Confession time: I’m really kind of a jerk.
This might surprise many of my newer friends and
acquaintances—at least, I hope it does—but the truth is, there’s an awful lot
of rage, arrogance, and pettiness in me. I’m quick to anger and oversensitive
to signs of disrespect. I hold grudges far longer than even the most nakedly
Darwinian notions of rationality would counsel. And while I am far from lacking
in empathy (I put spiders outside, fer godsakes), I am still more reliably
motivated by competitiveness than by most of the nobler emotions. Worst of all,
there is a small, dark knot of my person that remains proud of these facts.
You see, I’m the product of what sociologists call a
“culture of honor,” as are many of the rural and suburban white Americans the
shellshocked Left has of late been desperately trying to understand. Such a
culture pervades the American South, along with parts of the Midwest and much
of the non-coastal West. In the case of the South, it appears to have been an
import from the Irish, northern English, and Scottish pastoralists who comprised the majority of the region’s early settlers.
The story goes that pastoralists, unlike agriculturalists, are uniquely
vulnerable in that their livelihoods can be easily rustled away by thieves. To
protect their herds—and by extension themselves and their families—it was
necessary to cultivate a reputation for formidability, self-sufficiency, and
ruthlessness in the pursuit of retribution for even the most trivial insults or
slights (the phenomenon is not a uniquely American or European one; we reliably
see honor cultures in other parts of the world with a history of pastoralism:
e.g., in large swaths of the Middle East). These honor norms will flourish
especially in areas in which the law has little power to prevent or punish
theft and aggression, which is taken to explain their preponderance in the
(formerly Wild) West as well.
Nowadays, of course, most of these folk (this author
included) are not pastoralists and do not live in a state of lawlessness. Nonetheless,
these particular norms of honor persist, and it’s not too difficult to
understand why. If I’m to cultivate any sort of distinctive reputation for formidability, such that I stand out
from my fellows as a uniquely unwise
target of exploitation (whatever form that might take), I will need people with
whom I can contrast myself, people I can call out as wimps and patsies. Anyone
who breaks from the established norms, who decides he no longer has any need to
cultivate a reputation for formidability, thus becomes a prime target, not just
of thieves and aggressors, but of those seeking to deter them. Thus will the
victim then come to need wimps and patsies of his own, and the pattern will
reiterate. Bully or be bullied; this is no country for doves.
Taming,
not Slaying, the Dragon
In The Honor Code,
Ghanian-British philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah contends that moral progress
(even, and perhaps a fortiori,
revolutionary moral progress) has often required working with or through,
rather than against, the incentives of honor. In the course of the book he
examines in detail three such moral revolutions—the death of the duel in
Victorian England, the end of footbinding in 19th century China, and
the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade—arguing that each was facilitated by
important changes in animating conceptions of honor.
Now, Appiah is using “honor” in a rather broader sense
than are the social scientists who study “honor cultures.” The term “honor
culture” might suggest that these regions of America are uniquely preoccupied
with honor and that honor is synonymous with the particular sort of reputation
sought by the people (and men in particular) who live there. I’m doubtful of
both propositions. Appiah’s historical investigations rather strongly indicate
that the content of honor can be quite variable, both between populations and
within single populations over time. His conception of honor, in its masculine
form (which is, let us be frank, the one that ought most concern us), actually
looks very much like what psychologists Joseph Vandello and Jennifer Bosson
have termed “precarious manhood.”
Manhood, they argue, is widely seen as socially tenuous and in need of constant
proof in a way that womanhood is not. This appears to be a general,
“structural” feature of manhood, largely independent of its content. That is to
say, while cultures vary as to what is taken to be sufficiently constitutive of
a performance of manhood, there appears to be a much broader consensus that successful performance is essential, that manhood is a costly and revocable achievement,
that it is, in the authors’ words, “hard won and easily lost.”
My own experiences comport with this bipartite
conception of honor. What successes I’ve had in reorienting myself toward a
more socially progressive worldview have come not primarily by resisting my
honor-seeking impulses, but by refining
them such that they could be marshaled to better moral use.
I am now convinced that a transformation of Southern/Western
American honor norms along the lines of Appiah’s examples is both possible and politically
necessary. The possibility, I hope, is no longer in doubt, but why the
necessity? The mechanism, described above, which enabled a culture of honor to
persist in the South beyond the material conditions that required it also
allows that culture to spread to those whose ancestors never shared such
conditions. Social psychologist Richard Nisbett concluded one of his pioneering papers on honor
culture and Southern violence with the following worry:
There is another sense in
which the culture of honor might turn out to be self-sustaining or even capable
of expanding into mainstream culture. The culture is a variant of warrior
culture the world over, and its independent invention countless times (Gilmore,
1990), combined with the regularities in its themes having to do with
glorification of masculine attributes, suggests that it may be a particularly
alluring stance that may be capable of becoming functionally autonomous. Many
observers (e.g., Naipaul, 1989; Shattuck, 1989) have noted that contemporary
Southern backcountry culture, including music, dress, and social stance, is
spreading beyond its original geographical confines and becoming a part of the
fabric of rural, and even urban, working-class America. Perhaps for the young
males who adopt it, this culture provides a romantic veneer to everyday
existence. If so, it is distinctly possible that the violence characteristic of
this culture is also spreading beyond its confines. An understanding of the
culture and its darker side would thus remain important for the foreseeable
future. (1993, p. 449)
And economist Pauline Grosjean, in a county-by-county investigation of the relationship between Scots-Irish ancestry (as determined by 18th
and 19th century US census data) and prevalence of violence, found
that:
Dutch, French or German
settlers in counties with high proportions of Scots or Scots-Irish are
associated with more violence than those in counties with lower proportions of
Scots or Scots-Irish. This provides evidence for horizontal transmission of
cultural norms from the Scots and Scots-Irish to other settlers and illustrates
how, through imitation by other settlers, the culture of violence could have
become the prevailing cultural norm in the South. (2011, p. 25)
It’s worth adding that despite growing up in the
Midwest, I did not have these norms
drilled into me in the home as some of my friends did. I picked them up just as
easily, just as effortlessly, in the school halls and playgrounds. One learns
quickly in such environments to give no quarter to disrespecters, and one
learns this just as about as readily whether one is a target of disrespect
oneself or merely a bystander. Once this sort of hypervigilance of potential
honor threats becomes routine, it is no easy thing to get shut of.
