I think a significant achievement of ideological discourse by the Left is combining the principle of “Be Nice” with support for Left-of-Center politics. I think a large majority of low-information voters for the Democratic Party do so because they just think it is the nice thing to do. And anyone who does not support Left-of -Center politics is considered “not nice” regardless of how nice their behavior is in the real world.
Just go to any playground in a professional-class neighborhood, and you will hear mom’s saying to their unruly children: “Just be nice.” It is clearly part of the social code of the professional class to behave in ways that appears nice. It should not be surprise that their politics reflect that.
This is most obvious with the terms Diversity, Equity and Inclusions, which are carefully crafted to seem nice, but each have a hidden meaning that can be implemented within bureaucracies:
I remember back when I was an English major in the distant 1980s being taught this new form of textual analysis that all the cool kids were really into—it was called Deconstruction and it asked the reader/critic to keep a sharp eye out for binaries and hierarchies—male/female straight/gay black/white Western/non-Westerner being the most popular—and then point out where the author committed various bigotries and ideological crimes based on how many oppressive binaries their work included.
I remember wondering what was the purpose here, viewing literature through this very cramped political prism, only to be told eventually that the purpose was more or less "rectifying historical injustice". (I wish someone had told me before I signed up to be a Lit major that the new first purpose of all literary studies was "rectifying historical injustice"!)
And then the first purpose of the entire Humanities, from philosophy to art history to music to theater etc etc, became "rectifying historical injustice" and now it seems the first purpose of our every social endeavor, our every word and deed, must be "rectifying historical injustice".
But while I'm still in shock about how the beast called Deconstruction conquered the planet, it makes sense in retrospect. Firstly, anguishing over "historical injustice" is a form of politics designed for people who must have all their most urgent needs—safety, prosperity, etc—well met already, meaning it's perfect for the upper-middle-class college graduates who dominate the West and yet feel guilty about their status; and also, ironically, it's the perfect post-Christian blend of shame, guilt and atonement that makes intuitive moral sense to Westerners, but that removes God and metaphysics and replaces them with humans and their social and therapeutic needs.
But the one thing I Iearned from Deconstruction is that there are no brakes and no OFF switch when it comes to building our future egalitarian utopia. The entire West is in the process of being deconstructed and this project is no longer academic but political and theological. I'm starting to think that "rectifying historical injustice" really meant unraveling Western Civ all along.
I largely agree with you, although the term “goal” implies a certain amount of rationality to all of it that I do not think exists. I think that it is more accurate to say that they are driven to fulfill certain psychological needs that ultimately lead to destruction if not contained.
I go into more detail on the topic in this article:
I think of the postmodernists as the termites of civilization—gnawing at every pillar because they seem to believe that destruction equals liberation—so i would think of them pursuing any end in the same way. The termites infesting your house don't necessarily have a goal, but when a few thousand start working on your foundation together, the result is pretty obvious and inevitable.
But also there is a thread of thought that connects all radical Left movements, the idea that if whatever exists is destroyed—smash capitalism, smash patriarchy, smash the nation-state etc—then their utopia is bound to follow. And, yes, this also fulfills deep psychology needs, esp in the personal realm, where radical politics becomes a blanket excuse for any ugly behavior—I only attack/destroy/kill you in the name of a better world, "to make change" etc. Thus it becomes a magnet for all sorts of sadists, charlatans and opportunists.
Are norms of status behaviour, or civilized behaviour, ideological?
This is a fascinating philosophical question that gets at the heart of how social norms and power structures interact. Let me break this down:
First, we need to consider what we mean by "ideological." If we understand ideology as a system of ideas and beliefs that shape how people understand and act in the world, particularly in ways that relate to power relations and social organization, then there's a strong case that norms of status and "civilized" behavior are indeed ideological.
