Posts
Recently, I had a couple of people tell me that they don't believe in science because they think that science is "just theory". This seems to be a misconception about science that runs deep in our society and it's a serious problem. It seems science gets attacked from all quarters. Christian Extremists disbelieve in evolution because they think it's "just a theory". New Agers criticize science as "not having all the answers". I recently got in a political discussion with someone in which I brought up some new developments in biology and was surprised that this person simply replied, "but that's biology," as if this person thought saying that alone would suffice as a counter-argument.
This issue gets muddled with issues like alternative medicine. A typical pro-science, but anti-corporate argument I've heard is that there are good, scientifically proven, medical therapies that do not involve medications and that the pharmaceutical corporations squash them, because it would mean less money in pharmaceuticals. However, I've also heard people make an anti-science but not-necessarily-anti-corporate argument that people should use alternative therapies that have not been scientifically proven instead of scientifically proven therapies. I say "not-necessarily-anti-corporate", because there's nothing to stop big corporations from mass producing alternative therapies. That is, alternative therapies aren't necessarily anti-corporate.
But, I digress. This blog is not meant to be about alternative medicine, but simply to point out that there seems to be a prevailing anti-science attitude in just about all socio-political quarters of the American mileu that I can think of.
So, I'd like to clear something up about the term "theory" as scientists use it. In science, there is a distinction between theory and hypothesis. A hypothesis is something that a scientist proposes might be true and then designs a controlled experiment to prove or disprove. Even after a hypothesis seems to have been proven by an experiment, the experiment and results are published in the scientific community so that other scientists all over the world can attempt to reproduce the experiment. If there is a worldwide consensus among scientists that the experiment yields consistent results and that it does indeed prove that the hypothesis is true, we have a scientific fact.
However, facts don't automatically come with explanations for why they're true. All scientists know about scientific facts is that they're true, not why they're true. The experiment only proved the fact, it didn't necessarily explain it. A very simple example of this is that Galileo proved that light and heavy objects fall at the same speed by dropping objects of different masses off of a tower and noticing that they hit the ground at the same time. This did not explain why this was so. It only proved that it was so. (I myself remember reproducing this experiment in Sixth Grade science by rolling balls of different masses down a ramp.)
A theory, in science, is a proposed explanation for a fact. It differs from a hypothesis in several ways. First, while a hypothesis proposes something that might be a fact, a theory explains something that we already know to be a fact. Secondly, a hypothesis does not imply a fact, but a theory does. Wherever there's a scientific theory, there's a scientific fact, because saying that something's a theory in science implies that there's a fact to explain.
This is the case with evolution. There is both a fact and a theory of evolution. It's a scientific fact that living organisms evolve over time. Darwin's theory to explain this is the Theory of Natural Selection. Although I'm no biologist, from what I understand, this theory has been shown by biologists to be mostly true. The only difference between modern biological theories of evolution and Darwin's is that modern biologists have now discovered that genetic mutation plays a minor role along side natural selection in the evolutionary process.
While we're on the subject of Darwinism, I'd like to point out that Social Darwinism is a pseudo-science. Since it actually cropped up in Charles Darwin's day, Darwin himself was against it. (I learned this from Steven Pinker's book "The Blank Slate".) Social Darwinism is a pseudo-science for several reasons. First, because human beings are a social species and, as such, cooperation is one of our stronger evolutionary traits. Second, Social Darwinism mistakenly assumes that anything that's best for survival is an evolutionary trait and that, therefore, anyone who's better at survival must be more highly evolved (also, there's really no such thing as being more or less "highly" evolved, since evolution is not intelligent and lacks any particular goal).
A counter-example to this is that a peacock's huge tail makes it difficult to flee predators, but it makes it attractive to peahens (I should note that the term "peacock" always refers to the male of the species, the female is a peahen and the species is peafowl) and all it has to do to pass its big tail genes on is to make babies with a peahen.
Thirdly, Social Darwinism fails to see cooperation as being useful for survival. The Social Darwinist concept of a "rugged individual" is fundamentally flawed. The only person who lives without cooperating to some degree with the rest of society is a hermit and hermits are not known for having the sorts of wealth and power that Social Darwinists idealize. All success in society is due to some level of cooperation. Therefore, cooperation is a strong survival trait. Anyone who benefits much more from society than they give back is also a parasite rather than a symbiote and a healthy society will punish parasites for taking without cooperating. Only a sick society would reward parasites.
Okay... so I digress again. Sorry for the political rant (well, not really :D). (Actually, I should clarify that I'm thinking of CEO's who make way too much money as being the parasites and I'd analyze people on Welfare as people who wouldn't otherwise have a chance to contribute because they were born under-privileged -- that is I think it's also the duty of society to empower people to be able to contribute.)
The point is that scientific theories imply scientific facts and scientific facts can be proven by reproducible experiments.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Why Free Thinkers Should be Logical
More times than I would prefer, I've gotten to a strange point in political discussions with people who will say something that seems very odd to me, but which seems to be an extremely prevalent idea, particularly among radical leftists.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm basically a progressive myself and even radical in quite a few of my views (although I tend to prefer "free thinker" to "radical", because I'd rather advocate for people thinking freely than ram my own radical ideas down anyone's throats).