Presently, these traditional honor norms are undergoing
something of a global renaissance. They are ubiquitous in the online enclaves
out of which Men’s Rights Activism, Neo-reaction, Pick-Up Artistry, contemporary
White Nationalism, Redpiller ideology, and other threads of the so-called
Alt-Right have developed, and they are likely to flourish and grow in influence—not
just on usual suspects like 4chan, 8chan, and Reddit, but on platforms like YouTube and
any others that produce the sort of cyberspace equivalents of the largely unregulated conditions of the former
South. These norms power the relatively harmless troll, the aggrieved school
shooter, and the radical Islamist alike. Historically, they have stirred men
around the world to take up arms for and against fascism, for and against
communism, for and against global jihad. There is, I suspect, no atrocity so
nakedly evil that the promise of honor could not get great numbers of men fighting
each other for the mere chance to commit it. We have seen what horror can
flower when even a single nation’s character comes to be polluted by these
norms, and we are now seeing them rise like bile in governments all around the
world. Anyone who thinks the upshot of this Global Populist Spring can be
anything more peaceful than a shifting international patchwork of cold wars and open blood feuds
needs a lesson or two in history—or hell, anthropology.
It is imperative that we stem this tide, and doing so
is going to require the centering and marketing of a conception of honor
capable of competing for hearts and minds with these toxic traditional norms. Such
competition has played a big role in both my own struggle against these norms
and toward a more progressive worldview and in the successes I’ve had in
swinging others to the cause, and I want to share what I’ve learned from these
experiences.
Now what I’m urging here looks broadly like a strategy
of engagement with the enemy (though not exclusively discursive engagement),
and I realize that, in the present political climate, at the present political
moment, that is a controversial proposition. Let me then be very clear about
the nature of what I’m proposing.
First, I am NOT requesting anything like a large-scale
reorientation of progressive effort. It’s fair to say, I think, that we are now
in a full-blown culture war, and such a war, like any traditional war, has a
number of fronts and calls accordingly for tactical diversity. I would not
demand of those living daily with the brutal realities of oppression that they
set aside their struggles for breath and voice in order to court as potential
allies the most unreflective and clueless beneficiaries of precisely that
oppression (though, of course, anyone who judges what I’m proposing as worth
their time and effort is more than welcome to join this particular fight). But allies
who enjoy comparative privilege are rather differently positioned, and this
task is something I’d encourage them to consider taking up. Those who have
personal experience with honor cultures will have a particular strategic
advantage in that they (1) know intuitively what makes the honor cultured tick
and (2) will have greater prima facie credibility in the eyes of those they’re
seeking to persuade. Let me reiterate, though: This is a call for volunteers,
not a draft.
Second, the strategy does not necessarily require direct engagement. The larger aim here
is not simply to disabuse but to immunize.
It’s a safe bet our Western world will continue producing a steady stream of
disaffected, prospectless, frustrated young men (many would lay this fact
solely at the feet of capitalism, but I suspect that is only one contributing
factor). These young men are prime fodder for Alt-Right radicalization,
so our long game must include the fostering of a general and pervasive social atmosphere
in which the traditional honor norms to which Alt-Right ideologies appeal have come
to be seen as passé, weak, puerile, inferior—in short, dishonorable. We need to
effect a pretty major cultural shift here. Of course, this goal can be served
by direct persuasion of the traditionally honor cultured, but it may also be
served in myriad other small ways, as we will shortly see.
Rules
of Direct Engagement
If Appiah is right, then what I’ve been calling an
honor culture is really just one of many actual and possible “honor worlds”
(pp. 19-20). We must, however, appreciate that this world has a particularly
powerful hold on its inhabitants. To the extent that the Left has acknowledged
this, it has tended to focus primarily on that world’s positive incentives: the
greater control over women, the felt superiority over racial and sexual minorities,
or the sense of complete self-sufficiency and all attendant feelings of pride
and entitlement. But the negative incentives are considerable as well, and may
in fact be even more powerful. Remember, anyone who fails to uphold these
particular honor norms exposes himself to swift and merciless denigration by
those seeking to advertise their own honor credentials.
You will thus need some powerful incentives of your
own if you’re to pull any appreciable number of these individuals out of their psychosocial
gravity wells. Success here is going to take quite a bit of concerted
script-flipping, for the world for which you will by default be seen to stand
is a world in which honor for these folks (qua white cis-het men) is simply
impossible. It is a world in which masculinity, as they understand it, is
summarily and systematically villainized. The task of those engaging directly
with the honor cultured will be to show these men not simply that honor is
possible on the “other side,” but that it is an altogether superior form of
honor than the one by which they are presently trapped.
There are three principal and, I suspect, jointly
necessary ways of persuading your prospective interlocutors of the inferiority
of their honor norms: (1) by showing that these norms enshrine only a cheap and
facile sort of “honor;” (2) by undergirding your rival conception of honor with a
more plausible authenticating narrative; and (3) by showing greater dominance
in your deportment toward them. Let’s take a closer look at each of these.
(1). Alt-Rightists style themselves brave defenders of
uncomfortable truths—about racial differences, about the mutual desirability of
traditional gender roles, about the utility of non-democratic forms of
governance, and, perhaps most fundamentally, about the rigidity of “human
nature.” Their perspective looks at a glance highly reductionistic, and it may
therefore be tempting to argue a strong antireductionist line against them.
This would be a mistake. I can tell you nothing has been for me a more powerful
inoculant against Alt-Right ideas—ideas which should be very appealing to me
given not just my race and gender identity, but my cultural and academic
backgrounds—than my philosophical commitments to methodological reductionism
and ontological minimalism.
