Institutions: Performative vs. Formative

This post is kind of a mess. I probably put more work into it than anything else I've written. It started out as 3 different posts but I felt they were all reaching toward the same idea, so I merged them. I hope it makes sense.

I.
I have not read the NYT op-ed from Senator Tom Cotton about why the military should be deployed to restore order among the riots and looting. But, like most people who have not read it, I have opinions anyway.

Apparently, this led to the highest cancellations in a single hour ever for the Times. It's even caused a schism in the editorial board.

A bad argument for the cause of the backlash would be to say that the readers are in an echo chamber and don't like hearing different opinions. I think a better argument is to understand how some people view the purpose of an editorial page.

The "old guard" believes it should present multiple viewpoints. I put myself in this category because I like being able to understand how people I disagree with think. It helps me refute their points better.

But a growing view is that an editorial page presents ideas endorsed by the newspaper. Therefore, the Cotton piece is an endorsement of the New York Times. If his argument is an Obviously Bad Idea, then it would make sense to distance yourself from the Times for endorsing such an Obviously Bad Idea.

Now that the Times has walked it back, reacting to the reaction but pretending like it was a rushed job, conservatives are calling them out for liberal pandering. But conservatives fall into the same trap. They were quick to call out publications like the Times or the Washington Post for denigrating the anti lockdown protesters for spreading the virus, while now justifying the George Floyd protests as necessary.

While it is certainly a double standard, aren't conservatives doing the same thing, conflating an explanation of a viewpoint with the publisher's endorsement? Aren't these newspapers just publishing viewpoints, helping people understand how an individual sees the two protests differently and not necessarily endorsing the hypocrisy?

We know that trust in institutions has been in decline for decades now, with people putting more faith in individuals. But institutions still matter when it comes to blame and I'm starting to see a transition in how media institutions see their role.

II.
Here's a thought: do we need major media? If all major publications disappeared tomorrow, what would happen?

There would still be journalists. They would still do writing and reporting and you would access their work through Twitter, blog posts, and YouTube. Maybe you subscribe to their newsletter or Patreon, but how much different would it be?

Do we really need newspapers at all? I say yes. The main purpose they serve right now is as gatekeepers. There is still some type of editorial standard that would be nonexistent in the absence of institutional media.

The fact that people's response was not "Did you see what Tom Cotton wrote?" and was instead "Did you see what the New York Times ran?" tells me that people still see media as an institution and expect it to serve as a gatekeeper.

But the gatekeeping was for quality journalism. That gatekeeping is starting to change and now newspapers are faced with two growing concerns.

• The Prisoner's Dilemma: The media has a nash equilibrium problem. The old guard knows that the Right Thing to Do is to be objective, informative, and fact-based. They also know that sensationalizing and partisan pandering will garner more clicks, more page views, and thus make more money. The first newspaper to defect to stories that seek to sensationalize rather than inform, will make money at the expense of everyone else.
  We're slowly seeing the effects of everyone defecting; more and more clickbait headlines. In a world with no media institutions serving as a check on one another, there will be no incentive for individual journalists to not write click bait articles.
• The Purity Dilemma. The second problem stems from the result of younger journalists conflating their views with righteousness. This growing ideology seeks purity. The antiracists want their narrative to dominate because the other side is not just wrong but harmful to minorities.
  Leaning into this direction also seems to have the effect of holding on to their most loyal readers, so there is a financial incentive as well. (Of course, I've read some news that many cancellations come from people upset about the "resignation" of James Bennett, the old guard editor who took credit for the Cotton piece.)

III.
I think about the Purity Gatekeepers of Media and can't help but be reminded of this line from Yeval Levin.

"We now think of institutions less as formative and more as performative, less as molds of our character and behavior, and more as platforms for us to stand on and be seen. And so for one arena to another in American life, we see people using institutions as stages, as a way to raise their profile or build their brand. And those kinds of institutions become much harder to trust. ..."

He says the purpose of formative institutions, which could be anything from joining the Boy Scouts to graduating from Harvard, is to form character and identity that allows you to answer a question:

"As a parent, as a neighbor, as a member of the PTA, as a member of Congress, as a CEO, what should I do in this situation? Not just what do I want, not just what would look good, but given my role here, what should I do? It is a question you ask when you take the institutions that you're part of seriously."

He says that many people don't want to be formed. They have their ideals and only want to use institutions as a platform.

I frequently see this on social media. In the wake of the George Floyd protests, everyone is quick to show their selfie from a rally, change their profile to black, or worse, link to a Robin DeAngelo book. Very few people focus on serious solutions to ending police brutality (it should go without saying that defunding the police is not a serious solution).

What's wrong with Robin DeAngelo's work? For starters, it's probably a scam. More importantly, it doesn't work (nor, unsurprisingly, does calling people "racist" work).

