Posted 2 years, 5 months ago around lunchtime by oso
Or, The Tango of Equality and Liberty
The main point I was trying to make in Part II - and which Chris was kind enough to back up with real-deal-holyfield research - was that my reaction came from the gut … or, that is, from the DNA. It was a violent and spontaneous response that spewed forth before I gave the situation any kind of cognitive thought. I also tried to argue in the comments that my reaction wasn’t inspired by my empathy or the wealthy woman’s callousness, but rather, a disruption of some arbitrary concept I obviously hold dearly: “equality.”
I have seen similar, impassioned reactions come from conservatives, but predictably, it has nothing to do with equality. Just bring up eminent domain with a rabid conservative and you will see their blood pressure double, fists will curl, immediately they’ll sit on the edge of their seats. In fact, any issue in which a state government exerts its authority over individuals or businesses is likely to result in sudden, stammering condemnation. The arbitrary concept held so dearly: “liberty.”
My main point is that these gut reactions are not based on our individual ideologies, but rather that our ideologies are formed by these gut reactions.
Taken to the extreme, such a fatalistic proposal suggests that we are born liberal or conservative. And to a degree, I have come to believe there is some truth in that, as do others. But of course, liberals become conservatives and conservatives becomes liberals. Does that show a triumph of rational thinking over our innate character? I’m doubtful. It’s a chicken and egg argument, but I’d be more inclined to believe that our personality changes first and our politics follow.
As it turned out, eminent domain was an issue being fiercely debated while we traveled through Southern Africa in 2001. It was the year after Robert Mugabe turned his land reform program up to full steam. With a short detour through Namibia and Botswana, we arrived in Victoria Falls, a tourist village that straddles the border of Zimbabwe and Zambia. One night, camped out on the Zambian side of the river, we encountered a white Zimbabwean farmer in a bar who was sure he would lose his land and livelihood because of Mugabe’s reform program (and in hindsight, I am sure that he did).
Like most of the world, he dubbed Mugabe a crook who wanted only to reward his cronies and himself. The despondent farmer also foretold of the food shortage that the reform program would create. As he put it, either too upset or too drunk to hide his racism: “the blacks of this country can work, but they can’t manage, they can’t run the farms. They’re just gonna starve themselves.”
The farmer tried his best to court our sympathy and some of the people we were traveling with were willing to give it. But my perspective was still influenced by the actions of the woman in the Cape Town BMW showroom and the powerlessness of the worker to respond. My reaction: who the hell cares if they’re booted from their land. And who cares if Zimbabwe as a whole is worse off for it. At least the resources will be more evenly divided. At least each family will have a plot of land to sow. At least the work they do will be done for themselves.
I had read a biography of Mugabe. I knew that he was a young idealist determined to fight for his country’s independence. He was a dedicated teacher, a voracious reader who earned several honorary degrees from his jail cell as a political prisoner. Raised a Roman Catholic, he wrote eloquently about the parallels of communism and christianity. He was a staunch supporter of Pan-Africanism and was a young member of the African National Congress.
That’s not to say that Mugabe isn’t a crook. Of course he is. He rewards those aligned with him. He is corrupt. He has stolen millions of dollars from Zimbabwe to buy mansions in other countries. He persecutes any attempts at opposition. And, he has driven his country to almost irreversible damage. In fact, I can’t think of another head of state of the last 50 years who has had a more destructive, sustained negative impact on his/her country.
Yet despite all of that horror, there is a teenie part in me, the smallest of gut feelings, that can’t help but feel sympathy for his intentions. Mugabe was instrumental in securing Zimbabwe’s independence from colonialism (by resorting to militant violence, I should add). And then, once in power, he decided to redress the wrongs of colonial rule in the most direct manner possible: by giving the land back to those it was taken from.
Expressing any sympathy at all for Mugabe (or, at least, his intentions) is just the sort of thing that drives conservatives livid with anger. Especially when it comes from a middle-class white boy living comfortably in San Diego. I am aware of that. I am aware of the context of my observations. But what it goes to show is that deep down, my gut instinct will always be biased toward equality, even when it comes at the expense of liberty. Others, I would argue, are inherently biased toward liberty even when it comes at the expense of equality. Surely, if we are able to better understand our own biases then we can form better policy that looks for ways to maximize both equality and liberty.
Next post in the series: the difficult task of actually defining “equality” and “liberty.” Then, a justification of why I tend towards equality over liberty. Then, everything expressed in a single graph. And finally, ‘I’m not a liberal, I’m not a conservative, I’m a tranparentist.’
And, always more important than politics, music: the Friday 10 has finally arrived and will be up early tomorrow.
You counterpose ideology to gut reaction. Are you equating ideology as a well-thought out intellectual response?
I also do not like the term “individual ideologies”. Ideologies tend to be communal, even when it is individualism. Of course, we all have our ways of interpreting ideologies and these interpretations are a wacky combination of personality and socialization. That said, ideologies play different roles in everyday life in different places. Your perspective seems to be very much a perspective from the US, where personality and ideology are believed to be very separate realms. However, in Mexico and Italy ideologies are experiences in very different ways.
