I fear that the message currently emanating from teachers and administrators and politicians and pundits will harm [ ] relationships. The new anti-racism, with its endless cycles of victimization and demands for reparations—as opposed to the model of teaching people to aspire to colorblindness and providing everyone with equal opportunity—requires all of us (and children in particular) to see race all the time. This new model will turn what would otherwise be ordinary, healthy relationships—friendships, even—into dramas with racially defined roles for all the characters.
The good people of my community and others around the country are told that no matter how welcoming they are, how well they treat others, there is nothing they can do to make up for systemic racism. Will they begin to fret over every interaction, fearing that they could say or do the wrong thing? . . .
I worry that the message is already trickling down. Advice columns in recent years have featured parents asking whether it’s okay for them to adopt children of another race, or whether people can ever truly understand someone of another race enough to marry that person, or whether it wouldn’t be easier for same-sex couples to use the white partner’s egg so as not to have the insurmountable task of handling a black child. Could white supremacists of 50 years ago have dared to dream of such attitudes among people who call themselves liberals?
I've followed Social Psychologist Jonathan Haidt closely for many years (as you can see by searching for his name at DI). He is the author of several excellent books, including The Happiness Hypothesis, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion and The Coddling of the American Mind. Haidt's thought process crosscuts the prevailing two wings of political thought in the United States. In this extended interview with Joe Rogan, Haidt dissects many topics, including identity politics. He urges that this phrase encompasses two separate approaches, "Common Enemy Politics" and "Common Humanity."
Haidt also distinguishes between two prevalent types of conversations, two types of "games" being played that often make conversations frustrating. Many of us insist upon playing the "truth seeking game," while others play a game that assumes a Manichean battle where A) no one gains except at the expense of someone else, B) where people are not seen as individuals but a members of groups, and C) you can tell who someone is merely by their appearance. Much of the fruitless dialogue on social media and elsewhere makes a lot more sense once we realize that these two approaches have virtually nothing in common--they serve entirely different purposes. Just because we exchange words does not mean we are, in any meaningful way, communicating.
In addition to embedding the video of the interview, I invested some time to create a transcript of several sections of this interview, from about Min. 33 - 55. I have cleaned up the wording to omit throat-clearings and false starts, but I have worked hard to be true to the substance of the conversation.
33:18
JH: You have to look at different games being played. Yale was a place that taught me to think in lots of different ways and it was constantly blowing my mind when I took my first economics course. It was like wow, here's a new pair of spectacles that I can put on and suddenly I see all these prices and supply. I never learned to think that way, where I learned about Freud in psychology or sociology. A good education is one that lets you look at our complicated world through multiple perspectives. That makes you smart. That's what a liberal arts education should do. But what I see increasingly happening, especially at elite schools, is the dominance of a single story, and that single story is life is a battle between good people and evil people, or rather good groups and evil groups, and it's a zero-sum game. So if the bad groups have more, it's because they took it from the good groups, so the point of everything is to fight the bad groups. Bring them down create equality and this is a terrible way to think in a free society. That might have worked you know in biblical days when you got the Moabites killing the Jebusites or whatever, but you know we live in an era in which we've discovered that that the pie can be grown a million-fold. So to teach students to see society as a zero-sum competition between groups is primitive and destructive.
34:22
JR: In your book, you actually identify the moment where these micro aggressions made their appearance and they were initially a racist thing.
JH: Yeah. The idea of a micro aggression really becomes popular in a 2007 article by Derald Wing Sue at Teachers College. He talks about this concept of microaggressions. There are two things that are good about the concept, that are useful. One is that explicit racism has clearly gone down--by any measure explicit racism is plummeted in American across the West—but there could still be subtle or veiled a racism.
37:27
JR It's ultimately for everyone's sake, I mean, even for the sake of the people that are embroiled in all this controversy and chaos. It would be fantastic across the board if there was no more sexism, there was no more racism, there was no more any of these things. It would be wonderful. Then we could just start treating humans as just humans. Like this is just who you are you're just a person. No one cares. What a wonderful world we would live in if this was no longer an issue at all.
