The prejudices of self-display, once more
The prejudices of self-display, as you may remember from my last post, can be defined as the kinds of hasty judgements that we are led to not by base self-interest but by a desire to look or sound good. (I am still not sure that self-display is the best word: perhaps vanity would be better, or self-love, or self-regard, or sanctimoniousness, or narcissism or amour-propre).
The prejudices of self-display are, I suggested, amongst the vices that dance attendance on progressive politics, rather as the prejudices of self-interest are typically found amongst the vices of conservative politics.
But we need to push the analysis a little further.
Ross Pudaloff is absolutely right: emulation is not necessarily a vice, and some people that we may want to think of as moral heroes may be actuated by prejudices of self display. And even if they judged sanctimoniously, in the hope of demonstrating their superiority to others, they may still have acted, in effect, bravely and well. But that does not mean their prejudices are any less prejudicial. And of course just the same applies to the prejudices of self-interest: people actuated by mindless jingoism, for instance, may play a heroic role in well-justified battles against tyranny.
I am still bothered (to put it mildly) by those would-be progressives who, if I am right, are guilty of the prejudices of self display ¨C who think they get round the need for serious political analysis by shouting about their commitment to peace, love and human rights. (Peace in Darfur, they will say, ignoring the fact that there may be no way of preventing genocide except by means of war.)
There is a marvellous fictional depiction of this problem in Albert CamusˇŻs 1956 novel The Fall (La Chute), whose hero gives up being a brilliant human rights defence lawyer because he is sickened by the smugness of his own good conscience.
And here is a real life example, from the great musician Michael Tippett (1905-98). Tippett was a British national treasure, decorated as Commander of the British Empire, Companion of Honour, and of the Order of Merit. But he was also a high-principled radical: president of the Peace Pledge Union, and a man of the left, the conscience of CND. But come a little closer: here is what he wrote to a friend in 1936:
My one hope is that the British Empire will go under and Hitler winˇ. I hate the empire as I hate nothing else. It is the key pin of world Capitalism and it is our job to bring it to the ground.
My question is not, was Tippett right to prefer the Third Reich to the British Empire? What I wonder is, what can have led him to this judgement? Not a concerted study of world politics, surely, or an assessment of the best route to socialism. Was he perhaps actuated by the prejudice of self-regard?
You suggest that Tippet was only thinking of his own ethos when he made the judgment, and it seems about right to me. What still doesn't seem quite right though is that self regard is a prejudice. Should it not be said that it is the underlying social beliefs that are the prejudices, and that the narcissism is just the damaging result?
Is it that, when we engage in thoughtless self-display, we are assuming things about the self that require reflection? Or is it more complex than this, and should we perhaps think that there is not a kind of narcissistic core from which the behaviour originates, but rather that this core is contructed precisely by beliefs about the requirements of society?
Interesting points, Matt, but I think I can defend what I said. And what I said was not that self-regard is itself a prejudice (any more than self-interest is) but that (like self-interest) it can be a source of prejudice -- prejudice being what happens when you make judgments that are less rational and free than you suppose.
On the wider question of whether the blogosphere encourages free thought - taken to be something worked out for oneself and worked out well - or prejudice, some recent comments of sociologist Sherry Turkle, in New Scientist, might be helpful.
She started at the psychological level, expressing her worries that online living is transforming human psychology by deskilling us from being able to be alone, and managing and containing our emotions. We are developing new intimacies with machines that lead to new dependencies - a wired social existence, "a tethered self".
This, though, is where the question of thought and prejudice, and what the blogosphere does to both, comes in. She believes much online conversation becomes merely sharing gossip, photos or profiles (food for prejudice), not, on the whole (an important qualifier), food for thought, commitment and politics.
Now, in that, the internet is arguably no different from any other medium. Print shifts far more glossy magazines than learned journals. However, the internet, right now, is arguably subject to two delusions.
