James Kirchick has penned an important essay looking at the “victimology” hierarchy that now obsesses the politically correct left, in which:
The discussion of vital issues today has been reduced to a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors, in which the validity of one’s argument is determined not by the strength of your reasoning but by the relative worth of the immutable qualities you bring to the table…. In the game of Race, Gender, Sexuality, black beats white, woman beats man, trans beats cisgender, and gay (or, preferably, “queer”) beats straight.
In recent years, as the liberal imagination has grown to embrace new victim groups, supplementary categorical rules have been added to this list: Trans beats gay and Muslim beats black.
And this:
Like gay men, Jews have been relegated to the bottom of the progressive victim pyramid, a low ranking that has held fast in spite of the rampant bigotry and violent attacks directed at them.
And this:
The problem with these little purges, these forced incantations of the latest auto-da-fés, however, is that they never quite end, for the tumbrils always need replenishing. Like all good left-wing revolutionaries, these latter-day cultural warriors are eating their own. There is an unholy synergy existing between the notions of identity politics and the mechanisms of social media, which fused together form a concatenation that is debasing political debate. The mob-like mentality fostered by Twitter, the easy, often anonymous (and, even if a name is attached to the account, de-personalized) insulting, fosters a social pressure that aims to close discussion, not open it.
It’s well worth reading the whole thing.
More. Liberal LGBT Democratic activist Richard Rosendall on political correctness: “We do not advance the cause of justice by censorship or by claiming to be traumatized by other people’s opinions.” Admittedly, he’s addressing viciousness among LGBT activist factions. Still, real liberals defend the open exchange and debate of ideas; progressive authoritarians, not so much.
Furthermore. Heather Mac Donald, in another but related context (discussing academic “queer theory”), notes: “The search for victimhood is a quasi-religious credo that motivates and gives meaning to individual action.” This explains quite a lot.
Yes, there are continuing and awful examples of hurtful discrimination and prejudice. And yes, there has also arisen a culture of false or wildly exaggerated claims of victimization. Both can be true, which is why facts and discernment, rather than self-righteous posturing, are necessary—and thuggish attempts to shut down discussion and debate (“no platforming“) must be resisted.
28 Comments for “A Politics of Purges and Forced Incantations”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“Like gay men, Jews have been relegated to the bottom of the progressive victim pyramid, a low ranking that has held fast in spite of the rampant bigotry and violent attacks directed at them.”
Whatever the ranking of either group on “the progressive victim pyramid”, I have oft noted the similarity of the “rampant bigotry and violent [mostly verbal] attacks” directed at both in the United States, as well as the common wellsprings of those attacks. Antisemitism is deeply embedded in our history and culture, and, if I had to guess, will remain so long after bigotry aimed at gays and lesbians has faded away.
posted by Houndentenor on
There is an epidemic of faux-victimization in our culture but it’s not just on the left. It exists throughout our culture. Look at the whining that American Sniper was “snubbed” at the Oscars even though everyone following the Oscar race has known for months that the race was between Birdman and Boyhood. And if Hollywood wanted to snub a “right-wing” movie like American Sniper, why would they have made it in the first place? And why would Eastwood, long known as a libertarian-conservative, have WON best director and best picture (as a producer) two times EACH?
And if one reads any right wing media (not recommended if you already have high blood pressure) you will read no end of victimhood moaning for social conservatives who think that gay people having rights is a kind of fascism under which “Christians” (meaning only THEIR particular kind of Christian, of course, because the others aren’t TRUE Christians) are being persecuted.
So it’s all over and not just on the left, but then we’ve come to expect this kind of myopia from Stephen.
posted by Barbara on
I am still reading the article, but it’s awfully long, so it’s going to take me a while.
In the meantime I’d like to ask: why, if only 20% of people self-describe as “liberals” in the United States (something that’s been true for a long time), and if only some much smaller fraction of these people are of the rabid identity-politics sort described here – why should this be such a huge issue?
I mean, I totally agree that there are a lot of liberals who play “victim” politics – I find them annoying, too, but I have no trouble ignoring them, because they are such a small group. Why is this such a big deal?
If there’s an argument to be made, then simply make it. The great majority of people will listen, apparently – so who cares if there’s some small group that won’t?
