sophiaserpentia (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sophiaserpentia) wrote2006-05-03 02:06 pm
sophiaserpentia) wrote2006-05-03 02:06 pm
idea/context dualism
Here's an interesting continuation from yesterday's theme on the tone of scientific rhetoric. Following is the abstract of "A Proposal to Classify Happiness as a Psychiatric Disorder" (thanks to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
chaoticerotic for the link).
If you read this, you will note that it is more or less as rigorous and well-cited an argument as we might expect to encounter in academic writing (although it does contain typos).
It reminded me right away of Dextera Domini: The Declaration on the Pastoral Care of Left-Handed Persons, which was in turn a spoof, and more, of another sort of rhetoric, in this case Catholic theological argument.
These are more than merely spoofs; they teach us a lot about the direction of modern thought and the consequences of fostering "detached rhetoric" as a favorable mode of communication. In the first case, we have an examination of the way common aspects of human experience have been seen as pathologies to be corrected. In the second case we have a theological examination, complete with nuanced scriptural citations, of the sinfulness of being left-handed (a parody of similar arguments offered against homosexuality).
This brave new world teaches us that anything stated in a rational tone, with proper citations and rhetorical style (arguments offered and objections anticipated), deserves to be taken seriously. The underlying idea is that ideas can and should be examined in a vacuum, a so-called "free marketplace," weighed against counterproposals in an environment completely divorced from their real-world implications. Every idea, no matter how repugnant, deserves to be calmly and rationally examined, debated, and discussed. If an idea is truly without merit, it will prove to be such after dispassionate examination.
This comes by way of reaction, of course, against the kind of argumentation which has given us much grief in the past: appeals to emotion, to common sense, to tradition, to "truthiness." Modern rhetoric is an attempt to escape the pitfalls of the past, and the cycles of oppression and discord that they have sowed. It also comes from a justifiable fear of simply going along with any given culture's rejection of certain ideas or principles as unworthy of examination: this is, after all, a means by which prejudice has been defended and perpetuated.
I've written before, briefly, about the use of rationalization as a way of discrediting the statements of feminists and cultural critics. A large part of this, of course, is the misappropriation and subversion of playing-field-leveling measures by those who wish to maintain an un-level playing field. Since the tone of detached "objective" scientific discourse was adopted in an attempt to counter the damage caused by demagoguery and superstitition, it was found necessary for this style to be subverted to the cause of promoting injustice. And so it has: modern evil is even more banal than ever before, offering in detached and well-cited argument why black people are inferior to whites and women are less capable than men.
By bringing up the context of oppression and by employing depictions of personal experiences, critics and feminists are not playing by the rules of rhetoric. In turn, they do not feel obliged to play by these rules because they argue that these rules were chosen for memetic proliferation because they make it easier to defend the social-stratification status quo, by rendering invisible the experience of oppression. For oppression to stand, the people who are subject to it must be unaware of it; therefore any tool that promotes isolation is deemed valuable to those who have privilege in an oppressive society -- the same people who are likely to write the laws and ideologies, and who have the power to decide what is and is not acceptable discourse.
Consider my previous thoughts on the way one generation's solution to a problem becomes the basis for a new problem facing the next generation. We certainly don't want to move backwards and empower demagoguery and fanaticism. What is the way forward?
Rational debate should be tempered with a higher degree of context-awareness. I concur with Wander and Jaehne (thanks totyrsalvia for this link [PDF]) that experts have to be more aware of the effects their ideas and proposals have on people, and that we have to be always aware of the way the economics of academia has guided the course of academic discourse. We cannot successfully divorce ideas from their implications, or idea-makers from their need to eat, sleep, and live in secure comfort.