Consider how norms of "civilized" behavior often:
1. Emerged historically from specific social classes (usually upper classes) and were used to distinguish themselves from "lower" classes
2. Get naturalized - treated as if they're just "the way things are" rather than socially constructed
3. Serve to maintain existing power structures by creating barriers to social mobility (e.g., knowing which fork to use at a formal dinner)
4. Often get universalized - presented as universal standards of proper behavior rather than culturally specific practices
Pierre Bourdieu's concept of "cultural capital" is particularly relevant here. He argued that knowledge of these behavioral norms functions as a form of capital that helps reproduce social hierarchies. The ability to perform "civilized" behavior becomes a marker of class distinction that appears natural rather than arbitrary.
However, this doesn't necessarily mean these norms serve no practical function. Some norms of "civilized" behavior might facilitate social coordination or reduce conflict. The ideological aspect comes in how these norms get established, who gets to define them, and how they're used to maintain social hierarchies.
_--------------------------------
Could they not also uphold left-liberal norms of being kind to groups judged to be disadvantaged? That is, favouring historically marginalized groups over historically advantaged in everyday decisions.
You raise a very astute point. Yes, contemporary "civilized" behavior norms, particularly in progressive settings, often include expectations around showing sensitivity to marginalized groups, using preferred pronouns, avoiding certain terminology deemed offensive, and actively working to counteract historical power imbalances.
These norms function similarly to traditional status-based etiquette in several ways:
- They mark in-group/out-group status (who "gets it" vs who doesn't)
- They serve as cultural capital, particularly in certain professional and social circles
- They claim moral authority rather than just social convention
- Breaking them can lead to social sanctions
The key difference is perhaps in their explicit political orientation - traditional etiquette often naturalizes existing hierarchies while presenting itself as apolitical, whereas these progressive behavioral norms are more openly political in their aims of restructuring social relations.
However, one could argue there's a tension or irony here: these ostensibly egalitarian norms can themselves become markers of class status and educational privilege. Knowledge of the latest acceptable terminology or most nuanced theoretical understanding of oppression can function as a form of cultural capital that distinguishes "enlightened" elites from those deemed less sophisticated in their understanding of social justice.
So what do you think? Mind you, the history of my prompts are pragmatic and centrist.
Interesting discussion.
I think a significant achievement of ideological discourse by the Left is combining the principle of “Be Nice” with support for Left-of-Center politics. I think a large majority of low-information voters for the Democratic Party do so because they just think it is the nice thing to do. And anyone who does not support Left-of -Center politics is considered “not nice” regardless of how nice their behavior is in the real world.
Just go to any playground in a professional-class neighborhood, and you will hear mom’s saying to their unruly children: “Just be nice.” It is clearly part of the social code of the professional class to behave in ways that appears nice. It should not be surprise that their politics reflect that.
This is most obvious with the terms Diversity, Equity and Inclusions, which are carefully crafted to seem nice, but each have a hidden meaning that can be implemented within bureaucracies:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/understanding-diversity-equity-and
I remember back when I was an English major in the distant 1980s being taught this new form of textual analysis that all the cool kids were really into—it was called Deconstruction and it asked the reader/critic to keep a sharp eye out for binaries and hierarchies—male/female straight/gay black/white Western/non-Westerner being the most popular—and then point out where the author committed various bigotries and ideological crimes based on how many oppressive binaries their work included.
I remember wondering what was the purpose here, viewing literature through this very cramped political prism, only to be told eventually that the purpose was more or less "rectifying historical injustice". (I wish someone had told me before I signed up to be a Lit major that the new first purpose of all literary studies was "rectifying historical injustice"!)
And then the first purpose of the entire Humanities, from philosophy to art history to music to theater etc etc, became "rectifying historical injustice" and now it seems the first purpose of our every social endeavor, our every word and deed, must be "rectifying historical injustice".
But while I'm still in shock about how the beast called Deconstruction conquered the planet, it makes sense in retrospect. Firstly, anguishing over "historical injustice" is a form of politics designed for people who must have all their most urgent needs—safety, prosperity, etc—well met already, meaning it's perfect for the upper-middle-class college graduates who dominate the West and yet feel guilty about their status; and also, ironically, it's the perfect post-Christian blend of shame, guilt and atonement that makes intuitive moral sense to Westerners, but that removes God and metaphysics and replaces them with humans and their social and therapeutic needs.