Truly, I’m baffled by this. Is the fact that Chris Rock won’t play college campuses any longer somehow a major problem? I honestly don’t get it…..
posted by Barbara on
(I agree, too, that Twitter has taken on a disturbing “mob mentality.” I can’t see this changing, either, simply because this is what people are like, generally speaking. People in mobs really aren’t a good thing, and haven’t ever been.
The solution is to pay attention to more important things – isn’t it?)
posted by Houndentenor on
I have a varied and enjoyable twitter feed. A little bit political, a LOT musical, plus some astronomy (cool pics from Saturn’s moons and Ceres as they come in…Pluto soon!!!) and a steady supply of people’s dogs rescued from their local shelter. It’s easy enough to follow or unfollow people who are interesting and fun and ignore the crap. One thing I’ve done for awhile is to start following anyone I find interesting in an interview. Carolyn Porco (head of the Cassini probe of Saturn’s moons) for example. It’s easy to get a wide range of views and interests if you work your feed well.
posted by Barbara on
Oh, you’re absolutely right about that; didn’t mean to imply that that was ALL there was on Twitter.
I don’t follow the crazy mob stuff either….
posted by Tom Scharbach on
What I find so puzzling is that Kirchick, who often writes about the wrongheadedness of the “victim culture”, seems to be arguing that Jews and gay men aren’t accorded respect as victims. I don’t get that at all.
It is upside down and backwards. At least in the circles I run in, Jews don’t think of themselves a “victims” and neither do gay men. Like Kirchick, I check the “privileged” box. So why the long lament that we’ve fallen down the “progressive victim pyramid”? Who cares?
While I agree that Kirchick’s article is worth reading, I think Barbara’s observations are apt and on point, and it may be that the primary value of Kirchick’s article is that it reflects conservative obsessions.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
This sounds like a debate among some liberals within academia that Stephen and Kirk seem to want to use it in to tell a much larger story about how (in their mind) most liberals are following some sort of political purge (or maybe he really likes the laughably bad “Purge” movie).
Their is been quite a bit of academic research into white privilege and institutional racism in America. Agree or disagree with the research, or its theories or conclusions, but their is quite a bit of academic writing on the issue.
Serious academic research into institutionalized homophobia (or transphobia) or heterosexual privilege in America is relatively new. Remember being involved with ANY sort of academic research that dealt with sexual orientation/gender identity (even if it was not about institutionalized oppression or privilege), was generally seen as a risky, if not bad, move.
Richard Plant — as an minor example — didn’t publish his semi-autobiographical work on the Nazi war against homosexuals until 1986 (late in his academic career). Being tied to ‘gay history’ was still taboo within the 1990s. People within academia did actually publish some works in the previous decades, some better then others, but in the cutthroat realm of academia, it generally did not pay to publish about ‘those issues’.
Slowly, more and more research will come out about heterosexual privilege and institutionalized homophobia.
Yet, their is (for better or for the worse) much more research on privilege/institutionalized oppression with regards to race/color. So, it is not really like some silly (and frankly
insulting) game of ‘rock, paper, scissors’.
It is just that their their is much more academic research (analysis, commentary, etc.) on the problem of white privilege/institutionalized racism (and even male privilege and insitutionalized sexism).
posted by Jorge on
I think you just provided about half the evidence that was missing for the “so what?” question, Houndentenor.
There’s research (and theory), and there’s what happens when blithering idiots talk about research and theory. People in entertainment and politics are trying to make talking about oppression and privilege a serious cultural phenomenon, but it’s become a subcultural fad.
posted by Doug on
It’s mind blowing that Stephen cannot see that the GOP is made up of nothing but ‘victims’, old white men and evangelical christianists who want to return to the 1950’s because the believe that was the golden era.
posted by Lori Heine on
There certainly is a whole lot of projecting going on in this post. Whininess and victimology are by no means confined to the left–as others here have noted.
The social right is nothing but a writhing nest of it. How richly amusing that conservatives are still trying to claim that progressives are the only ones engaging in the sport.
The level of childishness in American politics really has plunged our political discourse to new depths.
posted by Mike Alexander on
“The social right is nothing but a writhing nest of it.”
Yep. I was going to write this long thing, but in the end, I can say it any better than that.