I'll be in a political discussion with some radical progressive and we'll both be approaching the subject with logic (which I would hope every free thinker would do). The line usually comes somewhere around the time that I or someone else in the room makes a good point that the radical leftist hasn't thought of. At this point they'll say, "well, you're using logic and logic is a product of Western culture," or something similar.
I understand that there's this concept in anthropology that different cultures at least appear to evaluate logic differently.[1]
What I realized this morning is that the concept that logic is the product of our culture is not only specious, but also a mis-evaluation of even pre-90's anthropology.
This is because no culture is logical, and Western culture is no exception. In Classical Athens, mainstream society executed Socrates for being logical. While it's true that, in the centuries to follow, Plato's Academy would become a center of logic, we can see from history that it did not stop people from being illogical. The common people never went there, and the people in power primarily wanted to rationalize their conquests and egregious behavior.
Some rulers used reason to do sensible things, like resist the urge to expand their empires, it's true. For the most part, however, logic and reason were far from central in Western culture, except among the rare intellectuals who worked seriously at being good philosophers.
Then the Christian emperors of the Constantinian dynasty co-opted what philosophy they could into Christianity, attacked those free-thinkers[2] whose logic led them to different conclusions from the Church's, and, finally, closed Plato's Academy. In short, post-Constantine Christendom did as the Classical Athenians did to Socrates: they tried to squash free-thinking and prevent free-thinkers from being truly logical. (It's impossible to be logical if people dictate to you what conclusions you should come to.)
Since then, Christendom supported only theologians who agreed with the Church (which is not logic, since, in order to be logical, one must have the freedom to come to whatever conclusions one's logic leads one to).
From Constantine to the Enlightenment, the West oppressed logic and free thinking. People who thought differently were often burned at the stake, tortured to death, or at least hanged for it. Religious wars were fought throughout Europe among different factions of Christians. Each faction thought that its way was the one, right, true, and only way and was intolerant of anyone trying to think freely (and, as I've said, free-thinking is a prerequisite for logical thinking). Galileo was threatened with torture by the Inquisition for putting logic before Church doctrine. Michael Servetus, the founder of Unitarianism, was burnt at the stake by John Calvin and others for his conclusions about scripture.
The Enlightenment finally came, and it's been a boon for free-thinking ever since. It's not like the average person ever fully embraced it, though, and I'm not sure how many people have actually known much about it. Since its inception, societies that Enlightenment philosophers tried to influence have done terrible, and I'd argue illogical, things. France had the Terror. The Americans went around massacring Native Americans, out of faith in something called "Manifest Destiny" rather than out of any logic I can see.
U.C. Berkeley cognitive scientist George Lakoff, in "Moral Politics", tells us that conservatism is not based on logic, but rather on folk beliefs. That is, conservatives often think that things should be done the way they've "traditionally" been done because that's "better". (I put "traditionally" in quotes, because I'm aware that "tradition" changes quite quickly and that there never was a time when "people always did things thus" -- but that's another story.)[3]
So, I see no way that logic has ever been integral to Western culture. Are other cultures different from Western culture? Certainly, but they're not less logical, because logic is not integral to Western culture. In fact, I doubt that logic is integral to any culture.
I see logic as an illuminating light that free-thinkers shine into their society. As I see it, true logic (which, as I've said, always has free-thinking as a prerequisite) often results in dramatic progressive political movement, simply because the illumination of logic into society enables departure--even radical departure--from illogical norms.
It seems ironic to me that my radical progressive friends would be so much against logic. Yet, logic seems to have become un-trendy and un-cool in radical progressive fashion. I think it's high time that we free-thinkers embraced it again and used it as the liberating power that it truly is, rather than attacking people for it, as if we're somehow conformists for using it when we're, almost by definition, not.
---
1 Actually, it's my understanding that around the turn of the Millennium, anthropologists discovered that certain forms of both logic and illogic are cross-cultural. I read this in "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" by Harvard cognitive scientist Steven Pinker.
Personally, some well reasoned discourse from a couple of Eastern free-thinkers comes to mind as examples of the logic used in contrast to mainstream societal assumptions. One is the Four Noble Truths from Buddhism. The Buddha started with the fairly reasonable first principal that all life is suffering and analyzed it thence to the fundamental goal of Buddhism, which is to transcend suffering. (The longer version of the sutra in which the Four Noble Truths appear goes into quite a bit of detail about the reasoning behind them.)
The Chinese philosopher and mystic Lao Tzu makes the practical argument against war that the activities of war destroy farmland and thereby bring about bad harvests. In an agrarian society, he argues, rulers would do well to avoid war in order to ensure agricultural prosperity. ("Tao Te Ching", chapter 30)
2 Well, obviously, anyone whose logic legitimately led them to exactly the conclusions that the Church wanted them to have was't persecuted--just every free-thinker whose thoughts happened to diverge from what the Church wanted.
3 Some conservatives do have their own logic and I respect their opinions. My point is that many conservatives, according to Lakoff, base their politics on folk beliefs rather than on logic. There are, of course, logical conservatives, as well.
---
1 Actually, it's my understanding that around the turn of the Millennium, anthropologists discovered that certain forms of both logic and illogic are cross-cultural. I read this in "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" by Harvard cognitive scientist Steven Pinker.