JH: Beautifully put.
JR: How does that get through?
38:01
JH: We were getting there, okay? That's what the twentieth century was. We were shaped by the late 20th century. The late 20th century was a time in America in which, you know, earlier on there was all kinds of prejudice. I mean, when I was born, just right before you were born, it was legal to say you can't eat here because you're Black and so that changed in 1964-65. But it used to be that we had legal differentiations by race and then those were knocked down. But we still had social [discrimination] and it used to be that if you were gay that was something humiliating. It had to be hidden. If you look at where we were in 1960 or ’63, when I was born and then you look at where we got by 2000, the progress is fantastic on every front, so that's all I mean when I say we were moving in that direction.
"You didn't build that" is a phrase Barack Obama uttered during the 2012 election campaign. It was then used by his political opponents during the 2012 presidential campaign as an attack by Obama upon entrepreneurs.
It's time to revisit Obama's idea. Did they actually build all of that business? Enter A.J. Jacobs, who decided to thank every person responsible for his morning cup of coffee. This project led to him reaching out to more than 1,000 people, far more than the woman who poured his cup of coffee and far more than the man who delivered the coffee beans to the coffee shop. Jacobs has created an upbeat reminder that the world is intricately inter-connected. We all depend upon each other to a mind-blowing degree. Yes, you built that business, but who "built" you and who are all the people you lean upon to keep your business going? Start counting.
I'm repeatedly falling in love with Tower Grove Park, which is a short walking distance from my home in the near south side of St. Louis. At the TGP website, one can read: "The mission of Tower Grove Park is to be an exemplary, well-preserved and well-presented, wooded Victorian park of international significance . . . " Absolutely true. I took these photos tonight to offer you the opportunity to see why I tend to exude over the top when talking about TGP. The sun was setting as I took these photos; there is no time of day when this park fails to inspire. I avoided invading the privacy of the people in these photos, but even total darkness is not a reason to leave for many of them.
While COVID keeps wearing us down, a newfound appreciation for magic places like TGP is a silver lining: People from the surrounding neighborhoods are increasingly celebrating this park. I never seen so many families using the park. Friends gather at a distance under the gazebos or on picnic blankets. It is a sacred place of peaceful celebration. No matter what day it is, I am likely to think of that classic Chicago tune, "Saturday in the Park." It is impossible to walk through TGP without soaking in upbeat social vibes from a vibrant melting pot of people representing numerous languages and demographics. I speak for all of my neighbors when I say: This upbeat diversity is why I live in this neighborhood.
That TGP serves as such a respite from COVID is not a surprise. TGP's 289 acres are covered with more than 7,000 gorgeous trees. You can easily and safely social distance from many hundreds of people in such a vast area. BTW, Central Park in NYC is 840 acres, which is smaller than the biggest park in St. Louis, Forest Park, with 1326 acres.
I try to get at least one long brisk walk every day in Tower Grove Park. I also tend to do some of my writing on a park bench or under one of the many gazebos. Along with my own photos, I'm going to include a compilation of sketches by a lithograph company called Compton & Dry, which created a detailed drawing of the City of St. Louis in 1875, probably with the assistance of some balloon flights. In this compilation, you can see that TGP had been laid out before any of the houses in the surrounding areas were built. This is city planning at its best, thanks to a man named Henry Shaw, who donated this land to the City of St. Louis in 1866.
That's it for now, my Ode to Tower Grove Park. I hope that you too are finding relief from COVID, at least once in a while, by reconnecting with your community at your neighborhood parks.
Based on the protests raging on the streets, one might mistakenly think that there is only Black viewpoint and that it is represented by the purported political aims of Black Lives Matter.
Brett Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist who, on his DarkHorse Podcast, has made a habit of doing deep dives into thorny topics. On this episode, Weinstein hosts a roundtable with seven highly accomplished Black writers and intellectuals. If you like good-natured self-critical discussions where the facts matter and where the participants actively seek to learn from each other, you are going to find this two-hour discussion fascinating. I found myself taking notes throughout and having my faith in humanity restored as this lively discussion unfolded.
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
