I’ve often thought that we’re playing with fire having these mandatory white affinity groups that are supposed to discuss “anti racism” Robin DiAngelo style. One day, somewhere, it’s going to backfire and the white group decide “actually we’re the oppressed ones.”
I mean, historically, segregating people and making whites super conscious of race hasn’t gone well.
It’s definitely true that if in the name of anti-racism, whites are repeatedly made into an out-group (“attend this affinity group and discuss the ways in which you are racist”) then of course it’s true that you are also creating the conditions for them to form their own in-group (banding together in solidarity against people who they perceive as treating them unfairly).
In other words, what you just said.
I think it’s already done a lot of damage (as Mark just said).
Bringing people together in bigger in-groups is key. It can feel like a losing battle when the pattern in our culture has been to separate ourselves into our little identity and interest groups.
I agree, but I also think there's a non-political issue. I think intensive focus on one's race, gender, etc is just a crappy way to live. I think it's a passive identity (ie something you are rather than something you do) which can create a fixed mindset rather than a growth one. It also makes you less relatable and understandable to others. Finally, I think it's fucking boring. I've had numerous friends throughout my life who were into stuff I absolutely care nothing about: cars, angry-screamy music, high-level mathematics, guns, anime, etc. Still, I enjoyed listening to them speak about it passionately. But, dear God, there's nothing interesting about people obsessed with their census-box characteristics.
I think this is a case worth making. I think we often make sociological, political, or moral case against certain ways of life, but I think its also worth showing someone that "this is no way to live" can also help.
I feel the same way about the people who think Joe Biden is coming for their children. I'd just like to help them realize that this stuff is hurting their own lives.
Agreed, it’s boring stuff, and it’s hard to fathom how much it’s caught on, to talk about immutable characteristics and splinter ourselves into smaller and smaller groups of “we.”
Also agree it would be great to be able to communicate convincingly to people that this stuff is hurting their own lives.
Does it seem like some people really enjoy drama? Like, is the idea of an enemy, of Joe Biden coming for their children, something that gives them something “interesting” or even (in a drama-relishing way) “enjoyable” to think about?
I'd like to offer a perspective from "the other side" on why this is happening.
Most of us have taken the idea of a "common culture and common values" for granted. Sure, we understood that people had different ideas about how best to promote those common values. But we also grew to understand exactly what you have pointed out - that who was President or running Congress did not affect our everyday lives much. The common values still held. Most of us didn't see the other side as "the enemy"- all Americans who valued our way of life and our Constitution. I don't mean to paint it as the idyllic good old days, only to try to show how much more there was a feeling of "everyday life goes on", politics did not much affect it.
We heard about the "political correctness" being spread on college campuses. Ordinary people shook their heads and laughed at some of the ideas being sold. Young people always have radical ideas; they grow out of it once they join the real world outside of campus. The common values will hold, as they always have.
We are now realizing that this time, the radical ideas from academia have leaked beyond academia and seem to have taken control of most of the institutions in our country. The common culture and values that we took for granted are now under direct threat. And we feel like this happened largely because we didn't see how dangerous this was when it first started. Nobody could possibly believe that it is a good idea to divide us again by race, right? Nobody could believe that it's a good idea to allow criminals to keep preying on their communities, and that is in service to a higher social goal. Nobody could believe that to support gay rights, we must pretend that 6 year olds need to be encouraged on a path to changing their sex.
So now we are realizing that what we thought was merely academic posturing has become deadly serious. We feel like we were too slow in defending our values, so now I think a lot of people are reacting in panic mode. As you rightly point out, that is not beneficial either. But we are no longer willing to sit back and cede the field to ideas that we believe will not lead to a better society. We are already seeing the very negative consequences of those ideas.
And by the way, this is the same academia that sold a generation of young people in the idea that taking $100,000 in loans to get a degree in Gender Studies was their ticket to prosperity. Meanwhile, they sit on their billions in endowments. I can't even express my disgust.
Yes. Instead of radical ideas, I’d call them “dumb ideas” because again: I cringe that these could have been substituted for what passes as being “on the left”— but I’m with you.
Two thoughts: one, the (very unfortunately titled) book “Coddling of the American Mind” speaks to these trends in a really helpful enlightening way. When the book talks about the Great Untruths and explains them (as well as the evidence behind _why_ they are untrue) you see that these trends not only sprung from the university and thence to the outside world, but also came from changes within families, changes in beliefs about parenting (specifically a huge move toward a faux “safetyism”). I can’t recommend that book highly enough to anyone who cares about this stuff.
