Socrates, the great Greek philosopher, is famous for taking on the role of the "gadfly" in ancient Athens. The gadfly bites people and causes them irritation. Socrates saw his social role as one who challenged deep-seated and fundamental assumptions in society. Human individuals and societies like to be comfortable, and that "comfort zone" typically includes not being challenged in those ideas that we're used to and that we make use of to establish our identity and our place in the world. The one who challenges those assumptions, then, becomes an irritant. Socrates famously ended up being so irritating that the Athenians executed him. But the role of the "social gadfly", though irritating, is necessary, for prevailing assumptions need to be challenged if there is to be growth in understanding.
I'm aware of a high school recently that put on an event in which there was a session trying to expose students to the problems of "privilege" in our society. This is a project I highly endorse. It is so easy for us to be blind to the things we take for granted and that other people don't have. It is easy to overlook the concerns of those outside our own social circles.
But while I applaud the movement to expose people to these problems of privilege, I observe, ironically, how many unquestioned assumptions are assumed by those who are often in charge of promulgating this movement. I think that just as many of us have grown comfortable with our privileges and need to be shaken into a greater awareness of the concerns of others, so it seems that many of the leaders of this awakening movement themselves need some awakening. I'm sure these leaders see themselves as gadflies biting the complacent members of society, and in many ways they are, and their work is important, but I think the gadflies themselves need their own gadflies to bite them as well. So I'd like to do some biting.
Ever since the beginning of the Enlightenment, but growing in rapidity as time has gone by, western civilization has been experiencing a "worldview coup". An Agnostic worldview has been trying to supplant the previous Christian worldview of European Christendom. Many of the culture war battles that have been fought and are being fought in modern western societies--and I'll focus especially on US culture, since I live here and am most familiar with this--are battles between these two worldviews. I call the Agnostic battle-plan a "coup" because it has typically been waged stealthily rather than in the form of a straightforward assault. The "Agnosticizers" of our society have typically not come in with straightforward arguments attempting to show that Agnosticism is a more reasonable worldview than Christianity, but they have attempted to worm themselves into the assumptions of people quietly, claiming merely to be patrons of objective and critical--and neutral--thinking. They have worked to convert people subconsciously so that people don't even know they have been converted. And they have been very successful in this campaign, so much so that people are in serious need of a major gadly infestation to call attention to what has gone on and what is going on.
What happened at that session at the high school I mentioned provides a good example of what I am talking about. Students were asked a series of questions intended to point out how privileged some of them are, how easy their lives are compared to those of others. One of those questions was something like, "Have you ever experienced disapproval from members of your family over the gender of your partner?" A related question was, "Have you ever experienced disapproval from family over your sexuality?" Questions were also asked to expose racial and other sorts of biases. Taking into account the structure of this session itself as well as the sorts of messages one often sees promulgated in various ways in public schools these days, it was clear that the assumption behind these questions about sexuality was that everyone ought to be able to have their own kind of sexuality, whether heterosexual or homosexual, and that if they have had family members who have disapproved of this, those family members have been bigots along the same lines as people who might disapprove of someone because of their race. The disapproved-of homosexual deserves sympathy because he has been treated badly, just as the person who is discriminated against because of race deserves sympathy because he has been treated badly. Other questions were obviously geared towards transgenderism, such as, "Have you had trouble going certain places publicly, such as public restrooms?" Again, the assumption is that if, say, an anatomical male identifies psychologicaly as a female, that person ought to receive sympathy if they have trouble going into the women's restroom because they have been treated badly by anti-transgender bigots.
I have some questions about this. This was a public high school. Why did they get to ask questions that assumed a particular view of homosexuality and transgenderism to be correct and other views to be wrong and bigoted? Did they not know there are plenty of people in our society who do not share those views? Do they not know that entire groups of people, such as Catholics, Evangelicals, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and many others, even some Atheists and Agnostics, do not share those views (the Catholic view on transgenderism, I should note, has yet to be defined specifically, but the Catholic view of homosexuality has been defined very clearly)? Surely this is knowledge that any "awakened" person in our society ought to have. Why, then, does a public school get to impose particular views over others on their students? Public schools claim to be worldview-neutral places, but they are obviously far from it. There is great irony here. What if they had asked the question, "Have you ever felt singled out in public because of your non-mainstream views on homosexuality or transgenderism?" But they would never ask this question because it would treat equally views they hate and wish to discredit--even though there are students who hold those views. If they asked this question, they would be accused by many of being hateful, anti-homosexual, anti-transgender, etc., because, in many people's minds, to show any respect at all towards these alternate views is the same as to be hateful and disrespectful towards homosexuals, transgenders, etc. So in order to respect and sympathize with some people, we must condemn and reject others--not in an upfront sort of way, but stealthily, in the name of neutrality and universal compassion. No one is going to say straight out, "You know those people, like Catholics, Evangelicals, etc., who hold View X on homosexuality? Well, they're wrong, and their views don't deserve any respect or sympathy." Rather, their view is condemned without mention, as if it can be simply swept under the rug. This is, I would argue, actually more disrespectful of these alternate views than if they had been straightforwardly condemned. It's like these other views and these other people are just written by social fiat out of existence. "OK, so, of course, all rational and intelligent people, which you all are, agree with View Y, so we'll just assume that and attack View X as a stupid, evil view that all thinking and compassionate people would of course reject."
