A few years ago, the great Jay Smooth recorded a short video on how to avoid running endlessly on the “you said some racist shit/but I’m a good person how dare you imply I’m not” treadmill. The video (due to being awesome) went way viral, so I sort of assume that everyone’s already seen it, but if you’ve not:
In it, Jay suggests that we avoid calling people racist, and to instead focus on their words and actions. Not, “you are a racist,” but, “that thing you just said was racist.”
I love this idea (though I often fall short of realizing it), both for reasons of courtesy and reasons of utility. Plenty of folks who think of themselves as good people hold racist views … thus it has ever been and thus it will ever be. Let’s have the conversation about the views without getting into an indictment of them as people.
Also, of course, almost everyone has some views that are sub-optimal in some way or another. That’s what Ampersand was talking about in his point #1 here:
1) It would be a miracle if any American of my own and Marco Rubio’s generation (or earlier generations) was not a bigot, in the sense of harboring prejudices against lesbians and gay men. We were raised in an enormously homophobic culture, and it’s unrealistic to think that had no effect on us. It would be like living your whole life in an ocean but claiming to have never once gotten wet.
Ta-Nehisi Coates has written about this a fair amount lately, with several (increasingly egregious) examples of people saying severely racist shit and following up with “…but of course I’m not a racist.”
My favorites(?) are here:
In modern America we believe racism to be the property of the uniquely villainous and morally deformed, the ideology of trolls, gorgons and orcs. We believe this even when we are actually being racist. In 1957, neighbors in Levittown, Pa., uniting under the flag of segregation, wrote: “As moral, religious and law-abiding citizens, we feel that we are unprejudiced and undiscriminating in our wish to keep our community a closed community.”
Here:
A few years ago I wrote a modern history of people practicing racism all the while claiming they were not. You can include this example of a Louisiana judge who refused to marry an interracial couple and then told a newspaper:
“I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way.”
And, most recently, here:
Jim Gile, a country commissioner in Kansas, was caught on tape discussing the repair of building with a group. He told the group that the county should hire an architect, instead of “nigger-rigging” the project. This suggestion was greeted with laughter. In case you were unclear about the meaning Gile went on to clarify — the project should not be “Afro-Americanized.”
When the tape emerged, Gile claimed that he had actually meant to say “jury-rig” or “jerry-rig.” How you get from “nigger” to “jury” or “jerry” is beyond me. And “jerry-rig” and “Afro-Americanized” became synonyms, I’m not quite sure.
But none of this really matters because Gile is a “good person” and isn’t racist:“I am not a prejudiced person,” Gile said Friday. “I have built Habitat homes for colored people.” Gile said he also has a close friend whom he regards as a sister who is black. “I don’t ever do anything bad and don’t know how to do anything bad. People know I am not,” he said.
So you see the dynamic. Person says or does clearly-fucking-racist thing. Person doing C-F-R thing wants to be super clear, though, that they’re not racist, because, as Ta-Nehisi says, “In modern America we believe racism to be the property of the uniquely villainous and morally deformed, the ideology of trolls, gorgons and orcs.”
Over on Metafilter, user ‘jhc’ explored the problem with this view, using an analogy I’ll steal forever forever forever:
I think Coates is saying that in most cases he doesn’t divide the world into “a racist” and “not a racist.” It’s more like, oh, everyone farts, right? You’re not either “a Farter” or “a Non-Farter.” When Michael Richards does something hella racist and says “I’m not a racist,” that makes sense to him because he’s saying “well, sure, I farted, but that doesn’t mean I’m a Farter. I’m emphatically a Non-Farter who just happened to fart one time.” Coates doesn’t buy into those categories as being useful most of the time.
So.
That was all setup and background.
Last week, Ampersand posted, both here and at Family Scholars, a post entitled “Kind, smart, lovely people sometimes support bigoted public policy.” In it, he was about as nice as you could possibly be while trying to gently explain that a particular view is bigoted in some way. He said things like:
But let me rush to say that’s not to say that you’re a bigot, a hateful person, or acting out of spite or out of “yuk.” From the little I’ve seen of you online, you seem like a lovely person, not at all hateful.
In other words, Ampersand was actually going one step farther than Jay Smooth suggests. He was doing his damnedest to not just have the “what you did” conversation, but to explicitly disclaim the “what you are” conversation, and any implication that the person holding the bigoted view might themselves be a bigot.