If the Alt-Right worldview can be called
reductionistic, we must recognize that it is only selectively so. It bottoms
out at a sort of pseudo-Darwinian pop psychology, where an uncritical and
antiquated essentialism suddenly takes over. This is a significant vulnerability,
both because this essentialism is easy to criticize on the facts and because it
dramatically undermines its proponents’ pretensions to intellectual courage. A
consistent reductionist would laugh at any attempt to found a moral/political
ideology on anything as ontologically flimsy as “races” and “genders” (hell, even
species turn out, on close scrutiny, to be remarkably poor candidates for
natural kindhood, except perhaps in the deflationary Boydian sense). These
constructs capture no magical biological “essences” and embed no robust natural
laws, as natural kinds are often required to do.
Now, the Alt-Rightist expects criticism to focus on the
object level of his views, not on the deeper philosophical assumptions that
undergird them, and he expects these attacks to come from levels of inquiry “above”
the biological level at which he’s staked his realism—i.e., from the social
sciences and humanities. He therefore expects to be able to position himself as
the voice of sober, scientific rationality. We must avoid playing into these
expectations and thereby playing into this script. While his back may be
heavily armored, his flanks and underbelly are exposed and very, very squishy. His
“red pill” reveals itself on examination to be just a painted-over blue pill,
and we should hammer him hard on this point.
Biological essentialism is one important Alt-Right
presupposition. Another, not unrelated, is the view that “human nature” is
tightly genetically constrained. From this follow the now familiar claims that
all Leftist “social engineering” is doomed to failure and that humanity can
only really flourish when it is allowed to live in insular, hierarchical,
patriarchal “extended families” as nature “intended.” Your most effective
allies against this line will come from within rather than above the biological
sciences. Think neuroplasticity, gene expression regulation, and niche construction. There is even room for pushback within the parochial confines of
evolutionary psychology, a discipline to which Alt-Rightists often appeal for
support, for even though many evolutionary psychologists take our social cognition to be fairly rigidly algorithmic, they will be the first to note that no behavior is
a product of cognitive algorithms alone but is always a transformation of some
set of environmental inputs. As these inputs are varied, one can expect
behavioral outputs to vary as well. The Alt-Rightist will find attacks from
these quarters not only surprising but difficult to rebut given the allegiance
he has professed to cold, hard biological fact.
Again, the goal here, beyond offering sound scientific reasons to
reject the Alt-Rightist’s presuppositions, is to strip his view of its
signaling value. His stances, upon a closer study of the relevant science and
philosophy, are not sober but naïve. Real
hard truths seldom make the world of our everyday experience tidier. They gray
things up. They expose our molar-level categories as fuzzy and contingent and
reliably add exceptions or emendations to the theories that quantify over them
(if they do not simply boot those theories out whole cloth). They tend to
resist straightforward political implication. A world of transcendental
biological categories and immutable biopsychological natures is a far easier world to grapple with than the world
current biological science actually reveals to us—a world of diaphanous
boundaries, deep homology, and complex, dynamic gene-environment interactions.
And this cognitive ease makes allegiance to such a world a signal of
intellectual cowardice rather than
bravery.
As you smack your interlocutor around with these points,
be vigilant of any attempt he makes to shift his worldview onto different
foundations. More likely than not, these will have more transparently
ideological premises, and you should call him out on them. Let him know that
you can see the mask has slipped, that the pretense of dispassionate scientific
rationality is falling away. Hit him with the charge he’s likely leveled at the
Left many a time: that he’s let his politics dictate his understanding of
science rather than the other way around.
(2). If honor is to ultimately be anything real—if our judgments as to one’s honor
or lack of it are to ever be true, or
even truth-apt—then honor must have a legitimate moral foundation. Traditional honor norms lack this foundation;
they are egoistic, or at best tribalistic, and even in hypothetical
circumstances in which they align with the promotion of the moral good, they do
so only incidentally. Unfortunately, a “fully moralized honor,” to borrow
Appiah’s term (p. 181), may not be recognizable to the traditionally honor
cultured as any sort of honor worth pursuing (unless, of course, they’re
reading “morality” here in a narrowly Christian way). We may, therefore, need
an intermediate conception of honor with which to hook them, a conception in
which strength, self-sufficiency, and other egoistic preoccupations still
prominently figure.
You will need to be flexible here and, to the best of
your knowledge and ability, meet your honor-bound interlocutor where he is. If
he is a conservative Christian, play to his religious sensibilities in
promoting a more generous, self-sacrificing, other-oriented notion of honor
(but, please, please, don’t just tell
him Jesus was a liberal. I guarantee you he’s heard—and rejected—that one
before.). If he is younger and more secular, particularly if he’s a Redpiller
or PUA aspirant, you might appeal to the Handicap Principle to argue that altruistic behaviors, because of their high costs, are truer
signals of one’s quality as a man than the childish and desperately Machiavellian
selfishness to which his current honor norms appeal. These intermediate notions
of honor are, of course, still inferior to a fully moralized honor, but they
are a step closer and are amendable. What connects them to both traditional
honor norms and moralized honor are the “structural features” noted by Vandello
and Bosson. Whatever else honor is, it is “hard won and easily lost.” Its
exclusivity, and thus its appeal, depends upon the costliness of consistently
meeting its demands, and the path from traditional to fully moralized honor is
a path marked by increasingly costly demands. It’s hard to care about others to the extent and with the impartiality
that morality requires. It is especially
hard to do so in the face of powerful structural and cultural incentives
not to. It’s hard to insist on fair treatment for all when one presently
benefits from unfair treatment. But this difficulty can, paradoxically, be our greatest
ally, for this difficulty is precisely what can make meeting these demands
desirable to those desperate for honor.
(3). It is also important—perhaps even moreso—that you
evince the superior honor you’re promoting. Do not be flatly dismissive of your
interlocutor, but maintain always a dominant demeanor. Steelman his arguments and then brutalize them with aplomb. Do not allow him the
comforting thought that he only failed to persuade you of his position because
you refused to understand him. Make him feel like the coward and intellectual poseur
he thinks all “libtards” are. Show that you too know the importance of strength
and courage, and make it clear that those concerns were instrumental in your
rejection of his ideology. Condescend strategically, and reconcile only from a
position of strength. Reach down, never up.
