Irshad is on fire! My renewed journey on this topic started with Jonathan Haidt (The Coddling . . .) and the Heterodox Society which in turn led me to many places including Persuasion. That said, my favorite epiphany is that, with humility, you must be able to engage with "others" (even THOSE others) to even begin to start a substantive conversation (which in turn leads to better understanding and, perhaps after lots of work, even better outcomes). To me, increased polarization and a strong disagreement on basic underlying facts makes this even more true. Irshad's book is a fantastic articulation of why this approach is frankly the only constructive way forward and, even better yet, provides the tools needed to engage. As with all things in life, there are no shortcuts - just keep putting in the good work and meet people where they are.
Mike: Yes, exactly, "meet people where they are." In public health advocacy, this is a vital principle. To shame and blame people gets cause-oriented folks nowhere (except further apart from their stated goals!). This principle was belatedly learned during the AIDS epidemic. Public health officials have had to re-learn this principle all over again over the course of this pandemic. (Dr. Julia Marcus, a Harvard epidemiologist, has written a couple of brilliant pieces about the inefficacy of shaming non-maskers and the relative utility of empathizing, then engaging with them.) All to say: you've touched upon the iron-clad law of human psychology -- that if you wish to be heard, you must first be willing to hear. So simple, yet so difficult for those who dismiss the transformational power of humility. Thanks for your comment!
Thanks for posting this insightful article and for making me aware of Irshad's book (which I just ordered). I am serving as a minister in the Unitarian Universalist tradition and am aghast at the spiritually inept, divisive and most assuredly counter productive methods our religious association is trying to impose upon congregations. The members of the congregation I serve here in Oregon honestly yearn to promote diversity and help create a truly "beloved community" (MLK, Jr.) and this gives me hope that there are wise and compassionate guides out there who don't loathe any segment of the population who can help us find out way.
Rick, thank you for your support. You won't be surprised that I'm hearing from more than a few members of congregations (not just UU congregations!) about this. Might I suggest that you invite your association to present Don't Label Me as a follow-up reading for congregants? One fact that might be worth mentioning is that the New York Society of Ethical Culture bestowed upon me its Humanist of the Year award in 2012. Given the close relationship between UU and the Ethical Culture movement, perhaps my your association and I share crucial ideals?
Yes, I'm delighted to promote your book - and yes, there is much overlap between the Ethical Culture society and the UU's.
I've been looking for something that will help us thread our way through the polarizing rhetoric and framing of issues, so I'm deeply grateful for the work you are doing.
Separately, I daresay you're in great demand as a speaker, but I would like to extend to you an invitation to speak - via zoom or similar technology - as our Sunday speaker before the election on either Sept. 20, Oct. 4, 25 or Nov. 1. This would involve you sharing your views for about 20 to 30 minutes and perhaps being available for dialogue with us for a similar period of time. I would publicize this widely beyond the congregation to increase viewership.
We offer a modest honorarium of $500. I understand if you have too much on your plate to accept, but I couldn't resist passing up the opportunity to ask you.
Rev. Rick, how kind of you to issue this invitation. I have an idea to run by you. Could you email my office via team@moralcourage.com? My assistant will receive your email and set up a time for us to talk. I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks.
Wonderful thesis well argued, but I wonder if civilizations truly are capable of achieving this kind of—I don’t mean to sound silly using this word, but I think it’s right—enlightenment. Throughout history in every civilization I’ve ever studied, there was always an “other” to be looked down upon in scorn. In America today, for the Red Tribe, it’s minorities, especially Muslims; for the Blue Tribe, it’s “rednecks.” The need to have some out-group if only to help define the in-group seems to be such a fundamental human need that we always strive to create it, war or peace; prosperity or poverty.
Tyler: You're quite right that the human animal is wired for in-group/out-group distinctions. We won't change this anytime soon. What we can do, though, is teach a new generation how to *tame* (not eliminate) the impulse to lapse into Us-Against-Them. That's what I'm striving to do. More, young people could stand to learn *why* taming this impulse is a matter of civilizational survival. From my POV, the "why" is this: they'll be responsible for contributing to enduring solutions for various existential challenges, from climate change to mass migration to pandemics to the unintended consequences of AI, etc. If solutions are going to be durable, then they can't be imposed on people who feel unheard. Which means learning to communicate across lines of disagreement is necessary. Do you agree/disagree?
