I feel like liberals are always trying to make conservatives understand that the world and the actions in it are not black and white. If one has done something racist, that doesn’t make them a bad person, it makes them a normal person. We all do bad things. We all do sexist things. That’s not what’s at issue.
White people struggle against the charge of racism because they feel it switches the on-and-off in them, from “good” to “bad.” Since self cannot be perceived as bad, we shout, “No! No! It must not be true! I’m a good person, so I have not been racist!” When, of course, we should be able to look and say, “Oh, I fucked up. I will change. I will fix this.”
There’s a personality disorder called Borderline Personality Disorder in which sufferers have a great deal of difficulty understanding ambiguity. They tend to view themselves and others as either entirely good or entirely bad, a switch that will flip with great regularity. On a good day, they are all good. On a bad one, they are the worst person who ever lived. If you give them something they like, you’re an angel; if you speak a harsh word, you’re an evil person conspiring against them.
I tend to drive some of our legalistic commenters here crazy (sorry, Sailorman) because I don’t believe the world has boundaries that can be clearly described between good and bad. We all, along with our every action, inhabit ambiguity. Every good thing we do has bad unintended consequences. Every bad thing we do has good unintended consequences. We’re all shaded. We’re all compromised. No one’s clean or pure. No one’s evil or tarnished beyond recognition.
This is not a profound thought, expressed in the abstract, and yet I see it abandoned with great regularity when we move into concrete examples. I’ve seen it over and over and over again, and I find it so frustrating in liberal circles. We should know better. I wish we did. But we’re so ready for conflict, to make sharp decisions, to slice things and people into black and white until, as Ampersand says, we construct people “as only their worst moments.”
There’s this drive toward perfectionism in the activist soul, toward making perfect the enemy of good.
It’s so, amazingly damaging. On the personal level, yes — I could talk about bloggers who I can’t stand to read, but who I nevertheless respect, but I don’t really want to bring individuals into it.
But more on the systemic level. We cut off our own feet. If we can’t acknowledge we’re all trapped in racist and sexist systems, systems which compromise our most purely intended actions, systems that prescribe our choices and make us choose between lesser evils… what can we fight? What’s the point? How are we different than ascetics with whips to use on ourselves and others for the greater good of purgation?
We can’t purge our souls.
When it comes to racism, we understand that it’s not the intent that matters, it’s the effect. It’s not apportioning blame that’s relevant, it’s creating solutions. So why are we stuck in circles, trying to define THAT person as evil for THIS compromised act and making that declaration of good or evil a single, solid, reified thing? Why do we, as a collective, exhibit some features of Borderline Personality Disorder?
I don’t think the human brain is set up very well to perceive shades of grey, which is too bad, because concepts with borders around them like black and white are only our own constructions for understanding the world, and they are badly insufficient tools.
—
Given the context of recent blogosphere battles, I want to say that I realize some may read this post as being about Amanda and/or Amanda’s critics. It isn’t intended to be. I understand that there’s a great deal of history there which involves more than black and white decision making. This post was written in reaction to a different conversation.
I also don’t mean to say there should be no critique of anyone. Critique is important — it’s vital that it be passionate and vehement and present, for otherwise nothing would change. I mean only to question a particular kind of critique, that variety of righteous condemnation which seems to be about making sense of the world by casting it with angels and devils instead of struggling players.
Feminist, anti-racist comments only. (If I bold this and put it at the end, will people pay attention? –post-mod queue Mandolin.)
Well, I agree.
Take THAT! Ha!
;)
I agree with the tendency to interpret any criticism as an accusation of “you’re a bad person” rather than “that you thing you did was bad.” And I believe that not only the person being accused but other witnesses to/readers of the criticism, people both for and against the person criticised, are quick to make that interpretation. I think that’s why these blogwars tend to blow up so quickly and violently.
And though I understand that your post grew out of a different situation, I can’t read it without recent events dominating my interpretation. And I have to add that insisting that someone take responsibility, and getting angry when they won’t, is NOT the same as declaring that person “all bad.” People need to own up to their screwups. And when they have a history of not doing so, it’s perfectly okay to not like them very much. Again, that’s not at all the same as declaring them all bad.
Please note, I’m not sure if that’s what you meant at all, like I said, recent conversation has just put that sort of a slant on your words to me.
