I am going to avoid politics, to start, at least. So mark me, Jonathan. It is not that I do not 'get' Durkheim. but I am a Millsiean, because
Durkheim-ism sucks. It sucks diseased water buffalo dingus.
To explain, I have been reading this essay by this fairly smart PhD in Psychology, Jonathan Haidt,who wrote an essay with the core thesis, that is it the Dems who do not understand the Republicans, not the other way around. And he, near the end of his essay, employed the example of the difference between the social theory of John Stuart Mill (as ideal for Dem. social theory) to that of Emile Durkheim (as ideal for Repub. social theory.)
http://edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html
If you will allow me to be jokingly crude for a moment (it is a Sociologist's joke; I took 12 credits of Sociology in college, so I am on familiar ground here.)
Durkheim? DURKHEIM?
Eyyy!! I got yur An-o-me theory right here (grab crotch), pal.
Not that I am disparaging Durkheim. It is just that this is my view of it all. I definitely 'get' that some people prefer there to be a binding force, or overlapping binding moral ties in society. I just reject the Republican/Conservative/ Authoritarian
Judeo-Christian model as being worth any bit more to the future of our society's well being, as would the rules for the game of darts. In other words, I reject the claims/belief of divine supremacy. And with out divine supremacy, that cluster of values truly is no no more authorative than the rules for the game of darts.
Let me post a chunk from his essay:
"Drawing on Shweder's ideas, I would say that the second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way.
When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer. Conservative positions on gays, guns, god, and immigration must be understood as means to achieve one kind of morally ordered society. When Democrats try to explain away these positions using pop psychology they err, they alienate, and they earn the label "elitist." But how can Democrats learn to see—let alone respect—a moral order they regard as narrow-minded, racist, and dumb?"
Before I go into my refutation, let me say that the writer does put up an interesting argument, and does well with his example of living in rural India, and having to adjust to that town's way of life, including what they considered as right, if not moral.
Therein lies the weakness in conservative thinking. Granted I REJECT OUT OF HAND the idea that every thing they think of as being a matter of morality is that, as such. And I also reject that their religious texts/sources/tradition means more to the state of humanity than the instructions on how to open a soda. I do get it, that they believe their social mores, folkways and values are not only superior, but God-Given. And that is why I hold those mores, folkways and values in (perhaps not total but in great) contempt. Wait. That is not the right tack. It is not so much that I hold the mores, et al., in contempt but I hold the preachers, advocates and promoters of such in contempt FOR THEIR ARROGANCE! It is an inexcusable, insufferable level of arrogance to stand up and say my God is right, and my God, say this is what you must (or must not) do.
That is why I hold any flavor of "fundamentalist" in contempt. It is not the desire for the cohesion of social order, that I fault people. It is for how they do it, and the baselessness of their claim of superiority that I fault them.
Now quickly why am I a Millsean, as opposed to a Durkheimean?
Simple. Here is what the author says is at root of Millsean morality:
"Psychologists have done extensive research on the moral mechanisms that are presupposed in a Millian society, and there are two that appear to be partly innate. First, people in all cultures are emotionally responsive to suffering and harm, particularly violent harm, and so nearly all cultures have norms or laws to protect individuals and to encourage care for the most vulnerable. Second, people in all cultures are emotionally responsive to issues of fairness and reciprocity, which often expand into notions of rights and justice. Philosophical efforts to justify liberal democracies and egalitarian social contracts invariably rely heavily on intuitions about fairness and reciprocity."
My take on that is that represents the basic idea of human and social decency. That is the part we all should be able to agree on, save the psychopaths, and such similar anti social, anti human people.
The problem is that when you try to add just about anything to those two key pillars of decency, you run the risk of bringing in parochial points of view, cultural biases, religious dogma, and political bigotry. That is why I so completely reject right wing thinking. It is not even so much the shit they believe, as much is the shitty and baseless assumption that they hold that they have the answers and the authority to preach if not force their parochial, bigoted biases on anyone.