I definitely agree that we need to teach these ideas, and if anything, education seems to be moving in the other direction. I'm fully on board with reversing that trend! Just this past week, the headmaster at my old secondary school got in trouble for saying something completely reasonable but that seemed to upset a few thin-skinned trustees. We are in a tough place where even the slightest disagreement is grounds for trying to ruin someone, and even liberal arts institutions refuse to defend the collision of ideas.
Ultimately, I suspect that we need a reason to come together: a national purpose or shared mission that most of us can agree is important and that provides some group pride and a reason to build bridges. Without that kind of shared meaning, life becomes a solipsistic endeavor animated by anger towards those who have (or seem to have) a better life. Even our current day champions of anti-inequality seem, at heart, motivated mostly by resentment---a desire to pull down their betters as opposed to lifting up those less fortunate (and it's not even subtle: Bernie's 99% plan quickly became the 99.8% plan once his book deal cleared and he himself vaulted into the top 1%). Very few champions of equality or national purpose are willing to make any kind of personal sacrifice.
Mickey's point is an interesting one: how to make an "other" that isn't a group of people. We have some empirical evidence that solving internal crises doesn't work very well: fighting climate change or a pandemic requires sacrifice without much personal opportunity for achievement. Exploration seems once to have been an answer. The American Frontier created a sense of purpose and national pride, and it also provided a place for those who were dissatisfied with their lot in society to try something new with real upside. We were a country that was going places, building and exploring and creating. That ideal seems to have inspired people, while solving climate change or a pandemic seems mostly to involve giving up nice things and obeying authority---hardly the stuff of personal dreams. Of course, even our westward expansion devastated other people whom we considered “lesser” at the time.
When I was a teenager, I remember being enthralled by Robert Zubrin's idea that colonizing Mars could engender that spirit again, but I'm now a lot more skeptical. Still, I don't have a better idea. It seems to be almost a curse of progress: the more a liberal society is realized, the less its citizenry cares to defend it or be inspired by what they have achieved.
Either way, though, I completely agree that the most urgent battle to be fought is in education. At a minimum, it is terrific _fun_ to find people with different views and to debate them, and it seems tragic that so many kids don't get to have that experience in school. Overcoming the belief that being "wrong" is equivalent to being "bad" opens doors to a lot of fascinating dialogue and would go far to undermine the concern around words-as-violence. It seems that we should be able to teach that concept quite easily.
Thanks for your terrific article and hanging around to chat with us in the comments!
You've hit on something important here: Articulating a point of commonality *before* discussing differences is key to building trust. That commonality might be shared citizenship. Or an embrace of the same sport. Or mutual love of a particular genre of music. What the commonality, it's key to put it on the table and only then dive into difference. That's among the reasons Critical Race Theory is so awful for the trust-building that democracy requires: It starts with differences and continues to harp on them until everyone is "intersectionally located" and compartmentalized by labels. I don't think I'm being unfair in my characterization of CRT. But if you have a divergent opinion, I'm all ears. Please share!
Thanks for your brief and accurate summary of CRT and Intersectionality Irshad! I think you will enjoy reading this article by Andrew Sullivan on this topic
One additional point. A woke editor hired by NYT Sarah Jeong made many nasty comments about white people over many years. It seems such sentiments are common in progressive circles and it is a way to virtue signal. One comment struck out for me - she marveled at how much she enjoys being cruel to old white men. But old people (irrespective of race) are also a minority who need our care and compassion! But according to Intersectionality, only the suffering of certain kinds of minorities should be taken into account. What if I am white and I suffered from mental illness all my life or I was brought up in a foster family? There is no need for "oppression sweepstakes" and we must recognize the universality of suffering - a key religious idea in many world religions like Buddhism and Christianity. This leads to an attitude of compassion for everyone that suffers which includes the whole human race.
Sinchan, your comment moves me greatly. I couldn't agree with you more re: the universality of suffering and the need to respect our elderly. Apart from people with disabilities, I can't think of a group that, in our society, experiences more dismissal and neglect than elderly people. Not only is that a moral stain on our culture; it's a massive waste of wisdom.
