Stray thoughts

The lexicon of social justice

I write this next chapter with some reluctance, I realise that this will be my second consecutive "inside critique" of the left. I don't want anyone to think i'm one of those "as a classical liberal, here's why the left today is evil." Nonetheless I promised myself is something was on my mind I'd put it up here for anyone who cares to read it.

An observation I have had recently is that I think when it comes to social issues many of us on the left are our own worst enemies in terms of our appeal to the general public. While of course I accept there are some nut-jobs walking around college campus's promoting silly ideas. I genuinely believe our ideas are rational, logical and humane and thus should as far as possible be implemented. However I believe we shoot ourselfs in the foot when it comes to some of the terminology we use to attempt to sell our ideas.

One clear example of this is the concept of the "trigger warning" that is so often mocked in conservative circles. Warnings about content have existed at the least for decades though I'm sure anyone who cared to do some research could find even older examples. Some warnings are even proscribed into law such as ratings on films and video games. It seems to me perfectly obvious if you are going to deal in potentially upsetting material it is only polite to give fair warning to anyone who may be affected by it. It seems absurd on the face of it to say this is obstructing conversations if a warning is being given surely once the warning is done and anyone who needs to excuse themselves does so the conservation then surely proceeds. The genuine reason I think people don't like the label is the dramatic termed "trigger." The word conjures up images of someone having a complete unreasonable breakdown. So giving a trigger warning seems to suggest that such individuals are amongst whatever group is being spoken to.

Another example is the idea of the microaggression, this error in naming is even more egregious. The name misses the point entirely if it is called an aggression the whole point of the concept is that minority groups often suffer mostly unintentional slights. To tell people that they are being somehow violent when the make these slights naturally leaves people feeling (ironically) attacked. Such an aggressive word also implies that if it is an act of violence there must be some major retaliation deserved by such an action. When really the opposite is true everyone is going to make mistakes and accidentally cause people hurt or offence and no one (at least no one reasonable) wants social interactions to turn into an endless set of word policing. The principle of the microaggression is a reasonable one but any reasonable understanding to the undiscerning is lost in translation.        

While i'm at it i'll introduce a critique of the language of intersectionality which I believe can often be harmful to political discussions. A hated trope of the left is the idea of "privileged white men." I think calling it privilege is something of a misnomer it's not a privilege to not be shot by the police because apparently your wallet looked like a gun. It's not a privilege to not get beaten up in the street because of the colour of your skin. The idea of privilege sounds more like a stick to hit straight white people with rather than seeking to empower minorities. I also detest the way that the difference between rich and poor gets thrown in with differences such as differences between feminine and masculine men. No not all privileges are the same, while i'm not a Marxist I agree that class is the main divide in society. A billionaire gay man cannot even begin to imagine the suffering of a working class straight man.

Lastly I object to the way that religion is often thrown in with things such as race and sexual orientation. While its true there is bigotry against members of different faiths which is undoubtedly wrong. Religion however is not unlike someone's race an unalterable characteristic therefore it should not be placed above criticism by making it an unquestionable characteristic. As I addressed in my previous posts religions are a series of ideas and most of the time a series of very bad ideas.

Ultimately I don't think all this matters very much I don't think the billions of triggered jokes have done any real harm to the left. I believe that eventually we will win this fight and that bigotry based on race will be as absurd as bigotry based on eyebrow shape. Nonetheless I do think we are slowing progress by failing to sell our ideas in a convincing ideas. I won't propose any alternative names for these useful concepts though but i'm sure you can think of reasonable one's right now in your head and as a society we can decide which to stick with.