People are really enjoying this @theunitofcaring post about “getting around the filter”, that laments the all encompassing narratives conservatives have set up.
Peaceful protests fit into the ‘the left is all bluster and whining’ arm of it and violent protests fit into ‘the left is a danger’ arm of it and no protests fit into the ‘we are the silent majority’ arm of it.
This is a good example of how the totalizing necessity of ideology inevitably leads to contradiction. Their ideology *must* explain and dismiss everything, and the cost of that impossible task is inconsistency. (Yes, yes, some liberals do the same thing. Trump is a whiny manbaby until he’s a brilliant con artist, etc etc.)
The question asked is, how do you break someone out of an all encompassing narrative? I think there are a number of ways, each with their own challenges and positives.
1. Present them with an alternative ideological narrative. I don’t mean convince them, but just explain the logic of how (in this case) liberal ideology works. They won’t immediately agree, they may even violently disagree, but so long as you gave them this new logic enough that they understand it, you have a shot. What matters is that you gave them a structure. From then on their mind will work on two parallel tracks: interpreting every fact they say under the original conservative narrative, and one in the back of their head saying “oh, I see how this could fit into that other story…” (This works best if you put them into a different environment with different facts that they see regularly than what they had before, ie., a college campus or urban neighborhood, but it is not required) After a while some people (not always, but pretty often) might jump track entirely very quickly, and wholly indoctrinate themselves into the liberal ideology without you needing to do anything beyond that initial explanation.
This has the drawback of you have just put them into another all-encompassing, hypocritical narrative. But if you’re certain this one is less of a danger to the world than the other one, this is reasonable to do from a harm reduction stance.
2. The direct educational approach. Point out the contradictions, show how their ideology is parallel to many other failed ideologies (particularly ones they may be aversive to already, like extremist Islam or Leninism). Talk about how narratives work, and how the person can be faithful to their original values without having to use those narratives as a crutch or trap. Make them feel superior to the whole ideological game, and emphasize consistent commitment to the ethical principles that actually matter to them. Ie, what I am doing on this blog.
3. More things in heaven and earth. The ideological narrative is actually very brittle, and is only used to dealing with a limited number of viewpoints to wrestle with (such as liberalism.) Fucking blow their mind - introduce them to weird facts about science, or strange and experimental art that gets its hooks in you, or immerse them in foreign cultures that are nothing like our boring left/right divide. The point isn’t to prove conservatism wrong, but to show how small and limited a worldview is. If someone is sufficiently inspired by something amazing and bizarre, then old arguments about border crossings and protest tactics are just fucking boring. And an old narrative no longer feels so useful or all encompassing, but just a piece of American culture to be picked up or discarded when convenient.
4. Slip into their narrative. This is short term, dishonest, and won’t work if they immediately talk to more people who are opposed, but the most reliable way to win a convert on a specific issue right now. Most people do want to listen to new facts and agree with the person in front of them, and ideological narratives are capable of encompassing any fact, due to their plasticity, so present the issue that is important to you as something that works with their narrative. “Gay marriage is the struggle of people wanting to escape New York hedonism and join the dream of the nuclear family” sorta stuff.
In the 1950s, brave American scientists shunned by the climate establishment of the day discovered that the Earth was warming as a result of greenhouse gas emissions, leading to potentially devastating natural disasters that could destroy American agriculture and flood American cities. As a result, the country mobilized against the threat. Strong government action by the Bush administration outlawed the worst of these gases, and brilliant entrepreneurs were able to discover and manufacture new cleaner energy sources. As a result of these brave decisions, our emissions stabilized and are currently declining.
Unfortunately, even as we do our part, the authoritarian governments of Russia and China continue to industralize and militarize rapidly as part of their bid to challenge American supremacy. As a result, Communist China is now by far the world’s largest greenhouse gas producer, with the Russians close behind. Many analysts believe Putin secretly welcomes global warming as a way to gain access to frozen Siberian resources and weaken the more temperate United States at the same time. These countries blow off huge disgusting globs of toxic gas, which effortlessly cross American borders and disrupt the climate of the United States. Although we have asked them to stop several times, they refuse, perhaps egged on by major oil producers like Iran and Venezuela who have the most to gain by keeping the world dependent on the fossil fuels they produce and sell to prop up their dictatorships.
I’m less okay with this approach than most people are, because yes it actually does work, but you only have a temporary ally. It feels like instead of giving your honest argument (why their ideology doesn’t work) you tried to paper over any differences and are just further contributing to ideological mystification.
No comments:
Post a Comment