And given how vulnerable the elderly are at multiple levels -- from physical to mental to emotional and beyond -- it takes an extra-special breed of ideologue to delight in instrumentalizing "old white men" for personal entertainment. Here's the kicker: It's done in the name of justice. What am I missing about how this can possibly be just?
I suppose all ideologues treat human beings as playthings to fulfill an agenda. Ideologues objectify and de-humanize not inadvertently but intentionally -- all while self-righteously claiming to do the opposite. Hence my line in the essay that justice so readily congeals into "just us." You've shed light on why I'm so passionate about teaching a new generation to avoid committing the same old mistakes and make new, better mistakes. :) Thanks for your support.
Sinchan - Thanks so much for referencing the Andrew Sullivan article. I've been struggling with CRT since I first learned about it (ironically from my son who is in high school). At best (and as Andrew highlights), it contributes an interesting idea into the pool of knowledge to consider when confronting a complex subject but, at worst, it poisons the whole pool and becomes an ideology that leaves no room for discussion.
I decided to outline why the theory causes me so much angst by drawing a distinction between my core beliefs and what the theory argues. My worldview is evolving and certainly can be wrong but at least I have a better understanding for why my Amygdala has been hijacked. Perhaps this will be helpful to others. I would love to improve on the following so please do add your $0.02 -
Group identity/intersection (race, gender, identity) over the individual (self determination); Agency/free will are illusory - we are either unknowing or complicit "subjects" in the existing oppressive system
Identity over class/$
Power over anything else
Zero sum battles over collaboration & win/win
Impact over intent
Narratives/stories over objectivity
Truth is but a function of power and objectivity is a mirage given it's a byproduct of the "system" (science also suffers from the same condition)
No evolution, no acknowledgement of accomplishments, unclear goal/end game (NOTE: perhaps perfect demographic representation in positions of power? Perhaps appointed arbiters determine outcomes based on CRT?)
No oportunity to persuade, reason b/c of disproportionate power (leaves an echo chamber of those as the same power level)
Receiving party (lower on power ranking) determines rules of discourse, language and harm
Diversity of identity NOT diversity of ideas (see above re: ideas come from differing places of power)
Language is not for persuasion but for resistance
Leaving on something positive, I think this is less about the "what" (although there is work to be done there as well) and more about the "how." My hope is by highlighting the above and drilling down into each with a level of specificity that we can adjust our collective thinking to be more effective in accomplishing our mutual goal as articulated in Persuasion's mission statement.
It's interesting that the kind of persuasion you're discussing is never taught. I loved debate club and Model UN in school, but it was all about logical argument and never touched on the personal and emotional aspects of engaging other people with arguments they might dislike. How to have an argument with another _person_ as opposed to an idea is its own skill, and I do think that it's a teachable one. It would be an interesting course offering! I think I'd take it as an adult.
Tyler, you're 100% right that engaging with living, breathing humans (as opposed to abstractions or ideas) is its own skill -- and even happier to hear that you'd like to learn it. By the end of this year, I'll be coming out with an online course for people who want to learn and possibly even teach this skill. If you're interested to know more, go to moralcourage.com/learn and scroll down to "Communities." And if you want to be kept informed of the course's availability, please sign up to my newsletter: irshadmanji.com/newsletter. I'd be chuffed to have you as a student!
Thank you for this reminder that inclusiveness includes “them” the Republicans. When we don’t engage in good faith discussions with people who disagree with us politically, when we imagine they are so different that there is no common ground, we lose part of the diversity that makes “us” America.
Emily, thank you. One of the things I teach young people is that you can, at one and the same time, stand your ground while seeking common ground. That is, if you decide that your positio n is better than that of your political "Other," fine. But you can still create a culture of conversation that allows your Other to be sincerely heard.
Besides, that's the only way you'll get sincerely heard, too -- by lowering the emotional defenses of your Other so that they've got the bandwidth to hear you out. You can't lower emotional defenses by treating your Other as an object to manipulate. Nobody likes being played. And if you're in it to change their mind rather than learn where they're coming from, you're playing them. To get Kennedy-esque about it: Ask not how to change the Other's mind; ask what you're missing about the Other. I'd welcome more of your feedback!
