Tuesday, January 22, 2013

S1:E3-A More (Or Less) Tolerant World For Sale

"I am absolutely opposed to political correctness. You cannot confront hate until you have experienced it." -Jane Elliot, anti-racist/LGBT educator and activist.


In recent years, America has become trammeled by conversely disparate movements based solely on "social awareness" as opposed to any sort of change in public or private policy.

These movements tend to be operated by members of the extreme reaches of the political spectrum. They are centered motivated by one of two ideas: creating a society that is either more accepting of those outside the operator's [race/gender/sexuality/etc,] or a return to a more polarized one. While it might be considered distasteful to outright categorize which groups belong to which side, anyone with a remote understanding of political history should be able to discern which can be placed where. Many of said loosely-organized coteries have forgone traditional methods of community organizing in favor of grandstanding publicity stunts and guerrilla social activity. It need not be noted that in the over-saturated realms of mainstream media and internet communities, these actions rarely (if ever) garner meaningful attention or lead to productive discourse.

What must first be understood is that prejudice is not only fostered by, but one of the most important tools of, the Capitalist State. These attitudes are fairly openly protected and even endorsed by many members of both the ruling class and the political charlatans that represent them. Any such attitudes benefit them directly as they serve to divide the working class. A class that refuses to trust it's fellow members who share in the larger oppression of unrestrained capitalism cannot organize and cannot demand any sort of protection or constructive change. In addition, recall that societal diffraction has limited consequence for the predominantly straight white male individuals in the upper echelons of industry and government. Though there are exceptions to that generalization, we need only look at their predominant philosophies of objective morality and equitable opportunity (as exhibited by their role in neo-Imperial governance) to understand that they have no motivation to assist those who are encumbered by the same burdens they overcame.

Some are under the impression that our security and/or moral integrity as a society is under attack by the integration of those unlike them.

We'll begin with an easy example of a passive prejudicial movement that most all of us can agree has no place in a progressive world: The Westboro Baptist Church. To their credit [this is the first and last time you will ever see me use those words in that order] this cult utilizes non-violent methods of protest, which is more than can be said for many right-wing, Christian extremist organizations in the U.S. (see: The Klu Klux Klan, anti-abortion violence, and more recently The Hutaree) They instead rely on grandiose disrespect and a sensationalist media they know will pick it up to get their message across. Surely the number of people who watch WBC demonstrations and say to themselves "sure, those are folks I can jive with" are few. In fact, it could be said that they instead do quite a bit of damage to the image of those pushing for a halt to LGBT rights. But all this serves two purposes. Firstly, it further polarizes the populous via the methods and for the reasoning stated earlier. Secondly, it creates a scapegoat for the deplorable disenfranchisement of homosexuals throughout the country. Disregarding the fact that policymakers have yet to push through any definitive legislation providing even basic marriage rights to same-sex partners, many saner citizens will instead view marginal WBC members and their associates as the ones holding us back. (Interestingly enough, gay marriage approval is around twice as high than interracial marriage approval was when it passed in 1967 [1].)

Another, perhaps more precarious example, is the fight against Central and Latin American immigration into the United States. In all actuality, the best thing for a "free market" is an influx of cheap, easily exploitable labor. It is in fact cheaper to hire "illegals" [a slur we should all despise] for agricultural labor than pay for the acquisition, operation, and upkeep of contemporary farming technology! Why then, would the capital statists be against it? The answer of course is that they are not, hence the fact that we lack a single definitive piece of legislation preventing it. Despite the predominantly Austrian-Capitalist right roundly coming out in favor of closed borders and a slowing of even legal immigration, they understand that this would deal a huge blow to the industries they have (and continue to) make their fortunes by. What they have done instead is create a moral rallying point for their ideological flock to fall behind. The neo-liberal democrats in turn know that streamlining the green-card process would hurt their pocketbooks by forcing companies to pay fair wages to day laborers, and thus are content to only preserve the steady stream of refugees, not protect the individuals. In America, a First World nation, we have groups of vigilante civilians patrolling our Southern border almost 24/7! This of course is completely ineffectual; there is no plausible way to man the nearly 2,000 mile border. But we see again the same two results: Polarization of the working class via sensationalized xenophobia, and the dubbing of a whipping boy for citizen unrest in regards to unemployment and federal social spending. These people do not steal jobs from Americans; they simply save the agricultural mega-corporations (supposed "job creators") money, and in fact contribute to consumer spending levels (which is the true job-creating force.) They are not a significant drain on healthcare, education, or other governmental assistance (11 million people costing less than $11 billion in 2010 [2] out of a federal expenditure total of $3.172 trillion) because they have every incentive to fly as low under the radar as possible, or risk deportation.


