‘meet in participatory spaces that are enabling, inclusive, and safe’
that last word is the tell. "safe". Because safety is so important and of course they don't precisely describe safety from "what" by "whom".
Clearly the saying "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" is no longer considered accurate. Certain people claim to be hurt by encountering words that disagree with their mindview and safetyism means we must protect these poor people.
"Roseneil and Green are intelligent, reasoning adults."
True enough. But there's a class aspect to their opposition to free-speech which expresses their personal will-to-power. The class aspect is that they are members of the state bourgeoisie - the class that since the Second World War has displaced the entrepreneurial middle class as the dominant class. The state bourgeoisie is a dependent class in that its livelihood derives from the taxpayers. The result of this is that the state bourgeoisie tries constantly to increase its power over the taxpayers by presenting itself as the sole possessor of Wise And Numinous Knowledge. This in turn expresses itself as a need to find and create helpless and infantalised groups which require its protection. Free-speech is an impediment to this system, as well as being a threat to the state bourgeoisie's livelihood.
My intuition is that their identities are so bound up with making the world different that it's kind of a moot point. They believe it in the same way that you and I believe whatever we believe about ourselves. This is probably badly expressed, but at least I know what I'm trying to say haha!
Thanks, David. Excellent piece. Although the ‘pre-political’ is looked down upon by activists as being subordinate and secondary to meaningful political action, it is to the pre-political that we should give our attention. The pre-political encompasses all those distinctly human characteristics that form
the foundations of society: having and raising children, the family, caring for the elderly, neighbourliness, the sense of belonging and rootedness, and the bonds formed by everyday sociability and mutuality. These are the qualities that are diminished by an elite politics that are based almost entirely on abstract theories about utility or ‘making life better and more equal’.
BTW I’m currently reading Wyst: Alastor 1716, on your recommendation.
Free speech is being enclosed. I guess it always has been, in one form or another, as long as states have existed. And if you have accepted the enclosure and the authority of those responsible for it you stop seeing that there's an existence outside it. Those whose speech you disagree with become the heathens and less than human.
Fortunately, the ramblings of the enclosed are sounding increasingly out of touch, and belonging to the enclosed club less and less attractive!
Thank you David. You have explained the mindset of the current government (and to an extent it's predecessor) beautifully. And answered a question that has always bothered me, how such obviously intelligent people - because you don't get to be where they all are by being thick as a brick - can't see that they are the baddies.
Another brilliant legal and moral-philosophical analysis. The essence of our agreement, even though you are a self-confessed 'conservative' and I am merely a 'liberal conservative' (🙂) is that the disastrous moral and political philosophies that descended from utilitarianism are corrosive to human flourishing and liberty. Your unique twist on this is to stress the point that it is the aristocracy's need to manage makes such an anti-human philosophy appealing. (In this regard, I picked up a copy of The Prince thanks to your frequent referral to Machiavelli, which I am very much enjoying!)
One short remark on Kathleen Stock. In the early days of the Rainbow Civil War, before open hostilities had begun (and long before citizens had any idea that weird metaphysical nonsense was about to invade the European and post-European nations), Stock was the sole lesbian feminist willing to engage in debate with the trans activist faction. Her thanks for this - which, in a sane world, would have headed off the coming social warfare - was to be branded transphobic and eventually, nearly a decade later, to be hounded out of her job. Little did I realise at the time that this foreshadowed the metaphysical regime about to be imposed first upon the internet, and soon after, onto our post-rights nations.
Thanks Chris. Yes, utilitarianism is in many ways where it all went wrong. De Jasay brilliantly exposes this across a number of fronts. Utilitarianism is not in practice, and can never be, about maximising utility - it is rather about imposing a definition of 'maximal utility' on the population.
"Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College was an Ohio legal case concerning libel, tortious interference, and infliction of distress. The case ultimately involved questions about the responsibilities of universities during student protests."
Now the American legal system is not the same as ours, but I think the progress of the case, the appeal, and refusal of the courts to intervene further suggest to me that the College believed it was on the side of the angels and that its virtue was defence enough. There were arguments that the shoplifting actions of the students were a matter of free expression.
Do we see any similar entrenched opinions held by the University of Sussex? I cannot say for certain as I am not familiar with the details, but there do seem to be some lessons to be learned. Like - when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Now you can write of the furore as a storm in a campus... but do we think other august members of the Establishment, including politicians, do not doggedly refuse to acknowledge their shortcomings? Particularly when it draws lines around what is, and is not, in their view considered acceptable speech?
We'll see what happens as a result of the judicial review. I used to have faith in that process, but now I see it as more of a crap shoot. You genuinely don't know which way things will go.
I've been toying with the idea that the heart, or engine of this, runs off of:
- Safetyism
- Metrics (they move people in directions and set actions, eg Net Zero / Cov!d numbers)
Also, anything that means you can compare the system with something else is frowned upon. Comparison will mean you can form a judgement about whether it's better or worse, good or bad, instead of just accepting it.
It's ironic that rights are now being framed as a matter of 'participation' when intersectional activists have had control of media, publishing and the arts in the West for years on end.
‘meet in participatory spaces that are enabling, inclusive, and safe’
that last word is the tell. "safe". Because safety is so important and of course they don't precisely describe safety from "what" by "whom".
Clearly the saying "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" is no longer considered accurate. Certain people claim to be hurt by encountering words that disagree with their mindview and safetyism means we must protect these poor people.
"Roseneil and Green are intelligent, reasoning adults."