I think it’s a very difficult thing, though: I’ve seen instances where a person’s or a group’s being rightfully angry over someone’s intransigence gets interpreted as declarations of Evil. And when that happens, you’re right, most useful conversation goes out the window. But how do we keep that interpretation from gaining ground without letting people off the hook for their wrong actions?
I’m not talking about punishing people–I don’t believe punishment is ever really effective–but we have to have a way of making it clear that certain actions are unacceptable. And when you’re up against someone who is supposed to be one your own, and that person will not own up, where do we go?
I have some other thoughts on the rest of your post, but I did want to say I agree with this. Absolutely.
I think I have to disagree somewhat here; while naturally the effect is important, the intent is, too. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the statement that only the effect matters is staggeringly short-sighted.
Intent does matter. Someone who is a bigot on purpose is a problem, and cannot be part of the solution without some serious education; on hte other hand, someone who is “accidentally” a bigot, by way of thoughtlessness or external cultural influences, is redeemable and can be pushed to re-adjust personal attitudes.
If we say that only effect matters, we’re putting people who are flawed and who make mistakes in the same category as people who are deliberately and consciously hurtful, which ironically reinforces a black-and-white, discontinuous mindset.
As to why White people get so bent out of shape over being called racist, I’d say that a simpler explanation (Hi, Mr Ockham!) is that being called that is liable to make one a social pariah, whether true or not.
Is it just me, or is this a peculiarly American disease? It seems as though Americans in particular have a very low tolerance for ambiguity, and need to put everything and everyone in one of two bins, black/white, Democrat/Republican, good/bad. It also seems to me that some people have this trait more strongly than others, and will always gravitate to the extreme of a given value system, whatever it may be — they may be a right-wing Christian or a radical feminist (or, occasionally, both, seriatim), but in whatever case they’ll embrace the extreme position.
I recently read a book called Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me), which examines why people (all people some of the time; some people much of the time) have so much trouble admitting that we’re wrong. Good person <> racist, I am a good person, therefore I cannot be a racist. I resolve the cognitive dissonance by finding a rational explanation, however bogus, for my behavior. The catch is, as you so rightly point out, that if I can’t admit to a mistake I can’t learn from it, and I can’t become a better person thereby. (I recommend the book; some of its observations are obvious, but some aren’t: for example, doing someone a bad turn is likely to make me dislike that person and think they’re a bad person, because I, a good person, wouldn’t mistreat a good person, so the person I mistreated must be bad.)
I agree that there’s a difference between intent and effect, but here’s the rub: if I refuse to change my behavior because my intentions were/are good, and get very indignant and say “you people are so touchy and have no sense of humor,” I’m no better than the intentional racist. A couple of years ago Amp (I think — it may have been Blue, or it may have been another blog entirely) had a post about Tiger Woods’ having said after a match that he had “spazzed” at one point while playing. Disabled-rights activists were quick to take him to task, and he was quick to apologize. He and I both learned something, because, believe it or not, I’d never thought about the pernicious baggage that word carries.
This is a very good post. However, I might point out (as someone who’s been through the psychiatric system, albeit not with a diagnosis of BPD), the problems of labeling someone’s personality as “disordered.” The concept of Personality “Disorders” are actually quite problematic, and using medicalized terms as an analogy to talk about other things is also problematic.
you know once upon a time there was a women’s movement-
it included lots of different people with lots of different ideologies- feminism, marxism, progressive christianity, liberalism, reform judaism, etc… they came together to fight around different issues- some specific like humane treatment for the Black Panther Women in Jail and some general- for equal pay etc.
in the miiddle of a real fight you unite with everyone that seems to want your side to win- you can criticize and differentiate the different ideologies but it is a common drive for freedom that unites us and the ability to persevere in that fight that bonds us-
since the women’s movement has been reduced to feminism and feminism has been reduced to the academy we have lost that- we need to get back into the fight and unite with everyone who is for free quality daycare, etc. and this slicing and dicing will fade in importance, i think
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » On Making Argument: Disability and Language, by Wheelchair Dancer
Lu wrote: “Is it just me, or is this a peculiarly American disease? It seems as though Americans in particular have a very low tolerance for ambiguity, and need to put everything and everyone in one of two bins, black/white, Democrat/Republican, good/bad.”
