If the success of MLK’s movement is to be judged by its popularity, then by that standard blm and crt are wildly successful , given that only 30 years ago a tiny handful of scholars were advocating its theoretical foundations and now it has become standard rhetoric in most universities and in many large corporations . I don’t think its languaged of incivility will persuade the opposition any more than MLK’s appeal to reason , but like that prior movement , it will grow. of its own accord among the like-minded. — Joshs

I've tried to be clear, I think the correct measure by which King or BLM should be judged is effectiveness. I'm saying BLM's methods won't work in the only way that matters - by making the US a safer and more secure place for black people. Apparently you disagree. Or maybe you don't care. Many BLM supporters just want to vent their rage and resentment against white people. Knock yourselves out.

it is my duty to resist your bullshit. — unenlightened

Absofuckinlutely, you go for it! And when your incivility has finally worn down those unknown people on the internet who just don't happen to 100% agree with you about the approach to improving the lives of our community, you can move on to that guy down the pub who reckoned Blonde on Blonde was better than Blood on the Tracks; when he's been thoroughly insulted there's still that guy with whom you disagreed about the proper pronounciation of Joaquin Phoenix.

Maybe when we're all on our own private islands standing at the edges spitting invective at each other over every disagreement we won't care so much that children are fucking dying every second of completely preventable causes 'cause we'd have those morons who thought we ought to fund the Red Cross bang to rights (when any idiot knows the solution is to fund the Red Crescent - fucking morons).

I'd post the 'People's Front of Judea' scene here, if I could. You'll just have to imagine it.

The point of civility as a duty is to act that way even when initially disinclined to do so. Far from being redundant, it only matters when you feel someone has broken that mutual social relation and you no longer feel inclined to treat them civilly as a consequence, then you fall back on your duty to do so despite such an initial disinclination. — Isaac

Then riddle me this:

Our new neighbors built a house right below us, on a slope, they cut deep into the slope. There was and still is a danger of a landslide that can destroy our house. Back when the excavation works were being done, we protested, but we were dismissed. When I pointed out to the engineer on site that digging into the slope like they intended to could cause our house to collapse, she said "Your safety is not my problem" and when I objected, she simply cut me short and said that she "isn't going to argue with me".

Now who here broke that mutual social relation? I'm sure that for the new neighbors and the engineer, it was us, because we were the ones interfering with their work.


And just so you know, the terrain is slowly sliding, it's evident.

Now who here broke that mutual social relation? I'm sure that for the new neighbors and the engineer, it was us, because we were the ones interfering with their work.

And just so you know, the terrain is slowly sliding, it's evident. — baker

You need to, very civilly, call your attorney and, probably, your own engineer. And the town engineer and building inspector.

The point is that in talking to people who would oppose a progressive cause, let's say trans rights, it isn't helpful to be overly confrontational or abusive, as the goal is to incrementally build support not further disenfranchise the naysayers. — Tom Storm

I'm certain they don't feel disenfranchized. what a strange idea. Do you know (of) anyone who opposes a "progressive cause" who feels disenfranchized?

Sure, they'll often play the victim, but I think this is a strategy on their part, rather than feeling disenfranchized.

Obviously, if it was helpful, it wouldn't be overly confrontational. But again, notice that the issue is the confrontational abuse of the other side. When you don't have the vote, you don't have justice, you don't have freedom, and those that have it are complaining that YOU are uncivil, that is manipulative bullshit in action. The incivility, confrontation and abuse starts with the oppressive society, not with those who resist it. — unenlightened

I think though that there are situations where the one in the lesser position of power loses out, no matter what they do, regardless of whether they are civil or not. If one isn't civil, those in power will refuse one on account of not being civil ("The manner of your objection can nullify your grievance"). If one is civil, those in power will ignore one.

You need to, very civilly, call your attorney and, probably, your own engineer. And the town engineer and building inspector. — T Clark

Fairy tales.

They do not respond. Maybe we were too civil.