You may think this all pointless theater, a
distraction from the substance of your arguments, but it will speak to the
honor cultured even when those arguments will not. A prima facie paradoxical
feature of many of those obsessed with cultivating images of dominance for
themselves is that they are drawn adoringly to figures who are actually more
dominant than them, as if the power of the latter were a thing that might rub
off or accrue to sycophants by mere association. Even if your interlocutor is
such an individual, if you’re arguing for the superiority of a more progressive
notion of honor but are diffident and submissive in your engagement, I guarantee
you, you will not persuade him.
Don’t expect a lot of conspicuous conversion here.
Think of yourself not as a reaper of proselytes but as a sower of doubt. One of
the many important things you’re offering your Alt-Right interlocutor is a
novel lens through which to view his and his compatriots’ views and behavior. If
you’ve made your case well, following the three guidelines above, your
interlocutor ought to find it increasingly difficult to see himself and his fellow partisans in the rosy, valorizing glow by which he was initially seduced into the Alt-Right world.
Rules
of Indirect Engagement
There are ways beyond direct engagement to turn the
incentives of honor against the Alt-Right and those similarly disposed. The
overarching goal here is to create a pervasive cultural environment in which
the traditional conception of masculine honor can no longer be looked at as
anything other than a cheap knock-off, a phony. How we talk about this notion of
honor (and its rivals) among ourselves and when communicating to a broader
public can play a hugely important role in fostering such an environment.
Odd as it may strike you, the vanguard on this
particular front may be Lefty memesmiths like Beef Coyote (formerly Lettuce Dog).
What makes memes such potentially powerful tools of persuasion? In short, the
fact that no one wants to become one or be typified by one. Consider the
archetypal fedora-tipping “nice guy,” a person-type which now enjoys the unique
distinction of being an object of derision by both feminists and antifeminists.
Anyone with even the most cursory acquaintance with online meme culture and
merest modicum of self-awareness now knows this is not a guy to emulate. For
such people, then, a whole suite of behaviors associated with this person-type
are now, under threat of intense shame, effectively foreclosed.
Consider now this shotgun blast,
courtesy of Memes 4 Less, which aims to get the jump on a number of dimestore
trollish tropes. A good sociopolitical meme works by leveraging an important but
underrecognized form of soft coercion. It says to its target: “We know what
you’re all about. We’ve seen your arguments/tactics a thousand times and we are
summarily unimpressed. You and your ilk have become a sad cliché.” In
communicating this, the meme effectively denies its target the opportunity to
surprise, shock, and generally ruffle feathers, thereby depriving him of any of
the felt dominance such opportunities afford. Make no mistake: Trolling is
never just about the lulz; it’s about the sense of power that comes from
getting people to respond in an anticipated way. The troll knows this, if only
intuitively, and consequently knows that playing into an expected type is an
act of subordination and an invitation to public ridicule. By leveraging this
knowledge, the savvy countermemer gets the would-be troll dancing to her tune
rather than the other way around. This may all seem terribly trifling, but to
those young channers, gamers, doxxers, and keyboard Rasputins being groomed to
bear the standard of the Alt-Right into futurity, such displays send powerful signals.
I dwell on this because the same basic psychological
dynamics can be harnessed to pressure larger and more important cultural
changes. The practice of contemporary feminists of naming and calling out
“microaggressions” and other problematic behaviors—“mansplaining,”
“gaslighting,” “sealioning,” etc.—constitutes memecraft in a broader sense of the
term. This practice is useful for a number of reasons, but to the extent that
deterrence figures prominently among them, I would encourage greater care in
the choice of names. Some of these names, to be sure, are pretty great; “fragile
masculinity,” for example, pulls no punches in calling the manliness of
antifeminist norms into question (though it does not, of course, single out any
particular behavior). Others are apt to at best produce conflicting
motivations. Consider “mansplaining.” Here, the problematic behavior is being
bundled not with some deficient version of manhood (not explicitly, at any
rate), but with manhood simpliciter.
The target of the meme is being told at once that this behavior is bad and that
this behavior is what men do, and, unfortunately, a large number of men—particularly
young and honor cultured men—simply care more about being seen as men than
about being seen as good (is this not the source of so much of the world’s
present trouble?). If you force this sort of choice upon them, most will
probably embrace the mansplaining charge. This meme leverages knowledge
effectively—it says “we’ve seen this behavior a thousand times before”—but it
doesn’t leverage the right kind of shame.
Of course, the most viral examples of mansplaining
involve non-expert men attempting to explain some topic to a woman who is an expert on that topic. “Cringesplaining”
nicely captures the painful cluelessness evinced by this behavior and does so
using a word that has broadly negative valence among Alt-Righters, but at the
cost of any explicit indication that this is something primarily perpetrated by
men. Perhaps this is an acceptable trade-off; “sealioning” and “gaslighting”
are not explicitly gendered either (though it was a man who provided the
archetypal instance of the latter), but it’s broadly understood that these are
things men tend to do to women. “Dudesplaining” more explicitly captures the
gendered nature of these behaviors, with “dude” arguably picking out a slightly
more specific category than “man,” but it is less negatively valenced than
“cringesplaining.” Ultimately, the decision will need to take account of more
than just the deterrence function of these memes, and it won’t—and shouldn’t—be
mine to make. I only want to spotlight some relevant, and perhaps underappreciated,
considerations—considerations that ought to be particularly important to those
who’ve heeded this broad call to break the spell of honor by which the Alt- and
Far Right swell and maintain their ranks.
Whether you traffic in either of the of the above two sorts
of memes or not, you should aim in any public communications you author (editorials,
blog posts, Facebook comments, protest signs, debates in meatspace) that
concern themselves with the Alt-Right to leverage the same corrosive knowledge
discussed in this and the previous section. The more widespread the awareness of
the ultimate cheapness of the “honor” afforded by allegiance to Alt-Right
ideologies is perceived to be, the faster these ideologies will lose their edgy
appeal.
Additional
Tips
What follows are some more specific recommendations.
While some of these apply most obviously to those pursuing a direct engagement
strategy, many of them have broad relevance.
(1).
For the love of everything true, good, and beautiful, stop calling them
“assholes.”
