n

What I absolutely do not find within the gospel is an unqualified condemnation of all forms of domination or an unqualified praise of diversity. \u00a0Yes, the scriptures condemn the domination of secular authorities as well as *unrighteous<\/em>* dominion but consensual subservience to the righteous dominion of the Lord’s prophets is very much a part of the gospel. \u00a0Similarly, the church does encourage\u00a0certain amounts of bounded<\/em> diversity – something which a victimhood culture would say is not diversity at all. \u00a0Yet, one does not find any suggestion that anybody and everybody should be able to join the church without conforming to some standards or another. \u00a0Indeed, the scriptures often urge\u00a0a rather strong isolation from the cultures and false gods of the world – the very opposite of integration.<\/p>\n

In the end,\u00a0I find little support within the gospel for the hypersensitivity to offense that characterize the honor and victimhood cultures. \u00a0To be sure, all three cultures had their own ways of righting wrongs. \u00a0Masters within the honor culture fought for themselves and their kin while the (Judeo-Christian) slaves sought their status in heaven. \u00a0People within the dignity culture universalized and secularized this slave morality in the form of tolerating many offenses, thereby minimizing the importance of status, not withstanding the occasional appeal to third-party arbitration. \u00a0Inasmuch as the believer retained their care for moral status, it was\u00a0largely measured and avenged by God and in His own time. \u00a0The victimhood culture, by contrast, abandons the slave morality altogether by\u00a0seeking to universalize a\u00a0master morality in which every person’s social status in this<\/em> life<\/em>\u00a0is jealously guarded by mortal men and women within some\u00a0“third party.” \u00a0Such a concern with status and power within this world, however, stands in stark contrast to the gospel of meekness taught by Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n

In Nietzschean language, the gospel teaches us all to be slaves within the culture of dignity, not masters within the culture of victimhood. \u00a0Our moral status is to be measured in heaven, not jealously guarded within this fleeting life.