And so you know: it's not actually possible to get a second opinion on your own. We tried that, but suddenly, they were all too busy. The moment they hear you want them for a second opinion, they don't want to have anything to do with you, or they insist that it's the other party who needs to provide such an analysis.

https://socialtextjournal.org/eleven-theses-on-civility/ — StreetlightX

3. Calls for civility seek to evade our calls for change. The accusation of incivility is a technique of depoliticization aimed at undoing collectivity. We do not need to debate civility; we need to clarify, expand, and intensify our demands.

This is where they're vulnerable, and wrong: they demand. You're not going to get anything much by demanding, and whatever you do get, will be given grudgingly and aspired to be taken away as soon as possible. You're also not going to get much from someone who you believe has done you wrong. They've done you wrong the first time around, so why on earth would they not do it a second time?!

You need to, very civilly, call your attorney and, probably, your own engineer. — T Clark

A civil engineer of course.

A civil engineer of course. — unenlightened

Of course.

I'm certain they don't feel disenfranchized. what a strange idea. Do you know (of) anyone who opposes a "progressive cause" who feels disenfranchized? — baker

I would have thought in numbers too numerous to count. Many uneducated working people who have been victims of structural changes to the economy and manufacturing, who now don't have jobs and whose towns are dying and who are being asked by the cultural Left (people they see as urban elites) to hold certain views on society and identity politics. Many of them have left Labor style politics precisely because they feel disenfranchised by what they see as stifling political correctness. As one such person said to me a couple of weeks ago, "We need jobs and housing, not gender neutral pronouns."

So the question remains; how best to facilitate cultural change, whilst recognising the disparities in education, resources, opportunity and wealth.

I would have thought in numbers too numerous to count. — Tom Storm

It's the same here in the US and I'm sure elsewhere. Good post.

"We need jobs and housing, not gender neutral pronouns." — Tom Storm

Exactly right.

Many of them have left Labor style politics precisely because they feel disenfranchised by what they see as stifling political correctness. As one such person said to me a couple of weeks ago, "We need jobs and housing, not gender neutral pronouns." — Tom Storm

Exactly. The question here is that gender neutral pronouns fix a problem which causes psychological harm to people and it's a simple fix. So why the resistance among former left-wing groups? I think it's precisely because of the attention it takes away from the real difficult to fix problems which cause a considerable degree more psychological harm. The issue of gender neutral pronouns is a nothing issue; a few people would feel better if we changed our pronouns, they start to be used more and more, gradually things will change as language always does when new generations of language users replace the older ones. That should be an end to it. That it's a big political talking point is ridiculous when people are actually starving.

But 'jobs and housing' is tired and old - it's like flares, or good music - seemingly out of fashion. Because it's been talked about and campaigned for before there's no means by which a person can stand out, declare their clique via such worn out issues.

How this relates to the OP is that the anger is so often manufactured to justify the incivility for this purpose. Incivility becomes the measure of the degree to which one is impassioned by an issue and the more one is impassioned by it, the further up the social hierarchy one is placed within these new groups.

So the question remains; how best to facilitate cultural change, whilst recognising the disparities in education, resources, opportunity and wealth. — Tom Storm

Do you think there'd still be such a need to facilitate social change if we actually addressed disparities in education, resources, opportunity and wealth?

As an example - The extensiveness of the berdache is contested, but if true, the concept (and numerous others like it) give a strong indication of a link between more egalitarian communities and greater tolerance.

Do you think there'd still be such a need to facilitate social change if we actually addressed disparities in education, resources, opportunity and wealth? — Isaac

I still believe these must be tackled, perhaps in bold new ways. It's not likely to be readily achievable for a range of reasons. The corporate sector and their media has done a good job of using identity politics against reform movements or the Left and helped to further alienate the Left's traditional supporters. Of course, the more cynical we are about politics and change, the less likely change will happen. It greatly suits the status quo for us to think it's all hopeless.

But 'jobs and housing' is tired and old - it's like flares, or good music - seemingly out of fashion. Because it's been talked about and campaigned for before there's no means by which a person can stand out, declare their clique via such worn out issues. — Isaac

That's true. Also genuine change in these areas requires hard work and $ and not just symbols.