You are clearly a person open to other points of view. I applaud you for that. Here are some additional thoughts to consider:
A few points I found to cause cognitive dissonance in reading this piece, mostly having to do with (1) eliding between conservative, Republican and Trump supporter as if they were one-in-the same; and (2) The implicit idea that non-progressives are the "old order", thus perhaps implying that they are "on the wrong side of history".
To elaborate: (a) Non-public sector blue collar workers in the industrial mid-west who represent a traditional Democratic constituency shifted the election to Trump. Are you including them among the "Republican/Conservative/Trump" munge?; (b) Many prominent conservatives are vehemently critical of Trump and the Republican party. These folks believe in limited government, fiscal responsibility, strengthening intermediary institutions of civic and family life, cautious regarding rapid rates of societal and political change (e.g., French vs American approach to revolution, i.e., being careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater), and a strong military to protect against foreign totalitarian governments. Are any of these elements of the "old order" or pillars of the Trump administration?; and (c) As for elements of the "old order" going away - there are quite a few progressive notions of societal norms that may just as easily be characterized as going by the wayside too. A couple that come top of mind are abortion (down 54% since the apex in 1981) and first time gun ownership (up >2 million NEW owners in just the first half of 2020). Progressives often cite the Hegelian deterministic and "progressivist" direction of history, but history seems to have a mind of its own.
As a teacher, perhaps a good reading list for students wishing to understand conservative thought could include the editorial page of the WSJ, The National Review, The Imaginative Conservative and City Journal.
Roland: You've said something that's more optimistic than I can muster. Once we become the monster that we originally set out to fight, I *wish* I could count on the idea that we "no longer recognize ourselves." Too often, though, the new monsters won't admit that they've become what they hate. Instead, human beings tend to rationalize. For example, "We have never been as bad as Them." Or, "At least we are on the right side of history." Or, "Our ideals [Islam, Marxism, capitalism, etc] were never properly practiced. If they were, there wouldn't have been violence." Am I being cynical in saying this? I welcome your thoughts.
I find that at times during a discussion I can step into the well worn groove of treating the 'other' as an ignorant or evil position. Afterwards I observe something that reminds me of the humanity and legitimacy of those I disagree with. Then I look back at my arrogance with distaste. A hard to swallow pill. Seeing our own blind spots is a difficult game! I definitely take your point. Maybe it can take decades to unwind our own biases.
Mickey: If you're open to reading my book, check out the story about how an orthodox Jew named Matthew Stevenson engaged with a then-racist (actually, a proud white supremacist) named Derek Black. I spell out the "tactics" that Matthew used. As a result of Stevenson's grace, Black wound up leaving the white supremacy movement -- without ever being told do. He made that decision himself, thereby ensuring that it would "stick." Today, Derek Black is a vocal proponent of racial justice for Black Americans. The ripple effect is awesome.
When people are angry they feel justified in advocating cruel policies because they seek justice for a perceived loss. I try to understand the anger. Not always easy, and sometimes I have to try to understand my own anger too. Fun stuff.
Roland: I hear your sarcasm when describing the work of constructive engagement as "fun stuff." But... None other than Bruce Lee tried to make it fun -- or at least he tried to gamify it. You might know his most famous teaching: "Be like water, my friend." That's what he told every one of his martial arts students. He mentored them to be fluid, like water, so they could be prepared for any move that might be sprung upon them by their rival. In Don't Label Me, I apply this teaching to the art (and science) of engaging with our "Other" in any situation. With Bruce Lee as your mentor, you might not have gobs of fun, but it'll be an adventure, my friend. ;)
Irshad is on fire! My renewed journey on this topic started with Jonathan Haidt (The Coddling . . .) and the Heterodox Society which in turn led me to many places including Persuasion. That said, my favorite epiphany is that, with humility, you must be able to engage with "others" (even THOSE others) to even begin to start a substantive conversation (which in turn leads to better understanding and, perhaps after lots of work, even better outcomes). To me, increased polarization and a strong disagreement on basic underlying facts makes this even more true. Irshad's book is a fantastic articulation of why this approach is frankly the only constructive way forward and, even better yet, provides the tools needed to engage. As with all things in life, there are no shortcuts - just keep putting in the good work and meet people where they are.
