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 -
This is deliberate. Privilege is a concept evolved from the Marxian branch of Hegelian dialectic and specifically the Lord-bondsman dialectic.
Hegel's original argument is that asymmetric relations such as these are metaphysically defective and create the contradictions that lead to transcending them. Marx would later extend this as a general theory of history and politics.
From within this framework there can be no such thing as "fixing issues". The only way that history advances is through the conflicts of distinct classes that are both conscious of themselves as classes and of the other as their opponent in a conflict, such that their struggle can deduce the next stage of history.
Therefore, it is of use to create such concepts that heighten the consciousness of people as class and their sense of the conflict that opposes them to the other. For it is only this way that the inherent contradictions present in their condition can be discovered and transcended. And "Privilege" is one such concept, developed by the Marxist revolutionaries of the Weather Underground, later formally codified by academic feminists within the post-Soviet cultural Marxist tradition.
Your frustration is because (again from within this framework) you are a reactionary element who seeks to quell revolutionary fervor in a futile plot to stop the natural and inevitable flow of history by "solving" the "problems" of the oppressed instead of creating the conditions necessary to transcend their oppression and render their status as oppressed meaningless.
This. The thinking also created structure of universal leftist conspiracy theory. You have oppressed class Red and oppressor class Blue. Blue people have access to some specific property, they call Privilege and restrict access to this privilege to oppressed group. They also create a system that perpetuates this dynamic indefinitely, lets called it privilegeism.
In traditional Marxism you have proletariat vs bourgeoisie. Bourgeoisie has access to privilege in form of capital and limits access of workers to it by creating system of capitalism that reproduces itself over generations. In feminist theory there are men and women, men have male privilege and create system called patriarchy to restrict access to this privilege. In Critical Race Theory you have Black and white people, white people have access to whiteness and use it to create system of white supremacy. In queer theory the oppressed are Queer/LGBT+ people vs cishetero people. The cishetero people have access to "normalcy" and deny that to queer people by creating and perpetuating the system of cisheteronormativity. The same simple conspiracy then copies itself to basically all progressive thinking.
The point being that privilege has a specific meaning in leftist thinking, it does not signigy an individual thing in common parlance. It has philosophical and metaphysical meanings, exactly like capital has different meaning to somebody about to create his business vs Marxist revolutionary.
More options
Context Copy link
Wow. A true Hegelian - you are quite literally the only person I have ever seen call it the Lord-Bondsman dialectic instead of the Master-Slave dialectic (following the translations of Kojeve, Lacan, etc.). Though I would say, that, at least through the prism of my Kojevean reading, any honest interpretation of this dialectic for the present has to put capitalists and workers on the same side (as the Slave) against the State.
I loathe Hegel and German Idealism as a whole, I must say. But I understand him somewhat, and his ideas are so influential it's necessary reading to even understand where half of contemporary politics even come from.
I would say you're correct in putting private citizens in opposition to the State as the most significant confrontation of our time, though I'd have perhaps a much larger conception of the State than is common in this reading, encompassing all managerial institutions and their tendrils.
In my view, we are still in a post-Burnham world. Though perhaps not for very much more time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link