Sorry to be a gadfly, but someone needs to point this out, and loudly. We don't get to just dismiss other people's views without acknowledgment and argument. We don't get to throw out some views and insinuate our own as the only official viewpoint by stealth, in the name of universal compassion, tolerance, and neutrality. This is, ironically, precisely the kind of biased and bigoted privileging that these people have sworn to try to destroy. They are doing systematically precisely what they say they hate.
Some other examples of biased privileging from this same high school example:
They had a lot of questions geared towards homosexuals, transgenders, race, and wealth, but these are not the only kinds of privileging or experiences of advantage and disadvantage that people have in our society. For example, what about the disadvantages of people who have large families? I happen to have a large family, and I've observed many times how the culture is designed in such a way as to make it very difficult for large families to participate in all that the culture has to offer. It may seem like not a big deal to go to the zoo, or the symphony, or a movie, or whatever, when you only have to pay for two or three tickets (at least for those with moderate wealth). But what if you have to pay for ten? Small families are privileged. But do you know how many times I've heard that mentioned by the great promoters of privilege-awareness in our society? Zero times. (Now, I'm not saying some haven't talked about it. Maybe they have, and I haven't heard them. But it is clear that it is not nearly as much on the radar screen as other forms of privilege, such wealth, race, and sexuality. But why should it be considered less important?)
And what about the privileges of certain personality types, or certain skill sets? If you pay any attention to our culture, and you are open, critical, and honest, it will not take you long to recognize that certain personality types do better in our society than others. And certain skills and talents are more valued than others. I notice these things, because I just happen to have a personality-type (eccentric introvert) and skill set (philosophy and theology) that is pretty low on the scale in terms of social respect and opportunities. We hear about some of these things, but not others. Our compassion and sympathy are not as universal as we would like to think. Actually, they tend to be very selective, and if you don't happen to meet the proper criteria to be in some group recognized as deserving sympathy, you can despair of ever getting most people to really take your concerns seriously.
We like to think we see all views and all concerns equally. But we don't. Of course we don't. No one can. Every society has a set of views and concerns that it considers reasonable, tolerable, worth consideration, etc., and those views it works to respect, protect, and promote, while other views and concerns it rejects as silly and not worth much respect or attention, or even worth disrespect or contempt. For example, in our society, racism is a horrible evil. That's how we think of it. And we should, because it is. But our position is not neutral. If a racist complains that his view is disrespected, undervalued, or hated, and that he is regularly treated worse in our society because of it, our response is, "So what? It's your fault, because you're a stupid, ignorant bigot." That's how we now treat people who don't share mainstream views on homosexuality and transgenderism as well. All societies have their heretics who threaten the values they want to inculcate and promote. There is nothing wrong with that. But even the heretics deserve a fundamental level of respect. They deserve enough respect so as to allow their views to be seriously considered, if still rejected. They deserve to have the society acknowledge their existence and to provide serious arguments against their positions, rather than being swept under the rug as non-existent and not worth being argued against straightforwardly. They deserve that their views not be rejected and condemned and ignored in the name of "neutrality" and "universal respect for all views and concerns," because this is just a lie. They deserve to be treated as human beings, albeit ones who are wrong about important things. I think that those who wish to oppose biased privilege in our society ought to work to deal honestly with views they think we should reject. If we argue for our views and against other views honestly and straightforwardly, instead of trying to win by stealth and question-begging, we will still get to argue against views we dislike, but we will have treated the advocates of those views with the proper respect owed to them as human beings. The ideal of universal neutrality is a view of equality that is unrealistic, deceptive, and manipulative. What I am advocating is a realistic, more honest view of equality. Of course, it's also harder. It's much easier to keep your own views on top if you use bias and privilege to keep them there instead of doing the hard work of actually arguing your views on their actual merits on an equal playing field with other views.
That is what is so ironic here. The opponents of unenlightened, assumed privilege use that very thing to maintain the dominance of their own views and agendas (not necessarily always consciously, of course). It is a good thing to be jolted into greater awareness. I just wish the ones doing the jolting would do a better job of turning their "jolters" on themselves sometimes. Calling people's attention to these sorts of things is just what we gadflies are for. And consider this: The real gadflies in society are not the people everyone is praising and celebrating. The real gadflies are the ones everyone is irritated with, because these are the ones pointing out the real blind spots. The Athenians didn't celebrate Socrates; they executed him. I am always amused to an extent when I see celebrations of "banned books." To some degree, I am even more interested in the books that don't make the "celebrated banned books" list, the ones that everyone hates so much that it would be considered an offense to put them on the list of banned books, for these are, in the highest sense, the real "banned books" of our society.
One more note: Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that we don't need to be concerned about privilege when it comes to race, wealth, or other things often focused on in today's discussions of these topics. And I am not saying that people who are in immoral lifestyles don't deserve sympathy. I think we could all use a good bit of sympathy in these difficult days. And I am a strong advocate for universal compassion and respect for human beings. I'm just advocating we open ourselves up to even more of this than I often see reflected in our cultural discussions of these topics. We need much more waking up, not less.
Anyway, much to think about! For more on the illusion of claims of "neutrality" in our culture, see here.
Published on the feast of St. Stanislaus
Posts
'So glorious a gleam, over dale and down'
4 years ago
No comments:
Post a Comment