Nonetheless (and maybe predictably), Family Scholars exploded in offense at how uncivil it was to suggest that an anti-same sex marriage position might be bigoted. Fannie posted a follow-up to Ampersand’s post, and unbelievably, it got worse.
Teresa (who’d initiated the series of posts by asking whether opposition to same-sex-marriage ought to be considered bigoted):
Whatever ‘bigot’ meant decades ago, one can hardly believe that is hasn’t morphed into a sly way of calling another person worthy of contempt, in my opinion. Instead of arguing the merits/demerits of a position, I’ll send someone packing by calling them a ‘bigot’.
and
The word ‘bigot’ is a handy label to ‘other’ another. It immediately boxes the ‘other’ as the enemy. It most certainly, in my opinion, is an ‘ad hominem’ attack meant to belittle the person, and move away from arguing the premises.”
and
Do you, Fannie, understand when I’m speaking to pro-ssm persons, that the word ‘bigot’ is understood as more than what you’re saying. By inference, using the word ‘bigoted’ as descriptive of the anti-ssm position, what you’re saying, albeit, subtly and unintentionally, that those that subscribe to the anti-ssm position are themselves, bigots. Can you see this?
Susan, coming to Teresa’s defense:
Fannie, I think your honestly held beliefs when translated into words/actions ARE, by their very nature, silencing. You don’t intend for them to be so, but they are. Whether Teresa solicited your opinion or not is immaterial. Either you and Barry have a problematic pattern of behavior in using the b-word, or you don’t.
So did anyone else see what happened there? It’s ingenious. Even when the “what you did” is explicitly discussed, and the “what you are” is explicitly taken off the table, the claim is that:
- The ‘what you did’ conversation implies the ‘what you are’ conversation.
- The ‘what you are’ conversation is uncivil and silencing.
- Therefore, it’s uncivil and silencing to discuss ‘what you did.’
As Jay Smooth would say, “I don’t care whether you’re a thief in your heart, I just want my wallet back.” By employing this tactic, those opposed to same sex marriage get to have it both ways. They get to pick your pocket and rule it out of bounds for you to bring it up. After all, that’s just calling names, right?
They just refuse to have the ‘what you did’ conversation. Flat-out refuse. The ‘what you are’ conversation is all there is, and how dare you imply I’m a bigot!
Meanwhile, Roger Gorley, a gay man in Missouri, was dragged away from his partner’s hospital bed in handcuffs after refusing to leave. He had a power of attorney, but the hospital wouldn’t look it up. And now there’s a restraining order, so he can’t visit his hospitalized partner at all.
But let’s keep in mind the real danger here. I don’t think anyone called Roger a bigot, so thank goodness for that.
Awesome post, Myca.
Myca:
Word. It’s all about priorities. We need to settle the important stuff first, and then we can move on to trivia like people making medical decisions for other people who have legally appointed them to make them.
Grace
tl;dr: most (>90%) people who hold bigoted views or engage in bigoted practices don’t want to change and will blow you off no matter how you point it out to them.
This is not exactly news.
This is a perfect real life example of why “tone arguments” are BS: the (few) people who are honestly interested in hearing what you have to say and taking it to heart will hear you through a less-than-optimal phrasing. The rest won’t listen no matter how you phrase it. (Cf. “It’s Not That They Don’t Understand, They Just Don’t Like The Answer”)
BTW, IM-not-so-HO, the distinction between “you are a bigot” and “you are doing/thinking bigoted things” is a distinction without a difference. If you have bigoted attitudes, or do bigoted things, etc., that’s what it means to be a bigot. Stop thinking/doing those things, and you stop being a bigot. Everything else is just blowing smoke.
I think that it can be the sort of essentialism that I’d generally prefer to avoid. Lots of people have bigoted ideas. There are likely to be things that you and I agree on that our grandkids will be horrified by. I don’t think that makes us ‘bigots,’ but I don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility that we’ve got bigoted ideas.
Plus, referring to specific ideas and behaviors is useful in terms of indicating a route to change. If I say, “opposing equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans is bigoted,” then you can stop doing that. If I say “You’re a big biggoty big big bigot,” then … you … suck, I guess.
—Myca
“If I say, “opposing equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans is bigoted,” then you can stop doing that. If I say “You’re a big biggoty big big bigot,” then … you … suck, I guess.”
This.