Mike: Yes, exactly, "meet people where they are." In public health advocacy, this is a vital principle. To shame and blame people gets cause-oriented folks nowhere (except further apart from their stated goals!). This principle was belatedly learned during the AIDS epidemic. Public health officials have had to re-learn this principle all over again over the course of this pandemic. (Dr. Julia Marcus, a Harvard epidemiologist, has written a couple of brilliant pieces about the inefficacy of shaming non-maskers and the relative utility of empathizing, then engaging with them.) All to say: you've touched upon the iron-clad law of human psychology -- that if you wish to be heard, you must first be willing to hear. So simple, yet so difficult for those who dismiss the transformational power of humility. Thanks for your comment!
Thanks for posting this insightful article and for making me aware of Irshad's book (which I just ordered). I am serving as a minister in the Unitarian Universalist tradition and am aghast at the spiritually inept, divisive and most assuredly counter productive methods our religious association is trying to impose upon congregations. The members of the congregation I serve here in Oregon honestly yearn to promote diversity and help create a truly "beloved community" (MLK, Jr.) and this gives me hope that there are wise and compassionate guides out there who don't loathe any segment of the population who can help us find out way.
Rick, thank you for your support. You won't be surprised that I'm hearing from more than a few members of congregations (not just UU congregations!) about this. Might I suggest that you invite your association to present Don't Label Me as a follow-up reading for congregants? One fact that might be worth mentioning is that the New York Society of Ethical Culture bestowed upon me its Humanist of the Year award in 2012. Given the close relationship between UU and the Ethical Culture movement, perhaps my your association and I share crucial ideals?
Hi Irshad,
Yes, I'm delighted to promote your book - and yes, there is much overlap between the Ethical Culture society and the UU's.
I've been looking for something that will help us thread our way through the polarizing rhetoric and framing of issues, so I'm deeply grateful for the work you are doing.
Separately, I daresay you're in great demand as a speaker, but I would like to extend to you an invitation to speak - via zoom or similar technology - as our Sunday speaker before the election on either Sept. 20, Oct. 4, 25 or Nov. 1. This would involve you sharing your views for about 20 to 30 minutes and perhaps being available for dialogue with us for a similar period of time. I would publicize this widely beyond the congregation to increase viewership.
We offer a modest honorarium of $500. I understand if you have too much on your plate to accept, but I couldn't resist passing up the opportunity to ask you.
Wishing you all the best!
Rick
Rev. Rick, how kind of you to issue this invitation. I have an idea to run by you. Could you email my office via team@moralcourage.com? My assistant will receive your email and set up a time for us to talk. I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks.
Wonderful thesis well argued, but I wonder if civilizations truly are capable of achieving this kind of—I don’t mean to sound silly using this word, but I think it’s right—enlightenment. Throughout history in every civilization I’ve ever studied, there was always an “other” to be looked down upon in scorn. In America today, for the Red Tribe, it’s minorities, especially Muslims; for the Blue Tribe, it’s “rednecks.” The need to have some out-group if only to help define the in-group seems to be such a fundamental human need that we always strive to create it, war or peace; prosperity or poverty.
Tyler: You're quite right that the human animal is wired for in-group/out-group distinctions. We won't change this anytime soon. What we can do, though, is teach a new generation how to *tame* (not eliminate) the impulse to lapse into Us-Against-Them. That's what I'm striving to do. More, young people could stand to learn *why* taming this impulse is a matter of civilizational survival. From my POV, the "why" is this: they'll be responsible for contributing to enduring solutions for various existential challenges, from climate change to mass migration to pandemics to the unintended consequences of AI, etc. If solutions are going to be durable, then they can't be imposed on people who feel unheard. Which means learning to communicate across lines of disagreement is necessary. Do you agree/disagree?