Two, I agree about the state of the universities. I grew up loving and admiring our universities. These were some of our society’s most valuable institutions. When my kids were little, I was so excited for the day when they’d be off to college, expanding their view of the world, learning how to think more deeply, and all that.
Now, I’ve seen how damaging the universities in their present messed-up condition are to the young. I am no longer excited about my kids (or any others) going off to university. I can’t think of any universities that I’d enjoy them attending (for the reasons I used to be excited about— I’m glad for them to do the more mundane things and launch careers that interest them, make new friends, be more independent etc.).
I’m very sad and despairing that universities have become places of indoctrination.
I remember hearing about “political correctness” way back when I was in college, and right-wing talk radio said the young were being indoctrinated way back then. Well, no. Back then the universities had a decidedly liberal slant, but I assure you, critical thinking was encouraged; throwing around ALL sorts of ideas was encouraged; no one, including conservative folks, was prevented from speaking; no one was disinvited from speaking. It was still a place where people came to be educated and being educated meant you learned to think your own thoughts.
Now when I say universities have become places of indoctrination, I worry to my left/liberal friends that I sound like some angry white guy from talk radio decades ago.
But… now it’s really true. You’re told what to think. You’re told what words to use. People are afraid to express any sort of different opinion in class. Teachers are more afraid then anyone else. People are complaining about each other, reporting each other for wrongthink. There’s the certain “critical theory” way of looking at the world, which was just getting started it seems when I was in school and which seemed insufferably dumb at the time but…. Why and how has this stupidity taken over everywhere except maybe math and hard sciences?
Ok… I went way off on some tangents there. What you said about universities really resonated with me.
It sure looks regressive in the context of today- Dr. Martin Luther King day. His belief in content of character remains one if the most aspirational models of the 20th century. How elevating immutable physical characteristics above one's character and selling it as progress defies everything we learned from him
Luckily I came from a family who believed In valuing others based on character. Born in Madison, then growing up in Racine (lake town stuck between Milwaukee and Chicago) in the 70's, my experience was similar to many towns struggling with desegregation. It kind of just happened. Inner city bussed out to the country, farm kids went the opposite way. In 7th grade I remember race riots shutting down school for several days. Proximity to large cities meant a more diverse population than most cities of 100k in the upper Midwest
The clashes came about partially due to suddenness. One semester you're in the hicks, the next one you're in the city. Friend groups got splintered into different school districts. Race certainly played a part of it, but from my memory adapting to wholesale change- not knowing classmates, teachers, or how long you were going to be there was the biggest transition
Eventually city kids found interest in kids who drove tractors by 12. And the farm kids thought it was cool to walk to haircuts. Simple stuff. The fights and animosity gave way over time. It wasn't immediate transformational happiness. We all told told ethnic jokes back then, and I say that with some measure of pride, for they spared no one. I learned lots of pollack jokes from my grandpa's potato farm, where almost everyone was Polish. Norwegian, Mexican, Black, Italian, German, didn't matter. Joke telling worked as a barometer. As soon as you could swap jokes, you could get along. We could laugh, together
Fast forward to my grandma's funeral in Madison around 2008, where I ran into one of my dad's Madison West high school friends, who was at that time the President of the board of trustees at UW-Madison. Our family history started with UW just before WWII. My grandfather took a professorship in 1941 studying potato diseases. Much of our family studied at UW. To this day, we still hold my grandparent's original seats at Camp Randall, right on the 50 yard line
Madison's reputation proceeds itself. Very very liberal. In a classic sense, that meant a robust exchange of ideas emanating from a population known for (politely) speaking it. Just prior to the funeral, an uproar started when the University chose to cancel the appearance of a "controversial" professor from Colorado. Not a common occurrence in 2008, as it is today. So I asked the board of trustee President about it. Great guy btw. His answer shocked me. He defended the decision (at first), claiming it was a potentially harmful message for the student body. What?! At Madison?!
