Tag: culture war

Abstract/ TL;DR: Many modern secular moralists act in ways that are counterproductive to the urgent cause of creating a more just society — especially by exhibiting an alienating sanctimoniousness and over-zealousness for morally condemning others. The pejorative term “social justice warrior”, with its connotations toward self-righteousness and officiousness, is often used to describe such individuals. To effectively advocate for social justice we must combat this tendency to hyper-moralize or use morality as a weapon for “canceling” or punishing those who do not share our views; instead, I propose that advocates of social justice should adopt an approach that is more compassionate and more conducive to changing individual minds and changing society.

Social Justice Warriors: The New Moralists

There has always been a tendency in society that leans toward moral obsessiveness. Historically, obsessive moralists were religious theists that believed the creator of the universe had handed down moral imperatives, however, in modern society secular priggishness is just as common as the religious variety. The pejorative and sarcastic term “social justice warrior” (SJW) is commonly used to refer to one of the largest cohorts of secular moralists — as they tend to focus much of their moral scorn on real or perceived social injustices (sexism, racism, ableism, etc.) — and because they exhibit a characteristic over-zealousness and overreach in their approach.

To be clear, I am not criticizing the movement for social justice or prescriptive morality in general, rather I am criticizing the sledgehammer approach to prescriptive morality / social justice (or, colloquially, moralizing) where nearly every aspect of life is scrutinized to absurdity — and in which there is no coherent ethical theory or theory of human psychology to guide this scrutiny. This sledgehammer approach also tends to take the maladaptive approach of globally labelling people as good or bad, rather than their specific acts — an approach which is counterproductive for several reasons.

The most salient examples of this new moralism gone astray invoke Poe’s Law with their tendency toward hyperbole: feminist scorn over the horror of “manspreading”; the interpretation of just about everything as being a “microaggression”, or an overt form of bigotry; the idea that the epistemological and metaphysical foundations of science need to be decolonized; describing even the most benign examples of trans-cultural diffusion as cultural appropriation; the belief that minority groups cannot hold racist views; the belief that the best way to counter prejudices is to invert them (e.g., matriarchy instead of patriarchy, counter-racism instead of anti-racism); etc. An internet search of any of these terms will provide plenty of examples if you haven’t been keeping up on the culture war.

The problem with this moralizing is not that sexism, racism, or other forms of prejudice which contradict human rights do not deserve moral concern — they very much do! — it’s that our approach to correcting these injustices must 1) identify actual cases of unjustified prejudice (rather than what are likely false positives); 2) seek to explain the origin of prejudice cogently, and 3) use this information to combat prejudice effectively — without exacerbating divisiveness and alienating people.

Unfortunately, many proponents of social justice fail in all three of these areas, such as by identifying innocuous behavior as prejudiced or by advancing illogical definitions of prejudice; by misidentifying the causes of prejudice; and by causing alienation and division in various ways (e.g., through the use of hyperbolic or histrionic rhetoric, by advocating cancel culture vindictiveness, by espousing a puritanical and unreasonable set of counter norms [such as hyper-political correctness, hyper-vigilance in calling out perceived wrongs, or ideas similar to vicarious atonement for ancestral sin; etc.].

Irrespective of causative explanations for this moral scrupulosity on the sociological level, the distal origin of this phenomenon, on the individual level, is the human mind itself, which possesses evolved emotional impulses (see moral foundations theory) to engage in moralistic judgement — impulses which may become hyperactive or problematic when they are not restrained by rational faculties or judicious moral codes (see The Danger of Unrestrained Morality). When this scrupulosity is turned inward we might refer to it, in Freudian terms, as an overactive superego — and this form of neurosis frequently leads to a self-defeating and non-productive anxious preoccupation with one’s current or past actions. Such a preoccupation paralyzes the individual in a self-imposed hell of unproductive shame and guilt (see Albert Ellis on guilt/shame), thereby preventing growth.

This self-punishment does not help anyone and harms the individual, perhaps preventing them from making the changes necessary to truly change for the better. The adaptive converse of unproductive shame or guilt does not attach essentializing labels to oneself (you are not defined by your history), and believes in the possibility of reform; such an approach involves the recognition and acceptance of past wrongs, and an earnest commitment to not making the same mistakes in the future.

Just as with inward hyper-moralizing, turning unrestrained moral impulses outward, onto others, leads to a similar type of harm — this time in the form of applying essentializing condemnatory labels to others. Such an approach is likely to cause an amygdala response that results in the accused becoming more entrenched in their position (see reactance), or it may result in a paralyzing shame that prevents the individual from changing for the better; what it is very unlikely to do is to result in critical reflection and/or a positive change in their behavior or beliefs. Further, this approach engenders non-productive anger and retribution, which perpetuates the cycle of conflict between groups. History is replete with such examples. As the proverb states, hurt people hurt people…and so on, ad nauseum. Further exacerbating this harmful moralizing is the moral impulse to in-group loyalty or tribalism — which ironically also drives many of the hateful ideologies which prejudiced individuals cling to.

To draw an analogy with religion, the modern secular moralist resembles the Pharisee or the Sadducee whom Jesus criticized for myopically focusing on the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of the law. And, just as with the hyper-religious moralists in the story of Jesus, the modern secular moralists wield morality like a weapon — with an intent to “cancel”, or psychosocially destroy those who have transgressed. This approach is problematic on multiple levels, but most importantly it is likely to alienate people, including allies, and it is not likely to produce a situation in which an offending individual can grow or reform themselves (if, indeed, they have done anything that is clearly harmful); in other words, it is a punitive and retributive approach to justice. From a rationalist perspective, Christian morality and metaphysics are grossly flawed, but secular moralists would do well to consider the admonishments to forgiveness, compassion, and against moral hypocrisy, which are said to have been espoused by Jesus.

A more effective approach to morality — in terms of inter-subjective sociocultural goals — should, first and foremost, focus on reforming problematic behaviors and dialectically countering hateful ideologies; additionally, it should be grounded in reason (including the consideration of theoretical and evidence-based skepticism towards individual free will; the tenuousness of a permanent concept of personal identity; and a logically parsimonious, constructivist conception of morality — all three of which serve to temper hyper-moralizing), compassionate beneficence, and a non-retributive/non-maleficent conception of justice (social or criminal). A dialectical and non-retributive/non-punitive approach is more likely to circumvent the amygdala response that causes a person to dig in their heels, and is therefore more likely to change minds.

Anger in response to oppression is entirely understandable on an emotional level, however, it is not likely to be effective when it inspires action. Rational understanding is the antidote to untampered anger, and this approach appears to have a better case record of success. When we eliminate the destructive passion of vengeful anger from our minds and from the social sphere we will witness the birth of a less hateful, less violent, and more compassionate world.