Not that there’s never people who do just suck, or even that sometimes hearing “man, you suck” might not be the jolt somebody needs to change, but…most of the time we talk to persuade (or because our voice is just so very, very pretty).
In the Art of War, the writer advises that you always leave your enemy a route of escape, so that they won’t fight to the death (and perhaps win). He also suggests destroying your own men’s means of escape, so that they have no choices but victory or death. Rhetorically, leaving someone a means of escape means giving them an acceptable alternative, wherein they change in the direction you want them to change because that’s easier than a do-or-die final stand.
AMM:
In an absolute sense, perhaps that’s true. If someone is purely and on every level not a bigot, then they will never do a bigoted thing. But since we are all complex human beings, none of us is completely free of unreasoning, learned prejudice, or bigotry. So in that sense, we are all bigots.
Which is yet another reason it doesn’t help to point it out. It’s like saying, “you’re human, and flawed”. Okay, that’s fine, but it doesn’t leave the recipient with any way to change.
In a practical sense, it’s a bit like saying that there’s no difference between someone who enjoys a drink every few months, and a drunkard. After all, they both drink, right? Neither is a teetotaler.
By focusing on actions, not characteristics of people, we can be specific, and we can enable people to try again the next time, to wipe the slate clean for the next try. We can enable incremental change. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and bigotry isn’t discarded in a single flash of realization. It takes time, and effort, and mistakes, and learning from the mistakes. Focusing on the action makes it easier to recognize and own a mistake, which is an essential first step to meaningfully trying not to make the same mistake again. That’s a practical impact, which derives from distinction with a difference.
Grace
I was involved in such a situation. I was banned from a website because pointing out antisemitism was so threatening to people. Seriously, someone thought he had a great relationship with some Jewish clients in Italy that could be derailed by a semi-anonymous, critical blog comment. (Hint: you’re relationship with your Jewish clients isn’t so great.) While I was studious in the “what you did” line (it was, incidentally, about the time JS made that video, which I posted), I was told there was no actual meaningful difference. Here’s the kicker, though: After I was banned, the narrative became that I was the one who couldn’t distinguish between what people said and what they were, so it was my fault if no one had tried to listen.
I’ve said this before here, and I’ll (try to remember how to) say it again:
I think that the whole “tone argument” (or in this case, “vocabulary argument”) is a total red herring.
Ken Hardy and Tracy Laszloffy wrote some years back about The Dynamics of a Pro-Racist Ideology” in which they explicitly engaged with this kind of problem: that people who define themselves as “good people” “assume that their ideology and behavior reflect this ideal… [a]nd yet… lack racial sensitivity” (p. 227). So instead of talking about people’s “racism” or “racist acts,” they talk about how their actions “support a pro-racist ideology.”
And yet, I have assigned this chapter many times to students to read, and have almost never had a semester when at least some student’s responses have not involved complaints about how the authors are “calling everybody racist” or “saying all whites are racists.” Authors who go out of their way to explicitly talk about “what people did” instead of “who they are,” who acknowledge up front that by and large, most of the people who commit racially insensitive acts define themselves as good, concerned people, still get readers interpreting them as having an “angry” or “aggressive” tone that labels people (and, by implication, the readers themselves) as racists.
The tone (vocabulary) argument is a red herring because it is based on the false premise that there is some tone or vocabulary that the arguer would find acceptable and appropriate, if only the speaker/writer would use it. But I believe the truth of the matter is that the mere act of talking about privilege, oppression, and marginalization, and how people’s words and acts can advance privilege for some and oppression for others, is defined as unacceptable and inappropriate by those who complain about tone/vocabulary.
There is no tone, no words, which in my experience are considered universally or even normally acceptable and “hear-able” for expressing the effects of the privileged on the marginalized. There is no degree of politeness, of deference, of couching difficult dialogues in gentle metaphor, of rhetorically separating the actor from the act, that is NOT open to being rebuffed as “uncivil” or “angry” or “an attack” by those who don’t want to hear about their impact on others.
And I am personally tired of pretending that if we would just “say it differently,” that people would listen, let alone change their behavior.
Another quote from TNC that feels relevant, from Against the ‘Conversation on Race’
I don’t think that ignorance is there in the same with with LGB issues as it is with race. There’s a lot longer explicit history around race, because race as a group has been singled out and marked for longer than there’s been any cohesive queer identity. But the lack of good faith comes off just as strong.