True enough. But there's a class aspect to their opposition to free-speech which expresses their personal will-to-power. The class aspect is that they are members of the state bourgeoisie - the class that since the Second World War has displaced the entrepreneurial middle class as the dominant class. The state bourgeoisie is a dependent class in that its livelihood derives from the taxpayers. The result of this is that the state bourgeoisie tries constantly to increase its power over the taxpayers by presenting itself as the sole possessor of Wise And Numinous Knowledge. This in turn expresses itself as a need to find and create helpless and infantalised groups which require its protection. Free-speech is an impediment to this system, as well as being a threat to the state bourgeoisie's livelihood.
Totally agree.
These theorists are smart. The 'right to participate' sounds egalitarian and therefore another reversal of meaning flies under the radar, unopposed.
Of course, it's another transfer of what we hitherto understood to be rights from one class of person to another.
It's another of those examples which makes you wonder whether it is deliberate cynicism or whether they actually believe in the concept.
My intuition is that their identities are so bound up with making the world different that it's kind of a moot point. They believe it in the same way that you and I believe whatever we believe about ourselves. This is probably badly expressed, but at least I know what I'm trying to say haha!
Thanks, David. Excellent piece. Although the ‘pre-political’ is looked down upon by activists as being subordinate and secondary to meaningful political action, it is to the pre-political that we should give our attention. The pre-political encompasses all those distinctly human characteristics that form
the foundations of society: having and raising children, the family, caring for the elderly, neighbourliness, the sense of belonging and rootedness, and the bonds formed by everyday sociability and mutuality. These are the qualities that are diminished by an elite politics that are based almost entirely on abstract theories about utility or ‘making life better and more equal’.
BTW I’m currently reading Wyst: Alastor 1716, on your recommendation.
Great! Hope you enjoy it. And thanks for the good comment - this is exactly right.
Free speech is being enclosed. I guess it always has been, in one form or another, as long as states have existed. And if you have accepted the enclosure and the authority of those responsible for it you stop seeing that there's an existence outside it. Those whose speech you disagree with become the heathens and less than human.
Fortunately, the ramblings of the enclosed are sounding increasingly out of touch, and belonging to the enclosed club less and less attractive!
This may very well be how the pack of cards ends up collapsing.
Thank you David. You have explained the mindset of the current government (and to an extent it's predecessor) beautifully. And answered a question that has always bothered me, how such obviously intelligent people - because you don't get to be where they all are by being thick as a brick - can't see that they are the baddies.
Dear David,
Another brilliant legal and moral-philosophical analysis. The essence of our agreement, even though you are a self-confessed 'conservative' and I am merely a 'liberal conservative' (🙂) is that the disastrous moral and political philosophies that descended from utilitarianism are corrosive to human flourishing and liberty. Your unique twist on this is to stress the point that it is the aristocracy's need to manage makes such an anti-human philosophy appealing. (In this regard, I picked up a copy of The Prince thanks to your frequent referral to Machiavelli, which I am very much enjoying!)
One short remark on Kathleen Stock. In the early days of the Rainbow Civil War, before open hostilities had begun (and long before citizens had any idea that weird metaphysical nonsense was about to invade the European and post-European nations), Stock was the sole lesbian feminist willing to engage in debate with the trans activist faction. Her thanks for this - which, in a sane world, would have headed off the coming social warfare - was to be branded transphobic and eventually, nearly a decade later, to be hounded out of her job. Little did I realise at the time that this foreshadowed the metaphysical regime about to be imposed first upon the internet, and soon after, onto our post-rights nations.
Stay wonderful!
Chris.
PS: I'll include this piece in the next Bazaar.
Thanks Chris. Yes, utilitarianism is in many ways where it all went wrong. De Jasay brilliantly exposes this across a number of fronts. Utilitarianism is not in practice, and can never be, about maximising utility - it is rather about imposing a definition of 'maximal utility' on the population.
Oberlin College in America is already a 'case' where a college convinced of its virtue ended up paying $36.59 million.
From Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibson%27s_Bakery_v._Oberlin_College ):
"Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College was an Ohio legal case concerning libel, tortious interference, and infliction of distress. The case ultimately involved questions about the responsibilities of universities during student protests."
Now the American legal system is not the same as ours, but I think the progress of the case, the appeal, and refusal of the courts to intervene further suggest to me that the College believed it was on the side of the angels and that its virtue was defence enough. There were arguments that the shoplifting actions of the students were a matter of free expression.
Do we see any similar entrenched opinions held by the University of Sussex? I cannot say for certain as I am not familiar with the details, but there do seem to be some lessons to be learned. Like - when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Now you can write of the furore as a storm in a campus... but do we think other august members of the Establishment, including politicians, do not doggedly refuse to acknowledge their shortcomings? Particularly when it draws lines around what is, and is not, in their view considered acceptable speech?
We'll see what happens as a result of the judicial review. I used to have faith in that process, but now I see it as more of a crap shoot. You genuinely don't know which way things will go.
I've been toying with the idea that the heart, or engine of this, runs off of:
- Safetyism
- Metrics (they move people in directions and set actions, eg Net Zero / Cov!d numbers)
Also, anything that means you can compare the system with something else is frowned upon. Comparison will mean you can form a judgement about whether it's better or worse, good or bad, instead of just accepting it.
Time to shut down the UN.
It's ironic that rights are now being framed as a matter of 'participation' when intersectional activists have had control of media, publishing and the arts in the West for years on end.
the thought police