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.

On national stereotypes

Oh dear. And we were doing so well, too.

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.

2007 and everything's moving (part 1)

Okay, time to get back into this. I'm currently on holiday and, naturally enough, the weather has been crap in Wellington and, as I understand it, in most of the country. In the middle of summer.

I have a friend - let's call her the Short Dominatrix - who just went camping in the Coromandel. Seeing her yesterday, I gloated that she must have frozen her ass off. "Oh no," she chortled, "it was fine all the time. I have pictures. Including many of girls in bikinis. Wanna see them?"

I think I'm getting too predictable.

Anyhow, I picked up a few extra bookcases in an idle moment, and am in the process of sorting my collection and moving all the mediocre SF and non-fiction into the bedroom away from the gaze of those I wish to impress, or at least not to sneer at me. I am going to leave a short shelf of SF that I wouldn't mind being associated with in plain view, that which I would press on casual browsers.

So here's part 1 of what PiatoR suggests you read, assuming you can't avoid a SF geek:

i, Tim Powers, The Drawing Of The Dark - an excellent fantasy novel set at the seige of Vienna, 1529. A down-to-earth protaganist, and Arthurian themes moving in the background.

ii, Ursula Le Guin, The Lathe of Heaven - a classic. Le Guin takes on Phillip K Dick's territory with her own sensibilities.

iii, Greg Egan, Quarantine - Egan is a writer much better at short stories than novels, where his hard sf leaves readers cold. Quarantine is the exception - a story solidly grounded in a real protaganist in a believable world led step by step into Egan's flavour of high weirdness

iv, Tom Robbins, Half Asleep in Frog Pajamas - Robbins's best, IMHO.

v, S M Stirling, Drakon - Stirling is pretty contemptible as a person, and as a writer given to overwritten alt-history military sf. Passable, but others do it better (John Birmingham, for example). Drakon, however, is the exception where his talents are actually harnessed in a good story. Imagine the film "Predator 2" done intelligently...

vi, John Steakley, Armor - a story that takes the tropes of military sf, powered armor and the war against the bugs, and twists them to tell a very humanistic tale. What exactly happens to a man stuck in a war he can't survive if he refuses to die?

vii, Garfield Reeves-Stevens, Dark Matter - What at first appears to be a competent attempt at a standard serial killer novel turns weird. What if the psychopath running around gruesomely slaughtering innocents in search of some mad insight into the universe - was right? Definitely give this a try if you're into slasher fiction.

viii, Charles Stross, Sigularity Sky - a cutting edge (i.e. post-Vinge, post-cyberpunk) retake on space opera, with more than a hint of satire thrown in. The New Republic is at war with - what, exactly? They're taking the planet - how, exactly? And when their mighty war fleet confronts the Enemy - will it even notice?

ix, John Brunner, TeheCompleat Traveller in Black - classic high fantasy as it should be done. Should be read at least once by anyone who thinks they like fantasy.

x, George MacDonald Fraser, Flashman - the start of the series. Fraser mixes stories grounded in firm historical detail of the heroic or more obscure parts of the Victorian era, a quick and funny imagination, and one of the most memorable characters around. If you haven't met Lord Harry Flashman, coward, lecher and blaggard yet, do yourself a favour.

Okay, part 2 follows in a day or two.

On distilling almost 40 years of wisdom and experience into one pithy statement about the relationship between self-image, the body and the Will.

There's a hell of a difference between being a fat lazy lump and a fat lazy lump that's doing something about it, even if only in your head.

Reaching for the classics to express how you feel

FEELING FUCKED/UP

Lord she's gone done left me done packed/up and split
and I with no way to make her
come back and everywhere the world is bare
bright bone white crystal sand glistens
dope death dead dying and jiving drove
her away made her take her laughter and her smiles
and her softness and her midnight sighs—

Fuck Coltrane and music and clouds drifting in the sky
fuck the sea and trees and the sky and birds
and alligators and all the animals that roam the earth
fuck marx and mao fuck fidel and nkrumah and
democracy and communism fuck smack and pot
and red ripe tomatoes fuck joseph fuck mary fuck
god jesus and all the disciples fuck fanon nixon
and malcolm fuck the revolution fuck freedom fuck
the whole mutherfucking thing
all I want is my woman back
so my soul can sing

— Etheridge Knight

Just how stupid are Benny Hinn's followers?

Consider, for a moment, this post by Pam at Pandagon, in which Benny Hinn begs for donations for his new jet:

All major credit cards are accepted, of course. As a thank you gift, Benny will send you a “beautiful art-quality model of Dove One for your desk or mantle as a constant reminder that you are a vital part of this last-days harvest for souls,” and your name will be inscribed on Dove One — so you can fly with Benny — in spirit.

Got that? We're in the "last days" and he needs it to harvest souls.

Now, what does he brag about with regards this new jet?

…Your seed of $1,000 or more toward Dove One will reap a harvest for years. The G4SP is built to fly for decades. Imagine the harvest during all those years, and you will be a vital part of that long-term harvest!

Hmmm. We're in the "last days", with Jeebus ready to descend and levitate all the good fundies to heaven RealSoonNow - and Benny Hinn is making purchasing decisions based on the long-term viability of transportation.

Hmmm.