To me, it seems like the key words here are “at least some” – yeah, some people will just not listen. But other people will. What about the other students in your class? Is assigning the chapter not instructive to at least some as well?
When I teach set theory to my students, there are at least some that don’t get even the basics – even though there’s nothing social at all about it, it’s just math. Some people refuse to try to get it, some people just really seem to be incapable of getting it. But the rest of the class learns something.
You’re absolutely right that there’s no universal way, or even a normative way, to express the effects of the privileged on the marginalized. But looking for a universal way is not the point, surely. The point is that a normative way needs to be established, and saying that it’s pointless to try to do so just because it isn’t already in place is just as defeatist as someone a decade ago saying that there never would be a black president or that there never would be widespread public acceptance of SSM just because there has never been one before. Some people will always push back and others will always bury their heads in the sand, but the nature of the discourse can and should be changed, regardless of these people.
Arguing that the “tone/vocabulary argument is a red herring” only makes sense if we assume that there can only ever be one argument at any given time, only ever one front in the battle for social equality. I agree that it must not be allowed to dominate the discourse, because if arguing about tone becomes more important than arguing about substance, then the substance never gets argued about. But as long as we are vigilant and make sure that the actual things that need to be said are said, then it’s also worthwhile thinking about how to best say them in a way that will lead to the creation of more allies.
Yes, the “tone argument” is a complete red herring.
I recently had an argument with an anti-SSM person on Facebook which spanned some 80 comments back and forth. As I’m sure most people here have experienced, I articulated pretty much all my arguments within the first few posts, and the rest of the posts where (in my view) attempting to derail the discussion by bringing up things like AIDS and non-monogamy amongst gay men, and stuff like that. So about half way through the argument, since we were pretty much going in circles, I brought out the “h” word. Yes, I accused him of homophobia.
He immediately accused me of “hate speech” and from then on characterized everything I said as “irrational”, “hateful”, “close-minded”, etc, although aside from the addition of the word “homophobia”, I didn’t change anything about my argument or my tone and in fact several times simply copy-pasted things from the earlier comments in the thread.
I wasn’t too concerned about this, as I have had other arguments with the guy, and have seen others argue with him, and he is singularly unconvincable on any topic whatsoever. But I did find it interesting that apparently, the whole character of my argument was changed by the simple addition of the word “homophobia”. Whereas before I was apparently being reasonable but wrong, now I was being totally beyond the pale and ridiculous.
It’s a cute trick, really.
Good post, Myca, thanks for expanding the conversation.
I noted this to Teresa in my final comment to her, but I’m not sure if it got lost in the mix of the comment thread automatically closing at 50 comments. Teresa specifically solicited Amp, Anna Cook’s, and my opinion regarding whether or not her opposition to same-sex marriage was a bigoted position. She did this repeatedly.
So, it kind of looked at first like she was wanting to have the “what you did” conversation. And I therefore gave her an assumption of good faith that she wanted to have that conversation and that she wanted us to render a sincere, honest answer. In light of how she initiated the conversation and asked for feedback on the matter, I’m actually pretty angry in retrospect that the conversation largely turned into an indictment against Amp and I’s use of the word “bigotry” when giving her answer.
Indeed, both she and several commenters were reacting as though we were wantonly throwing the word “bigotry” around out of the blue, unprovoked, and like we use it in every single post we write there.
I feel kind of baited now. I mean, I try to assume good faith but I’m not willing to do that after the fact when, suddenly we ceased to be talking about someone’s support of an oppressive policy, and instead the conversation became centered around how mean people are to people who oppose same-sex marriage even while we make about a zillion concessions that such people can still be good, kind people.
The “you’re silencing me by calling me bigoted” seems to be, in itself, a silencing tactic.
So, Elusis, when you say:
I largely agree.
I’ve also been thinking a lot about the (to me) uncontroversial argument that most (or all?) of us hold at least some problematic or bigoted opinions. I wonder the extent to which defining oneself as a “good person” is a barrier for some people to recognize their complicity in other people’s oppressions – and the complicity of those who they also recognize as “good people.”
Like, there seems to be this pervasive notion that among, as just one instance, opponents of same-sex marriage that the only people these days who are bigoted against gay people are members of the Westboro Baptist Church or people use overtly use slurs. More subtle and micro-aggression-y things don’t, to them, count as authentic bigotry. Like, some people really extend an assumption of good faith to the “good people” on their “side” of the issue, when from the point of view of, say, gay people that assumption of good faith and non-bigotry isn’t warranted at all.