Personally, some well reasoned discourse from a couple of Eastern free-thinkers comes to mind as examples of the logic used in contrast to mainstream societal assumptions. One is the Four Noble Truths from Buddhism. The Buddha started with the fairly reasonable first principal that all life is suffering and analyzed it thence to the fundamental goal of Buddhism, which is to transcend suffering. (The longer version of the sutra in which the Four Noble Truths appear goes into quite a bit of detail about the reasoning behind them.)
The Chinese philosopher and mystic Lao Tzu makes the practical argument against war that the activities of war destroy farmland and thereby bring about bad harvests. In an agrarian society, he argues, rulers would do well to avoid war in order to ensure agricultural prosperity. ("Tao Te Ching", chapter 30)
2 Well, obviously, anyone whose logic legitimately led them to exactly the conclusions that the Church wanted them to have was't persecuted--just every free-thinker whose thoughts happened to diverge from what the Church wanted.
3 Some conservatives do have their own logic and I respect their opinions. My point is that many conservatives, according to Lakoff, base their politics on folk beliefs rather than on logic. There are, of course, logical conservatives, as well.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
How False Accusations of "Cultural Appropriation" Hurt Neopaganism
I believe in equality between everybody and everybody and respect all
cultures. I'm opposed to prejudice and can understand how minority
cultures would feel outraged by disrespectful or demeaning depictions of their cultures.
However, recently, I'm concerned about the frequency and ease with which my fellow Neopagans make what seems to me spurious and unnecessarily caustic accusations of "cultural appropriation". I've recently heard of Feri initiates being worried that working with their central God, Malek Taus, might constitute "cultural appropriation" from the Yezidi. I've heard that worshiping Greek Gods in Hindu ways or Hindu Gods in Neopagan ways might also be "cultural appropriation". Recently, a fellow Mesopotamian Semi-Reconstructionist suggested that worshiping ancient Sumerian Deities, which is the entire point of our temple, might constitute "cultural appropriation" at the expense of long dead Sumerians.
I think it's great that Neopagan members of the ethnic majority are so mindful of avoiding offending other cultures and that ethnic minorities are so strong in defending their group against racism. The problem is that true multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism, which are respectful of all cultures, are good, liberal ways of acting and I'm worried that, in trying to be liberal, the bandwagon of "cultural appropriation" in the Neopagan community is actually leading us toward conservatism and, ultimately, toward ruin.
I can definitely see how, say, Native Americans would be outraged by baseball teams with names like "Redskins". I could see how some could view this as "cultural appropriation". No multi-culturalism is gained by the team name. The name does nothing to further respect for Native Americans. In fact, it debases them.
Worse, having a baseball team named "Redskins" is sort of like having a sports team named "Kikes" or "Niggers". However, we can see that it's racist without having to bring in the accusation of "cultural appropriation".
The baseball team "The Braves" seems trickier, at first glance. It sounds respectful, since it may seem to respect Native American warriors. However, the reason why I think it's racist to Native Americans is because it's a use of an element of their culture (and a rather idealized one to boot) that has little to do with real Native American culture. The pseudo-Native American chop and chanting that its fans do is equally problematic. The real problem is that it's a caricature and, as such, seeks actually to make fun of Native Americans rather than to respect them. So, rather than being respectful multiculturalism, it's disrespectful. I think it's adequate to just say this, however, rather than to bring the concept of "cultural appropriation" into the debate.
I can also see how Native Americans would be upset over, say, new-agey self-appointed spiritual leaders who claim that some spiritual practices that they teach are Native American when they're not. Certainly, if I were to become involved with Native American spirituality I'd want something authentic. The problem there, though, is fraud. Again, I think fraud is a better accusation to make against such people than "cultural appropriation".
When it comes to Neopaganism, I find that my fellow Neopagans have, ironically, turned this branding into a sort of PC witch hunt. PCism is something that I've always been uncomfortable with in the first place. While I support most of its goals, it's conservative means to liberal ends. That is, PCism sacrifices critical thought and open debate (both critical aspects of liberalism) in order to make gains on minority issues. While fighting racism is an important part of liberalism, PCism is a form of social policing and harassment at worst and a petty way to score free points in liberal culture without doing much thinking about the issues at best.
Worse, though, the accusations of "cultural appropriation" within the Neopagan community are witches hunting witches and we'll all be the victims if it continues to escalate. Every concept in Neopaganism that I can think of (and, as I'll explain, every religious and spiritual concept I can think of) can be attacked under the "cultural appropriation" frame. Worse, as I'll explain, I see this attack as actually undermining much of our relationships with other, non-Judeo-Christian cultures, such as Hindu, African Diasporic and Native American cultures. These relationships are not only critical alliances in our political movement toward assuring that freedom of religion applies to all religions, not just Judeo-Christian ones. A cosmopolitan attitude toward these other non-Judeo-Christian groups comes from an important part of our ethos and worldview as Neopagans: that all of the Old Gods and Old Spirits of the Earth in all cultures should be revered and all the Ancient Ways, around the world, preserved. The anti "cultural appropriation" attack on Neopaganism is also an attack on these efforts, if an unwitting one.
