Ishmael, Calvinists and David Stove

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

I’ve been reading posts here and a couple of things keep hopping out at me. Since they bug me, I thought I’d just vent once and for all. One of my favorite authors is David Stove, an Aussie Philosopher who is pretty much unknown.

He wrote an interesting piece called “The Ishmael Effect”. Ishmael, as you might recall, was the character in Moby Dick who was the sole survivor and lived to tell the tale. Stove notes that a common form of social commentary is from someone who claims to have seen through the sham that is reality and alone claims to have special knowledge. For instance, the traditional (if I might use that word) Socialist who fulminates long and hard about how class biases pervade every action so that it is impossible to ever be free of them. Of course, the speaker claims to be alone in the ability to get past them while the rest of us just have to make do.

You hear this a lot in people that, for instance, claim they live in a greedy or racist society. No doubt there are greedy people and racists to boot, but notice how they make the claim: They say that the US is racist – but they are exempt from this claim. So their criticism is aimed at everyone except themselves. When there is condemnation of a society, it should apply to the society. I have noticed that when people make claims like this, everyone in their audience agrees and – amazing statistical coincidence – every last one of them feel a special exemption from the charge too.

Another annoyance is “cognitive Calvinism” (from John Calvin, not Calvin & Hobbes) which boils down (in Stove’s memorable summary) to the idea that “if we are doing it, it must be wrong.” So many times what should be a simple observation (“people are using more electricity than ever”) carries with it the implicit connotation that, by gum, there must be something wrong with that. My favorite is still that “the US consumes 25% of the resources on earth.” Well yeah, we also are 25% of the world economy, but somehow most people have this idea of fat cats (not themselves, of course), living extravagantly. The idea that what comes out must somehow balance what goes in just doesn’t seem to get in there.

This is allied with exposing people motivations. So what if people have motives for doing things – you can’t do anything without having a reason for it. So yeah, we expect the Chinese to stick up for themselves at trade negotiations and BP to claim they aren’t responsible for the spill. The point is that just because we can point to a motive does not mean it is not valid, but the knee-jerk Calvinist reaction is to accept that merely naming it disposes of it.

Just needed to rant…

I have to go back to killing any threads I post on. :o)

– jj

2

Interesting comments. I especially like when people say things like “What’s wrong with America is…” Therefore, either it’s wrong with them or they are not part of America. It kind of reminds me of the area I grew up in that was full of poor whites collecting food stamps claiming that all miniorities were lazy and living on welfare.

3

[quote]BBriere wrote:
Interesting comments. I especially like when people say things like “What’s wrong with America is…” Therefore, either it’s wrong with them or they are not part of America. It kind of reminds me of the area I grew up in that was full of poor whites collecting food stamps claiming that all miniorities were lazy and living on welfare. [/quote]

lol.

I also like listening to senior citizens talk about how socialist Obama is, and they are living on Social Security.

4

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
Interesting comments. I especially like when people say things like “What’s wrong with America is…” Therefore, either it’s wrong with them or they are not part of America. It kind of reminds me of the area I grew up in that was full of poor whites collecting food stamps claiming that all miniorities were lazy and living on welfare. [/quote]

lol.

I also like listening to senior citizens talk about how socialist Obama is, and they are living on Social Security.[/quote]

FWIW, it was sold to them as government funded retirement, and the propaganda was so good most still don’t realize it’s a ponzi scheme.

And they paid for someone else, so… I mean, they upheld their part of the bargain.

The real hypocrisy is when they complain about Obama’s socialism while defending their Medicare.

5

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
Interesting comments. I especially like when people say things like “What’s wrong with America is…” Therefore, either it’s wrong with them or they are not part of America. It kind of reminds me of the area I grew up in that was full of poor whites collecting food stamps claiming that all miniorities were lazy and living on welfare. [/quote]

lol.