As another instance, in a conversation about sexual assault in the military, I saw one guy who seems to define himself as a “good person,” for instance, say something like, “Well, everyone knows that rape is a very serious problem, and I think we should all just trust that the US military is doing all it can to address this issue.”
And it’s just like, wow. Is it privilege? Naivette? Ignorance? All of the above?
People just need to laugh more. Even at racist things. It’s all too serious otherwise. This whole thing about people saying racist things and then explaining why they’re not racist is dumb. It’s like when my wife goes on and on about what her chick friend did the other day and then ends it with, “not that I care.” Uh, yeah, clearly you do care though, otherwise why have you been bringing it up and talking endlessly about it? Just say that you do care and start to think in your own head why you care! Like when people say racist stuff, just admit that you did say something racist and that maybe you are a little racist, and then in your own head try to figure out why you’re racist. Denial is dumb. And so is people not laughing.
Elusis, if you use a definition of racism which only functionally counts things as racist when they advance the interest of whites (“a generalized belief that espouses and supports the interests of Whites”) you should expect criticism from anyone who doesn’t share that definition. That definition discounts any race-based behavior by anyone else that DOESN’T advance the interest of whites, so unsurprisingly it will open up the doors to the “can only whites be racist?” question, and many people view that definition of racism as problematic. (Under the author’s definition, whites can be the perpetrators, but never the targets, of racism.)
It doesn’t mean that it’s not relevant, or that it’s not a good definition for many uses (it’s pretty close to the privilege plus power thing that’s commonly used), or that it was unclear in their article (I *LOVE* the fact that they defined their terms, and wish more folks would follow their lead!) But unless you’re asking your students to take their assertions as fact, you should expect some challenges.
And of course: come on, the “tone is irrelevant” thing is bollocks. Language has enormous power. And folks obviously know that, or they wouldn’t be so focused on using the term “racism” to encompass an broad and ever-expanding set of acts, rather than adopting a set of differing terms. Folks are trying to ride on the coattails of political power and use bad-association labels to make things less socially acceptable. That’s all well and good, but the tone arguments are expected.
It’s true that changing tone won’t necessarily make a difference in instantly convincing some white dude to agree that he needs to selectively act to benefit POC, because either actively supporting whites or actively maintaining the existing white-friendly social structure are both “supporting a pro-racist ideology.” But even though the fact that folks don’t instantly accept it is not a failure of tone, the wrong tone will make the outcome less likely.
Yet another analysis of, well, nobody,really. For what it’s worth.
Some people discriminate against homosexuals. Some people oppose state recognition of same-sex marriage. I sense that Myca and others find insufficient justification for these views, and challenge people to defend them, or to change their views. When people fail to meet the challenge to Myca’s satisfaction, Myca and others feel frustration.
In particular, Myca observes that some people respond to the challenge by claiming that the challenge makes them feel defensive. They don’t like feeling defensive, and say so, sometimes with aggression. In particular, they may allege that these defensive feelings result from Myca and others violating some social norm.
Now Myca and others do not merely feel frustrated, but aggrieved and defensive. They have taken pains to avoid triggering these feelings – in particular, by focusing on deeds, not identities or labels (or even intentions?). But rather than receiving praise from their interlocutors and serious engagement or capitulation on the merits, they receive rejection and blame.
Given this course of human events, Myca and others conclude that it is necessary to dissolve the bands of civil discourse which have connected them with their interlocutors. But, with a decent respect to the opinions of mankind, they seek to justify their decision to drop effort at civil discourse by declaring the causes which impel them to the separation.
_____
For what it’s worth,
1. I favor state recognition of same-sex marriage, and the opposing arguments that I have encountered have not persuaded me to change my views.
2. I share Myca’s sense of frustration; I think Myca has every cause to feel frustrated.
3. However, I feel no surprise that people fail to justify their views in a manner that makes sense to me. This seems pretty common in public debates.
4. Nor do I feel surprise that some people fail to recognize the “you did a bigoted thing”/”you’re a bigot” distinction. As I’ve argued ad nauseum, I find it entirely predictable that the word “bigoted” will provoke such a reaction. Indeed, I frankly doubt that anyone could use this term without intending to provoke precisely this reaction.