Any Neopagan or New Ager who uses chakras or practices any form of yoga could be branded as "culturually appropriating" something Hindu. The famous Seven Goddess chant that Deena Metzger authored that has becomes so popular in the Goddess movement ("Isis, Astarte, Diana, Hecate, Demeter, Kali, Inanna") and it's God complement by an unknown author ("Neptune, Osiris, Myrddin, Manannan, Helios, Shiva, Horned One") both have Hindu Deity names in them. Should we brand this as "cultural appropriation"? (By the way, if anybody knows who did author the God chant, I'd like to know so I can give attribution.)
If we do make this charge, it would only be fair to accuse Hindus of the same. Hindus got the vadra symbol from the Ancient Greeks (it was originally a symbol of Zeus's lightning bolt). Many Hindus revere Jesus as an incarnation of Vishnu and place crosses on Vishnu altars to represent this. Should we accuse them of "cultural appropriation" on these grounds?
Currently, there's a debate in the Asatru/Heathen community between the folkish Asatru who believe that only descendents of actual Germanic peoples should practice Asatru and the non-folkish ones who believe that no one owns the Gods and that anyone who wants to be a part of the religion can be.
This bandwagon of "cultural appropriation" accusations plays right into the hands of the folkish Asatru, who could use it to claim that non-folkish Asatru are guilty of "cultural appropriation". Then again, some scholars have surmised that Norse myths such as Odin on the World Tree, Ragnarok, the misdeeds of Loki, and the resurrection of Baldur were all simply instances of Christian mythology repainted as Norse. So, if the folkish Asatru complain of "cultural appropriation", the rest of us might demand that they cease and desist from engagement with any of these tropes.
The same charge could be raised against Wiccans who worship the Celtic Deities by people of Celtic descent, or against Wiccans who worship Hecate by people of Italian, Greek or Anatolian descent. It could be raised against Roman Reconstructionists by Greeks and Anatolians, on the grounds that Hecate was Greek and Anatolian before She and that the ancient Romans "culturally appropriated" Her. It could be charged by Anatolians, who could accuse the Greeks of the same thing.
Of course, those who subscribe to the idea that Hecate was originally Egyptian or that She was always Greek could make the same charge against Anatolians.
What about the recent charge against Feri as to the "cultural appropriation" of Malek Taus, I mentioned earlier? There are so many obvious answers why it's not "cultural appropriation" that it makes me sick that we've come so far that we actually think that might be the case. Malek Taus has been a critical part of Feri at least since Victor Anderson, and the origins myth of the Feri religion say that Feri goes back thousands of years. Regardless of the historical validity of this claim or lack thereof, the myth, which Victor taught sincerely, is a part of the Feri religion. By Victor's understanding of Feri history, both Feri and Yezidi religion come from a common source.
As for historical accuracy and religion, I doubt any religion has much historical accuracy. Modern historians doubt the authenticity of any of the Gospels, for example, as being written by the apostles and many doubt that the apostles or even Jesus ever existed. Some even doubt the existence of the historical Buddha. I'd guess that every religion must navigate between historical accuracy and spiritual validity and would say that spiritual validity is more important to the practitioners of any religion.
As for Feri, much of Feri would fall apart if people tried to take out anything that they thought constituted "cultural appropriation". (Unless, of course, we accept Victor's conviction that it's actually thousands of years old.)
What's more, as much as many of us Neopagans may dislike Christianity, personally, Jews could accuse all of Christendom of cultural appropriation. They could make the same accusation against Muslims.
However, I would say that the Gods cannot be owned! People of Germanic descent don't own Freya or Thor. People of Greek descent don't own Zeus or Hermes. People of Celtic descent don't own Manannon Mac Lir.
What about the Indian computer industry? Since computers were invented in the West, we could accuse the citizens of Bangalore of "cultural appropriation" of the computer industry. Americans could accuse all other countries that have light bulbs as "culturally appropriating" an American invention.
One problem with all of this is that cultures have gotten ideas from other cultures since the beginning of time. It would be impossible to unravel who got what from where. Moreover, because just about every culture in the world got ideas from other cultures at some point, all cultures are, to some extent, multicultural.
And that brings me to my real point. The entire concept of "cultural appropriation" may seem to be a liberal concept. It seems like it's helping to combat things like racism. However, it's actually conservative. It goes directly against the liberal ideas of cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism.
It can very easily be used to serve the causes of nationalism. The Nazis could have justified their racism against Jews and Gypsies on the grounds that both groups were "culturally appropriating" German culture.
As it's being used in America, it would suggest that all white people be only white! Do we really want white people to, say, stop listening to rock and jazz? Do we really want white people in America to limit their musical experience and expression to classical and country? Should we denigrate the Nineteenth Century American folk song "Clementine" on the basis that it has a Spanish tune?
Do we really want white people to distance themselves from Native American religiosity so far that they no longer have any respect for it? Do we really want white people to do the same for Black culture? Jewish culture? Latino culture? Asian culture?
Mono-culturalism and cultural homogeneity are fundamentally conservative. They suggest that all of us should hold fast to rigidly defined definitions of whatever culture we come from. They suggest that we limit ourselves and our experiences to the culture that bore us rather rather than being free individuals. They suggest that we understand ourselves only as rank-and-file members of a cultural automaton, rather than as cosmopolitan, human individuals. This is exactly what the "cultural appropriation" frame reinforces.