We went back and forth in a friendly manner for quite some time. He at least acknowledged my primary point- since when does a University like Madison get to determine acceptable speech? This is a campus which, 40 years earlier, allowed free speech to the point where protestors bombed a building, yet was now actively segregating the free expression of ideas
I will always remember that wonderful disagreement of a discussion in the context of my own experience with desegregation. Imperfect as it was, the enrichment gained from interacting with people different from me improved my life in ways difficult to overstate. It angered me that UW students were missing out on the very principles that caused me to examine character, depriving them of that challenging but highly rewarding endeavor I experienced in middle school
Dr. King, thank you for enriching the lives of so many, including mine. Pop psychology that glorifies skin color and other immutable traits at the expense of character robs every individual of one of life's great joys
Wow what a rich set of memories— woven together so effectively in a way that they say so much. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
One response (among many!) I’m very used to hearing busing described as a failure and I’ve never heard it described this way, acknowledging the real unpleasant things that happened and yet also pointing out some of the positive outcomes.
It was a crude tool, but it achieved something.
Only by encountering new things that make us uncomfortable will we reassess and grow. And it does seem that— beyond shutting down speech, which is a problem in itself — universities are going in the wrong direction when they strive for everyone’s comfort.
I don't think it's fun, I think it's addictive. I live in Nevada, and I see old people all the time gambling at casinos. Maybe they're having fun, but I also think it's an addiction issue. I see the same thing with weed (which is not addictive, according to people addicted to it). I think social media algorithms keeps people hooked and certain types of views are more addictive than others. I'm not sure what goes into making some viewpoints more addictive. I remember only 3-4 years ago watching tons of Youtube videos and reading tons of articles about feminism. Today, arguing about feminism feels like arguing about which company manufactures the best type writers. I really don't know why some of this crap catches on and drives people crazy.
I think it was in that documentary “The Social Dilemma” that if you trade phones with someone else in your household and scroll their feeds, they’ll seem boring to you— seems like they’re just giving people “what they want” and that’s what seems addictive? Sounds like the algorithms just give people whatever keeps them online the longest.
That's true, but some ideas just seem more prone to pathology. Look up Noah Smith's substack (I am a subscriber). I don't think there's a single post on their that I could imagine seeing an angry twitter backlash or 3-hour youtube video about. Why do people get angry about feminism, race, and gender identity and not the impact of Biden's infrastructure bill on inflation. The latter seems a lot more important.
Urban societies began when humans learned to expand their "in groups" beyond their tribes, and to create a common culture. Civilization is not possible without a culture that rejects tribalism in favor of the common culture.
As you point out, history teaches us that tribalism is a very bad idea if your goal is to live in a flourishing urbanized society. So why have our leaders been pushing a return to tribalism in every way, from every pulpit? And no, the danger is not that whites might become super conscious of race. The danger is in rejection of common culture in general.
Oh to address "why have our leaders been pushing a return to tribalism"? I think it's the mistaken notion -- or maybe it's not "mistaken" so much as a short-term notion without considering longer-term consequences -- that while we ("we" meaning "not the ruling elite" aka the 99%, aka the working class, aka the rabble, or however you want to describe it) are fighting among ourselves and focusing on who is mistreating whom, who has a slightly larger pile of stale crumbs, we ignore the bigger economic problems that would be staring us all in our faces if we all banded together.
It's also much less expensive to focus on issues like DEI (where the focus is on cheap trainings, strategic hires, words words words, and optics) than it is to address wages, education, health care, or retirement.
A return to tribalism keeps us all weak and therefore more easily managed in the short term. We're disorganized and malleable. People working two or three crappy jobs don't have time to get too politically involved. For the ruling elite it's a win-win if we-the-rabble are disorganized and not getting needed resources.
But that's only to a certain point: at some point, conditions will continue to deteriorate if leaders don't look out for the well-being of we-the-rabble.
There will be a tipping point where people become less invested in our society, not to mention desperate, where our society starts breaking down.
When the ruling elite let poverty become a bigger and bigger problem (for example, when they allow tent cities on the streets instead of dealing with the problems that lead to people living in tent cities, and trying to change those conditions) eventually you see society starting to become less stable: more murder, more smash-and-grab, more people openly selling and buying drugs, more people pooping and throwing needles on the streets, more fringe beliefs ("Trump really won"), and the response of the elite is not to use their positions of "public service" to address these big problems, but rather their response is just take care of themselves (or "move to Austin") and let everything around them go to rot. That quickly leads to a society that no one wants to live in.
So, in the short-term, the ruling elite's strategy makes us all weaker, which allows a very few to continue amassing resources and not address everyone else's problems. But ultimately a weak society is one that's primed for self-destruction.
