Nah, this is an empirical claim. That is, not acknowledging that the personal is political will only leave ‘the personal’ trapped in the current discourse, accepted as the way of things.
Thus ceteris paribus it makes life in such a society suck more.
I am pretty sure it is correct.
Though I also plain prefer to live in a society where I have to deal with politics as little as possible. Naturally this unfortunately isn’t a politically neutral stance. “Right wing freedom” is often freedom from politics, while “left wing freedom” is often freedom to politics.
I believe that most benign change is not brought about by politics while much of the harmful one is. The human mind is systematically broken at thinking about politics, at least politics beyond the size of the stone age tribe, but it can solve such problems when they are framed in other ways.
I agree with you that a world where the personal and the political were distinct spheres that never met would probably be a better world. But in the world we live in, there are groups that are (1) identified by persona characteristics, and (2) oppressed in some sense by the mainstream. If those groups don’t conflate the personal and the political, they don’t have a workable roadmap to social change. In parallel, those who oppose the social changes are committed to reinforcing the distinction.
“Right wing freedom” is often freedom from politics, while “left wing freedom” is freedom to politics.
As you note, this formulation has a great deal of embedded status quo bias. In the US, a politician saying “I’m deeply religious.” is often perceived as making a non-political statement that he is a good person. Analytically, the perception is false—applause lights are a political act.
Keep in mind also that partisan electioneering (community organizer v. rich corporate executive) is not the same thing as politics. In the context of the quote under discussion, everything referenced by Hanson’s status-based analysis of human behavior should be understood as “political” analysis.
But in the world we live in, there are groups that are (1) identified by persona characteristics, and (2) oppressed in some sense by the mainstream. If those groups don’t conflate the personal and the political, they don’t have a workable roadmap to social change.
There is no reason to expect that politics somehow inherently favors the truly oppressed. In reality, groups that are strong have inherent advantages in politicking over groups that are weak. The real oppressed have low status, few allies, and no resources.
Rule of thumb: the group that everyone agrees is the most oppressed is not actually the most oppressed—at least, not any longer. The most oppressed group doesn’t have that kind of PR!
No one is claiming that “politics somehow favors the truly oppressed”, nor need they in order to argue that “the personal is political” [EDIT: in the sense that political activity can be necessary for personal-looking goals; the phrase can be understood in other ways]. What’s relevant is whether politics is necessary for the truly oppressed.
Hypothetical world: two subpopulations, the lucky Haves and the oppressed Have-Nots. Everything is harder for the Have-Nots because of explicitly discriminatory laws, casual tribal hatreds, lack of resources after historical oppression, widespread assumption that they’re inferior, etc. If the Have-Nots’ position is to improve, they will certainly need the discriminatory laws repealed, and it may be to their benefit for there to be anti-discrimination regulations. To get that, there will need to be politics. They will be at a disadvantage in any politicking, for sure, but they’re equally at a disadvantage in every other way they might try to improve their situation. Trying to get richer through innovation or trade; getting better-liked through personal interactions; persuading individuals to treat them better; all these things and more will tend to go badly for the Have-Nots, just as politicking will. They need politics even though politics doesn’t favour them.
Depending on lots of details, they might do better to begin by concentrating on things other than politics. Or not. The same goes for oppressed groups in the real world. So “the personal is political” might well turn out to be empirically wrong. But it isn’t refuted merely by observing that politics doesn’t inherently favour the oppressed.
(I agree with your last paragraph, with the proviso that a group that most people agree is most oppressed might actually be the most oppressed—if the people who don’t agree or don’t care treat them badly enough. I don’t know whether, or how often, this actually happens.)
My point is simply that the original quote is a roadmap for moving up the status ladder. Moving a group up the status ladder is hard to do deliberately and the insightful idea from the quote goes to the methodology of deliberate social engineering.
Like most social engineering techniques, it does not inherently favor any particular group.
I think you have a good point, I did miss his point, I seem to have different underlying assumptions.
Outside of war, and even in war the intention to win this or that goal matters surprisingly little, I do not think the change from oppressed to non-opressed group and back again is primarily the result of intentional human action aimed at changing such arrangements.
They aren’t utterly irrelevant but I do believe far stronger forces and the unforeseen consequences of our own actions are the game changers.
I certainly agree that most value change is not deliberately engineered ahead of time. But it has happened—and there are more effective and less effective ways to deliberately cause changes in values over time.
I also plain prefer to live in a society where I have to deal with politics as little as possible.
Does “politics” in this sentence apply to things like negotiating your position among a hundred people in a corporation? Or are you restricting it to things like democratic elections, legislation, government taxes, and suchlike?
Technically true but bullshit nonetheless. Multiheaded make an “is” claim, you responded with an “ought not” claim. You happened to include “would have better consequences if not” as an intermediate step towards “ought not” but as a response to the grandparent the parent is rather misleading. It’s also exactly the kind of thing I usually expect in “personal/political” conversation.