If we're going to be liberal, let's be truly liberal. I suggest that we re-frame the entire issue in terms of what I call respectful multiculturalism. Multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism are good things. If we want to combat racism, they are one of the best tools to do it. By exposing ourselves to other cultures in a respectful way, we learn to appreciate those cultures. Incorporating them into our lives with love and respect sends a message to our selves and to society around us that we are individuals. Rather than allowing our own culture to define us, we define ourselves through a cosmopolitan appreciation of all humanity.
By the same token, we should celebrate individuals from other cultures doing the same thing to Western culture. Again, respect would be paramount, and we'd have every right to demand the same respect from them that we liberal, cosmopolitan individuals in the West extend to them. Or, if a non-Western person is reading this, I, for one, would expect you to be respectful of your partaking in and celebrating of Western culture, but would encourage you to engage with it in whatever respectful way you choose to. After all, perhaps the greatest classical cello player in the world, Yo-Yo Ma, is Chinese.
Every real issue of racism that I can think of that has been branded as "cultural appropriation" would be more accurately described as disrespectful.
As for religion, no one owns Divinity. To put this in a Neopagan context, none of us own the Deities. Religion is the engagement with the Divine and the Sacred. By definition, what is Divine and Sacred shines out to all of humanity. It is a fundamentally humanitarian act for we humans to revere what we truly understand to be Divine and Sacred, regardless of what culture we were born into or where we find inspiration.
However, recently, I'm concerned about the frequency and ease with which my fellow Neopagans make what seems to me spurious and unnecessarily caustic accusations of "cultural appropriation". I've recently heard of Feri initiates being worried that working with their central God, Malek Taus, might constitute "cultural appropriation" from the Yezidi. I've heard that worshiping Greek Gods in Hindu ways or Hindu Gods in Neopagan ways might also be "cultural appropriation". Recently, a fellow Mesopotamian Semi-Reconstructionist suggested that worshiping ancient Sumerian Deities, which is the entire point of our temple, might constitute "cultural appropriation" at the expense of long dead Sumerians.
I think it's great that Neopagan members of the ethnic majority are so mindful of avoiding offending other cultures and that ethnic minorities are so strong in defending their group against racism. The problem is that true multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism, which are respectful of all cultures, are good, liberal ways of acting and I'm worried that, in trying to be liberal, the bandwagon of "cultural appropriation" in the Neopagan community is actually leading us toward conservatism and, ultimately, toward ruin.
I can definitely see how, say, Native Americans would be outraged by baseball teams with names like "Redskins". I could see how some could view this as "cultural appropriation". No multi-culturalism is gained by the team name. The name does nothing to further respect for Native Americans. In fact, it debases them.
Worse, having a baseball team named "Redskins" is sort of like having a sports team named "Kikes" or "Niggers". However, we can see that it's racist without having to bring in the accusation of "cultural appropriation".
The baseball team "The Braves" seems trickier, at first glance. It sounds respectful, since it may seem to respect Native American warriors. However, the reason why I think it's racist to Native Americans is because it's a use of an element of their culture (and a rather idealized one to boot) that has little to do with real Native American culture. The pseudo-Native American chop and chanting that its fans do is equally problematic. The real problem is that it's a caricature and, as such, seeks actually to make fun of Native Americans rather than to respect them. So, rather than being respectful multiculturalism, it's disrespectful. I think it's adequate to just say this, however, rather than to bring the concept of "cultural appropriation" into the debate.
I can also see how Native Americans would be upset over, say, new-agey self-appointed spiritual leaders who claim that some spiritual practices that they teach are Native American when they're not. Certainly, if I were to become involved with Native American spirituality I'd want something authentic. The problem there, though, is fraud. Again, I think fraud is a better accusation to make against such people than "cultural appropriation".
When it comes to Neopaganism, I find that my fellow Neopagans have, ironically, turned this branding into a sort of PC witch hunt. PCism is something that I've always been uncomfortable with in the first place. While I support most of its goals, it's conservative means to liberal ends. That is, PCism sacrifices critical thought and open debate (both critical aspects of liberalism) in order to make gains on minority issues. While fighting racism is an important part of liberalism, PCism is a form of social policing and harassment at worst and a petty way to score free points in liberal culture without doing much thinking about the issues at best.
Worse, though, the accusations of "cultural appropriation" within the Neopagan community are witches hunting witches and we'll all be the victims if it continues to escalate. Every concept in Neopaganism that I can think of (and, as I'll explain, every religious and spiritual concept I can think of) can be attacked under the "cultural appropriation" frame. Worse, as I'll explain, I see this attack as actually undermining much of our relationships with other, non-Judeo-Christian cultures, such as Hindu, African Diasporic and Native American cultures. These relationships are not only critical alliances in our political movement toward assuring that freedom of religion applies to all religions, not just Judeo-Christian ones. A cosmopolitan attitude toward these other non-Judeo-Christian groups comes from an important part of our ethos and worldview as Neopagans: that all of the Old Gods and Old Spirits of the Earth in all cultures should be revered and all the Ancient Ways, around the world, preserved. The anti "cultural appropriation" attack on Neopaganism is also an attack on these efforts, if an unwitting one.