I would have thought in numbers too numerous to count. Many uneducated working people who have been victims of structural changes to the economy and manufacturing, who now don't have jobs and whose towns are dying and who are being asked by the cultural Left (people they see as urban elites) to hold certain views on society and identity politics. Many of them have left Labor style politics precisely because they feel disenfranchised by what they see as stifling political correctness. As one such person said to me a couple of weeks ago, "We need jobs and housing, not gender neutral pronouns." — Tom Storm

When you said "people who would oppose a progressive cause" I thought only of conservatives of the right-wing variety. And they are certainly not disenfranchized.

Also, in Europe, political correctness is a thing of the right-wingers, not lefties.

So the question remains; how best to facilitate cultural change, whilst recognising the disparities in education, resources, opportunity and wealth.

But why would such change need to be facilitated? Seriously, can you explain?

One the one hand, we are force-fed the theory of evolution, and with it, the ideas that life is a struggle for survival and that only the fittest survive. But on the other hand, we're supposed to make numerous exceptions to it?!

Under democracy, there are multiple, competing ideas of what counts as "just" or "good". Under democracy, the problem can never be solved.

That's true. Also genuine change in these areas requires hard work and $ and not just symbols. — Tom Storm

But change toward what? What do you imagine as the goal of all this hard work? What is your vision of a just society?

Do you think there'd still be such a need to facilitate social change if we actually addressed disparities in education, resources, opportunity and wealth? — Isaac

Do you believe that such disparities are not justified?

the problem can never be solved. — baker

I agree. But various approaches predominate at different times. Some worse than others.

But change toward what? What do you imagine as the goal of all this hard work? What is your vision of a just society? — baker

I am not a theorist or have a vision. I hold a mix of conservative and reform based views which involve dealing with poverty, drug law reform and housing.

I am not a theorist or have a vision. — Tom Storm

If you don't know what you want or where you want to go, then how can you do anything?

But various approaches predominate at different times. — Tom Storm

Various approaches? Then how can anything be accomplished?

Do you believe that such disparities are not justified? — baker

I don't think something like justification applies to circumstances with such complex origins. I think the word applies to actions or beliefs so making such a state of affairs would not be justified, but the existence of the state of affairs is not the sort of thing that the word 'justified' meaningfully applies to.

I'd rather minimise such disparities.

In the article, incivility is firstly defined as anger, as an act of outrage. https://socialtextjournal.org/eleven-theses-on-civility/
"Incivility is anger directed at unjust civil ordering.
— Number2018

Where do you think blame and moralism fit into this act of ‘outrage’ against ‘ injustice’?

Specifically , do you think it is what Ken Gergen is critiquing as the moralistic blamefulness and indignation of identity politics? Would anger, outrage and condemnation apply if one throughly rejects the ethical foundationalism on which rightness and justice are grounded? — Joshs

In principle, our perception of the social and political realities, and the facts used in acute political debates are not directly related to our first-handed communal experience. We identify ourselves with images that in-form our reality and that simulate what is true or right. The images (in Bergson’s sense) are not primarily representative or informative. They exist in-themselves and for-themselves in the digital medium and generate what we perceive as politics. They contract, integrate, and simulate ‘all what we ever believed, valued, or fought for’; their semantic and semiotic levels are enacted and amplified by the redundancies of our affective involvements. The evolving event of the images self - regeneration and enactment is the system that continuously actualizes the construction of our social reality. As Gerden noted, identity politics contains opposite forms and dichotomy figures: incorporation and repulsion (marginalization), a victim and a persecutor, and so on. They are coexisting and working together through the synthesizing image of a savior, rescuer, expressing the primary Western ( Christian) archetype. In fact, before appearing as an anger, an act of outrage, or rhetoric of blame and moralism, the incivility is the system of images, operating the core regime of construction and re-construction of our social reality. We affectively invest images that simulate outrage based on the ethical fundamentalism. That is why identity politics is so effective and successful: it fits perfectly to the digital medium of social control.Therefore, I do not think that Ken Gerden's critique is effective. One can throughly reject the ethical foundationalism on which rightness and justice are grounded, and simultaneously and unconsciously enact identity politics on a micro-level..