I also like listening to senior citizens talk about how socialist Obama is, and they are living on Social Security.[/quote]

FWIW, it was sold to them as government funded retirement, and the propaganda was so good most still don’t realize it’s a ponzi scheme.

And they paid for someone else, so… I mean, they upheld their part of the bargain.

The real hypocrisy is when they complain about Obama’s socialism while defending their Medicare.[/quote]

Good call. I just wish Social Security would just go away. Pay the people that paid into it what they put into it, and we will be done.

6

[quote]jj-dude wrote:
I’ve been reading posts here and a couple of things keep hopping out at me. Since they bug me, I thought I’d just vent once and for all. One of my favorite authors is David Stove, an Aussie Philosopher who is pretty much unknown.

He wrote an interesting piece called “The Ishmael Effect”. Ishmael, as you might recall, was the character in Moby Dick who was the sole survivor and lived to tell the tale. Stove notes that a common form of social commentary is from someone who claims to have seen through the sham that is reality and alone claims to have special knowledge. For instance, the traditional (if I might use that word) Socialist who fulminates long and hard about how class biases pervade every action so that it is impossible to ever be free of them. Of course, the speaker claims to be alone in the ability to get past them while the rest of us just have to make do.

You hear this a lot in people that, for instance, claim they live in a greedy or racist society. No doubt there are greedy people and racists to boot, but notice how they make the claim: They say that the US is racist – but they are exempt from this claim. So their criticism is aimed at everyone except themselves. When there is condemnation of a society, it should apply to the society. I have noticed that when people make claims like this, everyone in their audience agrees and – amazing statistical coincidence – every last one of them feel a special exemption from the charge too.

Another annoyance is “cognitive Calvinism” (from John Calvin, not Calvin & Hobbes) which boils down (in Stove’s memorable summary) to the idea that “if we are doing it, it must be wrong.” So many times what should be a simple observation (“people are using more electricity than ever”) carries with it the implicit connotation that, by gum, there must be something wrong with that. My favorite is still that “the US consumes 25% of the resources on earth.” Well yeah, we also are 25% of the world economy, but somehow most people have this idea of fat cats (not themselves, of course), living extravagantly. The idea that what comes out must somehow balance what goes in just doesn’t seem to get in there.

This is allied with exposing people motivations. So what if people have motives for doing things – you can’t do anything without having a reason for it. So yeah, we expect the Chinese to stick up for themselves at trade negotiations and BP to claim they aren’t responsible for the spill. The point is that just because we can point to a motive does not mean it is not valid, but the knee-jerk Calvinist reaction is to accept that merely naming it disposes of it.

Just needed to rant…

I have to go back to killing any threads I post on. :o)

– jj [/quote]

We are fairly simple creatures, especially when we’re being lazy in our self-reflection. Every one of us is both an individual, and a member of a number of cultural creation (social groups), from nationality to socio-economic, to religious, to maybe even the street you grew up on. However, when we causally think of ourselves, we tend to see ourselves as individuals, rather than members of a collective first. But it’s these collectives that are easy to criticize, especially because the defining features of what makes them collective (the common shared trait) is easily identifiable.

So when I (we, whomever) say Americans are a bunch of racists, the I, I speak of, is not the “I” which is my social identity as a US citizen (although it could be in the right context, like when I’m in another country), but the unaffiliated “unique snowflake” I, which I see myself as free of context.

It’s actually really quit easy to do this, as we tend to invoke a social-identity when it’s advantageous either materially, or creates a beneficial solidarity.

7

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
We are fairly simple creatures, especially when we’re being lazy in our self-reflection. Every one of us is both an individual, and a member of a number of cultural creation (social groups), from nationality to socio-economic, to religious, to maybe even the street you grew up on. However, when we causally think of ourselves, we tend to see ourselves as individuals, rather than members of a collective first. But it’s these collectives that are easy to criticize, especially because the defining features of what makes them collective (the common shared trait) is easily identifiable.

