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 -
There's an idea that I've been considering for a while, a partial explanation of the origins of Blue-Tribe and Red-Tribe as political forces, and I'd appreciate thoughts.
tl;dr: Blue-Tribe gains status with better communication tools, Red-Tribe gains status with hierarchical structure and industrialization. These groups have relatively consistent social and political beliefs, and attempt to use their status to structure society according to their predispositions.
Moderately expanded:
Abrahamic religion comes along ~2000 years ago and upends the social landscape. Importantly, the new religion provides new benchmarks for which to assess individuals, and therefore disproportionally raises the status of individuals with behaviours that best fit the religious structure. Specifically, individuals high in conformism and/or rule-abiding behaviour. These become the new elite.
As Rome declines and the Catholic Church gains prominence there is again a redirection in the social landscape, this type disproportionally benefitting rule-abiding and hierarchical neurotypes above that of other religious types. We'll call this group the Conscientious, which roughly maps to the modern Red-Tribe. The religious subtype that is now playing a distant second fiddle, with an inability to enforce power across large geographical distances, we'll call the Conformists, roughly mapping to the modern Blue-Tribe.
Western society trods along for around 1000 years with the Conscientious as the clear dominant neurotype. But the printing press is then introduced, a technology that overwhelmingly facilitates Conformist power above that of the Conscientious. Significant upheaval occurs as the two groups become roughly balanced in power.
The Conformist vs Conscientious struggle at this point is widely prevalent, becoming a primary axis for conflict. First it's Protestantism (Conformist) vs Catholicism (Conscientious), but then as Protestantism takes hold within Northern European nations and schisms occur people begin to self-select into denominations that favour their predispositions (e.g. Lutheranism overwhelmingly Conformist, Calvinism overwhelmingly Conscientious). Even as the explicit religions change, the general political and social tendencies remain consistent. Conformists favour abolition and liberalism, the Conscientious favour stringent sexual morality, and so on.
The printing press facilitates books, universities and the media, all heavily advantaging Conformists. But economic expansion also creates industrialization, which advantages the social status of the Conscientious. While other neurotypes continue to exist, the power of Conformist and Conscientious circles is so far above that of everyone else that even minor shifts in the balance of power have social ramifications. But for the most part the trend is clear, communication tools advance year over year, advantaging Conformists, with only relatively minor reversions due to periods of industrialization.
While Conformists attempted to maintain Conformity centered around the Bible, this increasingly became absurd as contradictions and inconsistencies are made apparent. A shift towards conforming around "reason" and scientific knowledge occurred, as the contradictions can be buried at a much deeper level. Conformists eventually become the modern agnostics and separate from Christianity. Protestant sects that remain are overwhelmingly Conscientious.
Over the last 50 years we have the trifecta of rapid advancement in communication tools, deindustrialization of the West, and (possibly as a consequence of the first two) a decline in religiosity. The decline in Conscientious power is so extensive that, as of the last few years, they no longer hold sufficient power and status to constitute a bloc in their own right, with a broad coalition of Anti-Conformism taking up the mantle as designated opposition.
And two final notes:
I recognize the label of "Conformist" is relatively derogatory, but for now it feels the most appropriate. I do not believe that a desire to conform is necessarily inherent within the broad collection of people that can be called 'Conformist' (although it certainly applies to a subset, there are factions even with Conformists), but rather the general appreciation for debate and argument forces individuals to use a common set of axioms, which as a byproduct causes thoughts and beliefs to converge. (I could write quite a bit on the irony of debate causing a convergence of axiomatic beliefs, but I'm unsure if its been done)
Even to the extent this whole concept may be true, it is only one axis among many.
This is first time I've attempted to organize my thoughts on this, so I apologize if it's rough or if the formatting is a pain.
Your classification of "conformist" doesn't really work and indeed, you could just as well say "centring your religious behaviour around Scripture alone" is Conscientious. Especially when trying to tie it to the printing press and the Protestant Reformation - the printing press was the tool to challenge social orthodoxy, be it Pope or King, and the Reformers were not 'conforming' to anything but their 'consciences'. And they certainly were not liberals as you say "Conformists favour abolition and liberalism", as may be seen when the fringe movements of Dissenters etc. come into conflict with the new Protestant major denominations. Lutherans weren't any more soft on Anabaptists than the Calvinists.
Besides, the initial popularity of Christianity - if we take the example of Rome - was amongst (1) the lower classes, including slaves and (2) rich noble women, a strange mixture.
I don't think you can neatly divide Red Tribe/Blue Tribe along religious grounds. Religous affilation/behaviour as part of the tribal backgrounds, sure: the Blue Tribe tendency to be the "plain living and high thinking" that evolved into Boston Brahmanism of the Transcendental type, and the Red Tribe burned over district tendency in contradistinction, but in practice in both groups you have functional atheists/agnostics/freethinkers. The Blue Tribe may be more overt in being secular, but there are plenty of Red Tribe who are 'cultural Christians' only.
