Stages of moral development and political correctness

Consider, for a moment, Kohlberg's theory of moral development. I have several arguments with it, but I think it does capture a few important truths, and I think it's a useful tool for conceptualising why people adopt their moral stances.

Now, consider the way (mainly American) conservatism has framed the concept of "Political Correctness" to mean a type of group-think hewing to the party line on progressive issues.

They're right - it exists.

The fatal flaw with their argument, of course, is that this does not invalidate the stances labelled "Politically Correct", nor does it mean that everyone agreeing with those stances does so because of group-think. In terms of Kohlberg's theory, people can follow the same ethic whether they do so because of stage two moral development ("I get something out of it"), stage three development ("it's what all of us good boys and girls believe") or stage six ("It's consistent with that which is right").

Consider a possible analogy - the abolitionist movement in the States. Someone might have been an abolitionist because their spouse was one and they sought domestic harmony, because everyone in their circle thought it was a good idea and they went along with the crowd, or because they had intellectually considerd a set of ethics from which human equality genuinely derived. But pointing out that abolition was "politically correct" didn't justify slavery.

The test for these positions would be dissent, especially dissent within the ranks. Consider someone who stated that slaves were trained to be subservient and therefore very few of them could every really be freed. If you were an abolitionist for post-conventional reasons - because it was right based on your system of ethics regardless of what other people said - you might consider this proposition on its own merits and engage with it. If you were an abolitionist for conventional reasons - because it's what all good people believed, or because it's what your peer group believed in, and you were obliged to go along - then you might consider this proposition a threat and attack the person who made it or their motives for doing so.

Indeed, in the latter case, we would expect to see a certain dynamic showing up. The person making such a proposition would be vilified, and their right to speak would be questioned. If possible, it would be taken away from them (*). Their actual argument would be distorted as people reacted to what they thought he or she was standing for, rather than what he or she was actually saying. And people would engage in Two Minute Hate sessions against them to reinforce group bonds around what was Correct.

These, I submit, would be clear signs that a position was held because it was conventional for the group the person identified with rather than due to actual moral consideration, regardless of the validity of the position.

These are obvious behaviours on the wingnut sites. But the wingnuts are right - you don't have to go too far to find the same on progressive sites either.

(*) I've gone through three copies of James Carse's "Finite and Infinite Games", and now I can't find that third copy! I suspect a certain goth friend is sitting on my third copy - if he isn't, I'm going to have to go shell out another twenty or thirty bucks for yet another copy. Read up on what Carse has to say about "Evil" if you can. Hell, read the whole goddammned thing - it's an excellent book.

Conservatism, Liberalism and humour

Recently at Pharyngula, Myers started discussing the difference between conservative and liberal characters. There's one point I want to expand on here - humour.

There are two major areas of humour I'd like to consider - not the only two, but they cut a large swathe through the field of laughs. The first is subversion or category displacement. The joke teller sets up an expectation and then subverts it. They lead the audience into making unexpected mental connections. The second is that of cruelty, of inviting the audience to engage in shared derision of a target. You'll note this doesn't cover the entire spectrum - "The Aristocrats", for example, falls into neither category.

So let me suggest a crude spectrum which correlates with libralism/conservatism - that of neophilia vs neophobia. Neophilia is a liking for the new - people who enjoy learning, who enjoy ambiguity and incorporating new concepts. Neophobia is a dislike of the new - people who are made uneasy by the ambigious and resist concepts which clash with those already held.

Neophiliacs gain considerable enjoyment out of the first kind of humour mentioned above. They enjoy having their expectations subverted, being led into a constant stream of category misfirings. Neophobics do not. It makes them uneasy. They don't enjoy playing with expectations. At worst, they are unable to follow the huimour because they are unable to process new concepts fast enough. There's something happening, but they can't figure it out.

Both ends of the spectrum, however, can enjoy cruelty.

Now, consider Mallard Fillmore, that most conservative of comic strips. Its sole payoff is group identification through stereotypes and derision of "The Other". Solely. It doesn't do irony or humour as liberals understand it.

Consider Chris Muir's Day by Day. It tries, but it so often fails to get that category misfiring. But, boy, does it press the shared derision button. And the tits-and-ass factor, of course.

Consider relatively apolitical comic strips which, on my observation, have a huge following amoung liberals. Opus, for example. Or consider the politically liberal cartoons, such as Doonesbury. Or consider the Colbert Report, Jon Stewart, Bill Hicks, the whole swathe of liberal comedians. They get the vast majority of their laughs out of category misfirings - that's what satire is, and irony too, to a lesser extent.

Now, consider a recent thread at Pandagon on the vocabulary of the White House. I'm quite proud of one of those entries - "Isolating extremists", which a commentator named Cris described as "humor that hurts". That makes it a success. That's what it was supposed to do - express a sense of righteous fury by presenting an image that triggered horror and pity at the exact same time it was funny through category misfiring. The backstory is, of course, that that little Iraqi girl screaming on a concrete floor is an orphan - she's covered in the blood of her parents shot in front of her at an American checkpoint. She's about as isolated as I've ever seen another human being. You get that. I get that.

I suspect the wingnut end of the conservative grouping simply wouldn't get that. They don't play around with subverting categories - to them, I would just be poking fun at the kid. They might consider it a bit tasteless, they might consider it disgusting, but they wouldn't consider it funny.

Especially not funny in a way which allows us to demonstrate our fury at such situations.