I noted for years that in the intellectual culture, nothing about humans was allowed to be innate - except sexual orientation, which could only be innate. I hoped that people would recognise the inconsistency and think about the issues rather than just accept what was considered the proper answer.
Similarly, innate differences between groups of humans - men and women, different racial and ethnic groups, mountain people and valley people - were also not allowed. I would point out that I had always found it easier to accept that I just wasn't athletic, or just couldn't visualise spatial problems, or just wasn't coordinated enough, than to keep hearing that I had poor character and just hadn't tried hard enough, like those others who attributed their success to hard work (also likely heritable, BTW) and other virtues they could give themselves credit for. I hoped people would ponder what the real insult was, what the real cruelty was.
Such things have not worked out that way. People did see that there was a contradiction, but they doubled down on the craziness and denied the next level of reality instead.
3 comments:
It's always different when we/they do it. Even the people who claim the intent of your expression doesn't matter, only the impact on the listener, distinguish between the *good* stereotyping they do and the *bad* stereotyping their opposites do.
This is only obliquely on point, but one of the Don Camillo books has a post-script that includes the following passage:
"The present generation of Italians is made up of purists, that is, of conscientious objectors, anti-nationalists, and do-gooders. It grew up in the school of political corruption, of neo-realist films, and of the sexual-sociological literature of Left-wing writers. It is not a generation at all, but a degeneration."
And basing policies on doublethink guarantees that that they'll do a lot of damage both before and as they crash and burn.
Post a Comment