Like Michael Nugent (see two posts below), philosopher/atheist Russell Blackford has summed up the activities and thoughts that occupied him last year; the post, “A last reflection on 2015“, is on his Metamagician website.
Although Russell and Michael wrote their pieces independently, it’s no surprise that there’s some overlap. Both, for instance, decry rageblogging, the careless use of the term “Islamophobia,” and the pervasive censorship on college campuses. But Blackford is more concerned with the rise of the “regressive Left”: those who identify as liberals but oppose criticism of religion (especially Islam) and soft-pedal other traditional Enlightenment values like free speech.
I prefer the term “authoritarian Left,” as I’m not sure in what respect the “regressive Left” is really “regressive”; and one characteristic of that movement is its attempt to use authority and shaming to silence its critics. We should not, for instance, have to defensively reprise our opposition to bigotry and our commitment to women’s rights, gay rights and free speech every time we criticize Islam.
At any rate, Russell’s short piece is quite sensible, and I’ll offer two snippets:
But while I am of the Left in a broad sense, I’m not prepared to accept every bizarre ideological outgrowth of identity politics, every propagandist catchphrase that becomes popular (“check your privilege”, “Islamophobia“, “safe space”), or every attempt to “call out”, shame, and otherwise harm some poor individual of whom the self-righteous make a public example (usually for some minor, dubious, or imaginary transgression, or for some moderate dissent from a local party line).
It’s clear that there are regressive tendencies within the Left, especially within its academic and cultural manifestations. They include the kind of anti-science nonsense famously satirised by Alan Sokal in the 1990s. Though wounded, this form of weirdness has not completely gone away. Among other regressive tendencies, there’s too much solicitude on the Left toward religion: the kind of solicitude that leads to perfectly rational criticism of religious faith being labelled as “strident” (however mild it might actually be in tone), and that has made criticism of Islam and Islamism almost taboo in many left-wing circles. Often, too, there’s a distasteful paternalism and authoritarianism within the contemporary Left.
and
I saw an escalation of problems in about 2011 – particularly a sudden acceleration in what came to be termed call-out culture, as left-wing rage bloggers and Twitter mobs became aggressively unfair, intolerant, and savage in going after their own philosophical and social allies. This trend has only grown worse, but in 2015 it was finally acknowledged as a problem by mainstream progressive journalists.
I expect that I’ll be spending much of 2016 writing about these sorts of issues. The Left’s ongoing regressive tendencies have the effect of silencing many decent, progressive people: men and women who are justifiably afraid to offer commonsense views on a wide range of topics, from the role of religion to bioethical decisions and policies. In recent years, many individuals have confided in me about aspects of this, and why they keep a low profile on various topics. They fear being “called out”, ostracised, damaged in their careers, etc., by others whom they regard as their own people. As a result, sensible liberal views from more-or-less left-leaning thinkers are often not receiving their due weight in public discussion, creating something of a vacuum.
Here’s Russell with Felix, his bluepoint Ragdoll:
For example, abandoning the principles of free speech (after the argument had been largely won in the West), in particular abandoning the right to criticise religions. This is a regression to a previous and worse state.
Agree, Coel.
Like a pendulum regressing back, perhaps.
Criticism is the engine of progress, because it’s how we improve our ideas. People who oppose criticism of ideas are de facto opponents of progress.
+ 1
I avoid entering most web domains of the regressive left to see what is going on there, but where I do venture I find that pretty much all of their opinions would be quite tolerable as an opinions that parallel my own, or as counter-opinions that are at least worth considering and weighing, if they would only cut out the anti-free speech crap. It is the pattern of shutting down speech that they happen to disagree with to be the most offensive to me.
Let’s hope 2016 sees an academic re-examination of what a safe space is. For example, it is the place a bank puts their safe.
In 2015, we saw most of the left turn into thirteen year olds. The left needs to look at how bad it has become when they think everyone deserves a gold medal at the end of the race. Even Rush Limbaugh knows that’s a bad practice.
