[ExI] Tim Wise on White Privilege

[Lee Corbin]

Emlyn writes

> WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? [9.9.08]
> By Jonathan Haidt
> http://edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html
> 
> It's a really good answer to that nagging question about W, ie: "WTF???!?!?!?"

Well, like a lot of things, it was on my "to read" list. Haidt writes

    and we long ago reported that strict parenting and a variety of
    personal insecurities work together to turn people against liberalism,
    diversity, and progress. But now that we can map the brains, genes,
    and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our
    diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait
    that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of
    hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death.
    People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"-a
    simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in
    much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with
    their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world.

Naturally, Haidt doesn't really believe this, if you read the article. He's
no blockhead. More typical is his passage

    ...once I had tried on the moral lenses of my Indian friends
    and interview subjects, I was able to think about
    conservative ideas with a newfound clinical detachment. They
    want more prayer and spanking in schools, and less sex
    education and access to abortion? I didn't think those steps
    would reduce AIDS and teen pregnancy, but I could see why
    the religious right wanted to "thicken up" the moral climate
    of schools and discourage the view that children should be
    as free as possible to act on their desires. Conservatives
    think that welfare programs and feminism increase rates of
    single motherhood and weaken the traditional social
    structures that compel men to support their own children?
    Hmm, that may be true, even if there are also many good
    effects of liberating women from dependence on men. I had
    escaped from my prior partisan mindset (reject first, ask
    rhetorical questions later), and began to think about
    liberal and conservative policies as manifestations of
    deeply conflicting but equally heartfelt visions of the good
    society.

It is high time that someone on the left side, an American self-
confessed liberal, would attempt to get to the bottom of what is
really going on, and make real progress. I've seen or heard 
nothing so successful since Thomas Sowell's work that tries to
*explain*. And we are interested in explaining, right? Or just
ranting our favorite positions?

    Religion and political leadership are so intertwined across
    eras and cultures because they are about the same thing:
    performing the miracle of converting unrelated individuals
    into a group. Durkheim long ago said that God is really
    society projected up into the heavens, a collective delusion
    that enables collectives to exist, suppress selfishness, and
    endure. The three Durkheimian foundations (ingroup,
    authority, and purity) play a crucial role in most
    religions. When they are banished entirely from political
    life, what remains is a nation of individuals striving to
    maximize utility while respecting the rules. What remains is
    a cold but fair social contract, which can easily degenerate
    into a nation of shoppers.

And is such an ESS? Casting an eye over history, the answer is no.

    The Democrats must find a way to close the sacredness gap
    that goes beyond occasional and strategic uses of the words
    "God" and "faith." But if Durkheim is right, then sacredness
    is really about society and its collective concerns. God is
    useful but not necessary. The Democrats could close much of
    the gap if they simply learned to see society not just as a
    collection of individuals-each with a panoply of rights--but
    as an entity in itself, an entity that needs some tending
    and caring. Our national motto is e pluribus unum ("from
    many, one"). Whenever Democrats support policies that weaken
    the integrity and identity of the collective (such as
    multiculturalism, bilingualism, and immigration), they show
    that they care more about pluribus than unum. They widen the
    sacredness gap.

I think he's going too far here. He is suggesting that Democrats (or
leftists) "learn to see" things differently than they already do. It is
one thing to explain the conflict of visions, quite another to prescribe
that one side or the other can change their ways. Lifelong ingrained
habits are not about to change.

     The ingroup/loyalty foundation supports virtues of
     patriotism and self-sacrifice that can lead to dangerous
     nationalism, but in moderate doses a sense that "we are all
     one" is a recipe for high social capital and civic well-being.

Well, how about that!  No kidding!

     A recent study by Robert Putnam (titled E
     Pluribus Unum) found that ethnic diversity increases anomie
     and social isolation by decreasing people's sense of
     belonging to a shared community. Democrats should think
     carefully, therefore, about why they celebrate diversity.

Nicely said---but about fifty years too late for the west.

     If the purpose of diversity programs is to fight racism and
     discrimination (worthy goals based on fairness concerns),
     then these goals might be better served by encouraging
     assimilation and a sense of shared identity.

No, it's much simpler than that. The groups suffering from lack
of group identity and cohesion, and repudiation of shared community,
will, according to Darwinian principles, simply be replaced by groups
that are more fit. So the U.S. will become Hispanic and Europe will
become Moslem. Why? Simply because of meme-sets that got
loose in the 20th century which caused self-disintegration, and 
pride in who we were.

Singularity save us, but if you lose your sense of community with
the others who resemble you culturally and ethnically, and this 
fatal attraction becomes common enough throughout your group,
then you and your group are history.

Lee