But there is another side that places their vague understanding of "unmitigated freedom" over the need for an equitable politico-economic environment.

These critiques is sure to earn me the ire of fellow left-thinkers, but we will look at two liberal schools (with admittedly inconsistent interpretations) that have seen rapid growth in recent years: The marijuana anti-prohibition movement and the new brand of technology-conscious social-liberal. 

The pro-marijuana lobby has emerged as a more serious movement than ever in recent years, no longer reserved for freshmen political science students and bored, aging hippies. They have seen some of their strongest organizational power rise from the neo-libertarians who are themselves finding strength primarily through the internet and social media. While the candidates who represent these individuals should not be classified as such (they share much more in common with the neo-conservative mega-corporate shills and state's rights fetishizing constitutional preservationists,) their philosophy in this regard is sound within classic libertarianism: The government does not have the right to intercede in the matter of what substances a citizen chooses to put in his or her body. Despite the poor examples the American people have been granted recently, it is important to remember that true LIBERtarians do indeed belong to the left. These anti-prohibitionists take full advantage of their newfound "edgy," anti-statist image and solid foundation of young people willing to share their poorly researched, cited, and assembled propaganda across the internet. It is not that I disagree with these people (yet another topic I will touch on in a later series,) but they fail because as much as they are able to regurgitate (usually accurate, if a little hyperbolic) facts onto their doubters, they fail to grasp who and why they are fighting. Large lumber companies, in true Capitalist Statist fashion, put pressure on the federal government to make marijuana illegal starting around 1936 because hemp could make more paper than trees, cheaper. They paid off journalists to write about the "horrors" that came with it's recreational use and even produced numerous films such as the still-hilarious "Reefer Madness." But as we moved further into the 20th century, more and more practical uses emerged, and large firms holding control of industries that might benefit from it's application knew it could be disastrous to see it re-enter the market. This is why the financially ruinous War on Drugs of the early-70's continues. This is exactly why even states experimenting with decriminalized recreational use still have moratoriums on the growing of industrial hemp (though of course once they can buy from a medical distributor or other regulated source these folk's thirst for freedom seems to dry up with their cottonmouth.) But of course we again see our two consequences of passive social movement: polarization of constituencies by making those who support legalization risk being identified as soft on crime or *gasp* using drugs themselves, and a shifting of blame for prohibition onto lawmakers (both under the thumb of the capitalists and otherwise.)

