Sometimes you see something worded so perfectly you wonder how you never saw it that clearly before. This happened when I read this blog post which asked the question: Who is responsible for your feelings?
He describes two different cultures that have different answers.
"In culture A, everyone is responsible for their own feelings. People say mean stuff all the time - teasing and jostling each other for fun and to get a rise. Occasionally someone gets upset. When that happens, there's usually no repercussions for the perpetrator. If someone gets consistently upset when the same topic is brought up, they will either eventually stop getting upset or the people around them will learn to avoid that topic. Verbally expressing anger at someone is tolerated. It is better to be honest than polite.
Respect comes from how you contribute to the shared values of the group. At work, you get respect by doing your job well. Amongst your friends you get respect for being an easy person to keep as a friend - maybe you organise events, or make everyone in the group laugh. Respect flows from action to person.
Conflict is often resolved simply and quickly - if someone has a problem with someone else, they can say so immediately and openly. They can express their anger in a hostile way if they want to. And the other party is welcome to respond in kind. At its worst, this looks like barely restrained violence. But at its best, this often looks like open, comfortable and fun goal-oriented ribbing."This sounds a lot like the culture of dignity, which I will return to in a moment. The writer continues, describing the second culture.
"In culture B, everyone is responsible for the feelings of others. At social gatherings everyone should feel safe and comfortable. After all, part of the point of having a community is to collectively care for the emotional wellbeing of the community's members. For this reason its seen as an act of violence against the community for your actions or speech to result in someone becoming upset, or if you make people feel uncomfortable or anxious. This comes with strong repercussions - the perpetrator is expected to make things right. An apology isn't necessarily good enough here - to heal the wound, the perpetrator needs to make group participants once again feel nurtured and safe in the group. If they don't do that, they are a toxic element to the group's cohesion and may no longer be welcome in the group. It is better to be polite than honest. As the saying goes, if you can't say something nice, it is better to say nothing at all.
Respect in culture B flows to you from the way you make people in the group feel. The core value of the group is "I want to feel supported and respected". In a work context, once someone has been hired they are welcome and included socially no matter how good or bad their work is. Making sure everyone feels welcome and included is held in higher regard than the work itself. 'Be someone your coworkers enjoy working with.'"Now the author reveals what is at the heart of the cancel culture debate; it's really a debate about who is responsible for your feelings. Here is a clear example of Culture B:
I sent a version of this to the editors of Vox. (I have redacted some bits that are internal to Vox and shouldn’t be aired publicly.) pic.twitter.com/splNNSMivd— Emily VanDerWerff 😎 (@emilyvdw) July 7, 2020
Emily feels unsafe working at the same business as someone who signed the same letter as someone who holds views Emily finds offensive. To Emily, her unsafe feelings are the responsibility of her employer. She is clearly more comfortable in Culture B.
II.
I knew these cultures sounded familiar and suddenly I remembered reading about the evolution of conflict resolution. It began with honor culture.
It should be noted that Cowen does not mean feminization in a pejorative sense, and the cultural change doesn't correlate 100 percent with the male/female distinction. In fact, the author of the first blog post notes that feminist Camile Paglia is a woman who actually feels more comfortable in Culture A, the one that seems more conducive to masculine, "thick skin" behavior.
It seems clear to me that the shift is a result of more women entering the workforce and capturing more cultural power. Cowen notes that among the 10 best-selling books of the decade, all have female protagonists, and the top seven are authored by women.
III.
In his assessment of this cultural change, Jonathan Haidt seems to imply that the culture of dignity is the preferable one, as the concept of having thick skin maps pretty well onto his ideas of cognitive behavior therapy, immersion therapy, and antifragility. These ideas show that, in order to overcome anxiety, one needs to be exposed to it in small, tolerable doses. But the amount of immersion necessary for each person to overcome their anxiety probably depends on their levels of neuroticism, and in some Culture A environments, the atmosphere can be overwhelming for certain people.
Let's be honest: honor, dignity, and Culture A were created and enforced by male-dominant societies. I don't think they should be deciding what is best for an increasingly egalitarian workforce. However, I do agree that walling oneself of from things that trigger anxiety will only weaken the individual, but the amount of exposure needed to adapt to anxiety-triggering actions and words varies from person to person.
But that doesn't mean that Culture B is the superior one. A complete change to a victimhood, Culture B workplace environment will eat itself whole. Or, I'm wrong and it will develop its own internal rules and norms that allow it to function properly. Either way, I agree with the author's conclusion.
II.
I knew these cultures sounded familiar and suddenly I remembered reading about the evolution of conflict resolution. It began with honor culture.
"In honor cultures, it is one’s reputation that makes one honorable or not, and one must respond aggressively to insults, aggressions, and challenges or lose honor. Not to fight back is itself a kind of moral failing, such that 'in honor cultures, people are shunned or criticized not for exacting vengeance but for failing to do so.'"It later evolved to dignity culture, which was still in place when I grew up.
"a culture of dignity is one in which public reputation is less important. Insults might provoke offense, but they no longer have the same importance as a way of establishing or destroying a reputation for bravery. It is even commendable to have “thick skin” that allows one to shrug off slights and even serious insults...
When intolerable conflicts do arise, dignity cultures prescribe direct but non-violent actions, such as negotiated compromise geared toward solving the problem (Aslani et al. 2012). Failing this, or if the offense is sufficiently severe, people are to go to the police or appeal to the courts...