Not quite correct; I’d phrase it thus: “In 2015, we saw a small, but highly vocal percetage of the left turn into thirteen year olds.”
I know that there has been a lot of reporting of precious snowflakes trying to institute Thought Police level controls on campus, but how much is actually going on, and how much different is this year (past) to previous years.
It certainly appears that there has been an increase, but since our source of information is the media, who are notoriously faddish and unstable in what they think will gather more eyeball-seconds to their employer’s adverts … I automatically question if their reporting is accurate or if it has been unduly amplified for some obscure gain.
Yes.
I am sure there is much more Tw*tter mobs, say, than before simply because Tw*tter is brand new. But thereafter everything becomes uncertain, for example Tw*tter themselves recently claimed that their work against trolls have been successful – they should have the statistics.
While I did enough stats to know the truth of the old canard, I do think that Clemens provides a good starting point for the relationships between “self-serving statistics released by a corporation which put itself in a (relatively) good light, PARTICULARLY when they don’t release the raw data and definitions behind the so-called analysis”, compared to “lies” and “damned lies,” (inhale !) I’m wondering more about the effects of bandwagon reporting, and it’s cousin bandwagon-mounting in the “flash mob” of outraged snowflakes.
OTOH, Tw*er has been around for a few years now – I’ve had an account for at least a year, and check it several times a week, and I saw end-of-year bovine excrement headlines about Tw*er’s sign-up rate showing signs of plateauing, suggesting that it might be nearing maturity, and approaching the phase of having to monetise it’s users to it’s customers. (Which will bring a mighty howl of protest from precious snowflakes at their mortgaged identities being harvested. Again.)
But I still suspect that there is an over-reporting effect (which itself tends to invoke new examples) behind this trope. Remember, for an example, the scare of the early 1990s about ritual satanic abuse of children, which resulted in multiple jailings, many trials, many familes separated, and not, IIRC one confirmed case. A classic of the press (in unscripted collusion with the Police and the “Something must be done” Brigade) talking something up into a threat, based on no significant events.
I can remember people trying similar tactics to the more vocal “professional outraged snowflakes” when I was a student. Their antics would get no further than the second page of the weekly student rag (newsletter), and they’d be sneered at for being pretentious BWOs (Biohazard Waste, Onan) by their peers. Which rather damped down their disruptive effect.
Incidentally, it’s not a “Tw*er mob” ; it’s a “Flash mob”. The usage pre-dates Tw*er by at least 3 decades from the multiverse of SF, and entered mainstream usage (well, the journalist’s lexicon) in the early 1990s (before even mobile phones were common) over the loose organisation of information networks for illegal raves etc. Which culture of partying in an unsuspecting field/ warehouse etc seems to be alive and well to this day. Just not written about very often.
Excellent point.
It’s one of the first questions about any news “phenomenon”.
And to be honest, having done volunteer work for “organs of the press”, working under highly experienced journalists (an ex-newsroom chief and an ex-editor for a TV station, to name a couple), I do understand the pressures to fill the column inches you’re committed to when the material you have is a thin gruel, because the bloody readership (who are paying you to put this together) won’t send you the fucking stories that you know are out there. Ah, the joys of trying to whip the masses into political awareness! And we were preaching to the choir, who were already putting their money where our mouths were!
Oh, the visceral pleasure of receiving hand-served lawyers letters form Nestle, threatening us with “action” if we repeated our story. Nothing what so ever to do with the business of the magazine, but an off-the-shelf filler piece ; but we needed to fill the column inches!
