Category Archives: Random Blogging

Can We Spell Clueless…

The persistence of bigotry in society is widely acknowledged, and there are plenty of examples of people who are just plain hateful. There’s a robust literature that tries to explain the roots of prejudice, and a lively debate about what constitutes an appropriate response to its expression.

But how should we react to behavior that isn’t motivated by animus, but is just stupid and/or insensitive? What do we do with the clueless?

There are a couple of videos that have been going around the internet that address this issue. One compiles embarrassingly dumb remarks white girls say to black girls, and there’s another doing the same with “shit” gentile girls ask Jewish ones. (As someone who was a Jewish girl, I can attest to the accuracy of the latter one; I still remember a high school “friend” who asked me in all seriousness whether Jews had tails.) These videos are being shared for their comic value, and maybe that’s all we can do–laugh.

But an article shared by a colleague yesterday points to some of the less laughable consequences of clueless behaviors.

In Norcross, Georgia, a third-grade math assignment used slavery as a basis for story problems–as in “If Frederick received two beatings each day, how many beatings did he get in a week?” According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, one of the math teachers decided to use a social studies lesson on Frederick Douglass as a basis for a series of story problems that were–to be kind–incredibly inappropriate. Inexplicably, his worksheet was then reviewed and used by three other teachers.

Here’s a math story problem: if one third-grade teacher has no common sense and three of his colleagues don’t notice, how many third-grade teachers are clueless?

Parents in this racially-diverse school district were understandably outraged, and the school is “investigating” the incident. But this is one of those times when people of good will are really at a loss to suggest appropriate action. Some parents are calling for the teachers to be fired, but in the absence of intentional animus, that is probably an over-reaction. (Of course, if this incident is an indication of pedagogical competence, perhaps not…)

There are things we can do to combat bigotry and racism. Combatting well-meaning ignorance is a lot harder.

Comments

Pollyanna versus Gloomy Gus

Since I so often fill this space with depressing observations, I’m going to begin this week by indulging my inner Pollyanna.

My (non-scientific) theory is that the rash of efforts we are seeing around the country to break the backs of unions, ensconce anti-gay laws in state constitutions, and weaken government oversight of everything from financial institutions (the “banksters”) to the environment are motivated by a recognition on the part of the proponents of these measures that their window of opportunity to get the job done is fast closing.

It remains important to explain what is wrong and troubling about all of these assaults. (There is a very  good, very clear analysis of RTW here, for example.) But those of us who are astonished by the vitriol with which many of these measures are being pursued need to recognize that the sense of urgency being displayed by their proponents reflects a genuine reality: the culture is changing and they know it.

Bashing gays and union members, dismissing environmental concerns as evidence of “tree-hugging,” and characterizing all government action as “socialism” won’t have much traction in the America that is emerging.

I just wish it would emerge a bit faster.

Fear Factor?

In Julius Caesar, Shakespeare has Cassius deliver the immortal line  “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars..”

But what if our faults are “in our stars”? What if the age-old debate about how much of who we are is determined by nature, and how much by nurture, is gradually being decided, and the answer is nature? I, for one, don’t find it particularly appealing to think that the person I am was genetically determined, but there seems to be more and more evidence suggesting that who we are is less a matter of human will and reason than we may be comfortable with.

Sometimes, of course, recognition of the role of biology can be liberating. The discovery that genetics–not bad parenting or “perverse choices”–largely determines sexual orientation falls in that category. But what if it isn’t only being gay that is biologically determined? What if being a Rick Santorum is equally the result of a genetic roll of the dice?

A recent article in Psychology Today reports on a study from University College London that found self-described conservatives have larger amygdala than self-described liberals, and that the liberals had more gray matter in the anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that helps people deal with complexity. (The results are consistent with some other recent studies; just a year ago, researchers at Harvard and UCLU reported finding a “liberal gene,” although its reported effects were limited.) The amygdala is a small, almond-shaped structure deep in the brain that is active when a person is anxious or fearful.

In other words, people who are more likely to be anxious and fearful, and less able to deal with complexity, are most likely to be politically conservative–assuming we define “conservative” as a person opposed to social and political change. Social conservatives would fit this definition; fiscal conservatives probably wouldn’t.