I outright stated this is my preference and I wrote out an argument for why I hold that “ought” as we nearly always do here because of how endorsed consequentalism is. I kind of resent your implication that I’m not concerned with the truth of the matter simply because I tried to make my argument convincing.
Calling something bullshit, regardless of a definition is most certainly saying you dislike that “kind of thing”.
Yes, I most certainly do dislike the form of interaction you were using against multi and to a lesser extent have used in your other replies within this thread. That doesn’t make the “If you don’t like you don’t belong in the thread” message appropriate. It means that, to the extent that I happen to consider it worth my time, I may choose to oppose it. This retort is non-sequitur.
You said you expect “this kind of thing” from certain kinds of threads, then are upset when you find it in such threads. I hardly think it is a non-sequitur to point this out.
Edit: I’m not sure it is a non-sequitur but I did just realize feelings are probably running high, so I do now think it was inappropriate. Retracted.
That is, not acknowledging that the personal is political will only leave ‘the personal’ trapped in the current discourse, accepted as the way of things.
Social norms are never static and are shaped by strong forces outside the control any individual coalition making monkey brain part. By not acknowledging that the personal is the political I demonstrate it on a meta level. Of all the coalitions this subsidizes, the current is but one member. I am unsure if it is better or worse than what will replace it or its successor. I have much more confidence in which class of coalitions is better.
The “personal” being potentially “political”: Sexuality and gender, power issues within a family or a relationship, etc.
(See e.g. here for a simple explanation of the phrase’s context.)
A kind of the “current discourse” that I mean, then, would be a community and a way of life that would insistently and pervasively tell you how there’s nothing political about coming out as queer, or feeling trapped in your marriage, or being mocked for your psychological issue—it’s an entirely personal problem of you being a “freak”, and you’d better change yourself because you aren’t even allowed the language of changing the system. (One of the first steps in such language being the categorization of the entire sphere as pertaining to the “political”, and needing complete ideological reevaluation.)
This is where the New Left is usually insightful in its criticism of “structural oppression” and other such paranoid-sounding things, IMO.
(Sorry for dropping such a brief and cryptic phrase, really. That would’ve sounded almost trite and obvious in feminist circles—e.g. TimS instantly understood what I meant by it, see below—but I can see how it might look obscure to a general audience.)
I’m still not seeing a point. Obviously the political situation influences personal situations of people, and sufficiently widespread systematic changes in people’s behavior influence aspects of the political situation. (What is the particular relevance for this point of the examples you chose?) The micropolitics you allude to is more about game theory than the global politics that’s usually meant by the word. With this understood, what is the thesis worth making, or the “empirical claim” you’ve referred to?
Nah, this is an empirical claim. That is, not acknowledging that the personal is political will only leave ‘the personal’ trapped in the current discourse, accepted as the way of things.
I am making an empirical claim.
I am pretty sure it is correct.
Though I also plain prefer to live in a society where I have to deal with politics as little as possible. Naturally this unfortunately isn’t a politically neutral stance. “Right wing freedom” is often freedom from politics, while “left wing freedom” is often freedom to politics.
I believe that most benign change is not brought about by politics while much of the harmful one is. The human mind is systematically broken at thinking about politics, at least politics beyond the size of the stone age tribe, but it can solve such problems when they are framed in other ways.
I think you are misunderstanding Multi’s point.
I agree with you that a world where the personal and the political were distinct spheres that never met would probably be a better world. But in the world we live in, there are groups that are (1) identified by persona characteristics, and (2) oppressed in some sense by the mainstream. If those groups don’t conflate the personal and the political, they don’t have a workable roadmap to social change. In parallel, those who oppose the social changes are committed to reinforcing the distinction.
As you note, this formulation has a great deal of embedded status quo bias. In the US, a politician saying “I’m deeply religious.” is often perceived as making a non-political statement that he is a good person. Analytically, the perception is false—applause lights are a political act.
Keep in mind also that partisan electioneering (community organizer v. rich corporate executive) is not the same thing as politics. In the context of the quote under discussion, everything referenced by Hanson’s status-based analysis of human behavior should be understood as “political” analysis.
There is no reason to expect that politics somehow inherently favors the truly oppressed. In reality, groups that are strong have inherent advantages in politicking over groups that are weak. The real oppressed have low status, few allies, and no resources.
Rule of thumb: the group that everyone agrees is the most oppressed is not actually the most oppressed—at least, not any longer. The most oppressed group doesn’t have that kind of PR!
No one is claiming that “politics somehow favors the truly oppressed”, nor need they in order to argue that “the personal is political” [EDIT: in the sense that political activity can be necessary for personal-looking goals; the phrase can be understood in other ways]. What’s relevant is whether politics is necessary for the truly oppressed.
Hypothetical world: two subpopulations, the lucky Haves and the oppressed Have-Nots. Everything is harder for the Have-Nots because of explicitly discriminatory laws, casual tribal hatreds, lack of resources after historical oppression, widespread assumption that they’re inferior, etc. If the Have-Nots’ position is to improve, they will certainly need the discriminatory laws repealed, and it may be to their benefit for there to be anti-discrimination regulations. To get that, there will need to be politics. They will be at a disadvantage in any politicking, for sure, but they’re equally at a disadvantage in every other way they might try to improve their situation. Trying to get richer through innovation or trade; getting better-liked through personal interactions; persuading individuals to treat them better; all these things and more will tend to go badly for the Have-Nots, just as politicking will. They need politics even though politics doesn’t favour them.