I mean, hopefully you’ve got more in your quiver than
mere ad hominems, but even if your jab
is just a spicy little garnish to some independently powerful argument, please,
please pick a different term. While a
few of the older and more cloistered Right-wingers might still be genuinely
stung by this insult, I promise you, very little pleases the younger Alt-Right
set more than being called an asshole by a Leftist. This is for them, the
equivalent of the bullied calling the bully a “meanie;” it is a confirmation of
precisely the sort of dominance with which they seek to paint themselves. Need
I remind you that “assholes” are, according the PUAs and Redpillers, precisely
the sorts of dudes all women are biologically compelled to desire, even if only
secretly? When you call them this, you are rewarding
them for shitty behavior. You are Making Assholery Great Again.
If you want to know what epithets cut deepest for
these people, simply look at the ones they use themselves.
Unsurprisingly, given the central preoccupations of the honor cultured, most of
these are intended to impugn the target’s masculinity. It should now be easy for
you to score these sorts of points yourself given the superior honor narrative
you’re pushing against their myopic man-baby posturing.
(2).
Call out signaling behavior mercilessly.
We’ve all encountered That Guy: the dude who butts
into any political (or apolitical!) conversation to shotgun-bloviate about
“libtards,” “cucks,” and sundry “snowflakes” with their “political correctness”
and “safe spaces” and blah, blah, blah. This dude isn’t interested in making a
substantive political point; he has but two real aims: (1) to appropriate the discussion
as a venue for self-promotion (for to claim or insinuate that someone, even if
no one in particular, is weak or unmanly is at the same time to suggest that
the accuser is not these things); and
(2) to catch a fleeting dominance high from all the people he successfully
“triggers”—including, of course, the people who call him an asshole.
Often, this behavior goes largely ignored. A few of
the thinner skinned may be dragged into distracting flame wars. The proper
response to this performance is to quickly expose it for what it is: a performance. The “success” of this sort
of peacocking depends upon the audience believing that the apparent disgust for
the targets of these insults flows naturally and effortlessly from the
insulter’s contrary character. To reveal this sort of behavior for the
calculated histrionics it truly is to rob it of its potential to
impress—indeed, it’s apt to make the performer look like a desperate poseur—and
thus to disincentivize it.
The dynamic by which this disincentivization is
realized is one of which many on the Left (particularly the postmodern Left)
have been aware for quite some time: To have a solid grasp of another’s
psychological reasons for asserting, arguing, or otherwise behaving is in a
very important sense to have power over that individual. It is, effectively, to
strip him of free will and agency, to render him predictable, to puerilize or
animalize him. The honor cultured Right know this—indeed, they are perhaps even
more finely attuned to signals of interpersonal dominance than the postmodern
Left—and few things will seem to them more unbearable than having a Lefty
assert power over them.
As discussed earlier, the deterrent effect of calling
out this posturing behavior can be amplified by giving it a buzzword-y,
appropriately condescending name—by meming it, in other words. “Virtue
signaling” has been in currency for several years now as a means of disparaging
and deterring folks on the Left (usually) who seem more concerned with
advertising their moral outrage than working substantively toward change. We
may think of the behavior described in the paragraphs above as a particularly Alt-Right
sort of virtue signaling, put I recommend we reserve for it the phrase “edge signaling.” “Edgy” and its
cognates already have broad, nonpartisan recognition as terms of derision,
connoting the sort of facile misanthropy of a naïve and bratty teenager. They
are terms, in other words, associated with a lack of dominance, a lack of manliness.
To reduce this behavior to a simple hashtag-ready phrase has the additional
effect of suggesting to the behaver (rightly, in this instance) that it is
something exceedingly common, that all the other Right-wingers are doing the
same thing (recall that the honor cultured desires to cultivate a distinctive reputation for
formidability), and that the Left broadly has their number here and isn’t buying
what they’re hawking.
(3).
Understand that censored views are sexier.
The contemporary honor cultured Rightist is engaged in
a very delicate balancing act. On the one hand, he genuinely feels put upon and
victimized by Leftists (to note that he’s wrong on this count is not to erase
the reality of those feelings); on the other, he must maintain a front of
unshakable dominance. In attempt to appease these two masters he’s constructed
for himself a David vs. Goliath narrative which sees him as a scrappy hero
bravely speaking Truth to illegitimate Power—a power grounded only in numbers
or institutional hegemony.
Now, imagine that he presents an argument to a Leftist
interlocutor who dismisses him as a racist or misogynist or Islamaphobe without
either commenting upon his argument or offering a pointed counterargument.
Consider how this encounter is likely to interact with his background hero
narrative. Remarkably, it will manage to feed both the impression that he is the victor in this particular
exchange and that he is a victim in
the broader war. This is the ideal
outcome from his perspective, and so it will reinforce precisely the views that
provoked such a response.
I need to be careful here, for this issue touches upon
a much more general debate re: the proper treatment of these sorts of views
under the public eye. There is widespread worry within certain Leftist
communities that engaging discursively (even if critically and forcefully) with
some of these views will serve to normalize and thus legitimize them, to
harmful effect. Research evidencing just such an effect vis-à-vis climate change denial suggests such
worries are not unreasonable.
But it should be appreciated that this “shutting down”
strategy has legitimizing effects as well, and these effects are unlikely to be
confined to those already convinced of the censored view. Imagine a naïf with
respect to some political issue who’s trying to figure out what to believe
about it. He sees that one camp appears to be offering arguments (some of these
even sound very scientific and are
said to be backed up by a bunch of statistics he can’t really parse but which sure
seem like they were produced by smart people) while the other appears primarily
taken up with shouting down this first camp and calling its members names.
What’s more, the first camp has this really appealing beleaguered hero
narrative on which political/cultural victory would stand as a tremendous
testament to the quality of our young naïf’s character while defeat would
testify only to how unfairly the deck was stacked against him. The potential
reward is high and the substantive risks low, the potential costs trivial. The
other camp may have similar narratives, but if our naïf is a white man, then he’s
apt to feel he can’t really participate in them. Toward which camp do you suppose
he will feel the strongest emotional pull?