First, though it opens gateways to information, it does not teach us how to make connections or deal with complexity - and of course, the information can easily be wrong. This distracts from self-reflection. It nurtures quick over considered responses. Again, this changes one's psychology: do people have their own thoughts? Do they have their own autonomy? Do they have the skills to find meaning?
second, the double trouble with the internet, it seems to me, is that often its freedom is presented precisely as an individual's own thoughts, autonomy and meaning - when actually all these might be merely borrowed.
In short, I would argue that the internet is great for finding things out and making contact, and just for the joy of reading stuff (though it is often hard to find good stuff). But of itself it does not magically transform the opinions it transmits into free thought, any more than the printing press did. All it does - though it is a big all - is step up the ease with which 'content' can be transmitted, and step down the cost.
It seems to me that unless you take the time to do the traditional offline activities of thought - pondering them in your heart, to coin a phrase - it is not free thought that is perpetuated but prejudice and other derivatives of thought like it.
Yes you're right. However you'd have to give up linking in popular culture, as popular culture is concerned with creating narcissism - and though it is perpetuated by the narcissim it creates, it is not being created by it. It's all a bit chicken and the egg, but if the subject is that self-regard can be a cause of prejudice, the trends of society are relevant in that they are the causes of the self-regard and not properly its effect. This is, as I said, due to the narcissistic beliefs people hold being extensions of beliefs concerning only others and wider society (which puts the lie to the 'narcissism' tag). Hope this makes sense.
always fascinated how people ˇ®playˇŻ with the English language in particularly and no more so than the English.
Jonathan has coined his own language here ˇ®the prejudice of self-interest and the ˇ®prejudice of self ¨CdisplayˇŻ You will not of course find them in any dictionary. They may be added one day!
English of course comes from other languages too and the Americans take the whole manipulation of the English language even further. The word ˇ®prejudiceˇŻ I am told originally comes from the Latin prae meaning ˇ®beforeˇŻ and judicium meaning ˇ®trial or ˇ®sentenceˇŻ. So if one was prejudice in Latin times one was pre-judging so to speak. Providing an opinion before the evidence had been heard.
Today our dictionaries tell us that we interpret prejudice as ˇ° an unreasonable and unfair dislike of OR preference for, a particular type of person or thing eg racial prejudice.
So back to JonathanˇŻs new dictionary! ¨C a prejudice of self-interest then in itˇŻs truest form would mean ˇ°an unreasonable and unfair dislike of self ¨Cinterest (that sounds a good one to me) OR ˇ° a preference for self-interest (now that sounds a bad one to me)
And so with prejudice of self - display, it can either be a dislike of self-display or preference for self-display.
See what happens when we ˇ®playˇŻ around with the English language. So when Jonathan says that prejudice of self-display can be defined as hasty judgements is he talking about the ˇ®dislike of self-display being a hasty judgementˇŻ OR ˇ®the preference of self-display being a hasty judgementˇŻ. There is a critical difference I would suggest. The dislike of self-display would suggest that good judgment has already been made whilst a preference for would suggest otherwise. So these ˇ®prejudices of self-displayˇŻ may not necessarily be vices at all. And those ˇ® would-be progressivesˇŻ may very well be displaying good virtues according to which variety of the self-display is being used.
So to use my previous exposition, is Tippet using a dislike of self-display or a preference for it.
Tippet was in my opinion struggling with his different views and positions of and in life. On the one hand heralded as a national treasure, which may have made him feel very uncomfortable. And on the other hand being a principled radical ( is this the opposite of an un-principled radical and if so whatˇŻs the difference?) and one who would no doubt feel uncomfortable about the conservative establishment. I think he was dealing with his own ˇ®cognitive dissonanceˇŻ about his opposing functions and positions in British life. So he may very well have been showing a dislike of self-display which I would favour above having a preference for self-display. But we are still not sure of JonathanˇŻs definition of self-display here. If as I suspect JonathanˇŻs definition is ˇ® a preference of self-displayˇŻ then I would of course need to disagree. I doubt very much that Tippet was demonstrating this at all.