But in keeping with their ethic of restraint and toleration, it is not necessarily their first resort, and they might condemn many uses of the authorities as frivolous. People might even be expected to tolerate serious but accidental personal injuries ... The ideal in dignity cultures is thus to use the courts as quickly, quietly, and rarely as possible."Finally, we have moved into the third phase, Culture B, or victimhood culture.
"Honorable people are sensitive to insult, and so they would understand that microaggressions, even if unintentional, are severe offenses that demand a serious response...
A culture of victimhood is one characterized by concern with status and sensitivity to slight, combined with a heavy reliance on third parties. People are intolerant of insults, even if unintentional, and react by bringing them to the attention of authorities or to the public at large."The transition from honor to dignity just seems like the transition from barbarism to a more civilized way of dealing with conflict. However, the transition from dignity to victimhood sounds like what Tyler Cowen means when he talks about the increasing feminization of society.
It should be noted that Cowen does not mean feminization in a pejorative sense, and the cultural change doesn't correlate 100 percent with the male/female distinction. In fact, the author of the first blog post notes that feminist Camile Paglia is a woman who actually feels more comfortable in Culture A, the one that seems more conducive to masculine, "thick skin" behavior.
It seems clear to me that the shift is a result of more women entering the workforce and capturing more cultural power. Cowen notes that among the 10 best-selling books of the decade, all have female protagonists, and the top seven are authored by women.
III.
In his assessment of this cultural change, Jonathan Haidt seems to imply that the culture of dignity is the preferable one, as the concept of having thick skin maps pretty well onto his ideas of cognitive behavior therapy, immersion therapy, and antifragility. These ideas show that, in order to overcome anxiety, one needs to be exposed to it in small, tolerable doses. But the amount of immersion necessary for each person to overcome their anxiety probably depends on their levels of neuroticism, and in some Culture A environments, the atmosphere can be overwhelming for certain people.
Let's be honest: honor, dignity, and Culture A were created and enforced by male-dominant societies. I don't think they should be deciding what is best for an increasingly egalitarian workforce. However, I do agree that walling oneself of from things that trigger anxiety will only weaken the individual, but the amount of exposure needed to adapt to anxiety-triggering actions and words varies from person to person.
But that doesn't mean that Culture B is the superior one. A complete change to a victimhood, Culture B workplace environment will eat itself whole. Or, I'm wrong and it will develop its own internal rules and norms that allow it to function properly. Either way, I agree with the author's conclusion.
"Arguing under the banner of "fighting for diversity" that culture B is the only acceptable culture is ironic and a little sad. We aren't all the same....Being nice out of obligation is like mandated consent - its impossible to achieve and it makes a liar out of everyone who tries.
I think we need to accept and allow that some workplaces will stay in the classic masculine culture A style ... Assessing culture fit at a new workplace should go both ways - during a job interview you should decide if the place you're considering working will be a good space for you to learn and grow."
IV.
All of this debate of culture raised a new question for me: Do Enlightenment Liberals, meaning the type of people who signed the Harper's letter, have the same problem as woke liberals in regards to Robin DiAngelo? In other words, because open debate and the free exchange of ideas works for them, they assume it will work for everyone else?
They appreciate free speech and exploring uncomfortable ideas because they feel it helps them reach deeper truths. But for people in Culture B, this never happens. This approach only causes unnecessary anxiety. Is Culture A failing to recognize that the benefits of free speech are never enjoyed by those in Culture B?
There is a common response from communists that, when directed to all the failed communist revolutions, they say that real communism has never been tried. Even anarcho-capitalists will say that a real free market has never been tried. I'd like to propose that real multiculturalism has never been tried.
Until now.
Most conflicts seem to be about people trying to create a space that works best for people like them. We're trying to create rules that work for everyone. We're trying to create one set of laws that apply to numerous cultures, beliefs, and behaviors.
And it's just not working. And it makes me despondent, because I really want it to work. My hope is that we can get to a point where we at least appreciate that people respond to their environments differently.
Maybe one culture cannot arise out of many cultures. Maybe the only thing that comes out of many cultures, is many cultures.
All of this debate of culture raised a new question for me: Do Enlightenment Liberals, meaning the type of people who signed the Harper's letter, have the same problem as woke liberals in regards to Robin DiAngelo? In other words, because open debate and the free exchange of ideas works for them, they assume it will work for everyone else?
They appreciate free speech and exploring uncomfortable ideas because they feel it helps them reach deeper truths. But for people in Culture B, this never happens. This approach only causes unnecessary anxiety. Is Culture A failing to recognize that the benefits of free speech are never enjoyed by those in Culture B?
There is a common response from communists that, when directed to all the failed communist revolutions, they say that real communism has never been tried. Even anarcho-capitalists will say that a real free market has never been tried. I'd like to propose that real multiculturalism has never been tried.
Until now.
Most conflicts seem to be about people trying to create a space that works best for people like them. We're trying to create rules that work for everyone. We're trying to create one set of laws that apply to numerous cultures, beliefs, and behaviors.
And it's just not working. And it makes me despondent, because I really want it to work. My hope is that we can get to a point where we at least appreciate that people respond to their environments differently.
Maybe one culture cannot arise out of many cultures. Maybe the only thing that comes out of many cultures, is many cultures.
No comments:
Post a Comment