So when I (we, whomever) say Americans are a bunch of racists, the I, I speak of, is not the “I” which is my social identity as a US citizen (although it could be in the right context, like when I’m in another country), but the unaffiliated “unique snowflake” I, which I see myself as free of context.
[/quote]

(“You” does not apply to you directly Spartiates, just the general reader. No good way to sound casual and use an impersonal pronoun.)

Fair enough, but my point is that these sorts of labels are often applied to groups when few members actually conform to them. For instance, greed. How many times on T-Nation do we see posts about how widespread and awful it is in the US? Why it’s the basis of the entire system! But not one single person thinks of themselves as truly greedy. I think by and large, most people aren’t greedy. My point stands that this is no way to do real social criticism. It does have the effect of binding a group of listeners together with instant shared arrogance.

I propose a more empirical approach. If you (meaning anyone) think you have some great failing you wish to ascribe to society, do a giggle test: It must apply to you and your closest friends. If it fails, chances are excellent you have a mirage or are just ventilating.

Whatcha think of that? What’s this do to the usual hot button topics of

racism, capitalism, sexism, socialism, fascism, (add your own)…?

For example, if you really think that, say all men are sexist (and you are a man) explain why you think you aren’t and everyone else. Give an honest estimate of what percentage of the male population at large you think is sexist.

– jj

8

[quote]jj-dude wrote:
I’ve been reading posts here and a couple of things keep hopping out at me. Since they bug me, I thought I’d just vent once and for all. One of my favorite authors is David Stove, an Aussie Philosopher who is pretty much unknown.

He wrote an interesting piece called “The Ishmael Effect”. Ishmael, as you might recall, was the character in Moby Dick who was the sole survivor and lived to tell the tale. Stove notes that a common form of social commentary is from someone who claims to have seen through the sham that is reality and alone claims to have special knowledge. For instance, the traditional (if I might use that word) Socialist who fulminates long and hard about how class biases pervade every action so that it is impossible to ever be free of them. Of course, the speaker claims to be alone in the ability to get past them while the rest of us just have to make do.

You hear this a lot in people that, for instance, claim they live in a greedy or racist society. No doubt there are greedy people and racists to boot, but notice how they make the claim: They say that the US is racist – but they are exempt from this claim. So their criticism is aimed at everyone except themselves. When there is condemnation of a society, it should apply to the society. I have noticed that when people make claims like this, everyone in their audience agrees and – amazing statistical coincidence – every last one of them feel a special exemption from the charge too.

Another annoyance is “cognitive Calvinism” (from John Calvin, not Calvin & Hobbes) which boils down (in Stove’s memorable summary) to the idea that “if we are doing it, it must be wrong.” So many times what should be a simple observation (“people are using more electricity than ever”) carries with it the implicit connotation that, by gum, there must be something wrong with that. My favorite is still that “the US consumes 25% of the resources on earth.” Well yeah, we also are 25% of the world economy, but somehow most people have this idea of fat cats (not themselves, of course), living extravagantly. The idea that what comes out must somehow balance what goes in just doesn’t seem to get in there.

This is allied with exposing people motivations. So what if people have motives for doing things – you can’t do anything without having a reason for it. So yeah, we expect the Chinese to stick up for themselves at trade negotiations and BP to claim they aren’t responsible for the spill. The point is that just because we can point to a motive does not mean it is not valid, but the knee-jerk Calvinist reaction is to accept that merely naming it disposes of it.

Just needed to rant…

I have to go back to killing any threads I post on. :o)

– jj [/quote]

Slight hijack, Calvin of “Calvin and Hobbes” was named for John Calvin, Theologian.

Having taken a Philosophy of Law (ie systems of legal theory) class with a girl who constantly threw fits based on perceived racism, the phenomena of the problem always being outside the speaker is very real. She of course would never separate or discriminate based on race, but our entire society obviously did, all the time!