I definitely agree that we need to teach these ideas, and if anything, education seems to be moving in the other direction. I'm fully on board with reversing that trend! Just this past week, the headmaster at my old secondary school got in trouble for saying something completely reasonable but that seemed to upset a few thin-skinned trustees. We are in a tough place where even the slightest disagreement is grounds for trying to ruin someone, and even liberal arts institutions refuse to defend the collision of ideas.
Ultimately, I suspect that we need a reason to come together: a national purpose or shared mission that most of us can agree is important and that provides some group pride and a reason to build bridges. Without that kind of shared meaning, life becomes a solipsistic endeavor animated by anger towards those who have (or seem to have) a better life. Even our current day champions of anti-inequality seem, at heart, motivated mostly by resentment---a desire to pull down their betters as opposed to lifting up those less fortunate (and it's not even subtle: Bernie's 99% plan quickly became the 99.8% plan once his book deal cleared and he himself vaulted into the top 1%). Very few champions of equality or national purpose are willing to make any kind of personal sacrifice.
Mickey's point is an interesting one: how to make an "other" that isn't a group of people. We have some empirical evidence that solving internal crises doesn't work very well: fighting climate change or a pandemic requires sacrifice without much personal opportunity for achievement. Exploration seems once to have been an answer. The American Frontier created a sense of purpose and national pride, and it also provided a place for those who were dissatisfied with their lot in society to try something new with real upside. We were a country that was going places, building and exploring and creating. That ideal seems to have inspired people, while solving climate change or a pandemic seems mostly to involve giving up nice things and obeying authority---hardly the stuff of personal dreams. Of course, even our westward expansion devastated other people whom we considered “lesser” at the time.
When I was a teenager, I remember being enthralled by Robert Zubrin's idea that colonizing Mars could engender that spirit again, but I'm now a lot more skeptical. Still, I don't have a better idea. It seems to be almost a curse of progress: the more a liberal society is realized, the less its citizenry cares to defend it or be inspired by what they have achieved.
Either way, though, I completely agree that the most urgent battle to be fought is in education. At a minimum, it is terrific _fun_ to find people with different views and to debate them, and it seems tragic that so many kids don't get to have that experience in school. Overcoming the belief that being "wrong" is equivalent to being "bad" opens doors to a lot of fascinating dialogue and would go far to undermine the concern around words-as-violence. It seems that we should be able to teach that concept quite easily.
Thanks for your terrific article and hanging around to chat with us in the comments!
"Hanging around" to converse with readers is my favorite part! I learn so much. Consider your thanks reciprocated.
Bingo! I like that line too. Don't be surprised if you hear me say it somewhere. :)
You've hit on something important here: Articulating a point of commonality *before* discussing differences is key to building trust. That commonality might be shared citizenship. Or an embrace of the same sport. Or mutual love of a particular genre of music. What the commonality, it's key to put it on the table and only then dive into difference. That's among the reasons Critical Race Theory is so awful for the trust-building that democracy requires: It starts with differences and continues to harp on them until everyone is "intersectionally located" and compartmentalized by labels. I don't think I'm being unfair in my characterization of CRT. But if you have a divergent opinion, I'm all ears. Please share!
Thanks for your brief and accurate summary of CRT and Intersectionality Irshad! I think you will enjoy reading this article by Andrew Sullivan on this topic
https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/the-roots-of-wokeness
One additional point. A woke editor hired by NYT Sarah Jeong made many nasty comments about white people over many years. It seems such sentiments are common in progressive circles and it is a way to virtue signal. One comment struck out for me - she marveled at how much she enjoys being cruel to old white men. But old people (irrespective of race) are also a minority who need our care and compassion! But according to Intersectionality, only the suffering of certain kinds of minorities should be taken into account. What if I am white and I suffered from mental illness all my life or I was brought up in a foster family? There is no need for "oppression sweepstakes" and we must recognize the universality of suffering - a key religious idea in many world religions like Buddhism and Christianity. This leads to an attitude of compassion for everyone that suffers which includes the whole human race.
Sinchan, your comment moves me greatly. I couldn't agree with you more re: the universality of suffering and the need to respect our elderly. Apart from people with disabilities, I can't think of a group that, in our society, experiences more dismissal and neglect than elderly people. Not only is that a moral stain on our culture; it's a massive waste of wisdom.