Any Neopagan or New Ager who uses chakras or practices any form of yoga could be branded as "culturually appropriating" something Hindu. The famous Seven Goddess chant that Deena Metzger authored that has becomes so popular in the Goddess movement ("Isis, Astarte, Diana, Hecate, Demeter, Kali, Inanna") and it's God complement by an unknown author ("Neptune, Osiris, Myrddin, Manannan, Helios, Shiva, Horned One") both have Hindu Deity names in them. Should we brand this as "cultural appropriation"? (By the way, if anybody knows who did author the God chant, I'd like to know so I can give attribution.)
If we do make this charge, it would only be fair to accuse Hindus of the same. Hindus got the vadra symbol from the Ancient Greeks (it was originally a symbol of Zeus's lightning bolt). Many Hindus revere Jesus as an incarnation of Vishnu and place crosses on Vishnu altars to represent this. Should we accuse them of "cultural appropriation" on these grounds?
Currently, there's a debate in the Asatru/Heathen community between the folkish Asatru who believe that only descendents of actual Germanic peoples should practice Asatru and the non-folkish ones who believe that no one owns the Gods and that anyone who wants to be a part of the religion can be.
This bandwagon of "cultural appropriation" accusations plays right into the hands of the folkish Asatru, who could use it to claim that non-folkish Asatru are guilty of "cultural appropriation". Then again, some scholars have surmised that Norse myths such as Odin on the World Tree, Ragnarok, the misdeeds of Loki, and the resurrection of Baldur were all simply instances of Christian mythology repainted as Norse. So, if the folkish Asatru complain of "cultural appropriation", the rest of us might demand that they cease and desist from engagement with any of these tropes.
The same charge could be raised against Wiccans who worship the Celtic Deities by people of Celtic descent, or against Wiccans who worship Hecate by people of Italian, Greek or Anatolian descent. It could be raised against Roman Reconstructionists by Greeks and Anatolians, on the grounds that Hecate was Greek and Anatolian before She and that the ancient Romans "culturally appropriated" Her. It could be charged by Anatolians, who could accuse the Greeks of the same thing.
Of course, those who subscribe to the idea that Hecate was originally Egyptian or that She was always Greek could make the same charge against Anatolians.
What about the recent charge against Feri as to the "cultural appropriation" of Malek Taus, I mentioned earlier? There are so many obvious answers why it's not "cultural appropriation" that it makes me sick that we've come so far that we actually think that might be the case. Malek Taus has been a critical part of Feri at least since Victor Anderson, and the origins myth of the Feri religion say that Feri goes back thousands of years. Regardless of the historical validity of this claim or lack thereof, the myth, which Victor taught sincerely, is a part of the Feri religion. By Victor's understanding of Feri history, both Feri and Yezidi religion come from a common source.
As for historical accuracy and religion, I doubt any religion has much historical accuracy. Modern historians doubt the authenticity of any of the Gospels, for example, as being written by the apostles and many doubt that the apostles or even Jesus ever existed. Some even doubt the existence of the historical Buddha. I'd guess that every religion must navigate between historical accuracy and spiritual validity and would say that spiritual validity is more important to the practitioners of any religion.
As for Feri, much of Feri would fall apart if people tried to take out anything that they thought constituted "cultural appropriation". (Unless, of course, we accept Victor's conviction that it's actually thousands of years old.)
What's more, as much as many of us Neopagans may dislike Christianity, personally, Jews could accuse all of Christendom of cultural appropriation. They could make the same accusation against Muslims.
However, I would say that the Gods cannot be owned! People of Germanic descent don't own Freya or Thor. People of Greek descent don't own Zeus or Hermes. People of Celtic descent don't own Manannon Mac Lir.
What about the Indian computer industry? Since computers were invented in the West, we could accuse the citizens of Bangalore of "cultural appropriation" of the computer industry. Americans could accuse all other countries that have light bulbs as "culturally appropriating" an American invention.
One problem with all of this is that cultures have gotten ideas from other cultures since the beginning of time. It would be impossible to unravel who got what from where. Moreover, because just about every culture in the world got ideas from other cultures at some point, all cultures are, to some extent, multicultural.
And that brings me to my real point. The entire concept of "cultural appropriation" may seem to be a liberal concept. It seems like it's helping to combat things like racism. However, it's actually conservative. It goes directly against the liberal ideas of cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism.
It can very easily be used to serve the causes of nationalism. The Nazis could have justified their racism against Jews and Gypsies on the grounds that both groups were "culturally appropriating" German culture.
As it's being used in America, it would suggest that all white people be only white! Do we really want white people to, say, stop listening to rock and jazz? Do we really want white people in America to limit their musical experience and expression to classical and country? Should we denigrate the Nineteenth Century American folk song "Clementine" on the basis that it has a Spanish tune?
Do we really want white people to distance themselves from Native American religiosity so far that they no longer have any respect for it? Do we really want white people to do the same for Black culture? Jewish culture? Latino culture? Asian culture?