Yes, most of the debates the Alt-Rightist wants to
have were settled long ago to the satisfaction of any neutral mind, and yes, it’s
perverse to place the burdens of educating members of the oppressing class on
the shoulders of the oppressed. The point here is merely a prudential, tactical
one. The fact is, we are no longer dealing with a political minority small
enough, and sufficiently disorganized, to be cowed by the mere threat of public
name-calling. The Overton Window moves not by the Left hand alone. To refuse to engage at this juncture is apt
to make us look weak and cowardly, and, eo
ipso, to boost the signaling value of our rivals’ views.
Again, none of this is to deny any of the legitimizing
effects of discursive engagement; I only want to suggest that the prevailing
strategy of “shutting down,” “deplatforming,” and the like may entail
equivalent, or even greater, costs along these lines. We might well be in a
lesser-of-two-evils scenario. It’s beyond the scope of this piece (and my
present knowledge!) to attempt to settle this larger issue. As said before, my
advice here is primarily for those who’ve already decided—at least for
themselves—that persuading the opposition is a task worth undertaking. To those
thus positioned, then, I implore you: Don’t
feed the David narrative.
(4).
Get romantic.
One of the hard things is somehow making the
advantages of living in peace as vivid as the pleasures of hurting people.
This task must become a bigger part of our
counterstrategy. Fascism endures despite the brutal lessons of history because
it is, at its core, a romantic
ideology. We have the better arguments, yes, but they have the glittering
mythos, the thick web of meaning, the heady redolence of ancient
"wisdom," the eternally alluring promise of purpose through mortal
struggle. If we do not successfully counter the enemy on these fronts, we will probably
never contain this cancer.
The progressive platform lags behind here for two main
reasons: (1) It has focused much more time and effort on critiquing current
social structures and cultural attitudes than on highlighting an alternative
positive social vision; and (2) what vision it has offered is principally
characterized by equality, laxity, and leisure. The progressive world is one in
which everyone enjoys equal access to all the freedoms—legal, political,
economic, and cultural—necessary for self-realization. Now, such a world has
much to recommend it—it would certainly be a vast improvement upon our current
sociopolitical reality—but devotion to such a world, thus articulated, has poor
signaling value for the honor cultured. Nearly everyone probably wants an
easier, freer life, but not everyone wants to be seen wanting this. To signal allegiance
to a world characterized by struggle, competition, and hierarchy is to signal
confidence that one would come out on top in such a world.
This is another impulse we can turn against the
Alt-Right. Proponents claim to relish in competition, but most of their social
policies are aimed at artificially restricting the pool of eligible
competitors. They would see women confined to the home, gay and trans- people
to the closet (or worse), and racial and ethnic minorities to distant parts of
the world. This is a profoundly dishonorable strategy, a beta’s gambit, and we
ought to use these terms without irony or abashment. We must see—and see very
publicly—these policy proposals as covert signals of diffidence in one’s
ability to successfully compete—vocationally, avocationally, socially, and,
yes, sexually—in more open and inclusive communities. Think not proud bulls on
a lekking ground but scared boys in a treehouse with a “NO ___ ALLOWED!” sign
posted at the ladder.
Translating these signals in this manner will go a good way
toward bleeding the Alt-Right worldview of its romantic appeal. We also,
however, need to sex up our alternative picture, and we shouldn’t shy away from
appropriating the language of honor to this end. Now, many in the more
progressive sectors of the Left are apt to take issue with this proposal. One
may worry that inveigling these folk toward more progressive views using the promise
of honor feeds into a white male savior narrative,
which would be problematic for a number of reasons. For one, such a narrative elevates
in importance white men’s egoistic feelings above the oppression of others. For
another, it might encourage among the honor cultured a condescending
paternalism toward members of oppressed groups. Indeed, there seems something
rather perverse about enticing folks toward a political worldview that has
equality as its ultimate goal using the promise of a resource that, almost by
definition, can only ever be distributed unequally. One may also worry that
this approach will beget moral complacency later down the line; if folks are
only in this for personal honor, then once they’ve drunk their fill of it they
might simply abandon the good fight. This gets at why it makes sense—even
consequentialist sense—to desire that people do good things for the right
reasons: Wherever our incentives are only coincidentally aligned with the good,
this alignment may always be reversed by future circumstances.
Those of a more centrist persuasion, on the other
hand, are apt to think that successfully expanding the tent of the Left will
require some effort at meeting those presently outside the tent where they are,
at working through rather than against some of the concerns and
considerations that hold sway over them. Honor enticements may be a poor
substitute for the genuine empathy with which we’d like people to embrace
Leftist causes, but it is a great substitute for reactionary umbrage, which is
at present the leading alternative. The ideal world, of course, is one in which
a fair and unbiased regard for the welfare and autonomy of all other sentient
creatures is simply the moral default, deserving of neither shame nor praise.
But, the centrists will argue, we are still very far from such a world, and to
the extent that this ideal informs the explicit expectations of the Left, it
will provide those presently outside the tent with some pretty powerful
psychological incentives to remain that way. At the risk of cheekiness and oversimplification, we can get a sense of this from the following payoff table:
|
Join Left
|
Join Right
|
Response from Left
|
“Have you checked your privilege lately?”
|
“Bigot!”
|
Response from Right
|
“Cuck!”
|
“Welcome to reality, brother.”
|
Joining either camp is, of course, going to earn one
scorn from its rival (in plausibly equivalent amounts), but the Right rewards
allegiance with comparatively more social esteem than the Left has tended to.
For those already Right-aligned, switching sides will seem to entail a net
sacrifice of honor. Little wonder, then, that so few of them do it, even when
they would materially benefit from Leftist policies.
Here again, my aim is not to resolve these disputes to
anyone’s satisfaction. I do, however, want to offer a few considerations that I
think ought to mitigate some worries on the part of progressives.
a.
Negative honor incentives (in the form of shaming) have been essential parts of the
progressive toolbox for years.