See how tricky the English language can be ¨C now if we had any AmericanˇŻs joining it weˇŻd really be confused and so would they!
THE PRACTICE OF FREETHINKING
Thinking and freethinking aren't just the recent inventions of philosophers. History and art tell us that thinking off the rails has been going on for millennia.
Maybe some would argue that bringing lawyers into everyday life would be progress. Like the Bible, most people would disagree.
It's not that reasoning IS alien to everyday life, but those well-versed in it tend to have come from somewhere else and (in the vernacular) be coming from somewhere else, when they're using it.
In this respect it's no different from guns. The first use of efficient tools is not to liberate, sadly, but to fall into the hands of the desperate: who'll use even the screwdrivers as lances. Reason should not be alien to us, but because it has become so frequently used by those seeking to invade, and steal, it has become tarred with odour-of-conman.
If lawyers can't be divorced from their lucrative living, can most philosophers be any more divorced from placing their unexamined nature at the centre of things?
when the discussions become lengthy and sides are inevertably taken by all and sundery including our much maligned philosophers, priests, politicians and sages, I often ask one simple question which stops them all in their tracks.
OK - I will accept all that you say without question if you can answer me one simple question
"why on earth are you here on this planet?"
That usually brings a moment of silence for about 30 seconds.
No one's convinced me yet, that they really know what they are talking about
On Ego
Prefering to simplify issues of self-interest and self-display; the myriad of selfish behaviours into the collective heading of Ego, what then? is this Ego, this Self and its evident destrucive capacity? It is our weakness, our burden, and as with all burdens it is something to be shed. Easier said than done, an eternal struggle -though some simply succumb. Why then is it perpetuated, no!, advocated by modern western society?
Having been distracted by the UK's political conference season, and having been under heavy fire by party people for three weeks now, one commonality emerged: the concept of aspiration. Society constantly Tells us that it is great to aspire, to be great in this domain or that. It is a great thing to be idolised: to be a focus of aspiration. It is a great thing to be wealthy: to be a champion of entrepreneurialism. It is a great thing to be superior: to be better than you. Yet we all know this to be False; infact if you are lucky enough to frequently come first then please do try comming second or even third: the world will not spin off its axis, you will not suddenly become impoverished -a lesser being: no! you will become something else, something much stronger, much deeper and much wealthier. You will become a "Fully paid up member of the Human race" to quote a great Ego of our time.
Let us inspect these achievers, successful aspirers. What is it that they have given to society? Jobs? Vibrant economies? Technologies? Security? Fallacies all, lies all, a grand deceiver with grand orators: little Humans with little Minds. When being better than you has infected our societies we are all poorer for it: examine the fractured society that surrounds you and ask from whence it came?
Prejudice - Damned True! What? of the Ego in you, in me, what of it? We do battle with it and we often loose. As Jonathan Ree states it affects our judgements and our capacity to reason in a logical non prejudicial manner: therefore it must be eradicated for us to grow together instead of growing apart.
Exactly Richard - all the great religions and probably the minor ones too extol the virtues of ridding ourselves of the ego to achieve true enlightenment - tell that to the pop stars, politicians, actors and fashion gurus - where hedonism is their middle name.
try some modern version of religion with Conversations with God - same theme - remove the ego and A Course in Miracles does a very detailed almost 'scientific' treatise on the nature of the ego and how to banish it from life.
The Buddhists of course major on ego destruction
and I guess anyone who has his own barrow to push or theory to live by has the same problem, they must be all forms of egocentricity.
We only have to look at our own recently deceased saints like Mother Theresa to see a clear example of 'ego banishment' Serving others before self seems to be the clue. Is it not more gracious to give than to recieve?
And where does that leave philosophy I wonder - surely a usurper of God - I have yet to meet a philosopher who's main goal in life is to serve the people and thus to extinguish ego - more to lead astray I would hazard a guess and just as feared of loosing the ego as the rest of us!
mmm, too true, to avoid any accusation of self display then tis best not to say anything or participate in any debates, just in case, eh
Jason:
Not really. In truth; it is incumbent on us all to fully engage in debate. Especially debates that attack the notion of "Free-thought" or "Free-will" or "Freedom."