Why can’t we follow Gergen’s lead and jettison the outrage in favor of a throughly relativistic approach to societal transformation? — Joshs

20 years ago, Gerden wrote: “As many propose, identity politics is reaching an impasse. No longer does it seem an effective means of securing voice, dignity and equality. More positively, however, I see significant signs of transformation in both identity politics and in social constructionism.” He wrote it 20 years ago, but identity politics is now doing better than ever, being interwoven with the processes of contemporary societal transformation.

I don't think something like justification applies to circumstances with such complex origins. I think the word applies to actions or beliefs so making such a state of affairs would not be justified, but the existence of the state of affairs is not the sort of thing that the word 'justified' meaningfully applies to.

I'd rather minimise such disparities. — Isaac

People generally believe in the just-world hypothesis, and there is evidence suggesting that such belief correlates positively with mental health.

By this hypothesis, disparities exist among people simply because the people with less income, lower education, lower socio-economic status aren't trying hard enough. In this view, solely the less successful person is to blame, and there's nothing that other people can or should do about it.

Also, it seems that most people believe that disparity is normal, a given, and not something to take any action against.


It's not clear what the motivation for reducing disparity is or should be. Do you have any ideas?

If you don't know what you want or where you want to go, then how can you do anything? — baker

I identified three areas. It is not necessary to be a theorist to make practical changes and I have seen many improvements here over the decades. But I am not willing to explore examples from my work. And, as I alluded, improvements can also be undone.

People generally believe in the just-world hypothesis, and there is evidence suggesting that such belief correlates positively with mental health. — baker

Do you have references for this? It's not something I've read any research on.

Also, it seems that most people believe that disparity is normal, a given, and not something to take any action against. — baker

Likewise for this.

It's not clear what the motivation for reducing disparity is or should be. Do you have any ideas? — baker

Well, not if your references are true, no. Most papers I've read on the subject (and more importantly my personal experience) have concluded that the more egalitarian societies are happier, and that people are generally happier around other happy people, so that would be a reason. But if it turns out that actually people are happiest when they watch others suffer in the just knowledge that they deserve everything they get then, we might as bring on the apocalypse, it should be quite the show.

Do you think there'd still be such a need to facilitate social change if we actually addressed disparities in education, resources, opportunity and wealth? — Isaac

I still believe these must be tackled, perhaps in bold new ways. It's not likely to be readily achievable for a range of reasons. — Tom Storm

What more would be needed, what more could possibly be achieved, beyond addressing "disparities in education, resources, opportunity and wealth?" That is the problem, the whole problem, and nothing but the problem. Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying.

What more would be needed, what more could possibly be achieved, beyond addressing "disparities in education, resources, opportunity and wealth?" That is the problem, the whole problem, and nothing but the problem. Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying. — T Clark

Not sure if you're asking me or Tom, but what I meant by it was directly in response to the talk about preferred pronouns. The idea being that there's a category of need which is covered by "education, resources, opportunity and wealth" (though I'd dispute 'education', but that's another story) which is universal and foundational, quite distinct from the category of basic politeness, comfort, aesthetics etc. which may be nice to have but are so tightly tied to the former that they simply follow from them (absent if the former are absent, present if the former are present).

Preferred pronouns are in the latter category. Not worth an inch of column space whilst children are starving.

Preferred pronouns are in the latter category. Not worth an inch of column space whilst children are starving. — Isaac

Yes. I agree. I also think if you take care of financial, security, and opportunity issues, the rest will take care of itself.

I also think if you take care of financial, security, and opportunity issues, the rest will take care of itself. — T Clark

Indeed, it betrays quite an ugly view of human nature to think otherwise really.

Yes. I agree. I also think if you take care of financial, security, and opportunity issues, the rest will take care of itself. — T Clark

I believe that's correct.