Study: Reading about white privilege doesn't make people any more concerned about the plight of poor black people; it just makes them less concerned about the plight of poor white people. https://t.co/VgmuMKRLa8 pic.twitter.com/5vbF5peQWM

— Steve Stewart-Williams (@SteveStuWill) June 6, 2020

I can think of no easier way to fall into the trap of Maslow's Hammer than adopting an outlook based on being against something. If you are anti blue dots, you're going to end up hammering some purple ones.

That's why the problem with institutions and ideologies like Antifa, Antiracism, and even No Lables, is that they define themselves by something they are not. It's a clever word game, sort of a motte and bailey. You say you are against something everyone agrees is bad, then expand your mission to something more narrow and partisan, and anyone who tries to critique you will be labeled a Nazi or racist.

IV.

Based on all available evidence, I have no reason to believe that racism, being defined as a motivation or belief, played a role in the death of Ahmaud Abrery, George Floyd, or Breonna Taylor. Better yet, I have no reason to believe that their fates would have been different if they were white.

In most instances, I see a policy or incentive failure that requires a policy or incentive solution. If it's viewed as a racism problem, people will seek anti-racist solutions, which I believe are doomed to fail.

In Against Murderism, Scott Alexander talks about a schizophrenic patient who thought Jews secretly controlled the world.

"by totally ignoring the anti-Semitic aspect, I was able to successfully treat this guy with Seroquel, whereas if you tried to read him Elie Wiesel books, he’d still be in that psych ward today."

My worry is that if the anti racism crowd controls the narrative, they will do something similar, like requiring police officers to read Ta-Nehesi Coates essays, instead of something practical, like requiring de-escalation training, banning chokeholds, requiring warnings before shooting, or any other tactic in this study that correlates with a lower rates of police shootings.

In The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdor writes:

"The results of a poll conducted May 29 and May 30 by YouGov and Yahoo News do suggest, though, that police-reform advocates can win huge victories quickly if they choose the right battles...
If activists focus on proposals such as these, they might just achieve lasting change. If they choose or are dragged into a national debate that centers the propriety of riots, or abstract attitudes about policing, or white supremacy, or critical race theory, they are far less likely to achieve the urgent reforms that could reduce the frequency of police killings and brutality."

Campaign Zero is an example of advocacy that is serious and focused. (Activist DeRay Mckesson talks about his work on the Bill Simmons Podcast.) Their website does a great job of showing which policies work and includes an interactive graphic that shows which cities use which policies.

The goal of the campaign is to reduce police killings to zero, hence the name Campaign Zero. Notice that it isn't called Racism Zero.

V.
Performative groups are really good at getting media attention, but the energy is usually too diffuse and directionless to achieve any meaningful change. In fact, it's probably better to think of them as movements than institutions.

MLK was a pacifist. He practiced nonviolence, which is not anti-violence, or being against violence. Nonviolence is purposeful. It is telling someone "Do what I say or I'm going to make you hurt me."

King was able to answer Levin's question "As a Christian, as a pacifist, how do I respond to this situation?" He had a plan, he had leadership, he had a prophetic vision ("I have a dream ...").

The Founders didn't call this country Anti Britain. They had a vision for creating something better.

Today's activists have passion but they have not been formed by institutions that lead them to answer Levin's question, and largely, they lack prophetic vision. To answer Levin's question, you have to be for something.

To be fair, Robin DeAngelo's work does seem to be somewhat formative, shaping white people to be better versions of themselves. But its prescriptions lack efficacy and it falls into the trap of defining itself by what it is against, rather than painting a picture of utopia and how we can strive for it.

Black Lives Matter does seem to have a prophetic vision. It's website states "we’ve committed to struggling together and to imagining and creating a world free of anti-Blackness, where every Black person has the social, economic, and political power to thrive."

But is it a formative institution that seeks to shape people so they can answer Levin's question? I'm not sure, but I am hopeful. It has local chapters. It encourages positive things like voter registration. I guess it depends on whether the people seeking to join want to use it as a platform or as an opportunity to become a better version of themselves.

VI.
At this point, I'm sure that I sound like an institution stan, but the truth is I have been formed by nothing. I dropped out of Cub Scouts. I lost my faith in religion. I've never been affiliated with a political party. My alma mater is not a part of my identity.

Like many people in my generation, I resent the notion that I need some institution to transform me, that I need help in any way. But I keep coming back to a simple quote from David Foster Wallace's "This Is Water" speech: Everybody worships.

I believe that in the absence of formative institutions--ones with a history, some social infrastructure, a vision of a better tomorrow--people will give in to movements and performative ideologies that cater to our worst tribal impulses. They are bound to worship something.

When the media ceases to be a formative institution, it will completely devolve into tribal journalism. When higher education ceases to be a formative institution, it will devolve into performative students and activist professors.

And when important movements seeking necessary change are not led by people from formative institutions, it will attract the anarchists, looters, and performative demonstrators who lack the discipline and commitment to build a better society. It will attract the "anti" people who make it harder for the DeRay McKesson's of the world to enact change.

When more than a thousand U.S. citizens are killed by police each year, the stakes are too high to let this movement be carried by people with their own agenda.