Mono-culturalism and cultural homogeneity are fundamentally conservative. They suggest that all of us should hold fast to rigidly defined definitions of whatever culture we come from. They suggest that we limit ourselves and our experiences to the culture that bore us rather rather than being free individuals. They suggest that we understand ourselves only as rank-and-file members of a cultural automaton, rather than as cosmopolitan, human individuals. This is exactly what the "cultural appropriation" frame reinforces.
If we're going to be liberal, let's be truly liberal. I suggest that we re-frame the entire issue in terms of what I call respectful multiculturalism. Multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism are good things. If we want to combat racism, they are one of the best tools to do it. By exposing ourselves to other cultures in a respectful way, we learn to appreciate those cultures. Incorporating them into our lives with love and respect sends a message to our selves and to society around us that we are individuals. Rather than allowing our own culture to define us, we define ourselves through a cosmopolitan appreciation of all humanity.
By the same token, we should celebrate individuals from other cultures doing the same thing to Western culture. Again, respect would be paramount, and we'd have every right to demand the same respect from them that we liberal, cosmopolitan individuals in the West extend to them. Or, if a non-Western person is reading this, I, for one, would expect you to be respectful of your partaking in and celebrating of Western culture, but would encourage you to engage with it in whatever respectful way you choose to. After all, perhaps the greatest classical cello player in the world, Yo-Yo Ma, is Chinese.
Every real issue of racism that I can think of that has been branded as "cultural appropriation" would be more accurately described as disrespectful.
As for religion, no one owns Divinity. To put this in a Neopagan context, none of us own the Deities. Religion is the engagement with the Divine and the Sacred. By definition, what is Divine and Sacred shines out to all of humanity. It is a fundamentally humanitarian act for we humans to revere what we truly understand to be Divine and Sacred, regardless of what culture we were born into or where we find inspiration.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Lakoffian Analysis of Hobby Lobby ruling
Like many of my fellow progressives (by which I mean liberals), I'm outraged by the Hobby Lobby decision. Like many of my friends, I want to fight against the conservative agenda that the conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court are pushing. However, in order to win the fight, we need to know the opposition. If we fail to do that, we'll surely lose.
I've recently been reading George Lakoff's book "Moral Politics". In it, Lakoff, a U.C. Berkeley cognitive scientist and fellow progressive, discusses the moral models of conservatives and liberals. Although I haven't yet gotten to his chapter on specific issues, I think I understand enough to be able to share what I've gleaned so far about his theory to help my fellow progressives fight the larger movement in conservatism represented by the Hobby Lobby ruling.
Lakoff's theory applies broadly and he discusses variants within liberalism and conservatism and how those variants come about based on variants on his core theory. Basically, though, his theory states that progressives have what he calls the Nurturant Parent moral model, whereas Conservatives have the Strict Father moral model.
Very basically, the Nurturant Parent model views empathy as being critical to morality, because it views the goal of parenting to nurture children and in turn make them empathetic so that they'll be moral. When the model is applied to politics, we see the role of government as nurturant so that citizens are empathetic, and therefore good, people.
The Strict Father model views discipline as being critical to morality, because it views the goal of parenting to discipline children so they'll obey the rules. When applied to politics, this model, according to Lakoff, sees the role of government as being to discipline its citizens, and thereby make them moral.
In reality, these models and their variants are actually more complex than this, as Lakoff discusses in his book, but that's as simple as I can make it for the constraints of this post.
Here's my analysis of the Hobby Lobby ruling based on what I've read so far (keep in mind that I'm not Lakoff and don't speak for him... it should go without saying that he'd analyze this better according to his theory than I will here... I hope he blogs on this, because I want to read what he has to say). This case is really about sex and freedom, as I see it. Birth control pills are a way for women to be able have sex without getting pregnant.
According to the Nurturant Parent model, happiness is important in order to have empathy, provided that it harms none. In order to understand what makes other people suffer or be happy, we have to understand those things in ourselves. Asceticism is useless to the ends of empathy. Sexual happiness is particularly important in a person's ability to be empathetic, since it involves mutual happiness with another.
So, I think many of us progressives see the rights of women to get birth control pills and thereby have sex with a man, in a way that will not bring another human life into the world by getting her pregnant, as being critical to the happiness of any woman who wants that form of pleasure in her life. (Please note that I've very careful phrases this so as to avoid excluding other forms of sexuality.)
Moreover, having the pleasure she chooses is critical to her ability to be an empathetic being, which, in turn, from our perspective, is critical to her being a good person.
From the perspective of those who apply the Strict Father model, however, being a good person requires discipline. Having discipline implies, from their perspective, asceticism. Asceticism, to them, implies no sex except for procreation. Women who use birth control, from their perspective, are undisciplined because they're non-ascetic. By being undisciplined, according to this perspective, they're morally suspect.
Businesses, however, from a Strict Father model perspective, are seen as highly disciplined. If they weren't, according to this way of thinking, they'd fail. Therefore, they are seen as more moral than women who use birth control pills.
Based on my reading in "Moral Politics", my armchair Lakoffian analysis of this is that the real debate boils down to two perspectives. This is a clash between two different freedoms: the freedom of businesses versus the freedom of women.
