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 -
A couple of months ago, @zeke5123 started a discussion about secession and the right to self-determination, and suggested that such a right was likely contingent, rather than absolute. In response, I wrote an analysis of the most famous writing on the topic of secession...and then posted it just after the following week's CW thread went live, which was very poor planning on my part. I hope the following is sufficiently interesting to justify a repost.
I've remarked before that I think the American Revolution should be more properly understood as an example of secession, not revolution. After all, the most famous document promulgating and defending the American position is the Declaration of Independence, and the choice of title is appropriate.
The part that comes before the famous "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." is the following:
This is a document about secession and self-determination. Next is the really famous bit (I'm adding numbers in brackets to highlight an internal list):
A clear statement of fundamental principles, but one key point later on is that Jefferson isn't claiming that these principles are a departure from English tradition, but that the Crown has been egregiously violating English tradition. The list doesn't end at three items:
"Alter or abolish" covers many potential approaches, from reform to secession to complete revolution. Which approach is justified in which cases?
This, I think, is the start of the answer to your question--the right of self-determination in terms of fully reforming/seceding/revolting must reach a threshold of severity in terms of provocation. The reasons matter, and the weight of tradition matters. "Light and transient causes" are not enough, and so:
When there is a longstanding pattern of abuse aimed at fundamental liberties, some variation of reform/secession/revolution is justified, and even morally compulsory. Note that Jefferson is not merely concerned with rejecting the old, abusive system, but also the necessity of replacing the old system with a new government that will properly "secure these rights." He is justifying a transition from a very bad system to a better system--tearing down the old and stopping at anarchy is not acceptable.
What follows is a bill of particulars, listing the offenses of the British Crown according to Jefferson, which amount to "a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinc[ing] a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism...." The details of this list are instructive, but outside the scope of this comment. After the list, Jefferson argues that the leadership of the American States has done its due diligence, and tried to fix the situation by attempts at reform, before proceeding to secession:
We have appealed to both the Crown and the British People for redress; neither provided it. As a result, we're walking away from this toxic relationship, but we're not going to kill your cat out of spite--we just want to go our own way. Note that Jefferson doesn't merely say that the behavior of the British Crown has been grievously bad, but that the American representatives have been particularly patient and prudent--there's an implied standard of conduct for the secessionists that continues in the final paragraph:
Jefferson wraps up with the final requirement for secessionists who are doing things correctly--you need to make your case. Not just that the suffered abuses have been so terrible, but also that you've tried lesser means and are only escalating when those means have failed, and that your judgment and restraint are being offered for consideration to both "the Supreme Judge of the world" and "the opinions of mankind." Are your reasons sufficient, or just "light and transient causes"? Do you have a plan for self-government, such that you can responsibly join the community of "Independent States"? Have you "Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms" and are you confident in the "rectitude of [y]our intentions"?
Any secessionist or revolutionary worth their salt will answer yes to those questions with confidence--such is human nature. But Jefferson clearly isn't claiming that 'we've investigated our own motives, and found them acceptable,' he's appealing to God and man to be his judges.
In my view, Jefferson adequately makes his case as to the justice of the American secession from Britain. I think other secessionary movements are a mixed bag--some meet the various thresholds of behavior and others do not. In this framework, there isn't an unfettered "right to self determination" by a given identifiable subgroup of a larger political unit, but extreme cases may present a duty to reform an abusive government, or seceed from it, or overthrow it.
This is the key to one of the two arguments I see made as to how America separating from England was legitimate, but no attempt to separate from America, past or future, can ever be legitimate. That is that when the Founding Fathers fought the War of Independence, they replaced the British system of government with a better one, but no attempt to break from America can ever produce a better government, because the system the Founders bequeathed us is the most perfect system of government that has ever existed or will ever exist.
Most commonly I encounter this from Mormons, who hold that the US Constitution is divinely inspired, but I also sometimes find non-Mormons who seem to hold it in just about the same level of reverence. It is, for them, a sacred document which can never fail, only be failed, etc.
(I'm reminded of a fight on Twitter between two groups of "American patriots" denouncing each other as vile traitors because, while they both agreed that — to put it in terms of the Westphalian nation-state that they did not, themselves, use — the "American Nation" and the "American State" are increasingly at odds, they very much disagreed as to which of those two should be defended from the other. The angriest denunciations came when one nation-defender replied to a state-defender's invocation of the Founding Fathers by pointing out that one such Father, in one of those "sacred" documents, said that "…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…" and that the person to whom he was replying had himself acknowledged that the government as currently instituted is increasingly "destructive of these ends" for many people. The replies (where not simply accusations of "treason" and oblique references to the punishment therefor) were very much of the above character: that such writings only apply to an "imperfect" government like 1776 British rule, but that if our perfect, divinely-ordained system has become injurious to the "Safety and Happiness" of some group of citizens, then that's a problem with those citizens, who should be rightly replaced by "better" people.)
(The other argument for legitimacy of American Independence but not other secession is a view that "voice" strictly dominates over "exit," so that separation is only legitimate in the total absence of democratic representation, and even the slightest democratic "voice" renders "exit" illegitimate. I did see once, when someone asserted this view online, another person pushed back by asking then, if early 20th century Britain had given India a single representative in the House of Commons, would this have then rendered Gandhi, Nehru, and the entire independence movement immoral? The first person did, in fact, "bite the bullet" and say that, yes, it would have.)
My preferred argument on that point works out a bit differently. In my opinion, a more perfect system of government is unlikely to be achieved, but not axiomatically impossible. Further, "more perfect" would be measured in terms of both objectively produced effects and optimized fit for the given population--the best scheme of government for population A may not be the best scheme of government in every detail for population B, and the government best fit for population A may produce better or worse effects than the government best fit for population B. That said, trends would likely be observable.
Also, I think Jefferson's analysis applies outside the American context as well. Broadly speaking, I'd apply the same rubric to a secessionist movement in Quebec, or Scotland, or Spain. My inclination based on my current knowledge is that those movements do not have an adequate justification for secession, but that judgment is contingent on my understanding of current facts. A change in conditions or more information could conceivably change that view.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link