Having had the frightening experience of knowing a person who had full blown Borderline Personality Disorder, I can say there is a world of difference between the inclination to indulge in binary thinking, i.e., everything is either yes/no, off/on, or black/white, and an actual mental illness. The American tendency to make everything either/or is reinforced constantly in public education (e.g., mathematics, where at an early age a child is trained to believe there can be only one right way to solve a particular math problem), the media (“both sides” of the story rather than “all sides”), and popular culture in general. When you have spent most of your life hearing that it’s a yes/no world it can be difficult to break out of that mindset, but it’s not impossible.
IMHO, people in general don’t handle ambiguity very well so most of us want the world to be a simple place without shades of gray. Avoidance and denial can be so much easier than actual thinking. ;-)
Another way of saying not everyone is all good (or all bad) is the simple statement, long used, that “nobody’s perfect.”
I find it problematic where a label is slapped on someone based sometimes just on a single thoughtless act – “you did X, so that shows you’re a X-ist, regardless of your intent” where an “X-ist” is pretty much universally condemned as a horrible person (as evidenced by the fact that if one labels a politician with that label, that is an automatic “don’t vote for this person”, as we’ve seen in the current presidential race even within the Dem party).
But I agree with Mike. Intent matters. Intent matters a lot. Nobody can be 100% aware of everything that is going on in the world, every tiny little injustice, every little bump in everyone else’s day. That is simply impossible. Which means that EVERYONE is going to thoughtlessly trample on someone’s feelings at some point, perhaps even do worse than that, get in someone’s way or ruin someone’s day or something even worse. Trying to be aware of others and having empathy for others when are are made aware of them is the best anyone can do. Pointing that out WITHOUT LABELS is the way to see and show. If instead of labeling a person or action X-ist when they do something thoughtless, saying to them, you did thing-X, this upset person-Y, and I know you didn’t mean to upset person-Y, but now that you are aware of this, if you would consider person-Y in the future and avoid doing thing-X, that would be great.
Slapping a negative label on someone when this happens (without any real intent for malice) is not helpful and is what pushes people into the good/bad dichotomy. If you want people to see shades of gray you need to avoid using black and white labels like “racist” and “sexist” – which in our societal discourse are now taken as 100% bad words to describe bad people. Thus, they make people defensive, for good reason, because they are like calling someone a Nazi – there really is no room for shades of good with them – and if you try to tell someone that hey, even good people are Nazis, well, that isn’t going to get very far. The labels are irredeemably bad in our discourse, so step one, if you want to deal with greys, is to really avoid using them, particularly where there is no intent element. And even where there is, keep in mind that once you utter those words, you’ve thrown grey out the window, the same as if you used the word Nazi. You may not like that those words have that connotation (and you may see them as not having that, as it appears you do) but that doesn’t change the empirical reality that they are not words of grey. You can’t start off labeling someone a Nazi, then suddenly expect them to want to discuss the finer shades of grey of why they are a Nazi – they’ll be defensive and also angry with you (and rightly so).
One can see a demonstration of that on blogs (even here) where in a thread you see commenters slapped with an X-ist label, sometimes with additional four letter words or other insults, making it perfectly clear that once labeled an X-ist, you are scum of the earth whom commenters can then pile on with additional insults. I’ve seen it happen far too often. On top of that, in the reverse direction, as you note, critique is important – yet all too often, in many areas, people are told point blank that there will be no critique allowed, or it is apparent that it isn’t because just offering a critique immediately gets one labeled as an X-ist, without any real discussion of the issues. (And I’m not talking about someone trolling for a fight who really isn’t interested in discussion – though there is a nasty tendency to label those who do offer honest critiques of sacred cows to be labeled as a troll simply for not towing the party line and agreeing like a synchophant). Thankfully, Alas generally is not like that – but many other blogs of the left are, some to such a degree that I can’t even read them anymore, which is sad, because I agree with a lot of the general ideas.
In my ideal world, even the most controversial of topics could be discussed and even argued about in a heated manner without anyone resorting to labels or insults or piling on of the same. That is the world where shades of grey can thrive, where you can see the areas of agreement with someone even as you hotly debate a topic with them. I relish that sort of discussion. I learn from it. The insults and labels don’t teach me anything but that I am in a place with closed minds who are more interested in scoring points than discussion or learning.
