I really enjoy her company and relish the time spent together. But we totally disagree about a lot of things. For example, she thinks that President Trump's attempt to get the Ukrainian government to dig up dirt on Joe Biden's son is a great idea. She also thinks Brexit makes sense. I also think Lloyd Longfield is a pretty nice guy while she says that she had a glimpse of an Orwellian nightmare while visiting his maximum-security constituency office.
Intellectually, we come from totally different worlds. She has little formal education but has traveled widely, lived many adventures, and, is a strong adherent of Jungian psychology. I have a Master's degree in philosophy and am very committed to the idea that logic and evidence need to be at the core of human life.
I didn't want to directly answer her question about why people weren't talking about the election (ie: I didn't feel comfortable doing so) so we got talking about emotions. She thinks that they are wonderful things and that our society doesn't allow people to be as emotional as it should. I said that they are very dangerous and that a lot of problems come about because too many people let their emotions over-ride their rational mind.
&&&&
 |
| Spring rolls, photo by jeffreyw. Image c/o Wiki Commons. |
&&&&
I suppose it comes down to one's personal experience. If your experience of emotions is of people who can't control themselves being verbally and physically abusive, emotions can seem to be horrific and scary things. In contrast, if your experience of life includes being around people who bottle up everything in their lives and who are afraid of expressing their true feelings, then you probably are going to be in favour of "letting it all hang out".
I'm the guy writing the op ed, so I get to decide how I frame this discussion, and I am of the opinion that some emotions get far too much emphasis. As I pointed out in my last post (News as Reality Television), I think that sometimes what passes as journalism nowadays is more concerned about people's feelings than whether or not something is actually right or not. And I get profoundly upset when journalists just repeat what someone says without actually checking to see if it is true in any meaningful sense.
I also get a little concerned every time I hear someone talking about how much they like the "passion" that they see in a candidate. And there are a couple candidates in this local election that are REALLY passionate about what they believe in. The problem is that you can be passionate about things that simply aren't true. Moreover, I think that a lot of what I am hearing in discussions isn't "true" in very significant ways that aren't necessarily factual, but could be seen as being emotional.
&&&&
 |
| Want to advertise your business or event? Contact the Back-Grounder---affordable rates! Email it at thecloudwalkingowl@gmail.com . |
&&&&
Let's look at an issue that has come to the fore because of the People's Party of Canada.
The first thing to consider is the question of whether or not Canada should force immigrants to assimilate to "Western values" or whether we should allow them to retain specific elements of the traditions that they bring from their home country. As the PPC states on their website:
Our distinct values are those of a contemporary Western civilization. They include: democracy; individual rights and freedoms, including freedom of religious belief and freedom to criticize religion; equality between men and women; the equal treatment of all citizens regardless of ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation; the rule of law; separation of state and religion; tolerance and pluralism; and loyalty to the wider society instead of to one’s clan or tribe.I don't think that many folks of any stripe would take issue with these statements. As I see it, however, the problem comes down to that label: "Western values". The sticking point is the idea that the ideals espoused in the quote above can be described as something both intrinsic and exclusive to Europe and it's major white colonies: Canada, the USA, Australia, and, New Zealand.
I've read a great deal of history---both European and from around the world---and I can safely say that what we know of as modern democracy is not representative of the way most European societies have governed themselves over the past 2,000 years. Just about any system you can imagine has been used: absolute monarchy, imperialism, feudalism, radical theocracy, plutocratic republic, fascism, communism, and, probably a few more I haven't thought of. Why would we say that democracy is intrinsic to the European culture when about half of the countries that have it now only got it when they had it imposed upon them by bayonet point after WWII?
If democracy isn't intrinsic to Europe, it isn't exclusive either. To cite a local example---as many people have commented before me---one of the traditional role models for democratic decision-making comes from the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy. I suspect that it would be possible to find similar examples among the various traditions that exist all over Asia and Africa.
Much the same sort of things could be said about the other things that the PPC talks about: women's rights, freedom of religion, sexual orientation, etc. Europe has had just as big a history of opposition to these ideals as the rest of world, and similarly you can find examples of their support around the world. The point is that these cultural constructs didn't only arise in Europe, instead they are universal human ideals.
So what does it mean when you say that all of these things are something that have only arisen from the nations of Europe? In effect, you are implying that they come about because of the only thing that truly is exclusive to European countries---and that is the so-called "white race". Given this fact, is it any wonder that many people see an appeal to "Western Values" as being implicitly racist?
