This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It's funny; two examples you highlighted are ones where the line of causality is fairly direct. Abolitionism came to the fore as the French constituent assembly debated the status of Free Colored and slaves in Saint-Domingue, with people pointing out that the Code Noir and slavery in general were illogical in light of the Assembly's liberal ideals. They ultimately eliminated the Code Noir and rubber stamped freeing the slaves (though the slaves did basically free themselves, first, the rebellion sparked by news of revolution at home). Then, a few years into the revolution, proto-socialists like the Enrages and Gracchus Babeu argued for the abolition of private property and social ownership of capital. They would ultimately lose the day, and uh, be killed; this drama of socialists emerging from the reeds after a liberal revolution to get smacked down would repeat in 1830 and 1848. There's a reason why Marx thought a liberal revolution was a necessary precondition of a socialist revolution.
Note: I'm saying classical liberalism, the ideology, naturally lead to feminism. The Declaration of the Rights of Man is just a convenient religious text to point to, embodying a larger movement, much like you point to the Book of Matthew to talk about the social phenomenon of Christianity, many of the participants of whom were illiterate and never read it.
If you fully absorb what people like John Locke claimed about moral ontology, the idea of keeping women in a subservient disenfranchised status is unsupportable. As is keeping slaves. But much like the Merovingian kings kept concubines for generations after converting to Christianity, it's taken generations for society to shed its traditions and let the logical consequences of classical liberalism seep in.
Except the idea that women existed in a state of subservient disenfranchisement is a both a normative and descriptive claim made by feminism. If you ask the anti-suffragettes, (who were mostly women and generally more popular than the suffragettes until at least the end of the 19th century), they certainly didn't believe that was the case (the anti-suffragette movement has been subjected to historical revisionism that strawmans their position). The more interesting question is why did this narrative about the supposed historic subjugation of women by men become the dominant one? Especially as I think the narrative is false, despite it being now being accepted as fact due to decades of feminist rhetoric and feminist 'scholarship'.
More options
Context Copy link
Even before the French Revolution. If you look at the English Civil War and the emergence of radical groups, you see the same pattern, The Levellers and the Diggers were protesting during the reign of Charles I but came into prominence during the period when Cromwell and others were in ascension, Within the New Model Army, due to a mixture of religious dissent and social/political revolutionary views, many of the soldiers also had populist views which in the end Cromwell had to quash.
Whenever there are periods of dissension and opposition, all kinds of splinter movements and extremists come forth and try to push their own views of what the new, reformed, society should be like. If the 'moderates' win out, there will still remain a strain of these views even as germs within the ideology, since you've already overturned the old ways and put your new, reformed society into place. It's just a matter of extension, thereafter.
More options
Context Copy link
But why do you have a nightly shower? Are you so dirty that you must wash every night? Are you engaged in strenuous or muddy labour?
It's not mere hygiene at work, since if you have a conventional office job, you're not exerting yourself physically enough to require constant washing. It's the ideal of hygiene. If you skipped a night without showering, would you miss it? Would you feel, somehow, 'dirty'? Isn't there, in a sense, a moral obligation to keep yourself clean according to how you were raised?
And if it were difficult for you to have that shower every night, if you didn't have access to a bathroom and heated water and convenient disposal of same, and easy to keep dry and warm afterwards, then would you shower every night? Increasing convenience, increasing access to what were once 'luxury' resources, increasing space, means that it becomes easier to copy the rich in their habits, and that builds up expectations thereafter, so that I doubt if you could get away today with building a house or apartment that had no shower.
So "poor people should have access to means of hygiene" does arise out of a particular political philosophy, and ends in you having a nightly shower as well as brushing your teeth, because 'this is just how it is done'.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link