🐾
I do not like the term “regressive left.” Its meaning can easily be interpreted or misinterpreted to mean anybody on the left of the political spectrum. I prefer the term “far left.” Those belonging to the far left need to be clearly and definitively distinguished from those whom I would I call “moderate leftists.” The latter are synonymous with the term “liberal.” The far left hates liberals with the same degree of disdain as do accomodationist and non-accommodationist atheists. What characterizes the far left is their overriding concern for whom they perceive as oppressed. Historically this has been the case for at least 100 years. Thus, the far left hasn’t regressed, it has remained in the same place it has always been. This concern for the oppressed is paramount even if it must result in the jettisoning of democracy, free speech and other Enlightenment values. Liberals, on the other hand, believe in Enlightenment values and will not reject them while trying to aid the oppressed.
One must keep in mind that in the United States at least that the far left is numerically small compared to that of the far right. Although the far left is quite vociferous (thereby enjoying the free speech they don’t particularly care about), their influence outside of perhaps college campuses is not very great. The creeping fascism of the Republican party (the party of religion) is many more times a danger to Enlightenment values than the loud but politically impotent far left. While it is certainly appropriate to challenge the far left, supporters of Enlightenment values should devote the bulk of their energy to resisting the very real danger of the far right. Those who consider themselves defenders of Enlightenment values are dupes of the right wing if they think of all leftists as synonymous with the far left. Hopefully, there aren’t many such people.
The problem with your proposed nomenclature is that it is entirely possible to be of the “far left” without exhibiting any of the PC/SJW characteristics at issue here. I have in mind in particular the traditional far left, such as hardcore Marxists and anarcho-syndicalist types.
Indeed, the problem is that the PC/SJW phenomenon does not fit easily on the traditional left/right political spectrum: its adherents are no further to the left than liberals or the “moderate left” on economic issues, and are actually to their right on the salient social issues — which is the source of our discontent here.
What you’re describing as “far left” is actually a form of “radical egalitarianism” — one that is not satisfied merely with equality of opportunity and equality under law, but insists upon equality in all outcomes, including the inherent right never to be challenged or made uncomfortable, and upon a blind deference by the rest of us to the values they espouse.
I’m trying to imagine how long the precious snowflakes under discussion here would last under the tutelage of a handful of Red Clydesiders from the UCS days. You can envisage how much they’d get chewed up and spat out by one of the gentler bunnies of the era – one Billy Connolly.
Those wank-stains aren’t left wing (except possibly in the “American language” that is spoken in the US and isn’t English). They’re pathetic.
I have a mental image of a precious snowflake falling into a bucket of red-hot rivets, before the hammer came down. It’s not a pretty sight.
When I referred to the far left I was thinking of Marxists without using the term. Some Marxists, at least, considered the fight for social justice and the end of oppression as part of the larger goal to end capitalism. Here is a quote from one Tony Cliff (1917-2000), a British Marxist:
“A revolutionary has to be extreme in opposition to all forms of oppression. A white revolutionary must be more extreme in opposing racism than a black revolutionary. A gentile revolutionary must oppose anti-Semitism more strongly than any Jew. A male revolutionary must be completely intolerant of any harassment or belittling of women. We must be the tribune of the oppressed.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/2000/millennium/chap07.htm
I would suspect that many today referred to as being in the “regressive left” and being part of its intellectual elite have little sympathy with capitalism. I could be wrong here and would change my view when confronted with compelling evidence to the contrary. But, if I am right then those people obsessed with political correctness are continuing the intellectual beliefs of at last some traditional Marxists. That is, political correctness is a tool to combat oppression and combating oppression, in turn, is a weapon to reach the ultimate goal: the end of capitalism.
Again, these people may have significant political influence in some European countries. In the United States their threat to Enlightenment values is negligible compared to the far right. They have virtually no influence in the political arena. People concerned about maintaining Enlightenment values should be worried about a possible President Trump or President Cruz. Worrying about the “regressive left” is a sideshow that plays into the hands of the real danger in the United States.
An excellent exposition, Historian. Your posts always lend intellectual weight to our discussions of social-scientific and historical topics.
I find a lot more to agree with in that paragraph from Tony Cliff than I do in most of what comes out of student organizations on campus today.