I'm aware of the fact that I'm doing a lot of "we" and "they" talking here. I'd like to bring "them" (the ruling elite) into my in-group of "people who care about the long-term prospects of our society" and dialog with them, but I don't have their ears.
No doubt, the results of civic and cultural decay are on full display all around us. That is especially true in major urban areas. I think we can all agree on that. To me, there are 2 basic questions: what are the causes, and what are the solutions?
I appreciate your stated purpose for this Substack, to provide a forum for respectful discussion of issues from all sides. That is so very needed today. We constantly hear "we need to have a conversation about..." , but then there is nothing but monologue, lecturing, and hateful posturing. Curiously, this is considered to be virtuous in some circles.
You declared your far-left tendencies up front, so I expect that my thoughts on causes and solutions will be quite different from yours. I believe that history can be our guide, not to give us the answers (for if that were the case, we would already have a perfect society), but to show us what will happen if we continue to pursue dangerous paths that have already been well-trod.
To me, history has warned us as loudly as it can of the dangers of corporate elites aligning with groups that promote tribal grievances to gain power. In the US today, this dangerous combination is promoted on the left.
I agree with you with one small “edit” that “this dangerous combination is promoted on the [faux] left.” I don’t recognize these huge shifts as “the left” that I grew up with.
I agree it calls itself the left. I agree that many people who view the world in ways similar to me have bought into this stuff masquerading as the left, and think it’s the real thing.
And if your views are very different from mine, I sincerely appreciate and welcome your input all the more.
If we’re all engaged in this project of sense-making, “more is better” when it comes to viewpoint diversity.
In the last few years — probably ever since Trump was elected (that’s not necessarily the cause; just when I started thinking of this — I’ve started thinking we really, really need to abandon political parties and labels of all kinds. It’s not serving us well, people’s labels seem to come with pre-packaged belief structures, and people are letting their labels do their thinking for them. _Especially_ when “the other side” is viewed as evil or ignorant or just generally beyond the pale.
Then I learned that some of the Founders thought political parties were a bad idea. It’s been on my “to-do” list to read more about that but I haven’t yet. On the surface though, not having read their reasoning, I’d say parties do more harm than good.
I’ve also been feeling like our nation is just too darn big for our elected officials to advance our interests effectively (even if they wanted to, which I believe they don’t). If Sweden is a small boutique among nations, where the customer matters, the U.S. is a big ol’ messy Walmart.
Yes, I have heard many express the idea that the old parties and labels no longer represent their beliefs. I think that is true. I don't consider myself a right-winger, or even a Republican. I just see a growing danger coming from the party that calls itself Democrat, and my only goal at this point is to try to deflect our society from going down the path they seem to be pursuing at full throttle.
Not to put words in her mouth, but I think whites becoming more conscious of race is just one example that Carina was giving of this problem (among many possible examples). The point is, if all good people want to see racism on the decline, we don't want to promote anything that forces whites into their own little in-group (due to being placed in someone else's out-group) because it doesn't end well. But yes, the bigger point still holds true -- a rejection of common culture causes problems, and it seems to be on the rise.
I loved this post (and am working on a similar post for my own Substack). I have a rule for myself online: I allow all comments that are polite. This includes ideas with which I strongly disagree. I have a Facebook friend who is extremely anti-feminist (for example, he thinks that married women shouldn’t “take jobs away from men”), but so long as he is civil, I let him speak his piece. He grew up in a dysfunctional family and has dealt with poverty, unemployment, and health problems. His anti-feminism is not a great opinion to hold, to my mind, but it comes from a place of suffering, not of hatred.
A college friend gave me another terrific way to send potentially contentious conversations in a productive direction. He was a disciple of Milton Friedman, and I was (and am) a far-left Democrat. We agreed on basically nothing. But in one of our arguments, he said, “Can we agree that we both want the same goals, but we just have different ideas of how to achieve them?” That question has stayed with me, and I remind myself of it whenever “in-group vs. out-group” thinking starts to become a problem.
I’ve often thought that we’re playing with fire having these mandatory white affinity groups that are supposed to discuss “anti racism” Robin DiAngelo style. One day, somewhere, it’s going to backfire and the white group decide “actually we’re the oppressed ones.”
I mean, historically, segregating people and making whites super conscious of race hasn’t gone well.
It’s definitely true that if in the name of anti-racism, whites are repeatedly made into an out-group (“attend this affinity group and discuss the ways in which you are racist”) then of course it’s true that you are also creating the conditions for them to form their own in-group (banding together in solidarity against people who they perceive as treating them unfairly).
In other words, what you just said.
I think it’s already done a lot of damage (as Mark just said).
Bringing people together in bigger in-groups is key. It can feel like a losing battle when the pattern in our culture has been to separate ourselves into our little identity and interest groups.
I agree, but I also think there's a non-political issue. I think intensive focus on one's race, gender, etc is just a crappy way to live. I think it's a passive identity (ie something you are rather than something you do) which can create a fixed mindset rather than a growth one. It also makes you less relatable and understandable to others. Finally, I think it's fucking boring. I've had numerous friends throughout my life who were into stuff I absolutely care nothing about: cars, angry-screamy music, high-level mathematics, guns, anime, etc. Still, I enjoyed listening to them speak about it passionately. But, dear God, there's nothing interesting about people obsessed with their census-box characteristics.
I think this is a case worth making. I think we often make sociological, political, or moral case against certain ways of life, but I think its also worth showing someone that "this is no way to live" can also help.
I feel the same way about the people who think Joe Biden is coming for their children. I'd just like to help them realize that this stuff is hurting their own lives.
Agreed, it’s boring stuff, and it’s hard to fathom how much it’s caught on, to talk about immutable characteristics and splinter ourselves into smaller and smaller groups of “we.”
Also agree it would be great to be able to communicate convincingly to people that this stuff is hurting their own lives.
Does it seem like some people really enjoy drama? Like, is the idea of an enemy, of Joe Biden coming for their children, something that gives them something “interesting” or even (in a drama-relishing way) “enjoyable” to think about?
Is there something “fun” about having enemies?
I'd like to offer a perspective from "the other side" on why this is happening.
Most of us have taken the idea of a "common culture and common values" for granted. Sure, we understood that people had different ideas about how best to promote those common values. But we also grew to understand exactly what you have pointed out - that who was President or running Congress did not affect our everyday lives much. The common values still held. Most of us didn't see the other side as "the enemy"- all Americans who valued our way of life and our Constitution. I don't mean to paint it as the idyllic good old days, only to try to show how much more there was a feeling of "everyday life goes on", politics did not much affect it.
We heard about the "political correctness" being spread on college campuses. Ordinary people shook their heads and laughed at some of the ideas being sold. Young people always have radical ideas; they grow out of it once they join the real world outside of campus. The common values will hold, as they always have.
We are now realizing that this time, the radical ideas from academia have leaked beyond academia and seem to have taken control of most of the institutions in our country. The common culture and values that we took for granted are now under direct threat. And we feel like this happened largely because we didn't see how dangerous this was when it first started. Nobody could possibly believe that it is a good idea to divide us again by race, right? Nobody could believe that it's a good idea to allow criminals to keep preying on their communities, and that is in service to a higher social goal. Nobody could believe that to support gay rights, we must pretend that 6 year olds need to be encouraged on a path to changing their sex.
So now we are realizing that what we thought was merely academic posturing has become deadly serious. We feel like we were too slow in defending our values, so now I think a lot of people are reacting in panic mode. As you rightly point out, that is not beneficial either. But we are no longer willing to sit back and cede the field to ideas that we believe will not lead to a better society. We are already seeing the very negative consequences of those ideas.
And by the way, this is the same academia that sold a generation of young people in the idea that taking $100,000 in loans to get a degree in Gender Studies was their ticket to prosperity. Meanwhile, they sit on their billions in endowments. I can't even express my disgust.
Yes. Instead of radical ideas, I’d call them “dumb ideas” because again: I cringe that these could have been substituted for what passes as being “on the left”— but I’m with you.
Two thoughts: one, the (very unfortunately titled) book “Coddling of the American Mind” speaks to these trends in a really helpful enlightening way. When the book talks about the Great Untruths and explains them (as well as the evidence behind _why_ they are untrue) you see that these trends not only sprung from the university and thence to the outside world, but also came from changes within families, changes in beliefs about parenting (specifically a huge move toward a faux “safetyism”). I can’t recommend that book highly enough to anyone who cares about this stuff.
Two, I agree about the state of the universities. I grew up loving and admiring our universities. These were some of our society’s most valuable institutions. When my kids were little, I was so excited for the day when they’d be off to college, expanding their view of the world, learning how to think more deeply, and all that.
Now, I’ve seen how damaging the universities in their present messed-up condition are to the young. I am no longer excited about my kids (or any others) going off to university. I can’t think of any universities that I’d enjoy them attending (for the reasons I used to be excited about— I’m glad for them to do the more mundane things and launch careers that interest them, make new friends, be more independent etc.).
I’m very sad and despairing that universities have become places of indoctrination.
I remember hearing about “political correctness” way back when I was in college, and right-wing talk radio said the young were being indoctrinated way back then. Well, no. Back then the universities had a decidedly liberal slant, but I assure you, critical thinking was encouraged; throwing around ALL sorts of ideas was encouraged; no one, including conservative folks, was prevented from speaking; no one was disinvited from speaking. It was still a place where people came to be educated and being educated meant you learned to think your own thoughts.
Now when I say universities have become places of indoctrination, I worry to my left/liberal friends that I sound like some angry white guy from talk radio decades ago.
But… now it’s really true. You’re told what to think. You’re told what words to use. People are afraid to express any sort of different opinion in class. Teachers are more afraid then anyone else. People are complaining about each other, reporting each other for wrongthink. There’s the certain “critical theory” way of looking at the world, which was just getting started it seems when I was in school and which seemed insufferably dumb at the time but…. Why and how has this stupidity taken over everywhere except maybe math and hard sciences?
Ok… I went way off on some tangents there. What you said about universities really resonated with me.
It sure looks regressive in the context of today- Dr. Martin Luther King day. His belief in content of character remains one if the most aspirational models of the 20th century. How elevating immutable physical characteristics above one's character and selling it as progress defies everything we learned from him
Luckily I came from a family who believed In valuing others based on character. Born in Madison, then growing up in Racine (lake town stuck between Milwaukee and Chicago) in the 70's, my experience was similar to many towns struggling with desegregation. It kind of just happened. Inner city bussed out to the country, farm kids went the opposite way. In 7th grade I remember race riots shutting down school for several days. Proximity to large cities meant a more diverse population than most cities of 100k in the upper Midwest
The clashes came about partially due to suddenness. One semester you're in the hicks, the next one you're in the city. Friend groups got splintered into different school districts. Race certainly played a part of it, but from my memory adapting to wholesale change- not knowing classmates, teachers, or how long you were going to be there was the biggest transition
Eventually city kids found interest in kids who drove tractors by 12. And the farm kids thought it was cool to walk to haircuts. Simple stuff. The fights and animosity gave way over time. It wasn't immediate transformational happiness. We all told told ethnic jokes back then, and I say that with some measure of pride, for they spared no one. I learned lots of pollack jokes from my grandpa's potato farm, where almost everyone was Polish. Norwegian, Mexican, Black, Italian, German, didn't matter. Joke telling worked as a barometer. As soon as you could swap jokes, you could get along. We could laugh, together
Fast forward to my grandma's funeral in Madison around 2008, where I ran into one of my dad's Madison West high school friends, who was at that time the President of the board of trustees at UW-Madison. Our family history started with UW just before WWII. My grandfather took a professorship in 1941 studying potato diseases. Much of our family studied at UW. To this day, we still hold my grandparent's original seats at Camp Randall, right on the 50 yard line
Madison's reputation proceeds itself. Very very liberal. In a classic sense, that meant a robust exchange of ideas emanating from a population known for (politely) speaking it. Just prior to the funeral, an uproar started when the University chose to cancel the appearance of a "controversial" professor from Colorado. Not a common occurrence in 2008, as it is today. So I asked the board of trustee President about it. Great guy btw. His answer shocked me. He defended the decision (at first), claiming it was a potentially harmful message for the student body. What?! At Madison?!
We went back and forth in a friendly manner for quite some time. He at least acknowledged my primary point- since when does a University like Madison get to determine acceptable speech? This is a campus which, 40 years earlier, allowed free speech to the point where protestors bombed a building, yet was now actively segregating the free expression of ideas
I will always remember that wonderful disagreement of a discussion in the context of my own experience with desegregation. Imperfect as it was, the enrichment gained from interacting with people different from me improved my life in ways difficult to overstate. It angered me that UW students were missing out on the very principles that caused me to examine character, depriving them of that challenging but highly rewarding endeavor I experienced in middle school
Dr. King, thank you for enriching the lives of so many, including mine. Pop psychology that glorifies skin color and other immutable traits at the expense of character robs every individual of one of life's great joys
Wow what a rich set of memories— woven together so effectively in a way that they say so much. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
One response (among many!) I’m very used to hearing busing described as a failure and I’ve never heard it described this way, acknowledging the real unpleasant things that happened and yet also pointing out some of the positive outcomes.
It was a crude tool, but it achieved something.
Only by encountering new things that make us uncomfortable will we reassess and grow. And it does seem that— beyond shutting down speech, which is a problem in itself — universities are going in the wrong direction when they strive for everyone’s comfort.
I don't think it's fun, I think it's addictive. I live in Nevada, and I see old people all the time gambling at casinos. Maybe they're having fun, but I also think it's an addiction issue. I see the same thing with weed (which is not addictive, according to people addicted to it). I think social media algorithms keeps people hooked and certain types of views are more addictive than others. I'm not sure what goes into making some viewpoints more addictive. I remember only 3-4 years ago watching tons of Youtube videos and reading tons of articles about feminism. Today, arguing about feminism feels like arguing about which company manufactures the best type writers. I really don't know why some of this crap catches on and drives people crazy.
I think it was in that documentary “The Social Dilemma” that if you trade phones with someone else in your household and scroll their feeds, they’ll seem boring to you— seems like they’re just giving people “what they want” and that’s what seems addictive? Sounds like the algorithms just give people whatever keeps them online the longest.
But why is “what they want” addictive I wonder?
That's true, but some ideas just seem more prone to pathology. Look up Noah Smith's substack (I am a subscriber). I don't think there's a single post on their that I could imagine seeing an angry twitter backlash or 3-hour youtube video about. Why do people get angry about feminism, race, and gender identity and not the impact of Biden's infrastructure bill on inflation. The latter seems a lot more important.
Urban societies began when humans learned to expand their "in groups" beyond their tribes, and to create a common culture. Civilization is not possible without a culture that rejects tribalism in favor of the common culture.
As you point out, history teaches us that tribalism is a very bad idea if your goal is to live in a flourishing urbanized society. So why have our leaders been pushing a return to tribalism in every way, from every pulpit? And no, the danger is not that whites might become super conscious of race. The danger is in rejection of common culture in general.
Oh to address "why have our leaders been pushing a return to tribalism"? I think it's the mistaken notion -- or maybe it's not "mistaken" so much as a short-term notion without considering longer-term consequences -- that while we ("we" meaning "not the ruling elite" aka the 99%, aka the working class, aka the rabble, or however you want to describe it) are fighting among ourselves and focusing on who is mistreating whom, who has a slightly larger pile of stale crumbs, we ignore the bigger economic problems that would be staring us all in our faces if we all banded together.
It's also much less expensive to focus on issues like DEI (where the focus is on cheap trainings, strategic hires, words words words, and optics) than it is to address wages, education, health care, or retirement.
A return to tribalism keeps us all weak and therefore more easily managed in the short term. We're disorganized and malleable. People working two or three crappy jobs don't have time to get too politically involved. For the ruling elite it's a win-win if we-the-rabble are disorganized and not getting needed resources.
But that's only to a certain point: at some point, conditions will continue to deteriorate if leaders don't look out for the well-being of we-the-rabble.
There will be a tipping point where people become less invested in our society, not to mention desperate, where our society starts breaking down.
When the ruling elite let poverty become a bigger and bigger problem (for example, when they allow tent cities on the streets instead of dealing with the problems that lead to people living in tent cities, and trying to change those conditions) eventually you see society starting to become less stable: more murder, more smash-and-grab, more people openly selling and buying drugs, more people pooping and throwing needles on the streets, more fringe beliefs ("Trump really won"), and the response of the elite is not to use their positions of "public service" to address these big problems, but rather their response is just take care of themselves (or "move to Austin") and let everything around them go to rot. That quickly leads to a society that no one wants to live in.
The other day I got a link from a friend in Southern California, where the cops were telling tourists to stay away from LA because "they can't guarantee your safety." I wondered whether that was really true, but the fact that _it could be plausibly true_ shows you what a mess we're in. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/%E2%80%9Cwe-cant-guarantee-your-safety%E2%80%9D-head-of-lapds-police-officers-union-warns-tourists-away/ar-AARAB2e
So, in the short-term, the ruling elite's strategy makes us all weaker, which allows a very few to continue amassing resources and not address everyone else's problems. But ultimately a weak society is one that's primed for self-destruction.
I'm aware of the fact that I'm doing a lot of "we" and "they" talking here. I'd like to bring "them" (the ruling elite) into my in-group of "people who care about the long-term prospects of our society" and dialog with them, but I don't have their ears.
No doubt, the results of civic and cultural decay are on full display all around us. That is especially true in major urban areas. I think we can all agree on that. To me, there are 2 basic questions: what are the causes, and what are the solutions?
I appreciate your stated purpose for this Substack, to provide a forum for respectful discussion of issues from all sides. That is so very needed today. We constantly hear "we need to have a conversation about..." , but then there is nothing but monologue, lecturing, and hateful posturing. Curiously, this is considered to be virtuous in some circles.
You declared your far-left tendencies up front, so I expect that my thoughts on causes and solutions will be quite different from yours. I believe that history can be our guide, not to give us the answers (for if that were the case, we would already have a perfect society), but to show us what will happen if we continue to pursue dangerous paths that have already been well-trod.
To me, history has warned us as loudly as it can of the dangers of corporate elites aligning with groups that promote tribal grievances to gain power. In the US today, this dangerous combination is promoted on the left.
I agree with you with one small “edit” that “this dangerous combination is promoted on the [faux] left.” I don’t recognize these huge shifts as “the left” that I grew up with.
I agree it calls itself the left. I agree that many people who view the world in ways similar to me have bought into this stuff masquerading as the left, and think it’s the real thing.
And if your views are very different from mine, I sincerely appreciate and welcome your input all the more.
If we’re all engaged in this project of sense-making, “more is better” when it comes to viewpoint diversity.
In the last few years — probably ever since Trump was elected (that’s not necessarily the cause; just when I started thinking of this — I’ve started thinking we really, really need to abandon political parties and labels of all kinds. It’s not serving us well, people’s labels seem to come with pre-packaged belief structures, and people are letting their labels do their thinking for them. _Especially_ when “the other side” is viewed as evil or ignorant or just generally beyond the pale.
Then I learned that some of the Founders thought political parties were a bad idea. It’s been on my “to-do” list to read more about that but I haven’t yet. On the surface though, not having read their reasoning, I’d say parties do more harm than good.
I’ve also been feeling like our nation is just too darn big for our elected officials to advance our interests effectively (even if they wanted to, which I believe they don’t). If Sweden is a small boutique among nations, where the customer matters, the U.S. is a big ol’ messy Walmart.
Yes, I have heard many express the idea that the old parties and labels no longer represent their beliefs. I think that is true. I don't consider myself a right-winger, or even a Republican. I just see a growing danger coming from the party that calls itself Democrat, and my only goal at this point is to try to deflect our society from going down the path they seem to be pursuing at full throttle.
I’m completely with you!
Not to put words in her mouth, but I think whites becoming more conscious of race is just one example that Carina was giving of this problem (among many possible examples). The point is, if all good people want to see racism on the decline, we don't want to promote anything that forces whites into their own little in-group (due to being placed in someone else's out-group) because it doesn't end well. But yes, the bigger point still holds true -- a rejection of common culture causes problems, and it seems to be on the rise.
I think plenty of white people have already decided that.
I loved this post (and am working on a similar post for my own Substack). I have a rule for myself online: I allow all comments that are polite. This includes ideas with which I strongly disagree. I have a Facebook friend who is extremely anti-feminist (for example, he thinks that married women shouldn’t “take jobs away from men”), but so long as he is civil, I let him speak his piece. He grew up in a dysfunctional family and has dealt with poverty, unemployment, and health problems. His anti-feminism is not a great opinion to hold, to my mind, but it comes from a place of suffering, not of hatred.
A college friend gave me another terrific way to send potentially contentious conversations in a productive direction. He was a disciple of Milton Friedman, and I was (and am) a far-left Democrat. We agreed on basically nothing. But in one of our arguments, he said, “Can we agree that we both want the same goals, but we just have different ideas of how to achieve them?” That question has stayed with me, and I remind myself of it whenever “in-group vs. out-group” thinking starts to become a problem.
Thanks for starting the conversation!
Thanks, Mari! I really think we need to push this idea wherever we go!
I checked out your substack and enjoyed your post about lotteries for college admissions. Yes!
Thanks so much for subscribing--and for your comments!
Typo: I don't think Joe B is coming FROM my children ...
Thanks. I'll fix.