I would argue that the above is implied from the ideal of "Western Values", even though I suspect that many people who espouse them haven't really thought through the logic of the idea. (Indeed, for many years I also thought that talking about "Western Values" made sense.) What this means to me is that many people can espouse these values without self-consciously deciding that they are a "racist" and that this is a good thing. (Although I would remind the reader that the reverse isn't necessarily true: while it's true that all supporters of the PPC aren't self-consciously racist, I do think that you could argue that a lot of the people in Canada who are self-consciously racist do support it.)
&&&&
This raises yet another question. When people talk about racism they have a tendency to emphasize the idea that some people are or are not "racists". I'd argue that it makes a lot more sense to talk about specific actions, ideas, or, policies and whether or not they encourage racial discrimination.
There are people in the world who are racists and who self-consciously want to push a racist agenda. I'm not going to talk at all about them, as I think that they constitute a very small fraction of the population. Instead, I'm more concerned about the people who support actions and points of view that they don't see as being "racist" and which others believe have "racist implications".
The sticking point in a lot of loud arguments comes down to intent. People who want to support something like "Western Values" get called "racist" and they bristle because they think to themselves "that's nonsense! I don't think of myself as a racist, I don't support racism, I don't want to discriminate against others---I am not a racist!" The others who call these people "racist" think to themselves "why would someone do such a thing? they must be racists! why else would they say or do such things?"
The "intent" thing is what pumps up the emotions in the discussion. If instead you look at the question of whether or not a specific policy has "racist implications", you take the air out of "the emotional tires" of the debate. What if someone suggested, for example, that saying that Canadians are in favour of the universal human rights of democracy, equality between the sexes, non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, etc----instead of tying them to this pseudo category of "Western Values"?
At this point the question becomes "We all believe that racism is bad. What particular policies tend to foster racist discrimination? And what ones tend to lessen racist discrimination?" At that point we can talk about the question of immigration dispassionately. How much is enough? How much is too much? All governments have to make a decision about this, but no party before the PPC has ever made the issue so central to their entire policy. (For example, I've heard the local candidate suggest that immigration is key to problem of housing affordability.) Does that foster racism in Canada? Or does it diminish it? That's the question that I'd suggest makes more sense for voters in this election.
More importantly, once the issue becomes "universal", then it ceases to be a question of one culture versus another. And at that point, the concerns being raised with regard to immigration could be re-framed into policy questions like "how could we bring more real democracy into Canadian society?", "how could we realize more equality between men and women?", "how could we bring about less discrimination based on sexual orientation?", and so on. There are parties that are promoting things like a move towards proportional representation (more democracy), increased daycare (more equality between men and women), and, standardizing the definition of a "hate crime" to include attacks on gays and trans people everywhere in Canada (less discrimination based on sexual orientation).
At this point, concern about immigrants "diluting" specific values becomes besides the point.
I freely admit that I have said and done things that are sexist, racist, and, homophobic. But I refuse to admit that I have ever been a self-consciously sexist, racist, and/or, homophobic person. I was just another human being stumbling through life trying to make the world a better place.
&&&&
If you like what I write, why not subscribe? You can do it through Patreon or PayPal.
&&&&
I would suggest that the above digression about racism and "Western values" is an example of how rational analysis can "tamp down" the extreme emotions that can be whipped into a frenzy and cause real problems.
To get back to my conversation with my friend over Chinese food, I talked about the importance of using reason to control violent emotions. I suggested that people don't want to talk about the election because so many people are so emotionally caught up in various policy issues that they are afraid that they will get into crazy arguments and lose friends. At that point I pointed out how profoundly I disagree with her on a wide variety of issues and I think she's gone down a few too many rabbit holes in the Internet. And I don't want to patronize her, or, lose her as a friend.
We had a few heated words at that point. She opined that she didn't see why my sources of information were so much better than hers. I said that telling the difference between a good source of information and a bad one is key to the separation of fact from falsehood.
Then she said that we share emotions with one another to build a bond between us---one that is stronger than just shallow acquaintance. She said that fact that we are willing to get emotional with each other---like we just did---reinforces the bond of friendship. And because we have that bond, even though we sometimes violently disagree, she will always want to be my friend. I responded that that sort of connection simply cannot be developed between people unless they are willing to invest the time necessary to really make the effort. And that people only have enough time to make such a time investment with only a vanishingly small number of people in our lives. This is why people try to avoid truly speaking their minds on emotionally fraught subjects like politics.
She disagreed and said that if you go about it the right way one can make the necessary connection very quickly. I don't know if she's right---but I will entertain the idea that she might be. And that was the way we parted still friends and both having benefited from our conversation.
&&&&
No comments:
Post a Comment