But the one thing I Iearned from Deconstruction is that there are no brakes and no OFF switch when it comes to building our future egalitarian utopia. The entire West is in the process of being deconstructed and this project is no longer academic but political and theological. I'm starting to think that "rectifying historical injustice" really meant unraveling Western Civ all along.
I largely agree with you, although the term “goal” implies a certain amount of rationality to all of it that I do not think exists. I think that it is more accurate to say that they are driven to fulfill certain psychological needs that ultimately lead to destruction if not contained.
I go into more detail on the topic in this article:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/radical-ideologies-feast-on-mental
I think of the postmodernists as the termites of civilization—gnawing at every pillar because they seem to believe that destruction equals liberation—so i would think of them pursuing any end in the same way. The termites infesting your house don't necessarily have a goal, but when a few thousand start working on your foundation together, the result is pretty obvious and inevitable.
But also there is a thread of thought that connects all radical Left movements, the idea that if whatever exists is destroyed—smash capitalism, smash patriarchy, smash the nation-state etc—then their utopia is bound to follow. And, yes, this also fulfills deep psychology needs, esp in the personal realm, where radical politics becomes a blanket excuse for any ugly behavior—I only attack/destroy/kill you in the name of a better world, "to make change" etc. Thus it becomes a magnet for all sorts of sadists, charlatans and opportunists.
I asked Claude AI the same questions as you.
This is what I got:
Are norms of status behaviour, or civilized behaviour, ideological?
This is a fascinating philosophical question that gets at the heart of how social norms and power structures interact. Let me break this down:
First, we need to consider what we mean by "ideological." If we understand ideology as a system of ideas and beliefs that shape how people understand and act in the world, particularly in ways that relate to power relations and social organization, then there's a strong case that norms of status and "civilized" behavior are indeed ideological.
Consider how norms of "civilized" behavior often:
1. Emerged historically from specific social classes (usually upper classes) and were used to distinguish themselves from "lower" classes
2. Get naturalized - treated as if they're just "the way things are" rather than socially constructed
3. Serve to maintain existing power structures by creating barriers to social mobility (e.g., knowing which fork to use at a formal dinner)
4. Often get universalized - presented as universal standards of proper behavior rather than culturally specific practices
Pierre Bourdieu's concept of "cultural capital" is particularly relevant here. He argued that knowledge of these behavioral norms functions as a form of capital that helps reproduce social hierarchies. The ability to perform "civilized" behavior becomes a marker of class distinction that appears natural rather than arbitrary.
However, this doesn't necessarily mean these norms serve no practical function. Some norms of "civilized" behavior might facilitate social coordination or reduce conflict. The ideological aspect comes in how these norms get established, who gets to define them, and how they're used to maintain social hierarchies.
_--------------------------------
Could they not also uphold left-liberal norms of being kind to groups judged to be disadvantaged? That is, favouring historically marginalized groups over historically advantaged in everyday decisions.
You raise a very astute point. Yes, contemporary "civilized" behavior norms, particularly in progressive settings, often include expectations around showing sensitivity to marginalized groups, using preferred pronouns, avoiding certain terminology deemed offensive, and actively working to counteract historical power imbalances.
These norms function similarly to traditional status-based etiquette in several ways:
- They mark in-group/out-group status (who "gets it" vs who doesn't)
- They serve as cultural capital, particularly in certain professional and social circles
- They claim moral authority rather than just social convention
- Breaking them can lead to social sanctions
The key difference is perhaps in their explicit political orientation - traditional etiquette often naturalizes existing hierarchies while presenting itself as apolitical, whereas these progressive behavioral norms are more openly political in their aims of restructuring social relations.
However, one could argue there's a tension or irony here: these ostensibly egalitarian norms can themselves become markers of class status and educational privilege. Knowledge of the latest acceptable terminology or most nuanced theoretical understanding of oppression can function as a form of cultural capital that distinguishes "enlightened" elites from those deemed less sophisticated in their understanding of social justice.
So what do you think? Mind you, the history of my prompts are pragmatic and centrist.