5. From time to time I try to persuade people to change their minds (or, at least, engage in a discussion with the hope of persuading people in the audience to change their minds) by appealing to people’s capacity for critical thinking. In this pursuit, I try to avoid doing and saying things that will such down those capacities. In particular, I try not to make people feel defensive; this just causes them to focus on justifying their past thoughts and deeds rather than to open up consideration of future possibilities.
6. The subtext of Myca’s post is that he is doing a favor to his interlocutors by refraining from using language they might find objectionable – and that they owe Myca something in response. I would offer a different perspective.
My perspective: You don’t owe me shit. You have your worldview; it’s yours; and even if people can pry your guns from your cold dead hands, they still can’t pry your worldview from your head. So if I want you to change your worldview, I come before you as a supplicant. I am asking you to make a sacrifice, without any expectation that you will grant my request.
Now, perhaps I see your worldview as causing harm, and I may care about that. But you may not. If I want you to change, I need to speak to your concerns, not mine. Indeed, the more your worldview causes harm, the harder it will be for you to recognize this fact – because doing so would require you to recognize your own culpability. Thus, the more harmful your worldview is, the greater the sacrifice you must make to change your view. And the greater the patience I must muster to support you in that transition.
How is this fair – that I should have to suck up to people with abominable world views – and to suck up to them in proportion to the abiminability of those views? It isn’t fair! It’s completely unfair! There’s no justice in this at all!
Yet such are the burdens of civil discourse. It is a humble pursuit, and not one suited to everyone’s temperament. It requires a focus on the needs of the other, not the self. Most of us are prone to the opposition disposition. (Recall the adage, “He who has himself for a lawyer has a fool for a client”? Most of us cannot subordinate our own concerns sufficiently to be able to focus on the concerns of the decision-maker; we need someone else to do that for us.)
And does it always work? Does my use of language always succeed in persuading people to my point of view? No, usually it doesn’t – at least in the short term. Most of us resist changing our worldviews, no matter which language their interlocutors employ. As I say, persuasion is a humbling business.
In sum, when I’m trying to persuade, I often strive to avoid language that I think will provoke defensive reactions in others – not for their benefit, but for mine. I am, of course, free at any time to abandon this strategy and to adopt some different strategy if I think it would be more effective. So, which strategy do we think will be more effective?
True, notwithstanding all our measured words, a gay man in Missouri has endured prejudice. But a quick spin around the web will reveal that there have been plenty of immoderate words expressed, too — and those words did not spare the Missouri man from enduring prejudice either. So the question remains: Which strategy – flawed though it may be — do we think will be more likely to change hearts and minds?
Just one guy’s opinion. Different people will choose different paths to the same destination. Godspeed, whatever your road.
Yes, the “tone argument” is a complete red herring.
People are perfectly able to grok this outside the confines of their political beliefs. If Mr. Mythago tells me he’s upset that he just discovered my cocaine-fueled affair with the pool boy and I reply with “I’m sorry, but I’m not going to have a serious conversation with you when you’re this emotional”, just about nobody would have trouble recognizing my tone argument for exactly what it is: an attempt to shut down a discussion I don’t want to have by blaming the other person for starting it in the “wrong” way.
I think I misunderstood what “the tone argument” refers to in my earlier post – I took it to mean “arguing that tone matters”, not “arguing that your position is wrong/should be taken off the table because of your tone”. As for the latter, it is definitely a red herring.
mythago – exactly. I deal with this in couples therapy all the time.
EZ – yes, you’ve got the right of it now.
n.r – “As I’ve argued ad nauseum, I find it entirely predictable that the word “bigoted” will provoke such a reaction. Indeed, I frankly doubt that anyone could use this term without intending to provoke precisely this reaction. ”
But you miss my point entirely. My point is that we could strike words like “bigoted,” “homophobic,” “heterosexist,” “racist,” “misogynistic,” etc. from our vocabulary completely, and make (as Amp and fannie did in their rather extreme overtures toward Theresa) nearly super-human effort to be as polite and thoughtful and non-aggressive toward others as possible with our language when describing how we experience their beliefs or actions as oppressive. We can (as Amp did) make explicitly clear that we even include ourselves in the category of “people who can hold beliefs or commit actions that are oppressive to others at times.” And yet when the other party defines ANY request that they accept some critique or responsibility for contributing to oppression, or even acknowledge that others see them in that way, as rude, aggressive, and uncivil, then it’s obvious that the whole “well it’s about [word X]” argument is a total distraction and another salvo in the ever-shifting war over goalposts.