Depending on lots of details, they might do better to begin by concentrating on things other than politics. Or not. The same goes for oppressed groups in the real world. So “the personal is political” might well turn out to be empirically wrong. But it isn’t refuted merely by observing that politics doesn’t inherently favour the oppressed.
(I agree with your last paragraph, with the proviso that a group that most people agree is most oppressed might actually be the most oppressed—if the people who don’t agree or don’t care treat them badly enough. I don’t know whether, or how often, this actually happens.)
My point is simply that the original quote is a roadmap for moving up the status ladder. Moving a group up the status ladder is hard to do deliberately and the insightful idea from the quote goes to the methodology of deliberate social engineering.
Like most social engineering techniques, it does not inherently favor any particular group.
I think you have a good point, I did miss his point, I seem to have different underlying assumptions.
Outside of war, and even in war the intention to win this or that goal matters surprisingly little, I do not think the change from oppressed to non-opressed group and back again is primarily the result of intentional human action aimed at changing such arrangements.
They aren’t utterly irrelevant but I do believe far stronger forces and the unforeseen consequences of our own actions are the game changers.
I certainly agree that most value change is not deliberately engineered ahead of time. But it has happened—and there are more effective and less effective ways to deliberately cause changes in values over time.
Does “politics” in this sentence apply to things like negotiating your position among a hundred people in a corporation? Or are you restricting it to things like democratic elections, legislation, government taxes, and suchlike?
Technically true but bullshit nonetheless. Multiheaded make an “is” claim, you responded with an “ought not” claim. You happened to include “would have better consequences if not” as an intermediate step towards “ought not” but as a response to the grandparent the parent is rather misleading. It’s also exactly the kind of thing I usually expect in “personal/political” conversation.
I outright stated this is my preference and I wrote out an argument for why I hold that “ought” as we nearly always do here because of how endorsed consequentalism is. I kind of resent your implication that I’m not concerned with the truth of the matter simply because I tried to make my argument convincing.
Whatevs man.
If you dislike it why are you reading this thread? Note that elsewhere I do say I think such threads are a bad idea.
Doesn’t seem to be what I am saying.
Calling something bullshit, regardless of a definition is most certainly saying you dislike that “kind of thing”.
Yes, I most certainly do dislike the form of interaction you were using against multi and to a lesser extent have used in your other replies within this thread. That doesn’t make the “If you don’t like you don’t belong in the thread” message appropriate. It means that, to the extent that I happen to consider it worth my time, I may choose to oppose it. This retort is non-sequitur.
You said you expect “this kind of thing” from certain kinds of threads, then are upset when you find it in such threads. I hardly think it is a non-sequitur to point this out.
Edit: I’m not sure it is a non-sequitur but I did just realize feelings are probably running high, so I do now think it was inappropriate. Retracted.
Wu wei dude.
Social norms are never static and are shaped by strong forces outside the control any individual coalition making monkey brain part. By not acknowledging that the personal is the political I demonstrate it on a meta level. Of all the coalitions this subsidizes, the current is but one member. I am unsure if it is better or worse than what will replace it or its successor. I have much more confidence in which class of coalitions is better.
I think I’ve discovered a Newsome lurking in my post.
Let me refine this to fit better within the current LW discourse: the Personal is Ideological. Also, see TimS below.
I’m unable to get any inkling of what you mean. What do you mean by “personal” and “political” in this context? What’s “current discourse”?
The “personal” being potentially “political”: Sexuality and gender, power issues within a family or a relationship, etc.
(See e.g. here for a simple explanation of the phrase’s context.)
A kind of the “current discourse” that I mean, then, would be a community and a way of life that would insistently and pervasively tell you how there’s nothing political about coming out as queer, or feeling trapped in your marriage, or being mocked for your psychological issue—it’s an entirely personal problem of you being a “freak”, and you’d better change yourself because you aren’t even allowed the language of changing the system. (One of the first steps in such language being the categorization of the entire sphere as pertaining to the “political”, and needing complete ideological reevaluation.)
This is where the New Left is usually insightful in its criticism of “structural oppression” and other such paranoid-sounding things, IMO.
(Sorry for dropping such a brief and cryptic phrase, really. That would’ve sounded almost trite and obvious in feminist circles—e.g. TimS instantly understood what I meant by it, see below—but I can see how it might look obscure to a general audience.)
I’m still not seeing a point. Obviously the political situation influences personal situations of people, and sufficiently widespread systematic changes in people’s behavior influence aspects of the political situation. (What is the particular relevance for this point of the examples you chose?) The micropolitics you allude to is more about game theory than the global politics that’s usually meant by the word. With this understood, what is the thesis worth making, or the “empirical claim” you’ve referred to?