And would you define, say, Joe Biden as Blue Tribe or Red Tribe? Democrat - Blue Tribe; Catholic - Red Tribe (or Conscientious in your formulation); claims to working-class background - Red Tribe. But while he may mention his rosary beads, he's fully in line with the values on gay marriage, contraception, abortion, etc. So - Conformist or Conscientious? Red Tribe or Blue Tribe?
And how about someone from Red Tribe background and family, with Blue Tribe cultural tastes?
Yes, this is what I would define. In that the Conscientious follow the specific prescriptions of the bible, whereas the 'Conformists' would use the bible as a higher-order reasoning device from which to infer social principles. Both would have used the Bible, hence why they gained status relative to other groups, but would use the Bible in noticeably different ways. My train of thought on this is "ingroup conformity as a consequence of debate and disagreement," which I have slightly elaborated on elsewhere in this thread, but it's clearly confusing people and I need to explain it better or ditch it. Your criticism that the label of "Conformist" doesn't really work is taken, and I'll have to figure out how to define the cluster in a more appropriate way.
If I understand what you're saying, I disagree. Hating the outgroup isn't incompatible with being liberal.
Women grade measurably higher in agreeableness and conscientiousness, and as far as I'm aware have always been considerably more religious than men. Strange a priori I'd agree, but given what we know of the last 2000 years it's relatively unsurprising.
Just reading more about the Burned Over District, as I'm unfamiliar with it, but I would consider the Burned Over District to be heavily conformist (blue tribe). The sexual experimentation feels like a a pretty clear giveaway, especially relative to the heavily Presbytarian (red tribe) regions of New England that many of the immigrants to the Burned Over District originated from. One of my points, which I've poorly expressed, is that Conformists and the Conscientious represent two psychological dispositions that frequently splinter off each other. Even if heavy self-selection occurs, families will produce kids across a new continuum, and across generations families will once again self-select.
Blueish-Purple. Political leaders are often chosen for electability, so they frequently converge towards the mean of the electoral base.
I would consider them to be Purple. To the extent that they represent the Blue end of the continuum of traits that can be produced by Red Tribe parents, and will likely self-select into a more neutral environment.
I appreciate your comment, it's helped me identify some of the thoughts I need to clean up.
There's development in degrees in all this:
(1) First, we start off with the very convinced, those who believe the doctrines and follow the rules because they believe (although even sorting this out into "Abrahamic religions" ignores that, for instance, as soon as Moses had gone up the mountain to talk with God, the people waiting below in the camp started worshipping an idol from when they were in Egypt). That would be your "Conformists" in your typography
(2) Then the movement/religion gets more widespread. The traditional take on this is the Donation of Constantine and establishing Christianity as the state religion. Now, whether you really do believe all the doctrines or not, everyone is an X and you go along to get along. You go to church on Sunday, you say the right things. You may not be very well versed in the faith, you may not follow all the rules, but you're there.
(3) We get to a stage, be it during the Protestant Reformation or today, where it's more or less 'cultural Christianity'. X is the dominant social direction, so even if you don't believe a word of it, you don't stand up and shout about not believing a word of it. Everyone is worldly in practice, whatever about theory, Cue your "Conscientious" who arise and start reforming, be that Protestants going back to the "pure Gospel" or the modern social justice/CRT lot, who are all out to stamp out systemic racism and the likes. They are the zealous true believers.
(4) We get New Stage (2), which is probably where we are at now. Wokeness is now the new social and cultural dominant force. Companies bedeck themselves in Pride Flags for June and produce DEI policies for their mission statements. Even if you don't agree, you go along to get along.
So are we "Conscientious" or "Conformist"? We're 'conforming' to a 'conscientious' agenda. Rule-following = Conscientious, 'obey even if you disagree', Social conformity = Conformists, 'agree even if you disobey'. You can see how this is confusing terminology? If we take 'wokeness' to be the dominant social ideology of the moment, and that everyone is being pushed to "you must agree", then is that conforming (going along with social consensus) or conscientious (giving lip-service to the shibboleths, e.g. HR diversity training, while privately not believing "trans women are real women")?
I think I see what you are trying to get at, but you need to clear up your terminology. And, as I said, there is always an admixture of the True Believers and the wider mass of people who are just nodding and saying "yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir" be that cheering for the king this year as he passes by on royal progress, or cheering as they cut off the king's head next year.
Definitely, yes.
I think what I’m realizing is that my initial choice of terminology unintentionally framed this as two continuous factions that have “survived,” rather than the consequence of self-organization and a constant structural force.
Nonetheless, you’re correct the terminology is messy, compounding on an already messy concept.
Thank you for all the feedback.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link