Mike & Disgusted: I really, really have to disagree with you about intent. When someone does something that is harmful, it doesn’t matter to the person on the receiving end one single bit that hey, the intentions were good. One of the biggest ways that men excuse their sexism is by claiming that it’s “gallantry” or done “as a compliment” or whatever.
And anyway, people in general tend to be very understanding and give people a lot more leeway than Disgusted, in particular, is implying. In many of the racism rows I’ve witnessed, the initial response to the offensive act was quite reasonable, along the lines of simply pointing out the whys and wherefores of said offensiveness. The anger only came on those occasions when the person responsible got defensive, or refused to own up, or made excuses, or otherwise refused to own their shit. Anger also explodes when the same actions are repeated by the same parties.
And taking the words “sexist” and “racist” off the table? So, how exactly are we going to then name the wrongs? I really disagree with any suggestions that labels are bad or wrong in and of themselves. If humans didn’t generalise and label things and experiences, we wouldn’t be able to survive: you have to generalise in order to make sense of the world around you, you can’t just act as if every act and object you come across is unique.
I’m sorry, but there is no way in hell that we should limit our vocabularies or water our analysis down just because someone ignorant might get their fee-fees hurt. And I say that as someone who’s been slapped down for my own ignorance in public more than once. Yeah, it stings, but it’s also taught me so much. Like how to not repeat my bad actions. Also, since when did everyone become made of eggshells? People act like getting slapped down for doing something ignorant will permanently damage you. Why should the feelings of the sexist/racist/ableist/etc. outweigh the damage that their bigotry, intentional or no, causes both individuals and entire classes of people?
Most of us who engage in these discussions are adults. Many of the problems we’re facing would be reduced if we acted as such, which includes recognising that shades of gray exist, and that being accused of bad behaviour is not equivalent to being called Bad.
And taking the words “sexist” and “racist” off the table? So, how exactly are we going to then name the wrongs?
Use “I” language. Talk about why the offensive behavior is hurtful. Explain why individual instances aren’t so bad, but the constant barrage is oppressive.
I’m sorry, but there is no way in hell that we should limit our vocabularies or water our analysis down just because someone ignorant might get their fee-fees hurt.
Well, it kind of depends on what you’re trying to do. If you’re trying to exercise your vocabulary and create a 150-proof analysis, then by all means use whatever language you like. But if your goal is to explain someone’s error in a way that is most likely to induce them to change their behavior, then you’ll best achieve that goal by avoiding language that will be percieved as an attack, and instead speak in language that the recipient can easily understand.
The comparison is disingenuous: we’re not talking about someone looking to get off the hook for shitty behaviour. We’re talking about recognising that people make mistakes and generally the ones who are accidental arseholes can be coached into doing better. It’s apples and oranges: deliberate arseholery looking for an excuse is not the same as an unconscious mistake which a person seeks to learn from and avoid in the future, and I should say that most people are willing and able to recognise this.
Bjartmarr: we’re not talking about interventions or 12-step programmes here. We’re talking about politics and fighting for real change. You’re not going to get that by personalising everything. “I statements” make everything about how that individual speaker says, so contrary viewpoints are equally valid. Well, sometimes they aren’t. Sometimes, what someone is doing is wrong. And that has to be acknowleged, without dressing it up or minimising the wrongness. Because bigotry HURTS PEOPLE. In fact, it has been known on many occasions to have killed people.
“if your goal is to explain someone’s error in a way that is most likely to induce them to change their behavior, then you’ll best achieve that goal by avoiding language that will be percieved as an attack, and instead speak in language that the recipient can easily understand”
Only if that person is ignorant of the issues. Which is frequently not the case. Many times, for example, the recent blowups, the guilty parties were all extremely well-versed in the relevant theories. None of them was in Feminism 101 or Anti-Racism 101. They just chose to act as if they were.
Like I said, most of us are adults here. Most of us know what words like “privilege,” “racism” and “sexism” mean. Sugar-coating and using euphemisms with someone who’s arguing in bad faith is just an easy way to let them wriggle off the hook.
Mike: “we’re not talking about someone looking to get off the hook for shitty behaviour”
But quite frequently we are. It’s the “but I didn’t mean it that way” that’s disingenuous. Yeah, they did. They just think that they have the right.