Indeed, Appiah sees a
crucial role for shame in each of the moral revolutions canvassed in The Honor Code. However, in each of these
examples, the effective leveraging of this shame required appeals to a larger
community with some broadly recognized moral authority. On the case of
footbinding, for example, Appiah writes:
In China at the turn of
the last century, the honor of women of the Chinese cultural elite required
them to bind their feet. Yet changes in the perception of the nation’s honor
among the literati led to the mobilization of one kind of honor—national
honor—against the old system of aristocratic honor whose codes demanded
footbinding. Intellectuals who wanted their country to find its place in the
modern world reshaped the culture of honor so that in a generation, bound feet
came to be a source not of honor, but of embarrassment, even of shame. (p.
170)
Now, there are very good
reasons to think that in the present case, at the present time, such an appeal
to the broader international community is unlikely to carry the same heft. We
all, I trust, have a pretty good idea of what the honor cultured Right thinks
of the opinions of other countries (most other countries,
at any rate). America simply does not try to “find its place” among the rest of
the world; it aims to lead it by example.
So I don’t think negative
incentives alone will cut it here. We need the carrots of honor and not
just the sticks.
b.
Honor really isn’t the sort of thing about which one is apt to get
complacent.
The aim of the honor
cultured is to stand out among his fellows, to be particularly honored. If an individual of such a background is
successfully persuaded of a narrative in which honor is bound up in commitment
to progressive values, he will enjoy some brief basking time in this highly
particular honor, for his peer group will still consist largely of those
who’ve failed to embrace those values. Over time, though, as the composition of
his peer group shifts toward those who also uphold progressive values, he’ll likely
come to perceive that he no longer stands out as particularly honorable. He
will thus feel increasing soft pressure to do more, to commit himself more
fully, more visibly, more substantively to progressive causes. This shift can,
I think, be accomplished without any need on the part of anyone to stress
explicitly that a minimal commitment to basic human decency is nothing praiseworthy. If all his Leftist peers are being accorded the same honor he
is, it will be to him just as if no one were being accorded honor. Those
further steps toward being a better ally will then stand for him as
opportunities to set himself apart (hopefully, of course, this shift in peer group composition will also have stoked his empathy, such that these further steps will also be
seen as...you know...morally right things to do).
c.
The notions of honor with which we
initially hook the honor cultured can be subsequently amended.
As noted previously, the
most defensible conception of honor is a conception that is “fully moralized.”
If honor is exclusively disbursed according to moral desert, then an unequal
distribution is to be expected and presents no problems beyond the unequal
distribution of good character it reflects. Again, though we may have to rely
initially on conceptions of honor more familiar to the traditionally honor
cultured—i.e., conceptions bound up with notions of strength and
masculinity—the structural features these conceptions share with a fully
moralized honor permit a sort of gradual, ship-of-Theseus-style refinement
toward our true goal.
d. Though the business of pursuing honor is a
comparative and competitive affair, we can influence whom the relevant
competitors are taken to be.
We’ve all, I trust, at
some point encountered a complaint like the following:
I grew up poor. My mom
drank and my dad gambled and beat the crap out of us. When they died, I was
left with nothing. I worked two jobs, 70 hours a week, year after year; never
asked for a handout. I busted my ass to get where I am today, and
while I may not be rich, what I do have is well and truly mine. Now, why the
hell should I have to give any of that up in order to help people too lazy to
help themselves? I never asked them for shit.
A common progressive
response has been to attempt to point out the ways in which this individual’s
maleness, whiteness, straightness, cis-ness, etc. have made it easier for him
to attain his present position than it would’ve been for those who don’t share
all of these properties. To the extent that this response effectively taps into
the individual’s empathy, it may succeed, but here again the incentive deck is
stacked against it, for the demand now seems to be that he give up not just
some of the fruits of his labor but, even more painfully, the honor of having
earned these things all on his own.
However, of course, it is
very likely true that his privileges helped him in myriad, unrecognized ways,
and this fact renders perversely inappropriate the contrast he seeks to draw
between himself and those he sees as “people too lazy to help themselves.” The
task here is to respect this fact without putting him in a position in which he
must choose between doing the right thing and preserving his honor. So, let us
ask of him whether the greater man is the one who has worked hard and now
jealously guards the fruits of his labor or the one who has worked just as hard
so that all may eat better? Is it not a testament to the superior strength of
the latter man that he can afford (in
a social-psychological sense) to be so generous, that magnanimity does not
diminish him? In short, let us redraw the focal contrast as one between his past
self (and those similarly disposed) and his potential future self. This is a
competition he can win and a victory he can enjoy without any nagging worries
about having been unfairly advantaged over his rival.
(5).
Embrace moral language.
The Left is nowadays frequently accused of
“moralizing,” but the Right—and particularly the Christian Right—has
historically been far more perspicuous about its claims to moral authority. If
ever there was a ripe time for this to change, it is now. It isn’t that the
Left eschews moral language altogether, but it tends to avoid language that
activates foundational moral
concepts. It is more likely to say of a criticized act that it is “bigoted” or
“hateful” than that it is wrong. While
“bigoted” may be more descriptively apt, its use leaves the Alt-Right knave (of
which there are many) the conceptual freedom to ask: “What’s so bad about
bigotry?” (indeed, many contemporary White Nationalists characterize their
racism as simply a natural and logical extension of the partiality with which
we regard our close family members).
The most primitive concept in the progressive Left’s moral
repertoire is probably “justice,” but it is rhetorically inadequate for at
least two reasons: (1) Older conservatives are likely to associate the term
with mere upholding of the law; and (2) Younger conservatives see it only as
code for “equality of outcome.” We must be willing to go deeper here, to
articulate and defend a foundational moral framework that explains why justice is so damned important, and to expose the
vacuity, hypocrisy, and ad hoc-ness
of our rivals’ alternative frameworks. We must tell them, in no uncertain
terms, that their views and acts are flatly “immoral.” Remember, these folk are
drawn to dominance, and moral authority is one of oldest and most widely
recognized sources of social dominance.
Now, the younger, Nietzschephile Alt-Rightists may
fall back to a defense of moral anti-realism or to a claim that morality is
exhausted by the “Law of the Jungle.” Their Christian fellow travelers,
however, will not be able to follow them, and so a second perk of embracing
moral language is the opportunity to use it as a wedge to widen a significant
division within the Alt-Right community. We must make sure conservative
Christians understand in sharp detail the character of those with whom they’ve
chosen to ally themselves. They must be made to recognize that their pact is a Faustian
one.
