Printer friendly version

September 2, 2004

An Assignment

If I were able to assign required reading for y'all, a brilliant article to which reader Mike S. directed my attention would be it. "Supremely Modern Liberals," by James Hitchcock, is more than worth your time, long as it is.

On first reading, it seems to encompass just about every concept toward which conversation on this blog has tended, lately. Even the wheat thing fits in — as a nearly perfect example of the way in which emotions are tugged to change policies in such a way as to undermine the basic ideas and beliefs behind those policies, under the radar and with minimal review of the original reasoning.

Hitchcock's essay has the feel of a quick explanation of a much larger theory, and much of it requires further exploration. I've printed it out with the intention of reading it again when I've got a chance. Still, it's already pulled my calling into sharper focus, so perhaps it could do the same for you.

Posted by Justin Katz at September 2, 2004 1:40 AM
Culture
Comments

I'm glad you posted that, Justin! I was thinking I should email you the link, since I didn't know if you would see my posting of it buried in the comments, and if you did, if you would get around to reading it in your busy schedule (but I hadn't gotten around to sending it to you due to my busy schedule ; ) ). Glad you had the time to read it...

Posted by: Mike S. at September 2, 2004 11:19 AM

Enlightening to say the least. I almost get the impression the author envisions the Modernist Liberalism movement achieving it's goals leading toward anihilation of our society. Anybody else get any different impressions?

Posted by: smmtheory at September 2, 2004 12:27 PM

http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/23/sept04/shame.htm

Not to jump ahead too quickly, since I, too think it would be great if everyone would read Hitchcock's essay, but this is another essay (by Roger Kimball) that is highly pertinent to the discussions here at Dust in the Light. In the discussions regarding SSM and/or homosexual sex, opponents of SSM bring up the questions of Polygamy, Incest, and Bestiality (PB&I for short) as analogous situations to homosexual sex. Usually the focus is on the legal justifications for recognizing, or not, particular sexual relationships by the state. But a subtext is that these behaviors, to varying degrees, elicit feelings of disgust in people. One of the reasons supporters of SSM object to this analogy is that they don't feel that gay sex should give rise to the same feelings of disgust or shame. Or they personally feel one way towards homosexual sex (it doesn't bother them), and another towards incest or bestiality (it does bother them), therefore there must be some significant difference between them.

This essay also gets at the question of hate, or bigotry - shame and disgust tend to have both emotional and moral components. That is why people who are uncomfortable with SSM tend to be called haters of gays, or bigots - because of the moral judgement aspect. Thus if you normalize a behavior, then you remove the feelings of shame or disgust, and you remove the moral stigma.

The obvious problem with Nussbaum's position is that she only wants to remove shame and disgust in regard to particular behaviors. I highly doubt that she wants to remove the social stigma associated with racism. Or for Western countries to remove the stigma associated with colonialism, or slavery.

This is just another example of how liberal/libertarian elites have a preferred moral view, and they want to enforce that view on the rest of society. Sort of like shoving religion down everybody's throats.

Posted by: Mike S. at September 2, 2004 1:05 PM