tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post2846566354499497652..comments2024-03-28T18:32:05.933-04:00Comments on bensozia: David Brooks on Nathan Heller on OberlinJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-58287985614136921952016-05-30T11:40:04.681-04:002016-05-30T11:40:04.681-04:00John, I would agree, but it is striking to me how ...John, I would agree, but it is striking to me how much my students tend to assume that, if wealth is not hereditary, that excuses all. They seem taken aback when I try to show that, to a medieval guildsman, a sans-culotte, or to Marx, Andrew Carnegie would be as bad as or worse than the Duke of Westminster. Even after detailed class discussion, many write that all the sans-culottes wanted was a fair chance to get ahead.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08993570411881726772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-87600599470237933822016-05-30T11:04:22.683-04:002016-05-30T11:04:22.683-04:00I think contemporary American conservatives miss t...I think contemporary American conservatives miss the radical, anti-hierarchy side of our Revolution, and the Enlightenment more broadly. The world that people like Benjamin Franklin and Sam Adams wanted was not just politically more equal, but also economically more equal. They equated vast wealth, especially hereditary wealth, with aristocracy, and aristocracy was what they were trying to get rid of. Obviously many American revolutionaries did not share all of this thinking, but it was important then and has been an important strain of American thinking ever since. It is absolutely not "un-American" to want to bring down the rich.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-30362976534878992362016-05-30T10:33:52.902-04:002016-05-30T10:33:52.902-04:00G., I am unconvinced. Is there a human group wher...G., I am unconvinced. Is there a human group where some are not perceived as more desirable than others, or more funny, or more generous, or faster, or better at finding Mongongo nuts? Are there human groups where some are not more "my friend" than others? Has any human society not distinguished between us and them, even without being emphatic about it? And do not all these judgments amount to statements of what is good enough?<br /><br />I'd need a pretty rigorous empirical demonstration of a society that really was absent all analogous phenomena to be convinced.<br /><br />Regardless, my understanding is all complex societies--by no means just Abrahamic ones--involve fairly emphatic hierarchies.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08993570411881726772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-19904546853092413412016-05-30T10:04:02.983-04:002016-05-30T10:04:02.983-04:00@David
"And yet it is virtually inhuman not ...@David<br /><br /><i>"And yet it is virtually inhuman not to think hierarchically of ourselves and each other, if nowhere else at least in some secret corner of our souls."</i><br /><br />I'd actually argue that it's not so much universally "human" so much as it is merely universal to the cultures which ended up becoming historically dominant. There are plenty of historical examples of non-heirarchical societies, they just overwhelmingly got conquered or otherwise marginalized by more heirarchical and militant neighbors.<br /><br />The modern world is the product of extraordinary shaping by the values of the Abrahamic faiths and the societies that produced them. We are the inheritors of their systems of patriarchy, heirarchy, and war - even as translated through countless intermediary cultures over the ages.<br /><br />Yet despite the overwhelming dominance of these values across much of the world, that doesn't make them "human" values. They are not intrinsic to our nature, but rather coincidental.<br /><br />Or rather, they <i>alone</i> are not intrinsic to our nature. Every value system ever devised, no matter how much it differs from the rest, is equally "human", equally "natural", equally "valid" in terms of identity and meaning. It's simply up to us to choose which values we are going to embrace, and which we will reject and shy away from.<br /><br />We cling to heirachy not because it is "human", but because it is by now so deeply ingrained - because we have collectively conditioned ourselves to expect it as the norm, and we unthinkingly rear our young within systems of heirarchy and instill in them the key concepts on a subconcious level, and they grow up knowing nothing else and assuming that because it is all they've ever known, it must be "right" or "natural" or "necessary" or otherwise the only valid way to go about things.<br /><br />It's not about the secret corners of our souls - it's about the culture we are part of, the culture in which we are raised, and the culture in which we raise our own children. And unless you isolate yourself in the far flung corners of the world, you can't escape said culture - you can only hope to slowly change it over time, influencing people to shift their views bit by bit.G. Velrorennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-19177295438381826642016-05-30T09:21:22.510-04:002016-05-30T09:21:22.510-04:00You've put very well a lot of what I've be...You've put very well a lot of what I've been groping toward in my thinking about the American situation. Especially, "The besetting problem of contemporary America, it it seems to me, is a sense that ordinary life just isn't good enough." When the Oberlin student says they want to work their own piece of land and live autonomously, I hear a protest against precisely that "not good enough" ethos. Most meritocracy is, after all, about getting authorities' verdict that we are "good enough," at least for this round. And the person who doesn't want to be part of that grind is ipso facto not good enough. Further, many, many people have of course internalized the ethos, and, regardless of their level of success, never think they are good enough. And still further, much of the resistance to social investment in things that benefit ordinary people, I think, comes from the feeling that ordinary people simply don't deserve it.<br /><br />Isn't the very idea of equal and inherent rights a great rejection of the meritocratic ethos? It states that all have inherent rights and a human legitimacy, whether they deserve it or not. And yet it is virtually inhuman not to think hierarchically of ourselves and each other, if nowhere else at least in some secret corner of our souls.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08993570411881726772noreply@blogger.com