The conservative perspective tends to be that women who take birth control pills are less deserving of freedom than businesses, because they're less disciplined. The progressive perspective is that women who take birth control pills tend to be more deserving of freedom than businesses, because such women are taking responsibility for their pleasure, and therefore for the self-nurturance of their empathy, and therefore for their development as good people by having responsible sex. On the other hand, businesses are, by default, amoral, because their goal is only to make profit rather than to nurture the community to help everyone become more self-actualized.
Obviously, like my fellow progressives, I think the conservative perspective is poppy-cock. However, in order to fight this politically, my armchair Lakoffian take on this is that we need to be honest in our rhetoric, not just about the facts, but about our values.
We need to express our core values and ethics, rather than assuming that others understand them. If we fail to do so while conservatives express their core values, it will be like not showing up to court. Our fellow citizens will tend to see us as lacking values and morals, while seeing conservatives as having them. I think that a critical part of our effort should be to express to our fellow citizens what our core values are and how we analyze this issue using them.
For more information on George Lakoff, "Don't Think of the Elephant" is a good summary of his theory. His website is below. I particularly find his blog insightful:
http://georgelakoff.com
I've recently been reading George Lakoff's book "Moral Politics". In it, Lakoff, a U.C. Berkeley cognitive scientist and fellow progressive, discusses the moral models of conservatives and liberals. Although I haven't yet gotten to his chapter on specific issues, I think I understand enough to be able to share what I've gleaned so far about his theory to help my fellow progressives fight the larger movement in conservatism represented by the Hobby Lobby ruling.
Lakoff's theory applies broadly and he discusses variants within liberalism and conservatism and how those variants come about based on variants on his core theory. Basically, though, his theory states that progressives have what he calls the Nurturant Parent moral model, whereas Conservatives have the Strict Father moral model.
Very basically, the Nurturant Parent model views empathy as being critical to morality, because it views the goal of parenting to nurture children and in turn make them empathetic so that they'll be moral. When the model is applied to politics, we see the role of government as nurturant so that citizens are empathetic, and therefore good, people.
The Strict Father model views discipline as being critical to morality, because it views the goal of parenting to discipline children so they'll obey the rules. When applied to politics, this model, according to Lakoff, sees the role of government as being to discipline its citizens, and thereby make them moral.
In reality, these models and their variants are actually more complex than this, as Lakoff discusses in his book, but that's as simple as I can make it for the constraints of this post.
Here's my analysis of the Hobby Lobby ruling based on what I've read so far (keep in mind that I'm not Lakoff and don't speak for him... it should go without saying that he'd analyze this better according to his theory than I will here... I hope he blogs on this, because I want to read what he has to say). This case is really about sex and freedom, as I see it. Birth control pills are a way for women to be able have sex without getting pregnant.
According to the Nurturant Parent model, happiness is important in order to have empathy, provided that it harms none. In order to understand what makes other people suffer or be happy, we have to understand those things in ourselves. Asceticism is useless to the ends of empathy. Sexual happiness is particularly important in a person's ability to be empathetic, since it involves mutual happiness with another.
So, I think many of us progressives see the rights of women to get birth control pills and thereby have sex with a man, in a way that will not bring another human life into the world by getting her pregnant, as being critical to the happiness of any woman who wants that form of pleasure in her life. (Please note that I've very careful phrases this so as to avoid excluding other forms of sexuality.)
Moreover, having the pleasure she chooses is critical to her ability to be an empathetic being, which, in turn, from our perspective, is critical to her being a good person.
From the perspective of those who apply the Strict Father model, however, being a good person requires discipline. Having discipline implies, from their perspective, asceticism. Asceticism, to them, implies no sex except for procreation. Women who use birth control, from their perspective, are undisciplined because they're non-ascetic. By being undisciplined, according to this perspective, they're morally suspect.
Businesses, however, from a Strict Father model perspective, are seen as highly disciplined. If they weren't, according to this way of thinking, they'd fail. Therefore, they are seen as more moral than women who use birth control pills.
Based on my reading in "Moral Politics", my armchair Lakoffian analysis of this is that the real debate boils down to two perspectives. This is a clash between two different freedoms: the freedom of businesses versus the freedom of women.
The conservative perspective tends to be that women who take birth control pills are less deserving of freedom than businesses, because they're less disciplined. The progressive perspective is that women who take birth control pills tend to be more deserving of freedom than businesses, because such women are taking responsibility for their pleasure, and therefore for the self-nurturance of their empathy, and therefore for their development as good people by having responsible sex. On the other hand, businesses are, by default, amoral, because their goal is only to make profit rather than to nurture the community to help everyone become more self-actualized.
Obviously, like my fellow progressives, I think the conservative perspective is poppy-cock. However, in order to fight this politically, my armchair Lakoffian take on this is that we need to be honest in our rhetoric, not just about the facts, but about our values.
We need to express our core values and ethics, rather than assuming that others understand them. If we fail to do so while conservatives express their core values, it will be like not showing up to court. Our fellow citizens will tend to see us as lacking values and morals, while seeing conservatives as having them. I think that a critical part of our effort should be to express to our fellow citizens what our core values are and how we analyze this issue using them.
For more information on George Lakoff, "Don't Think of the Elephant" is a good summary of his theory. His website is below. I particularly find his blog insightful:
http://georgelakoff.com
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)