So I have this problem. 99% of the time someone writes something criticizing purity politics, I agree with their point. Like this from a while ago. Generally the people cleansing their community or politics are ones I disagree with, and “purity politics” is a useful term for people trying to fight ideology.
But that begs the question. How much purity do I want in my politics? Is it zero, do I want to remove purity from the discourse entirely? Hmmmmmm. That would make me an anti-purity purist.
This is similar to the ‘age old’ political question “how can you be tolerant of the intolerant?” What is a logically consistent position to take?
I think the problem here is how we phrase the problem by calling it “purity politics.”
For example, let’s talk about mind control.
I want none of it. No brain washing, no hypnotism, no NLP, I do not want people converting others to a political movement I am part of by method of stealing their free will and controlling their mind. I think this isn’t a controversial position to take: zero percent mind control in the discourse. Let’s aim for that, right?
No is like “Well mind control is just part of the rich tapestry of our diverse political approaches.” (Outside kink.) If someone was saying that, I would say they and their application of multicultural rhetoric was wrong.
And yet, I suspect most of us do not spend much time thinking about how to cleanse movements we know of mind control. For one, it doesn’t exist (probably). For the other, even examples that do look like mind control are very weak, inconsistent, and ineffective. (Cult retention rates are terrible.) If I found out some political ally of mine was trying to use mind control, I would laugh, I would tell them to stop, and I would have a serious discussion with them about why they thought this was a good idea - both morally and practically.
This is how I respond to most problems with people I care about - understanding discussion and ruthless critical analysis, while assuring I still care about them as a person.
Just because I don’t want any mind control used in the name of my cause, does not mean I become obsessive about rooting it out. It doesn’t even mean that if I found a little of it, I would freak out and practice “zero tolerance.”
It’s not hard to imagine someone practicing “purity politics” about mind control. They would fantasize about once you have one hypnotist, they can start converting everyone into being okay with mind control, and hypnotizing other people for them. They would want to purge any positive depiction of mind control in the media their friends read. If a friend was accused of reading about mind control, they would cut that friend off immediately just so they wouldn’t risk being taken over. Anyone criticizing their paranoia would be suspected of being a mesmerist themselves, or at best a “useful idiot” of the invaders. You get the picture.
I don’t want any of that. That is an unhealthy approach to the world. It gives the figure of the Mesmerist power over me.
But the problem, as you see, is not the “purity” part, it’s the pathological fascination.
So I can want zero percent of a thing (such as ideology) without obsessively worrying that if I get corrupted by it in the smallest amount, it will spread and take over everyone I know and love. Bad things should be fought, but do not have to take on an outsized role in your imagination, that becomes the focus of your entire politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment