Jump to content

The Sacred Beliefs of the Left


TitanTiger

Recommended Posts

The Sacred Beliefs of the Left

Posted By Rod Dreher On March 17, 2015 @ 12:04 pm In |

Here’s a fascinating essay by a Canadian progressive gay activist who uses the pseudonym Aurora Dagny [1], in which she criticizes her own side — and, as she admits, her younger self — for pursuing their goals with a zeal Dagny now finds frightening and monstrous. Excerpts:

There is something dark and vaguely cultish about this particular brand of politics. I’ve thought a lot about what exactly that is.
I’ve pinned down four core features that make it so disturbing: dogmatism, groupthink, a crusader mentality, and anti-intellectualism.
I’ll go into detail about each one of these. The following is as much a confession as it is an admonishment. I will not mention a single sin that I have not been fully and damnably guilty of in my time.

First, dogmatism. One way to define the difference between a regular belief and a sacred belief is that people who hold sacred beliefs think it is morally wrong for anyone to question those beliefs. If someone does question those beliefs, they’re not just being stupid or even depraved, they’re actively doing violence. They might as well be kicking a puppy. When people hold sacred beliefs, there is no disagreement without animosity. In this mindset, people who disagreed with my views weren’t just wrong, they were awful people. I watched what people said closely, scanning for objectionable content. Any infraction reflected badly on your character, and too many might put you on my blacklist. Calling them ‘sacred beliefs’ is a nice way to put it. What I mean to say is that they are dogmas.

Thinking this way quickly divides the world into an ingroup and an outgroup — believers and heathens, the righteous and the wrong-teous. “I hate being around un-rad people,” a friend once texted me, infuriated with their liberal roommates. Members of the ingroup are held to the same stringent standards. Every minor heresy inches you further away from the group. People are reluctant to say that anything is too radical for fear of being been seen as too un-radical. Conversely, showing your devotion to the cause earns you respect. Groupthink becomes the modus operandi. When I was part of groups like this, everyone was on exactly the same page about a suspiciously large range of issues. Internal disagreement was rare. The insular community served as an incubator of extreme, irrational views.

High on their own supply, activists in these organizing circles end up developing a crusader mentality: an extreme self-righteousness based on the conviction that they are doing the secular equivalent of God’s work.
It isn’t about ego or elevating oneself. In fact, the activists I knew and I tended to denigrate ourselves more than anything. It wasn’t about us, it was about the desperately needed work we were doing, it was about the people we were trying to help. The danger of the crusader mentality is that it turns the world in a battle between good and evil. Actions that would otherwise seem extreme and crazy become natural and expected. I didn’t think twice about doing a lot of things I would never do today.

Dagny talks about the “anti-intellectualism” in radical circles, an impulse the demonizes intellectual inquiry about theoretical matters.

Excerpt:

Consider otherkin, people who believe they are literally animals or magical creatures and who use the concepts and language of anti-oppressive politics to talk about themselves. I have no problem drawing my own conclusions about the lived experience of otherkin. Nobody is literally a honeybee or a dragon.
We have to assess claims about oppression based on more than just what people say about themselves. If I took the idea of the infallibility of the oppressed seriously, I would have to trust that dragons exist. That is why it’s such an unreliable guide.
(I half-expect the response, “Check your human privilege!”)

It is an ominous sign whenever a political movement dispenses with methods and approaches of gaining knowledge that are anchored to public revelation and, moreover, becomes openly hostile to them. Anti-intellectualism and a corresponding reliance on innate knowledge is one of the hallmarks of a cult or a totalitarian ideology.

If you don’t agree that a human being with a penis is not a woman, no matter what that person says, then, in the eyes of this sort of person, you are an Enemy of the People.

Read the whole thing. Interesting that the author wrote it under a false name. She’s scared of her own side.

As ridiculous as the whole Elton John vs. Dolce & Gabbana fight is, there is something important at its heart. Dolce & Gabbana are fashion icons, and have been so for a long time. They have also been openly gay. They spoke out in favor of privileging the traditional family, and against IVF. And the reaction from their own side? Prominent people saying they want to “burn,” or otherwise clear their closets of, D&G clothing, and saying that the men should have their business destroyed.

Unlike a bakery or a restaurant, Dolce & Gabbana, who are worth billions, will be fine. But the impulse that leads people to fanatically denounce them as if they were witches and this were colonial Salem is strong in our society, especially among gay rights activists and their allies. A reader sent in this essay about this kind of purity culture among progressive Evangelicals . Excerpt:

For evangelical Christians moral purity will fixate on
hedonism
(e.g., sex, drug use).

For progressive Christians moral purity will fixate on
complicity
in injustice. To be increasingly “pure” in progressive Christian circles is to become less and less complicit in injustice. Thus there is an impulse toward a more and more radical lifestyle where, eventually, you find yourself feeling that “everything is problematic.” You can’t do anything without contaminating yourself.

To be clear, I’m not judging any of this. I’m simply trying to trace out the contours of the purity culture at work among progressive Christians. Mainly because I think many progressive Christians have become burnt out by this psychology. Progressive Christians have become burnt out by the chronic anger produced by the “good vs. evil” Crusader mentality and burnt out by the chronic exhaustion of living in a world where “everything is problematic.”

For most of us, the vision of progressive Christianity–as we took up the banner of social justice–started out so hopeful and joyous.

But for far too many, in the words of Aurora, the purity culture of progressive Christianity caused it all to “metastasize into a nightmare.”

It’s just so damn exhausting. If I had the money to buy Dolce & Gabbana clothing, and I wanted to do so, I would not give a rat’s rear end that they’re gay, or what their personal beliefs are on homosexuality, gay marriage, IVF, or anything. I imagine that I don’t agree with the politics, cultural or otherwise, of the creators of many good things that I enjoy. So what? The fact that Elton John is a hysterical prig does not take away from the fact that his music — his Seventies stuff, anyway — is quite good. The joylessness and zealotry will burn itself out, I imagine, but a lot of people are going to get hurt before it does.

http://www.theameric...efs-of-the-left

Link to comment
Share on other sites





Well, I doubt this will surprise anyone, but from my perspective, that was a very overwrought polemic.

But then I don't relate to this group she is talking about. Is it aggressive gay rights people? The general term "Liberals" certainly is not appropriate. In fact, I find it highly partisan, which is not surprising considering the source.

It's unfortunate, because once you get past the "liberal bashing" the piece had some very good discussion about dogma and group think. But it was too partisan to focus on aspects of thinking that clearly apply to everyone, not just liberals.

I thought the example of a man with a penis/not a woman was unfortunate. It needlessly criticizes a very small group of people that suffer from a sexual disorder, it's scientifically ignorant, and - probably most importantly - who cares? :dunno: And why?

I don't know if this woman claims to be a former liberal - of any sort - but she sure doesn't think like one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article is a guy commenting on another article, written by a lesbian. That might be some of your confusion. But in doing so, I think it elucidates the very thing the lesbian woman is getting at...that people who can and do agree on much will still have differing perspectives on important issues. How are we going to handle that? Are we just going to shout down all the 'ungoodthinkers' or be humble enough to admit we don't know everything about a subject, even ones with which we are well acquainted? Do we leave the intellectual space for unpopular thoughts and ideas?

To use a term that has been cast by the wayside, are we going to relearn how to be tolerant of the 'other?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article is a guy commenting on another article, written by a lesbian. That might be some of your confusion. But in doing so, I think it elucidates the very thing the lesbian woman is getting at...that people who can and do agree on much will still have differing perspectives on important issues. How are we going to handle that? Are we just going to shout down all the 'ungoodthinkers' or be humble enough to admit we don't know everything about a subject, even ones with which we are well acquainted? Do we leave the intellectual space for unpopular thoughts and ideas?

To use a term that has been cast by the wayside, are we going to relearn how to be tolerant of the 'other?'

Ah, I see my mistake now. I was mixing his comments with the people he was quoting. Sorry for that.

But that explains why I though part of it was good - the parts written by the "progressive gay activist"! :rolleyes::laugh:

This greatly simplifies my take on the piece - Rod Dreher is an asshat! ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article is a guy commenting on another article, written by a lesbian. That might be some of your confusion. But in doing so, I think it elucidates the very thing the lesbian woman is getting at...that people who can and do agree on much will still have differing perspectives on important issues. How are we going to handle that? Are we just going to shout down all the 'ungoodthinkers' or be humble enough to admit we don't know everything about a subject, even ones with which we are well acquainted? Do we leave the intellectual space for unpopular thoughts and ideas?

To use a term that has been cast by the wayside, are we going to relearn how to be tolerant of the 'other?'

Well, obviously, on this forum, we are going to "shout down" the 'ungoodthinkers'. That's one of the reasons this forum exists.

Speaking for myself, I try to respect the right of others to be fundamentally different from me. Some of us deal with that better than others. I myself have struggled with it, but I think getting older helps.

The best way to deal with it in real life is to avoid those people - or at least avoid confrontational subjects.

Having said that, variety is a healthy thing. Certainly in a society but even at the species level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article is a guy commenting on another article, written by a lesbian. That might be some of your confusion. But in doing so, I think it elucidates the very thing the lesbian woman is getting at...that people who can and do agree on much will still have differing perspectives on important issues. How are we going to handle that? Are we just going to shout down all the 'ungoodthinkers' or be humble enough to admit we don't know everything about a subject, even ones with which we are well acquainted? Do we leave the intellectual space for unpopular thoughts and ideas?

To use a term that has been cast by the wayside, are we going to relearn how to be tolerant of the 'other?'

Ah, I see my mistake now. I was mixing his comments with the people he was quoting. Sorry for that.

But that explains why I though part of it was good - the parts written by the "progressive gay activist"! :rolleyes::laugh:

This greatly simplifies my take on the piece - Rod Dreher is an asshat! ;D

And I will choose to be tolerant of your wrongthink and say that I think Rod Dreher is stunningly accurate! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article is a guy commenting on another article, written by a lesbian. That might be some of your confusion. But in doing so, I think it elucidates the very thing the lesbian woman is getting at...that people who can and do agree on much will still have differing perspectives on important issues. How are we going to handle that? Are we just going to shout down all the 'ungoodthinkers' or be humble enough to admit we don't know everything about a subject, even ones with which we are well acquainted? Do we leave the intellectual space for unpopular thoughts and ideas?

To use a term that has been cast by the wayside, are we going to relearn how to be tolerant of the 'other?'

Ah, I see my mistake now. I was mixing his comments with the people he was quoting. Sorry for that.

But that explains why I though part of it was good - the parts written by the "progressive gay activist"! :rolleyes::laugh:

This greatly simplifies my take on the piece - Rod Dreher is an asshat! ;D

And I will choose to be tolerant of your wrongthink and say that I think Rod Dreher is stunningly accurate! :D

And I will continue to struggle with my seemingly futile efforts to educate you. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article is a guy commenting on another article, written by a lesbian. That might be some of your confusion. But in doing so, I think it elucidates the very thing the lesbian woman is getting at...that people who can and do agree on much will still have differing perspectives on important issues. How are we going to handle that? Are we just going to shout down all the 'ungoodthinkers' or be humble enough to admit we don't know everything about a subject, even ones with which we are well acquainted? Do we leave the intellectual space for unpopular thoughts and ideas?

To use a term that has been cast by the wayside, are we going to relearn how to be tolerant of the 'other?'

Ah, I see my mistake now. I was mixing his comments with the people he was quoting. Sorry for that.

But that explains why I though part of it was good - the parts written by the "progressive gay activist"! :rolleyes:/> :laugh:/>

This greatly simplifies my take on the piece - Rod Dreher is an asshat! ;D/>

And I will choose to be tolerant of your wrongthink and say that I think Rod Dreher is stunningly accurate! :D/>

And I will continue to struggle with my seemingly futile efforts to educate you. ;)/>

I could have bet the house on that reply. Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.mcgilldai...ng-problematic/

I’ve just said a lot of negative things. But, of course, my goal here is to do something positive. I’m cursing the darkness in the hope of seeing the light of a new day. Still, I don’t want to just criticize without offering an alternative. So, let me give a few pieces of constructive advice to anyone interested in anti-oppressive and/or leftist activism.

First, embrace humility. You may find it refreshing. Others will find it refreshing too. Be forceful, be impassioned, just don’t get too high on your own supply. Don’t drink your own kool aid. Question yourself as fiercely as you question society. :thumbsup:

Second, treat people as individuals. For instance, don’t treat every person who belongs to an oppressed group as an authoritative mouthpiece of that group as a whole. People aren’t plugged into some kind of hive mind. Treating them like they are, besides being essentialist, also leads to contradictions since, obviously, not all people agree on all things. There is no shortcut that allows you to avoid thinking for yourself about oppression simply by deferring to the judgements of others. You have to decide whose judgements you are going to trust, and that comes to the same thing as judging for yourself. This drops a huge responsibility on your lap. Grasp the nettle firmly. Accept the responsibility and hone your thinking. Notice contradictions and logical fallacies. When you hear an opinion about a kind of oppression from a member of the group that experiences it, seek out countervailing opinions from members of the same group and weigh them against each other. Don’t be afraid to have original insights. :thumbsup:

Third, learn to be diplomatic. Not everything is a war of good versus evil. Reasonable, informed, conscientious people often disagree about important ethical issues. People are going to have different conceptions of what being anti-oppressive entails, so get used to disagreement. When it comes to moral disagreements, disbelief, anger, and a sense of urgency are to be expected. They are inherent parts of moral disagreement. That’s what makes a diplomatic touch so necessary. Otherwise, everything turns into a shouting match. :thumbsup:

Fourth, take a systems approach to the political spectrum. Treat the pursuit of the best kind of society as an engineering problem. Think about specific, concrete proposals. Would they actually work? Deconflate desirability and feasibility. Refine your categories beyond simple dichotomies like capitalism/socialism or statism/anarchism. :thumbsup:

I am not going to let my disillusionment with my past activism discourage me from trying to do good in the future. If you find yourself similarly disillusioned, take heart. As long as you learn from your mistakes, no one can blame you for trying to be a good person. Don’t worry. We all get to come back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It boils down to one simple thing. government, espcially at the federal level. It is the source of all good things and the solution to every problem.

Fourth, take a systems approach to the political spectrum. Treat the pursuit of the best kind of society as an engineering problem. Think about specific, concrete proposals. Would they actually work? Deconflate desirability and feasibility. Refine your categories beyond simple dichotomies like capitalism/socialism or statism/anarchism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...