I find no conflict in these statements.
My words will not persuade everyone. Some people will not consider my arguments no matter how I phrase them. Some people will consider my arguments almost without regard to how I phrase them. And other people may grant or withhold consideration of my arguments depending on how I phrase them. I focus most of my attention on people in this latter category.
That said, I don’t understand much of this discussion. Why have a war over goalposts? To whom are you justifying yourself?
I have explained my strategic reasons for wanting to avoid provoking defensive reactions in people. But ultimately, it’s a strategy; it succeeds or it doesn’t. Arguably, Teresa and Susan ultimately felt defensive. I’m not in a position to pass judgment on their feelings; they feel what they feel. All I care about is that Teresa and Susan may now feel less open to considering certain arguments. I conclude that I may need to pursue different strategies, or direct my arguments to different people.
But this has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of my (or Amp’s, or Myca’s) arguments. Just as I do not condemn people’s defensive feelings, nor do I validate them. If people opposed to same-sex marriage hear my arguments and then feel some discomfort, well — good. That’s kinda the point. I’m not trying to stop them from feeling discomfort. I’m trying to stop them from blocking consideration of the message that might cause them discomfort.
The norms of “civility” do not require me to provide anyone with an easy conscience. We each must earn that for ourselves.
nobody.really,
I think you hit on the issue at the end.
“All I care about is that Teresa and Susan may now feel less open to considering certain arguments.”
But how likely were they to actually change their opinion as a result of the argument? (Susan, I believe actually supports marriage equality.) Teresa is a bit of a different story. She is a lesbian. (She is also, if I recall correctly, a practicing Catholic, who follows her church’s dogmas and doctrines.) On top of that, she already recognizes that the opponents don’t have a message with an alternative offer for the role of the LGBT folks in their white city on the hill. And yet, she is also opposing marriage equality for everyone, not just as a choice for herself. How likely is a person like that to change their position at all?
If anything, it then really becomes the question of how such positioning (or honesty) is seen by observer parties.
The idea that you’re not a racist even as you do something racist, is a very much reoccurring theme in Civil Rights history. I’ve read Coates tracing it as far back as the Civil War.
What this means is that unlike genuine ideological battles, like say Communism v Liberal Democracy, a good chunk of the evil side knew their ideals were evil.
Not many segregationists repented. And we have good reason to believe that the ones who did were being disingenuous. But I have one favorite: Fritz Hollings.
When asked if he now knew he was wrong, he replied (I paraphrase from memory); “I knew then”.
That says it all.
And other people may grant or withhold consideration of my arguments depending on how I phrase them. I focus most of my attention on people in this latter category.
My belief is that there is basically no one in that category, because overtly they define their resistance as a language problem, when in fact their resistance is a content problem. I’ve found depressingly few people to be terribly convinceable, at least through the specific medium of changing the language.
(The only things that got through my resistance to hearing about my racism and white privilege? The realization that if I didn’t open up, I couldn’t have authentic relationships with the colleagues and friends I really cared about. Nor could I expect them to hear about things I wanted them to acknowledge, like straight privilege or body privilege. And the willingness of people I admired to talk about their own racism and other -isms, which eventually let me hold the cognitive dissonance of “it’s possible to be an admirable person and also be oppressive to others.” Language softening was not involved.)
Or who knows, perhaps the problem is this.
I’m not in a position to pass judgment on their feelings; they feel what they feel.
I’m perfectly happy to pass judgment. Choosing to react to that uncomfortable feeling with “you’re bad and I won’t listen to you anymore” is a choice. Feeling defensive is not the problem. Reacting to those feelings by attacking is the problem.
I repeat, some people are beyond the reach of rational discourse. If you think all people are in this category, or that the specific person to whom you are speaking is in this category, then you should certainly feel free to discontinue trying to persuade that person with rational argument. In this case, why pursue the “what you did” conversation at all?
However….
I must concede this point, as I conceded it to mythago previously. The strategies I recommend work best in the context of one-on-one conversations. But I acknowledge that, to some extent, we do not really have one-on-one conversations on the web; instead, we perform one-on-one conversations for the benefit of the audience. (This style of “conversation” finds its apotheosis in presidential debates, wherein the debaters make only the slightest pretense to respond to the other party’s concerns, and instead address themselves almost wholly to the concerns of a mostly unseen audience.)