What we are seeing here at work is a dualistic scheme, rather like the idea that there is a dualism of brain and mind, only of idea and context. Once again, in another context, dualism proves to be inherently dehumanizing and offers itself to the service of defending unjust status quos.
chaoticerotic for the link).It is proposed that happiness be classified as psychiatric disorder and be included in the future editions of the major diagnostic manuals under the name Major Affective Disorder: Pleasant Type. In a review of relevant literature, it is shown that happiness is statistically abnormal, consists of a discrete cluster of symptoms, is associated with a range of cognitive abnormalities and probably reflects the abnormal functioning of the central nervous system. One possible objection to this proposal remains -- that happiness is not negatively valued. However, this objection is dismissed as scientifically irrelevant.
If you read this, you will note that it is more or less as rigorous and well-cited an argument as we might expect to encounter in academic writing (although it does contain typos).
It reminded me right away of Dextera Domini: The Declaration on the Pastoral Care of Left-Handed Persons, which was in turn a spoof, and more, of another sort of rhetoric, in this case Catholic theological argument.
These are more than merely spoofs; they teach us a lot about the direction of modern thought and the consequences of fostering "detached rhetoric" as a favorable mode of communication. In the first case, we have an examination of the way common aspects of human experience have been seen as pathologies to be corrected. In the second case we have a theological examination, complete with nuanced scriptural citations, of the sinfulness of being left-handed (a parody of similar arguments offered against homosexuality).
This brave new world teaches us that anything stated in a rational tone, with proper citations and rhetorical style (arguments offered and objections anticipated), deserves to be taken seriously. The underlying idea is that ideas can and should be examined in a vacuum, a so-called "free marketplace," weighed against counterproposals in an environment completely divorced from their real-world implications. Every idea, no matter how repugnant, deserves to be calmly and rationally examined, debated, and discussed. If an idea is truly without merit, it will prove to be such after dispassionate examination.
This comes by way of reaction, of course, against the kind of argumentation which has given us much grief in the past: appeals to emotion, to common sense, to tradition, to "truthiness." Modern rhetoric is an attempt to escape the pitfalls of the past, and the cycles of oppression and discord that they have sowed. It also comes from a justifiable fear of simply going along with any given culture's rejection of certain ideas or principles as unworthy of examination: this is, after all, a means by which prejudice has been defended and perpetuated.
I've written before, briefly, about the use of rationalization as a way of discrediting the statements of feminists and cultural critics. A large part of this, of course, is the misappropriation and subversion of playing-field-leveling measures by those who wish to maintain an un-level playing field. Since the tone of detached "objective" scientific discourse was adopted in an attempt to counter the damage caused by demagoguery and superstitition, it was found necessary for this style to be subverted to the cause of promoting injustice. And so it has: modern evil is even more banal than ever before, offering in detached and well-cited argument why black people are inferior to whites and women are less capable than men.
By bringing up the context of oppression and by employing depictions of personal experiences, critics and feminists are not playing by the rules of rhetoric. In turn, they do not feel obliged to play by these rules because they argue that these rules were chosen for memetic proliferation because they make it easier to defend the social-stratification status quo, by rendering invisible the experience of oppression. For oppression to stand, the people who are subject to it must be unaware of it; therefore any tool that promotes isolation is deemed valuable to those who have privilege in an oppressive society -- the same people who are likely to write the laws and ideologies, and who have the power to decide what is and is not acceptable discourse.
Consider my previous thoughts on the way one generation's solution to a problem becomes the basis for a new problem facing the next generation. We certainly don't want to move backwards and empower demagoguery and fanaticism. What is the way forward?