In one sense, such a conclusion would be consistent with what we see around us. The hysteria that Obama’s election evoked in a significant number of people is often attributed to racism (and that certainly explains a lot of it), but it is equally likely that it wasn’t the President’s race per se, but the fact that the election of a black man was unavoidable evidence of dreaded social change. As I have noted before, many of the people who seem most irrational–who think the President is a Muslim Socialist, that gays and lesbians have a diabolical “agenda,” that all Muslims are terrorists–are clearly terrified of a world they don’t understand. In the words of social historian Stephanie Coontz, they’re nostalgic for “the way we never were.”

Of course, one study doesn’t settle the nature-nurture battle, and even if these results are replicated, they don’t answer the causation question: are some people born with a larger amygdala, or did it grow larger as a result of frightening childhood experiences or authoritarian parenting? (We Moms are never wholly in the clear…)

But it does suggest that we should have some compassion for folks like Santorum. Maybe he was born that way.

Of course, if he were to become President, my amygdala would grow.

Comments

The Puritans versus the Modernists–Now in Technicolor

In his column in this morning’s Star, E.J. Dionne made the observation that Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman represent the two strands of Republicanism currently at war with each other. Santorum represents the social conservatives and Huntsman the economic conservatives–or, as Dionne puts it–the “modernists.” (No one knows what Romney represents–he’s pandered so long and hard I doubt if he still knows.)

Back in 2007, I wrote a book called God and Country: America in Red and Blue, in which I examined the religious roots of public policy disputes and posited that a significant number of our most intractable debates can be explained by precisely this conflict between those I dubbed “modernists” and those I called “Puritans.”  These differences are so intractable because they are cultural, not doctrinal–deeply embedded and wildly different views of reality rather than matters of dogma.

My research suggested that these differences are far more profound than we usually recognize, and they affect not just the political issues with visibly religious dimensions like abortion, gay rights, or the death penalty. Puritans and Modernists have utterly incompatible world views; they occupy starkly different realities. Those differences manifest themselves in (no pun intended) fundamentally different approaches to such ostensibly secular matters as economic policy, foreign policy, the environment and criminal justice.

Our contemporary Puritans are throwbacks to the early American settlers who came to these shores for a version of liberty that most of us would not recognize. The folks who braved the trip across the Atlantic came for the religious “liberty” to impose the correct religion on their neighbors. The notion that each of us should have the right to believe as we wished was utterly foreign to them. It would be another 150 years until the intellectual ferment of the Enlightenment would change our understanding of liberty to a more “live and let live” construction and would introduce mankind to the scientific method.

Most of us today live in a post-Enlightenment culture. We accept and value science. We understand liberty to mean our right to live our lives free of government control so long as we are not harming others, and so long as we respect the right of other people to do likewise. But there has been a persistent minority who never accepted these Enlightenment values, and they are represented by religious fundamentalists like Bachmann and Santorum who use the word “freedom” in the older, Puritan sense of “freedom to do the right thing”–and who believe it is government’s job to tell us what the “right thing” is.

(Interestingly, they never seem to doubt that they know precisely what God wants–that, as a friend once put it, God hates the same people they do. But that’s a phenomenon for a different post.)

Most religious folks, including most Evangelical Christians, have accepted modernity. They aren’t at war with science, and they are willing to argue for their vision of morality in a diverse and expanding marketplace of ideas. If the Republican party continues to embrace the Puritan worldview, if it becomes the party of the Santorums and Bachmanns, it will accelerate a process of marginalization that has already led so many of us to abandon the party.

And that’s not good for America.

Comments

Out of Iowa

At least the Iowa caucuses are over.

The attention Iowa gets has long been a mystery to me. Sure, they’re first, but it would be hard to imagine an electorate less representative of America as a whole than this rural, virtually all-white state. And history confirms that Iowa’s choice of nominee (except when that choice was an incumbent) has rarely been predictive, rarely won the nomination.

I guess it’s sort of like reading the entrails of a small animal and looking for omens.

So–what did the omens tell us? Well, Pander Bear eked out an 8 vote victory over Vengeful God Theocrat. At Least I’m Authentic came in third.

Meanwhile, Marlboro Man learned that old, valuable lesson: better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.  He and Crazy Eyes Lady finished at the bottom of the pack.

On to New Hampshire.

Comments