--- wrote:I'm working with the psychological definition of obscurantism: 1. Against scientific inquiry, reasonable argument, and the advancement of knowledge, particularly whenever these seem to contradict a chosen group of political, cultural, or religious traditions or standards. 2. A purposeful or strategic failure to be concise and lucid in the demonstration or display of insight or opinion.
Reality exists independently of all religious, political, social, and cultural considerations. There is a way to arrive at conclusions about the world that are objectively reasonable to anyone capable of appreciating the relevant methodologies and evidence, regardless of their social or cultural perspective. The most powerful (and, of particular virtue, value-free) tools of inquiry are deductive: science, mathematics, and logic. In trying to better understand the social, physical, and terrestrial worlds, I prefer to consume knowledge that has been produced using these methodologies, and try to use a similar approach in my day-to-day attempt to solve problems. Fighting the constraints imposed by science and reason - or interjecting religious, cultural, social, or political considerations into a value-free analytical means - doesn't actually solve the problem; it only changes its nature. That's my main objection to squishy concepts like "microaggression": it's relative, and it fights basic evolutionary, biological, and economic insights.
And that's really the crux of the debate about the whole Zimmerman affair: what does science have to say about the roles variability and uncertainty play in the decision-making process? This isn't a unique story, though it has been uniquely Americanized: the (completely predictable) elevation of identity politics over reason. And because science tends to give answers that make large sets of politically-incentivized uncomfortable, we substitute rigorous - though perhaps unpleasant - analysis for pliant pseudo-analysis more amenable to political and social sensibilities.
first - i'm absurdly pleased to see your avatar pic (yep, I'm a weirdo)
and next - ok - I appreciate and agree with everything you wrote. what i want to point out is mostly obvious, and jorge touches on it relatively well already, so I'm not unaware of being redundant here...
I think it's difficult to avoid the emotional aspects of the ongoing saga that discrimination forces on the world. what I've read here in many cases, is a result of that emotional aspect, from both ends of the spectrum.
can I argue against what clavian has to say without him taking offense because his father is an ethical police officer? probably not. can I argue against what harmless says without him taking offense because he's fallen victim to shitty treatment from police officers? probably not.
they both have a perspective to offer up here and so both hold some validity, the problem is that while what you explain above is perfectly reasonable, and is a fantastic approach, it's not realistic (which doesn't say it's wrong- because it's, to me, the best way to TRY to approach everything, but I haven't met anyone capable of using this approach all the time, so... unrealistic, only in that we're emotional creatures, and we associate our opinions with ourselves. our identities. in disagreeing (or agreeing) with one person or another sets off a routine of automatic response 'stances' depending on each person's judgement of the other person, which can be taken in as either supportive of the other person, or condemning of them. which will only escalate with each iteration of the debate.
you're right, of course, the invention of concepts and terminology like microaggression is, indeed, squishy. but I think of it as an attempt to include the emotional aspects which can't (or so far haven't been, maybe) be measured in a more logical and deductive way.
it's a concept that tries to account for 'feelings' of people in various cultural and social environments. perhaps because the deductive and scientific route doesn't seem complete in the context of actual examples of prejudice and discrimination? I don't know - it's my guess though.
I think I'd rather acknowledge the attempt as worthy because it's a start, although a clumsy one, at trying to grasp the intricacies of human interaction and dealing with the entire experience of a set of interactions, without discounting feelings, interpretations, opinions, and each person's experiential reality as 'unworthy' of analysis.
also, somewhat unrelated to the rest of my comments -
This isn't a unique story, though it has been uniquely Americanized: the (completely predictable) elevation of identity politics over reason. And because science tends to give answers that make large sets of politically-incentivized uncomfortable, we substitute rigorous - though perhaps unpleasant - analysis for pliant pseudo-analysis more amenable to political and social sensibilities
this is a uniquely Americanized story because as a country, we're still reeling from the aftershock that slavery and the ending of it has had on us. it hasn't been that long since slavery was banished here. we have 400 some years of it to contend with, and we end up working through different phases of our reactions as a society like the different stages of grief an individual goes through when mourning the dead, or the different stages of development a teenager goes through to emerge as an adult.
we screwed ourselves from the get go with slavery. everything good and beneficial about this country has a huge stain on it because of slavery - our high ideals, our moral standards, our desire for liberty - it's all somewhat plastic as a result.
I don't know how critical I can be of, as you say, pliant pseudo-analysis more amenable to political and social sensibilities, because of that.
it's a phase we're passing through - we're not all as smart and rigorous as you are in our ability to analyze the world around us, so this substitution is natural, and likely beneficial down the road to our development.
babies don't jump out their mother's wombs fully formed and running a sprint, they grow, and try shit out, and fail, and try other things, and fail, and eventually arrive at walking, running, skipping, doing cartwheels- whatever.
we have to do everything wrong before we can start doing it right, so better to see it as an exercise to determine the best way to proceed rather than garbage psychobabble that adds nothing to the discussion (the BIG discussion, not this thread's discussion) - it has a use, but it has to be allowed the accompanying idiosyncrasies (and idiocies too, I guess) in order for the usefulness to be made visible.