Rational debate should be tempered with a higher degree of context-awareness. I concur with Wander and Jaehne (thanks to
tyrsalvia for this link [PDF]) that experts have to be more aware of the effects their ideas and proposals have on people, and that we have to be always aware of the way the economics of academia has guided the course of academic discourse. We cannot successfully divorce ideas from their implications, or idea-makers from their need to eat, sleep, and live in secure comfort.What we are seeing here at work is a dualistic scheme, rather like the idea that there is a dualism of brain and mind, only of idea and context. Once again, in another context, dualism proves to be inherently dehumanizing and offers itself to the service of defending unjust status quos.
no subject
I also frequently wonder whether or not much of what is considered psychiatric illness is actually distress brought on by the experience of oppression. For example, for the last 100 years or so women have had numerous kinds of treatments and medicines pushed on them, it being considered canon truth that women are more prone to psychological disorder than men. But how can we know whether or not this is something which is natural in women, or something which is caused by the stress of being treated as second-class by society? The same goes for people of color, people of religious minorities, people who are queer, fat, disabled, neuro-atypical...
no subject
no subject
I was talking about this a few weeks ago - and brought into the discussion the male culture violent severing from any emotion but anger - and how even anger could be it's most powerful when cloaked in "reasonable tones".
It goes along with "we couldn't have a woman president because once a month she would get all weepy and blow up Sri Lanka" - or whatever the hell - while Bush sits in the office totally devoid of tears or feelings and is set to start nuclear testing.
I have started to use "patriarchy" in my daily conversations for the first time in my life - mostly to observe the physical and verbal reactions I get from people I talk to. Men and Women alike along "left and right" measurements tend to dismiss this and start to "rationally and calmly" explain to me how reactionary and emotional that word is - even when I say it in deadpan.
What does it mean when a political system under which we all live is so invisible as to be discarded as "emotional"? Same goes for critiquing capatalism - a million flatline faces will start throwing pie charts at you to show you how rational it is to have 200 families on the planet controlling the majority of the wealth.
Ummm - I think I got offtopic.
no subject
Ha ha, yeah. Women are too emotional to rule the world, while there have been, uh, how many wars in the history of patriarchal society?
Men and Women alike along "left and right" measurements tend to dismiss this and start to "rationally and calmly" explain to me how reactionary and emotional that word is - even when I say it in deadpan.
It's maddening, huh? This tone of "calm and rational" people take when they lecture feminists in order to dismiss their observations feels like it's based in an automatic presumption that one has the upper moral ground.
no subject
I don't worship rationality as the "cure" for demogoguery that is used to appeal to people's basest emotions and whip them into a frenzy. A rational argument is neither better nor worse than an emotional argument. And trying to rely soley on rationality ignores the vitally important fact that WE ARE ANIMALS, we have bodies and a complex set of chemical emotions that even the most learned physicians do not quite understand. We don't live in a world of pure mind.
no subject
My own everything-o-mancy has been leading me toward this idea of "context-keeping" more and more. And I've seen first hand recently how people miss it. The ability to restrict or eliminate the context of a debate is one of the most powerful tools the Powers That Be have.
On the other hand, just because an idea happens to be beneficial to someone who is arguing for it, is not automatically a good reason to dismiss the person or their idea. Again, the largest, most inclusive perspective is called for.
Usually when I find that two people's emotional biases conflict, there is a third factor that's not being seen by either of them which is creating the conflict.
no subject
You wish, Alobar.
unfortunately the essay does not seem to be a spoof. Read this from a
June 2004 article in the New York Times:
Some have worried that happy people tend to be apathetic and easily
manipulated by political leaders -- contented cows, so to speak. In
Aldous Huxley's dystopian novel, ''Brave New World,'' the working
classes are kept in docile submission by a diet of drugs that render
them universally happy. In the real world, however, there is little
evidence that happiness creates complacent citizens; in fact, studies
show that happy people are more likely than alienated people to get
politically involved, not less.
There is one bit of the world that happy people do see in an
irrationally rosy light: themselves. As the British psychologist
Richard P. Bentall has observed, ''There is consistent evidence that
happy people overestimate their control over environmental events
(often to the point of perceiving completely random events as subject
to their will), give unrealistically positive evaluations of their
own achievements, believe that others share their unrealistic
opinions about themselves and show a general lack of evenhandedness
when comparing themselves to others.'' Indeed, Bentall has proposed
that happiness be classified as a psychiatric disorder.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C0CE2D71130F933A15755C0A9629C8B63