And given how vulnerable the elderly are at multiple levels -- from physical to mental to emotional and beyond -- it takes an extra-special breed of ideologue to delight in instrumentalizing "old white men" for personal entertainment. Here's the kicker: It's done in the name of justice. What am I missing about how this can possibly be just?
I suppose all ideologues treat human beings as playthings to fulfill an agenda. Ideologues objectify and de-humanize not inadvertently but intentionally -- all while self-righteously claiming to do the opposite. Hence my line in the essay that justice so readily congeals into "just us." You've shed light on why I'm so passionate about teaching a new generation to avoid committing the same old mistakes and make new, better mistakes. :) Thanks for your support.
Thanks Irshad! I hope you can reach out to more and more people with your message.
Sinchan - Thanks so much for referencing the Andrew Sullivan article. I've been struggling with CRT since I first learned about it (ironically from my son who is in high school). At best (and as Andrew highlights), it contributes an interesting idea into the pool of knowledge to consider when confronting a complex subject but, at worst, it poisons the whole pool and becomes an ideology that leaves no room for discussion.
I decided to outline why the theory causes me so much angst by drawing a distinction between my core beliefs and what the theory argues. My worldview is evolving and certainly can be wrong but at least I have a better understanding for why my Amygdala has been hijacked. Perhaps this will be helpful to others. I would love to improve on the following so please do add your $0.02 -
Group identity/intersection (race, gender, identity) over the individual (self determination); Agency/free will are illusory - we are either unknowing or complicit "subjects" in the existing oppressive system
Identity over class/$
Power over anything else
Zero sum battles over collaboration & win/win
Impact over intent
Narratives/stories over objectivity
Truth is but a function of power and objectivity is a mirage given it's a byproduct of the "system" (science also suffers from the same condition)
No evolution, no acknowledgement of accomplishments, unclear goal/end game (NOTE: perhaps perfect demographic representation in positions of power? Perhaps appointed arbiters determine outcomes based on CRT?)
No oportunity to persuade, reason b/c of disproportionate power (leaves an echo chamber of those as the same power level)
Receiving party (lower on power ranking) determines rules of discourse, language and harm
Diversity of identity NOT diversity of ideas (see above re: ideas come from differing places of power)
Language is not for persuasion but for resistance
Leaving on something positive, I think this is less about the "what" (although there is work to be done there as well) and more about the "how." My hope is by highlighting the above and drilling down into each with a level of specificity that we can adjust our collective thinking to be more effective in accomplishing our mutual goal as articulated in Persuasion's mission statement.
Just b/c it bears reiterating (and is helpful for continuity) -
We seek to build a free society in which all individuals get to pursue a meaningful life irrespective of who they are.
We believe in the importance of the social practice of persuasion, and are determined to defend free speech and free inquiry against all its enemies.
We seek to persuade, rather than to mock or troll, those who disagree with us.
It's interesting that the kind of persuasion you're discussing is never taught. I loved debate club and Model UN in school, but it was all about logical argument and never touched on the personal and emotional aspects of engaging other people with arguments they might dislike. How to have an argument with another _person_ as opposed to an idea is its own skill, and I do think that it's a teachable one. It would be an interesting course offering! I think I'd take it as an adult.
Tyler, you're 100% right that engaging with living, breathing humans (as opposed to abstractions or ideas) is its own skill -- and even happier to hear that you'd like to learn it. By the end of this year, I'll be coming out with an online course for people who want to learn and possibly even teach this skill. If you're interested to know more, go to moralcourage.com/learn and scroll down to "Communities." And if you want to be kept informed of the course's availability, please sign up to my newsletter: irshadmanji.com/newsletter. I'd be chuffed to have you as a student!
Thank you for this reminder that inclusiveness includes “them” the Republicans. When we don’t engage in good faith discussions with people who disagree with us politically, when we imagine they are so different that there is no common ground, we lose part of the diversity that makes “us” America.
Emily, thank you. One of the things I teach young people is that you can, at one and the same time, stand your ground while seeking common ground. That is, if you decide that your positio n is better than that of your political "Other," fine. But you can still create a culture of conversation that allows your Other to be sincerely heard.