Italian society is extremely ideological and ideologies dictate to a greater extent how people live their lives and even who they interact with (chapter 2 of my dissertation).
I think I have plugged my advisor’s book to you before, but I think you would find it interesting given this post and your recent ruminations about ritual. He covers a lot social theory in a very readable way: Gramsci, Weber, Durkheim, etc. using real world examples as illustrations. If you are interested, it is “Ritual, Politics, and Power,” by David Kertzer.
As to Mugabe, would your feelings have been any different had you at that campl met a black refugee who had been beaten and forced to flee by his regime? My sister studied abroad in Zimbabwe in 1996 and her host family (black, lower middle class) has suffered tremendously over the past eight years. I think Mugabe lost his ideals a long time ago.
Xolo,
Thanks for your comment. I forgot to write something in response to your last comment on the previous page - I also tend to take my time thinking about what people write. Blogging is a nice way to converse because you don’t feel pressure to respond quickly without being able to think things through. (and you don’t have to respond at all if you don’t want) Today I read your comment, I went for a walk, I did some work, went for a swim, and thought about it.
Someone also just pointed out to me that I write with a pretty cocksure tone on here, as if I am the one who absolutely knows what is nature and what is nurture, or as if I spend six months each year in Zimbabwe.
I guess that over the months and years, I’ve come to think that the “I’m young and dumb” disclaimer is assumed.
Anyway, now that all of that is out of the way …
That’s a toughly put question. In a way, what I’m trying to say is that most people equate ideology as a mental template of beliefs which forms our responses to political questions. For example, HP is a social and fiscal conservative so, accordingly, he approaches political questions through his conservative mental template, which has been constructed by life experiences, reflection, the conversations he’s had, and the books he has read.
But I think that’s wrong. I’m more inclined to believe that HP has a certain character (formed by DNA and by life experiences) and it’s that character that is responsible for his responses to political questions. The ideology comes later, as a justification of those responses.
Wow, I don’t know if that even made sense to me, haha. Going on, once we form those “mental templates” or ideologies, then we often depend on them entirely instead of really reacting to each individual question, scenario, debate. Our need to have a unified world vision (and vision of ourselves for that matter) trumps the conflicting gut reactions we might otherwise have.
I agree. In fact, I don’t think ideologies can be formed any other way than communally. When I say “our individual ideologies” I mean the ideology which an individual “subscribes” to. Maybe you can help me think of a better way to put that.
I have more to say about the cultural differences of ideology, but this is getting pretty longwinded.
Re: Mugabe, I am reasonably well versed in all of the horror he has caused. I wasn’t very clear about it, but when I say “sympathy for his intentions” I’m talking almost entirely about his land reform program, which by all standards was a giant failure.
I think you start down a dangerous road when you insert DNA, genetics, etc. into political thought and ideology. I agree that there are some inherited personality traits, but for the most part I think behavior is conditioned by our experiences (I know the nurture/nature debate rages on).
I think we are on the same page here, more or less. We are just juggling many abstact concepts that are not linear in their reasoning. Where I do see a differnce is that you are presenting a sequential scenario:
Personality/Experience -> Response -> Justification through Ideology
rather than
Personality/Experience -> Ideology -> Response.
I don’t see them as sequential, rather as developing concurrently
Regardless of your personality, ideology becomes the foundation of your response to not only politics, but to life. Some people question and challenge their own ideological thought, but I think these are in the minority (I think you trying to do that with these posts). But the uncertainty such questioning leads to can be unsettling. Instead most people find refuge in ideology. Whether they assert it openly, trying to convince others of its validity and usefulness, or whether they passively embrace it. Moreover, when people challenge their ideologies, they become very defensive about them.
Perhaps the question you are trying to get at is why do a few question or analyze their own ideologies, while most do not. Or maybe I am leading the discussion away from the point you are trying to ponder here.
As to Mugabe, I did not want to imply that you were not familiar with the havoc he has wrecked in Zimbabwe, rather whether your response would have been different had your interaction been with someone with a different story.
In general, I think we need to be careful with equating populism with equality. There is a lot of that going on right now, especially in our hemisphere.
I look forward to your thoughts on equality. That’s a loaded term/concept.
Sorry for monopolizing the dialogue here.
Hmmm…interesting post Oso, you may be on to something.
If true, it would help explain why - even after repeated failures - socialism is still not dead. Some people desire ‘equality’ so much, that no rational or historic argument can shake them of their faith in the one system that promises it.
Why does it have to be equality over liberty? How can one have liberty at all without some degree of equality? “Liberty and Justice for All” could very easily mean, and in fact must mean, that every person must possess at least the minimum level of equality within society to attain both liberty and justice. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.
Homes, the IE 6.0 is forgivable, but why are you stealing my conclusions before I write them? I thought we were a team, where’s the brotherly love?
JK, I’ll write a real response when my mind is thinking about something other than Rio de Janeiro bikinis.
Oh shit, not trying to steal your thunder. IE was ’cause I was posting at work. shhhh.
Enjoy Rio brotha. Copacabana style.