Note too the difference in language. All we want is to have equal rights and privileges. The Social Conservatives????
They say this:
“It’s a WAR on Christmas!!!”.
“It’s a WAR against Christians!!!”.
“It’s a WAR against religion!!!”.
“It’s a WAR against white men!!!”.
And note – The “War On Christmas” meme came to the fore, thanks to FOX News, long before the libs decided / collectively agreed the So Cons were waging a “War On Women”. Both phrases and ideas have existed for a long time, but neither had much traction until the last 15 years. All the “Wars” stem from the Culture Wars raged by Conservatives, a “war” they are slowly but surely losing.
Sorry… I’m grumpy today.
posted by Clayton on
You forgot:
It’s a WAR against marriage!
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Still, real liberals defend the open exchange and debate of ideas; progressive authoritarians, not so much.
Yup, and luckily “progressive authoritarians” are few and far between.
posted by Lori Heine on
Unless you watch MSNBC. In which case you’ll hear them all day long.
posted by Francis on
The people at MSNBC are needlessly shrill, no doubt. But I am not convinced that they are even remotely interested in making people who disagree with them vanish from the historical record. I am, of course, addressing this to a person who considers ANY kind of regulation automatically onerous, so I don’t hold out much hope that it’ll get through her thick skull.
posted by Lori Heine on
I want people who disagree with me to “vanish from the historical record?”
Wow, that’s about as histrionic as a sky full of pretty, colored rockets. Not very deep, and certainly bizarre. But very dramatic!
My skull may be thick, but the contents of yours are obviously scrambled.
posted by Lori Heine on
And as for the charming bit about my supposedly considering “ANY (capitalized for effect!) kind of regulation automatically onerous, ” I must simply let that stand in testimony to the duplicity of its author.
Anyone stupid enough to believe it deserves to live with his or her imbecility. Which is punishment enough.
posted by Francis on
The “vanish from the face of the earth” comment, fräulein Heine, was meant to highlight your highly fallacious assertion that the people at MSNBC are “authoritarian”. I don’t know where you get the idea that I am accusing you personally of wanting to put your opponents down the memory hole, but the fact that you even hold that notion, coupled with your ad hominem about my alleged duplicity, as opposed to, oh, I don’t know, actually providing any fucking evidence of a regulation you DON’T consider to be “violence”, that it is your brains which are scrambled, not mine. Anyone stupid enough to reject logic in that manner deserves to live with her imbecility. Which is punishment enough. 😉
posted by Francis on
*Correction: replace “face of the earth” with “historical record” and insert “is proof” after the comma behind violence.
posted by Jorge on
I think Mr. Kirchick has been standing too close to the fire. He’s right, of course.
I’m actually a little sympathetic to “the left’s” point of view on this one. It has been almost a year or so ago when an insurgent militia called Boko Haram kidnapped several hundred schoolgirls in Nigeria, apparently intending to sell them off as child brides. It took several weeks for this story to pick up steam in the United States and some people were rather upset about it, although in this case I believe they blamed the Nigerian government.
I can spare enough time for one sentence to say that this competed with my and this country’s ability to advocate on behalf of gay rights. I will spend more time saying the reverse. The stakes were very high and the chances of any sort of success rather low.
There is nothing wrong with asking for the support of your friends and allies. Heaven knows it’s a difficult task, there is just so much to do. But to say they should make your mission their priority is a mistake.
One time toward the end of my social work education, I said something to the effect of I have my own causes and expect to exhaust most of my time and energy on those few causes alone, and I adamantly wish everyone else well on their causes. I could tell it offended people, and I knew exactly why. I had already made my break from supporting coalition politics by then. You tell me to support your cause more than mine, I’m not going to jump through hoops to justify myself. I’m just going to say no. It is just not my calling.
I suppose I feel a little guilty over the fact that I’m mostly in the self-interest business. I would like to think that everyone answering their own calling can make the world a better place for everyone. But there are times I do not believe that. Sometimes the only thing one can do is give a small hope to people.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A legal side note: A District Court in Nebraska, as expected, ruled in favor of marriage equality this morning. Unless stayed, the order will go into effect on March 9.
The state has already filed an appeal with the 8th Circuit, and will seek an emergency stay from the court.