Besides, that's the only way you'll get sincerely heard, too -- by lowering the emotional defenses of your Other so that they've got the bandwidth to hear you out. You can't lower emotional defenses by treating your Other as an object to manipulate. Nobody likes being played. And if you're in it to change their mind rather than learn where they're coming from, you're playing them. To get Kennedy-esque about it: Ask not how to change the Other's mind; ask what you're missing about the Other. I'd welcome more of your feedback!
You are clearly a person open to other points of view. I applaud you for that. Here are some additional thoughts to consider:
A few points I found to cause cognitive dissonance in reading this piece, mostly having to do with (1) eliding between conservative, Republican and Trump supporter as if they were one-in-the same; and (2) The implicit idea that non-progressives are the "old order", thus perhaps implying that they are "on the wrong side of history".
To elaborate: (a) Non-public sector blue collar workers in the industrial mid-west who represent a traditional Democratic constituency shifted the election to Trump. Are you including them among the "Republican/Conservative/Trump" munge?; (b) Many prominent conservatives are vehemently critical of Trump and the Republican party. These folks believe in limited government, fiscal responsibility, strengthening intermediary institutions of civic and family life, cautious regarding rapid rates of societal and political change (e.g., French vs American approach to revolution, i.e., being careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater), and a strong military to protect against foreign totalitarian governments. Are any of these elements of the "old order" or pillars of the Trump administration?; and (c) As for elements of the "old order" going away - there are quite a few progressive notions of societal norms that may just as easily be characterized as going by the wayside too. A couple that come top of mind are abortion (down 54% since the apex in 1981) and first time gun ownership (up >2 million NEW owners in just the first half of 2020). Progressives often cite the Hegelian deterministic and "progressivist" direction of history, but history seems to have a mind of its own.
As a teacher, perhaps a good reading list for students wishing to understand conservative thought could include the editorial page of the WSJ, The National Review, The Imaginative Conservative and City Journal.
Really well said. We sometimes become the monster we hate, then no longer recognize ourselves. Thank you
Roland: You've said something that's more optimistic than I can muster. Once we become the monster that we originally set out to fight, I *wish* I could count on the idea that we "no longer recognize ourselves." Too often, though, the new monsters won't admit that they've become what they hate. Instead, human beings tend to rationalize. For example, "We have never been as bad as Them." Or, "At least we are on the right side of history." Or, "Our ideals [Islam, Marxism, capitalism, etc] were never properly practiced. If they were, there wouldn't have been violence." Am I being cynical in saying this? I welcome your thoughts.
I find that at times during a discussion I can step into the well worn groove of treating the 'other' as an ignorant or evil position. Afterwards I observe something that reminds me of the humanity and legitimacy of those I disagree with. Then I look back at my arrogance with distaste. A hard to swallow pill. Seeing our own blind spots is a difficult game! I definitely take your point. Maybe it can take decades to unwind our own biases.
Mickey: If you're open to reading my book, check out the story about how an orthodox Jew named Matthew Stevenson engaged with a then-racist (actually, a proud white supremacist) named Derek Black. I spell out the "tactics" that Matthew used. As a result of Stevenson's grace, Black wound up leaving the white supremacy movement -- without ever being told do. He made that decision himself, thereby ensuring that it would "stick." Today, Derek Black is a vocal proponent of racial justice for Black Americans. The ripple effect is awesome.
When people are angry they feel justified in advocating cruel policies because they seek justice for a perceived loss. I try to understand the anger. Not always easy, and sometimes I have to try to understand my own anger too. Fun stuff.
Roland: I hear your sarcasm when describing the work of constructive engagement as "fun stuff." But... None other than Bruce Lee tried to make it fun -- or at least he tried to gamify it. You might know his most famous teaching: "Be like water, my friend." That's what he told every one of his martial arts students. He mentored them to be fluid, like water, so they could be prepared for any move that might be sprung upon them by their rival. In Don't Label Me, I apply this teaching to the art (and science) of engaging with our "Other" in any situation. With Bruce Lee as your mentor, you might not have gobs of fun, but it'll be an adventure, my friend. ;)
I was sarcastically referring to critical self reflection as 'fun'. I appreciate the dialog!