Ideally, we’d find a way of speaking that addressed the concerns of our interlocutors AND the broader audience. But we may find ourselves in circumstances when we need to make trade-offs between speaking in a way that our interlocutors can hear and speaking is a way that we think the larger audience will better appreciate.
In this regard, people who share a political objective benefit from speaking with many different voices. Some can attempt to appeal to the interlocutors individually, while some will speak to the larger audience. And in this regard, I benefit from my relative anonymity. I, like Paul, tailor my language to different circumstances. I have little fear that people will exploit this fact and quote me out of context; frankly, people don’t care enough about rebutting me to seek out my prior statements. People with higher profiles (and searchable web pages) lack this flexibility.
Ha! I think that cartoon illustrates things well.
Various factors skew our perceptions of others. In many contexts (and especially in political contexts), the most vocal advocates of a position will represent a minority fringe. Yes, the category “Christian” contains Pat Robertson, and the category “homosexual” includes flamboyant cross-dressers riding on floats in Gay Pride parades. But I will likely err if I try to take conclusions about either archtype and apply those conclusions to all members of their respective groups. Nevertheless, various cognitive biases will push me to make precisely this type of error.
In short, the person most likely to want to debate homosexuality on the web is someone who already has firm opinions on the subject. If you recognize that this is the nature of the debate you’re having, then it makes sense to address your remarks not to your interlocutor, but to the audience.
A fine insight. David Blankenhorn testified in support of Proposition 8, overturning California’s recognition of same-sex marriage. In short, he had every reason to dig in and resist changing his position. And yet, he did change (to some extent) – at great cost, personally and financially. What prompted such a change by this public intellectual? He articulates his rationale – yet in interviews, he frankly concedes that a large factor in his conversion lay in the personal relationships he had developed with people who supported same-sex marriage.
So perhaps the moral of the story is that rational argument is pointless, and we should simply resort to using language as a blunt object with which to bludgeon.
Alternatively, perhaps the moral is that we need to build relationships with people who do not already agree with us, and then patiently await teachable moments. The other people on your bus, or on your World of Warcraft campaign, already have some basis of relationship with you. These are people potentially within your sphere of influence (and you are within theirs!) But consider: If you wanted to reach out to these people, what language would you use? I suspect that bludgeoning is not really the appropriate strategy here.
Again, words are not your friends; words are not your enemies. Words are your tools. First pick your task. Then pick the tools that will help you complete the task.
Alternatively, perhaps the moral is that we need to build relationships with people who do not already agree with us, and then patiently await teachable moments.
Possibly. Or that we need to concentrate our efforts on decent people; that is, people who are willing to listen to us.
I remember having a discussion about same-sex marriage with a somewhat conservative friend of mine who initially opposed it, but came around to agreeing with me. This is not because of my super duper arguing skills. This is because he is not a bigot. So when he said “gays don’t need marriage because of X,” and I was able to show him X was wrong, he didn’t immediately move the goalposts; he genuinely based his opinion on X, and X was not secretly “I have a burning need to be right at all times” or “homosexuals are vile”.
You’re correct about the inherent basis being content. You’re incorrect insofar as you appear to assume that content objections can’t (or shouldn’t) be addressed. they can–but it requires better attention to language. Ignoring content objectors is precisely the opposite of what you should do.
Most of the words you’re using stem from theories of social justice which are inherently re-distributionist. Do women have less power than men, and would you like to fix that? You need to take power from men, and grant it to women. Are whites privileged over blacks? You need to take power (and/or assets) from whites and give some of it to blacks. And so on. You literally cannot correct imbalance unless you treat people differently.
When you’re talking to someone who is above the bottom run of the kyriarchy ladder (and almost everyone is there) then you’re often telling them to give up some of their shit. Or, perhaps, that they should adopt and support a social model which involves giving up some of their shit, whether it’s position or power or assets or what have you.
But almost NOBODY likes giving up their shit, and there are MANY MANY reasons that people don’t like it. You may be a sexist racist pig. Or one may simply believe in “finders keepers,” or that people are responsible for their own lives, or that God will sort it out in the end. You may simply be greedy. You may have a smaller group that you care about–perhaps for you it’s all about your family and the rest of the world can go to pot.
Greed and bigotry aren’t the same thing. Connections to family and racism aren’t the same thing. The language that you choose can create divisions as much as it can cure them. In particular, using overly negative language to describe fairly basis human nature is a bad idea.