Yet another waste of everybody's time we can thank social-media for: the internet PC-police. I should state first off that I am naturally much more sympathetic to these folk's attitudes. They embrace the true spirit of leftist universal-inclusion that is so lacking in the centrist modern Democratic Party. What they are lacking, similar to the examples above, is an understanding of why they must fight and an effective means of implementation. Anyone who has spent extended time on various youth-driven websites will know exactly the individuals I am talking about (if you are on twitter, check out @TumblrTXT for some real gems.) They have decided that vastly more important than tackling the structure breeding inequality is to cyber-bully everyone who does not share their unique understanding of "polite" language. Their ironclad rules are of course constantly changing, what terms are pejorative slurs one week will be proudly be used self-referentially the next. We saw this in particular last year with the term "slut," which while I agree is an ugly term, has it's applications in casual contemporary conversation. What I believe must be understood is that this is language of weakness, displaying only a lack of creativity. But to suggest that men and women who use sex to manipulate unwitting partners are being "oppressed" by such language is simply laughable. Surely there are those branded as such undeservedly, but can the same not be said about names like idiot, or psychopath, or bigot? (Some of the PC-party's favorite insults) They overlook two facts in particular: Sexist, homophobic, racist, or otherwise prejudiced vernacular always has and continues to enter the modern parlance because of a system that breeds inequality, ignorance, and indifference, and it's users are often as much a victim of said system as the group these predominantly white, upper-middle class cyber-crusaders have deemed to be offended. Secondly, that no truly obstinate individual will ever receive a passive-aggressive email from someone they share little to nothing in common with in terms of beliefs, background, or education and be suddenly struck by the realization that they are behaving intolerantly. In fact, much like the WBC, they seem more likely to scare off would-be allies, earning themselves names like "Feminazis," a term I find far more sexist, demeaning and contemptible than words like "slut" or "bitch," which can at least be argued to A) have basis in an individual's history of negative behavior and B) be so commonplace as to have been removed from their original meaning, as opposed to the former, which is used against women who have the "audacity" to stand up for their human rights. But of course the supreme irony of this movement (if we can call it that) is that in their quest for comprehensive tolerance they are in fact creating a hostile environment for those that do not share their dogmatist views of what is culturally acceptable (making them no different from those they actively revile.) Now, do I agree with most everything these folks are (on a philosophical level) striving for? Of course! Do I agree that we all must be more careful in our speech and ever-conscious of the effect our words have on others? Most definitely! Do I think that obdurate social-conservative holdouts should be exposed as such? YES! But we must be aware of how best to combat the attitudes of those we disagree with.


Passive [in]tolerance's role as a placatory structure

In every example I have presented above, we can see that there are two common flaws and two common unintended consequences.
-Flaw 1: Inert, marginalized action
Westboro Baptist Church of course knows by now that for all the hoopla they cause a few days out of the year, their numbers are not growing and they will not produce any sort of change in the minds or policy of Americans. Xenophobes and immigration-paranoid racists can never stop the thousands of innocent workers that come to the US every year to make a better life for themselves and their families. For all their huffing and puffing, anti-prohibitionists are most likely going to continue to buy pot from readily available illicit sources and take a nap. While internet warriors for justice may have the best of intentions, it is extremely rare that they will change anyone's attitudes or behaviors, much less create a more open and caring world. These groups are all inherently placatory because they serve no one but their operators, who are provided a relatively safe outlet for their beliefs.

-Flaw 2: A lack of education
If any member of WBC were allowed sufficient time to be deprogrammed and re-entered into society, perhaps even introduced to a homosexual person and taught a thing or two about the natural world (i.e. god doesn't actually cause hurricanes because he's mad two bros did it in the butt,) they would likely renounce their previously held views and feel like a royal douche. If citizens of border states understood that they have nothing to fear from Hispanic immigrants, they probably would not feel the need to ostracize or outright attack them. If anti-prohibitionists understood exactly why marijuana was and is illegal (and were equipped to shake off their spurious, trendy political messiahs), they might consider changing their tactics. If young cultural pluralists understood the origins of discrimination, they would be better equipped to put an end to it. Nothing allows for the subversion of a society more quickly or effectively than poor education and mis/disinformation. 

-Consequence 1: Polarization of the populous
This is important to remember because it has the most bearing on our immediate future. We must bear in mind that though we may loathe, fear, or simply disagree with someone, we are united in our mutual subjugation under unrestrained financial capitalism and a system that has made it clear it is no longer under our control. While it can be unpleasant hearing someone use impolite language, they perhaps are not as educated as yourself or lack the moral fortitude not to use it, and you must recall that they share equally in your greater struggle against the forces that created their prejudice. To treat them at once as the enemy does all of us a disservice.

-Consequence 2: Ordination of a mark for the diatribe of citizen unrest
This is without a doubt the most important point to take from this entry. This is the fail-safe for any placatory structure should the masses become impatient with their demands and attempt more drastic forms of social agitation; the forging of a vessel to bear the brunt of their motility. Though we are presented with many options as to the placing of blame for our multitudinous social impediments, we need only look to who benefits most to see who the true culprits are. It is undeniably, in the cases stated above (and indeed in many others,) the Capitalist Statists who stand to gain from the fracturing of the working class. From this we learn we must be ever cautious of any movement that promises alleviation of a symptom without acknowledgement of it's origin illness.

No comments:

Post a Comment