Cliff wasn’t concerned with political correctness; he wasn’t clamoring for “safe spaces” or complaining about micro-aggressions. He certainly wasn’t trying to stifle free speech (as his own ability to publish his tracts depended upon it), and he didn’t sit around in an armchair shooting insults at those he deemed insufficiently PC. He was a committed leftist of the Trotskyist/Luxemburgian school, and an activist on behalf of both social justice and the economic empowerment of the poor.
Would that more on campus were like him today, they’d be more likely to have my support (though not my agreement on all their goals) as well as my willingness (on specific issues, at least) to join with them in common cause.
Reblogged this on The Logical Place.
SUB
The problem with “regressive” is that it lacks a clearly defined, broadly accepted meaning that maps well to this context.
But “authoritarian” had its own problems in that, although some of what we object to meets that criterion (especially, the stifling of free speech and dissent), other aspects — the infantilizing insistence on “safe spaces,” the complaints over “microaggressions,” the over-solicitousness toward religion — do not.
Unfortunately, I can’t think of a term that works better than these two.
The self-righteous left. The nanny left. The arrogant left. The condescending left. The patronizing left…
I agree. Problem is, these descriptors are not unique to the PC/SJW left. The earnest left has always tended to self-righteousness. Those of us who favor things like universal health care, adequate funding of public schools, and a meaningful social safety net will always be accused of advocating for a “nanny” state. And in dealing with the unthinking, reactionary right, we can come across as arrogant, condescending and patronizing. Hell, some of that, they deserve.
Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray my soul from my fellow leftists to keep …
All of these have the problem of considering these people to be left-wing. By American standards they might be left wing, but from anywhere else in the world they’re extreme right-wingers. Which probably says more about American political rhetoric than it does about the rest of the world.
I encountered a strange denial about this authoritarian “faction” as if nonexisting, and further active attempts to pass off their brand of ideology as standard progressive or default left. They are also characteristically interested in the “prerogative of interpretation” (or interpretational hegemony) and for example quickly declare dissenters as “others” (called othering), anti-feminist, right-winger and so forth, thereby reinforcing their ideology as default left.
I complied a checklist of features that are often found:
Postmodernism
Social constructivism
Blank slate (and anti-EvoPsych)
Standpoint theory
Critical race theory (CRT)
Oppressor/oppressed dichotomy
Identity politics
Intersectionality
Right Wing Authoritarianism
Social dominance
Lived experience
Safe Space
Trigger Warning
Microaggression
Rape Culture
Patriarchy (or Kyriarchy)
Privilege
Cis gender, special pronouns
Cultural appropriation
White supremacy
Prejudice plus power
Islam accommodationism
There is a deeper connection between many of these, e.g. “lived experience” has connections to CRT, cultural appropriation, oppressor/oppressed dichotomy, standpoint theory and identity politics — because human races, genders etc are thought as groups with essentialist features, who have their distinct “reality”, which is “their own truth”, which in turn leads to “erasing their identity” when “appropriated” by some other groups. You’ll find that all of that is grounded in cliché postmodernist views, and forms of multiculturalism.
There are also surface connections, for example Kimberlé Crenshaw was part of the early CRT movement and also came up with “Intersectionality”. These people are generally listed as postmodernists, when it wasn’t obvious in their ideas.
However, the ordinary authoritarian (aka Social Justice Warrior) often has no clue about their own ideology and parrots buzzwords is otherwise characteristically engaged in what I call Combat Rhetoric: everything except argument, smearing, blocking, banning, othering, games, and mostly trying to gain (or keep) the hegemony interpretation (they = good, you = evil).
I also don’t like the “regressive left” term, and authoritarian is very apt (see Altemeyer and the review here on WEIT) — but I don’t see them as “left”. It’s more a corruption of former leftists.
That’s pretty comprehensive. Thanks.
Yes, very helpful. I’m going to have to look up standpoint theory.