As I said to Bjartmarr, your argument only works with those people who really are ignorant of the issues. And, especially on blogs such as this one, that is rarely the case. You see the same people making the same arguments about the same points over and over again, despite having abundant evidence debunking those arguments repeately shown them.
Anyway, this is now getting off-track. Mandolin’s point was about recognising ambiguity, not separating those who are genuinely ignorant from those who are here in bad faith.
And I stand by what I said earlier: saying “but I had good intentions” should not let anyone off the hook for unacceptable behaviour. You’ve also neglected my point that when people do seem to have trangressed out of ignorance, they are usually treated pretty mildly at first. It’s only when they get defensive &/or refused to take on board the criticisms that things get heated.
Chrys:
If the situation is a political discussion, or someone arguing in bad faith, or a situation where all parties are informed and pretty much on the same page to begin with, then I absolutely agree with you. Discussions on this blog, and the recent blowups, fit into this category.
In my post I was intending to address other situations, where the offending party is not well informed, and has offended without understanding the full effect of their actions. Where perhaps you and they don’t share common definitions of words like racism and sexism, and where such words are often interpreted as an attack. Perhaps I should have made that more clear.
I understand a reluctance to address sexism in language that makes it sound like the problem is specific to you, so perhaps “I” statements aren’t exactly the right remedy. In your post, you said, “bigotry HURTS PEOPLE”. That seems a far more persuasive argument than “that’s sexist”: offenders are already socialized to understand that hurting people is wrong, and to take someone at their word when they say that they are being hurt. I don’t think you can say the same for most -isms.
Edited to add:
“but I had good intentions” should not let anyone off the hook for unacceptable behaviour.
I added this because it’s a good illustration of what I was pointing out: everybody understands that intentions are irrelevant when you hurt somebody. Many do not understand that intentions are similarly irrelevant when you do something sexist or racist; that “I didn’t mean it that way” doesn’t negate the harm. Again, this only applies in situations where the offender is ignorant.
Disgusted Beyond Belief,
You are not welcome in this thread, or any other I post. Please do not comment in them again.
Crys T. –
Would you be so kind as to post your first two paragraphs from comment #2, like, in 10 thousand places all over the interwebs?
And I’m sure you know to which places I refer??
‘kay, thanks. :D
But not in this case, which is kind of the point; we’re talking here specifically about those who make mistakes through personal ignorance or lack of self-examination. Neither of those things is something to excoriate someone over.
And since when did Bloglandia accurately represent real life? If it did, we’d probably be talking about President Dean having been beaten by President Paul in the last elecion. Most people don’t navelgaze as or self-examine as obsessively as we* do and consequently just don’t realise how privileged they are or what biases they hold until it’s pointed out to them.
I saw it; I must have let it slip by by accident, so my apologies on that count. It does bear back to what I said, though; a lot of people who express understandable ignorance or “accidental” prejudice are treated as deliberately having done wrong rather than having taken a mis-step and flamed without mercy. I’d say defensiveness is an entirely appropriate stance in those circumstances. It’s part of a certain amount of privilege we have as at least minimally intelligent and self-aware people that we are able to forget that other people often aren’t; that they often don’t have cause to be.
*By which I mean internet progressives and/or lefties.
I get what you’re saying, but I think there’s a difference between:
Racist because you benefit from the advantages to whites that are part of the structure of modern western society and Racist because you hate black people and try to hurt them whenever you can.
I agree that neither situation is good. But I think there’s a vocabulary problem when the same word (racist) applies equally to Amanda Marcote and a Neo-Nazi. If nothing else it makes the term racist so imprecise that it’s less useful.
We need more words. For instance: If I spill hot coffee on you I need to apologize and try to make it right.
If it happened because i wasn’t paying attention then I’m an inconsiderate jerk.
If it was easily foreseeable than I’m then I’m a negligent jerk.
If I did it because I’m angry and flailing about then I’m a menace.
If I did it on purpose because I don’t like you then I’m a criminal.
If publish a book with racist images because I want to be ironic and don’t really think about it I’m a racist.
If I publish a book with racist images because I want to use the illustrations to reinforce my message that black people aren’t really people but actually animals I’m a racist.
The two don’t seem all that equivalent to me.