Simple, ain't it?
To explain, I have been reading this essay by this fairly smart PhD in Psychology, Jonathan Haidt,who wrote an essay with the core thesis, that is it the Dems who do not understand the Republicans, not the other way around. And he, near the end of his essay, employed the example of the difference between the social theory of John Stuart Mill (as ideal for Dem. social theory) to that of Emile Durkheim (as ideal for Repub. social theory.)
http://edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html
If you will allow me to be jokingly crude for a moment (it is a Sociologist's joke; I took 12 credits of Sociology in college, so I am on familiar ground here.)
Durkheim? DURKHEIM?
Eyyy!! I got yur An-o-me theory right here (grab crotch), pal.
Not that I am disparaging Durkheim. It is just that this is my view of it all. I definitely 'get' that some people prefer there to be a binding force, or overlapping binding moral ties in society. I just reject the Republican/Conservative/ Authoritarian
Judeo-Christian model as being worth any bit more to the future of our society's well being, as would the rules for the game of darts. In other words, I reject the claims/belief of divine supremacy. And with out divine supremacy, that cluster of values truly is no no more authorative than the rules for the game of darts.
Let me post a chunk from his essay:
"Drawing on Shweder's ideas, I would say that the second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way.
When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer. Conservative positions on gays, guns, god, and immigration must be understood as means to achieve one kind of morally ordered society. When Democrats try to explain away these positions using pop psychology they err, they alienate, and they earn the label "elitist." But how can Democrats learn to see—let alone respect—a moral order they regard as narrow-minded, racist, and dumb?"
Before I go into my refutation, let me say that the writer does put up an interesting argument, and does well with his example of living in rural India, and having to adjust to that town's way of life, including what they considered as right, if not moral.
Therein lies the weakness in conservative thinking. Granted I REJECT OUT OF HAND the idea that every thing they think of as being a matter of morality is that, as such. And I also reject that their religious texts/sources/tradition means more to the state of humanity than the instructions on how to open a soda. I do get it, that they believe their social mores, folkways and values are not only superior, but God-Given. And that is why I hold those mores, folkways and values in (perhaps not total but in great) contempt. Wait. That is not the right tack. It is not so much that I hold the mores, et al., in contempt but I hold the preachers, advocates and promoters of such in contempt FOR THEIR ARROGANCE! It is an inexcusable, insufferable level of arrogance to stand up and say my God is right, and my God, say this is what you must (or must not) do.
That is why I hold any flavor of "fundamentalist" in contempt. It is not the desire for the cohesion of social order, that I fault people. It is for how they do it, and the baselessness of their claim of superiority that I fault them.
Now quickly why am I a Millsean, as opposed to a Durkheimean?
Simple. Here is what the author says is at root of Millsean morality:
"Psychologists have done extensive research on the moral mechanisms that are presupposed in a Millian society, and there are two that appear to be partly innate. First, people in all cultures are emotionally responsive to suffering and harm, particularly violent harm, and so nearly all cultures have norms or laws to protect individuals and to encourage care for the most vulnerable. Second, people in all cultures are emotionally responsive to issues of fairness and reciprocity, which often expand into notions of rights and justice. Philosophical efforts to justify liberal democracies and egalitarian social contracts invariably rely heavily on intuitions about fairness and reciprocity."
My take on that is that represents the basic idea of human and social decency. That is the part we all should be able to agree on, save the psychopaths, and such similar anti social, anti human people.
The problem is that when you try to add just about anything to those two key pillars of decency, you run the risk of bringing in parochial points of view, cultural biases, religious dogma, and political bigotry. That is why I so completely reject right wing thinking. It is not even so much the shit they believe, as much is the shitty and baseless assumption that they hold that they have the answers and the authority to preach if not force their parochial, bigoted biases on anyone.
Simple, ain't it?
posted by Abstentus at 4:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home