We’ll see how this plays out over the course of the next week.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I should add that the 8th Circuit is scheduled to hear oral arguments in combined cases from Arkansas, Missouri and South Dakota on May 11. It is possible that the 8th Circuit will fast-track this case and add it to the other three cases.
Whatever happens, circuit courts typically take 3-6 months after oral arguments to issue decisions, so it is not likely that the 8th Circuit opinion will come down before the Supreme Court decision, which is expected in late June.
We are, however, coming into the window in which we can expect the 5th Circuit to issue a decision. It will be interesting to see which side the 5th Circuit comes down on. The 5th is considered the most conservative of the circuits, but we drew a good panel, and it is possible that we’ll get a favorable decision.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Academia is — in many respects — an institution big on tradition and consistency. The bulk of the academic research on bigotry (individual/institutional) has — over the decades — been focused on race/color. That may be way — within an academic context — racism gets more attention then say, sexism or homophobia or anti-Semtism.
posted by Tom Schzrbach on
A legal update: The AP reports that the Alabama Supreme Court ordered Alabama Probate Judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The opinion is over 100 pages long, and I’m working my way through it. It looks like the Alabama Court has just set up a confrontation over the Supremacy Clause, and I expect some very interesting developments to come.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A few thoughts on the Alabama Supreme Court Alabama Supreme Court’s order:
(1) The order is in the form of a Writ of Mandamus, which is an order compelling a public official to take an action or forbear from taking an action, in this case the latter. The court went to great lengths to extend the writ to all Probate Judges in Alabama, including Judge Davis in Mobile County, who is under direct order of a federal District Court to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
(2) The order appears to set up a direct challenge under the Supremacy Clause: “As it has done for approximately two centuries, Alabama law allows for ‘marriage’ between only one man and one woman. Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to this law. Nothing in the United States Constitution alters or overrides this duty.” The court went farther than it needed to go, legally, in issuing the broad challenge. Although the Supremacy Clause is crystal clear about the application of the federal Constitution to the states, a bit of wiggle room exists around the edges (involving the effect of a federal lower-court statewide) but the court elected not to base its decision on that grounds. Instead the decision directly confronts the Supremacy Clause.
(3) The order is grounded on two legal theories. The first is a “states rights” foundation, and this is the ground on which the court issued the challenge under the Supremacy Clause. The second is an assault on the reasoning in Windsor and the application of that reasoning by federal courts around the nation to marriage equality. Most of the 100+ page opinion is devoted to refuting Windsor and the federal decisions that have followed from Windsor. The long refutation of Windsor and subsequent prompted one Alabama law professor to characterize the decision as a “brief” in the 6th Circuit cases, a political rather than legal document, and he has a point.
(4) The Birmingham News reports that a number of Probate Judges have already announced that they will no longer issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and I would expect that all (or almost all) of the Probate Judges in the 48 (of 67) counties now issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples will make similar announcements this morning. We have not yet heard anything from the Governor about the decision or his intentions with respect to enforcing the order. My guess is that the order will stop marriage equality in Alabama until after the Supreme Court decides the 6th Circuit cases.
(5) As a state Supreme Court decision interpreting the federal Constitution, the order is probably subject to direct appeal to the Supreme Court, but the path any such appeal might take isn’t clear. It is not clear to me that affected same-sex couples have the necessary standing. Probate Judges in Alabama would appear to have standing, but whether any of them will take the matter up isn’t clear, given the cost involved. If a direct appeal is sought, the first salvo is likely to be a petition for cert coupled with a request for a stay of the Alabama court’s order.
I don’t have much doubt about the eventual outcome; the Alabama Supreme Court’s order has as much chance of surviving long-term as General Pickett had of overrunning Cemetery Ridge, but we can expect a lot of smoke and cannons as this plays out.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Hmm. Let me see if I get this straight (no pun intended); ‘victimhood’ is bad, except when a white man wants to complain about how he is the real victim of racism and sexism, or a Christian wants to argue that he is the victim of a war against his rights to do whatever the heck he wants.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Heck, ‘queer theory’ is not universally beloved by everyone in academia. I known quite a few progressive and Green Party members who have voiced some complaints about some of its assumptions and conclusion.