(If you’re wondering how the sort of moral realism I
seem to take for granted above squares with my earlier professed commitment to
ontological minimalism, well…that’s another long post. I will only say for now
that I share a number of foundational assumptions with Peter Railton’s moral reductionism,
and would recommend this paper to anyone looking for a naturalistic
account of the good that's immune to many common anti-realist objections).
(6).
Call out any rearguard pivots toward relativism (and avoid such pivots
yourself).
I’ve been an avid arguer both online and off- for the
greater part of 15 years. I daresay I’ve gotten pretty good at it. Two
important things I’ve learned during that time: (1) Right-wingers and even religious
fundamentalists will retreat into relativism just as quickly as Leftists when
they’re on the ropes; and (2) This fact, when pointed out to them, is a
powerful and potentially transformative source of cognitive dissonance.
The popular script, of course, sees relativism as a property
of the radical Left—of the Literary Criticism major, the student of Foucault,
Derrida, Lyotard, et al.—and the Right have for years viewed it as a position
of weakness, the last refuge of those unable to face hard facts. There is
historical truth to this association, and I hope the majority of us on the Left
are now ready to admit that the embrace of relativism has proven to be our own Faustian
bargain. One cannot rear a just society on such flimsy moral and
epistemological foundations. The bargain may have seemed worth it when relativism
was primarily a tool of the oppressed wielded to challenge the legitimacy of their
oppressors' claims to power. But it can just as readily be used, as we're now
seeing, by the oppressors to challenge the legitimacy of the oppressed's
dissent.
In truth, taking a relativist line is a tempting
maneuver for anyone in a subordinate position—including being on the losing side
of a debate. The function of the maneuver, as suggested above, is to call into
question one’s opponent’s claims to power and to thus undermine his dominant
status. There is perhaps no greater evidence for the claim that knowledge is
power than the desperation with which those who lack certain knowledge attempt
to deny its very possibility to everyone else.
In this sense, then, the Right’s characterization of
relativism as a position of weakness carries truth, and Rightist interlocutors
ought to be reminded of this whenever they defensively adopt a relativistic tack
themselves. Kellyanne Conway’s “alternative facts” and Newt Gingrich’s “that’s your view” (re: the national
decline of violent crime) constitute two recent and relatively high-profile
examples of this pivot, but the stench of relativism pervades much of the
contemporary political battlefield. One can smell it in the mantra that the
science of anthropogenic climate change simply isn’t settled yet, in the perennial
efforts of creationists to force public schools to “teach the controversy,” in
the reflexive cries of “FAKE NEWS!” vomited at any act of reporting that contradicts
the Alt-Right party line, and in the ubiquitous charge of “politicization”
leveled at every branch of science or history that seems to comport more
readily with a liberal worldview. And, of course, it permeates smaller
one-on-one exchanges in the form of tu
quoque arguments (“liberals do this too!”) and accusations of bias (as if
bias alone were sufficient to excuse one from assessing an argument on its
merits). Your interlocutor’s aim here, even if he appears to be just trolling,
is to level the moral and epistemic hierarchies that have placed you above him,
and you should make sure he knows that you know this.
But don’t merely treat these opportunities as
“gotcha!” moments. Play the teacher and expose in patient detail the
relativistic foundations of his views and actions. This will allow you to (1)
maintain a position of authority; (2) present as a somewhat softer, less
intimidating (and therefore easier to submit to) authority; and (3) ratchet up
the cognitive dissonance without commensurately ratcheting up defensive
dismissiveness. If he throws the relativism charge back at liberals, simply
remind him that you are his current interlocutor and that you, though liberal,
are no relativist.
(7).
Focus criticism on the interlocutor’s beliefs and behavior, not his person.
It’s important to leave some conceptual distance in
your criticisms between the thought and the thinker, the behavior and the
behaver. The Alt-Rightist must come to see his political and cultural trappings
as merely contingent features of his identity, things he can outgrow and cast
off.
If you find yourself on the winning side of some clash
with an Alt-Rightist (as you should if you’re following the above advice), be
wary of succumbing to a dominance high yourself. These issues and
confrontations are personal for many of us, and it can become tempting to keep
twisting the knife, to prize your opponent’s humiliation over his education. In
certain circumstances, of course—e.g., if he’s particularly toxic and
refractory—then humiliation may be the best practicable outcome, but keep in
mind the larger goal of helping young men recognize and repudiate the phony
honor incentives the Alt-Right dangles in front of them. If your criticisms
focus too narrowly on his person, then this repudiation won’t really be
possible and, however compelling your arguments, you’re likely to only send him
fleeing back into Alt-Right echo chambers. Cowardly behavior can be abandoned or avoided, but a cowardly person is marked as such for life. Give
him both pressure and space to become more than his current ideologies and biases.
Wrap
up
I offer all the above advice not as one who has
transcended the honor anxieties of his background culture, but merely as one
who has managed to reconfigure them so that they compel his attitudes and
behaviors along more morally defensible trajectories. I’m not cured, but I’m managing
the illness. Learning to ride the dragon in lieu of being devoured by it. I
admit that, in darker moments, there are aspects of the Alt-Right worldview
that still tempt me. But this temptation is precisely what tells me this
ideology cannot truly offer any honor worth wanting. We’re not tempted to bust
our asses at the gym but to stay home and eat cake; not tempted to study hard
for a test but to get the answers from a friend who has already taken it; not tempted
to use our privileges and successes to lift others up but to wallow in
self-congratulation. Only the easy things tempt.
The Alt-Right offers its allegiants a conspicuous but
ultimately facile “heroism.” What could be more appealing to young,
unestablished, honor cultured men? But this facility is the movement’s greatest
rhetorical vulnerability. What we must offer them instead is the promise of an
honor that is accessible but sufficiently demanding, sufficiently filtering to be valuable. We must offer them not the respite of
an egalitarian utopia, but meaningful, winnable struggle against their baser motivations
and the agents and institutions who would cynically exploit those motivations
for their own narrow, exclusionary—and therefore cowardly—ends.