The free person is considered a dangerous element by the established powers: a quick walk through history supports this. This is why anyone who throws down the cloak of conformity frequently comes under attack from the established power base.
So, get in there and speak your mind lest it be subjugated by false appeals to popularity or authority. The clothing of truth is honour: be honourable and wear some clothes. The clothing of a fool is nakedness: base and obscene: be no fool.
Yet, speak not from self-interest: be not all-too-obvious. Speak from the heart as it knows you best.
Socrates was right, all things in moderation.
Empires in moderation maybe a good thing, too much is a bad thing, where we draw the line with things is the difficult bit.
Ruskin was right to say that free market capitalism had gone too far but socialism can go too far as well and end up as communism.
Most of all, socrates should have realised, philosophy in moderation.
empires, what, like the roman one ?
Reg: All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?
Xerxes: Brought peace!
Reg: (very angry, he's not having a good meeting at all) What!? Oh... (scornfully) Peace, yes... shut up!
pythontastic :)
Classic. Laughed for ages.
I'm not British so I'm probably failing to see something in the Tippett example, but it seems completely unlike the example of insisting on action in Darfur. In fact, it seems like Tippett was driven by what you've defined as self-interest prejudice--"prejudice against anything that you see as a threat or a challenge"--he resented colonialists or imperialists or whatever, so he failed to see that Nazis were worse.
Your view of Darfur activists, though, just makes it look like the activists are naive. They resent not a class of people, but a bad situation, and thus fail to see that their solution to the situation would only make things worse.
(That said, I'm not so sure the activists are wrong not to make a serious political analysis. If the people scream in proportion to the horror of every humanitarian disaster, then it would be in the leader's self-interest to minimize the amount humanitarian horror in the world).
I know British politics is far different from what I'm used to, but every category of self-display prejudice you named: moral, intellectual, political, academic and personal--seems to me just as common with conservatives as with progressives. It's extremely easy to find a "self-display prejudice" in each of those categories for opposing action in Darfur. (Look how I oppose war! Look at my serious political analysis! Look how centrist and serious I am! Look at this white paper that says improving Darfur is impossible! Look how immune to self-display bias I am!)
Obviously everyone wants to be correct (don't they?) therefore every opinion can be defined as a self-display bias. Everything can be deconstructed--which is why deconstructed and disproven are two completely different things.
Nor do progressives seem free of self-interest--probably a good number of those who want to redistribute wealth either identify with the poor or resent the rich. And isn't looking good for your peers a self-interested thing to do?
You are absolutely correct that prejudice is way more than self-interest prejudice.
Someone once defined prejudice as when your opinion of X says more about you than it does about X. I think that's a good way to put it. It dove tails nicely with scientific method--a parsimonius theory that has fewer assumptions is therefore more reflective of the data than a theory that makes a great many assumptions, which just says a lot about the assumptions. Which puts the paradoxes of free thinking and prejudice right in line with the Problem of Induction, and even with the paradoxes of defining "random" numbers. I like it whenever ideas from many different domains can be mapped together as the same idea. It makes me feel smart.
Consumatopis:
Interesting stuff. I think Tippett merely saw the Nazis as a means to an ends, and, like the rest of the world (save Churchill) had no knowledge of the nasty nature of Nazi's.
The paradoxes you mentioned can be summed up with another whitty paradox coined by Buzz Light Year "To infinity and beyond!"
What can have led him to this judgement, you ask. Suppose we put Stalin in there instead of Hitler. What we get then is what actually happened, the "victory". If hardly anyone questions the victory, why question this?
What most people wanted out of the catastrophe of WW2, I suggest, was the elimination of all forms of tyranny, whether empire, fascism or stalinism. What they got was stalinism triumphant and imperialists employing ex-fascists to run business as usual.