Thursday, August 17, 2006
How do Niebelungs Get Confused with Trolls?
Because we post (perhaps deliberately, albeit subconsciously) provocative comments in certain parts of left blogistan which buck some of the conventional wisdom in such quarters.
And what is this conventional wisdom of some quarters of the left?
X is a social construct propagated by patriarchical, plutocratic society which marginalizes the already un-privilaged and causes real psychological and even physical harm, therefore X is false
What I like about the left, what makes me a moonbat, is that I so often agree with that sort of premise. What makes me wince is the conclusion. Not all constructs of the patriarchal plutocracy are wrong, false, etc. To dismiss X as wrongheaded or even to actively work to change X because it further alienates the un-privileged is sometimes the correct tact. But sometimes the correct tact is to ensure that social construct X is merely reconstructed to include or be accessible to the un-privileged currently further marginalized by that construct.
To reflexively prefer the thoughts of the spinal cord to the intuition of the brain is bad whether it's being done by a feminist attacking the patriarchy or Holy Joe kissing up to the GOP in the name of bipartisanship. To reflexively find all social constructs propagated by a patriarchy or plutocracy to be wrongheaded is just as misguided as the right's embrace of all such constructs. Dismissing X merely because of its ideological implications is something we expect from the right but not from liberals. To claim that because X is un-attainable currently by some, X should be un-attainable by all, not only reeks of the "levelers" whose hypocrasy Sam Johnson so acutely skewered, but also is the mirror image of the moral relativism and nihilism of the religious right. To be obsessed with ferreting out social constructs that people intuit are somehow reality is puts one in bed with (pun subconsciously must have been intended) as the Stevens (Levitt and Pinker) crowd which privileges the counter-intuitive over the intuitive in a manner which ultimately privilages the status quo we lefty moonbats should be trying to reform!
A proper liberal would see a social construct and decide whether the construct should be destroyed or opened up. But to reflexively see any social construct as wrong is really to become a dragon whilst fighting dragons.
And what is this conventional wisdom of some quarters of the left?
X is a social construct propagated by patriarchical, plutocratic society which marginalizes the already un-privilaged and causes real psychological and even physical harm, therefore X is false
What I like about the left, what makes me a moonbat, is that I so often agree with that sort of premise. What makes me wince is the conclusion. Not all constructs of the patriarchal plutocracy are wrong, false, etc. To dismiss X as wrongheaded or even to actively work to change X because it further alienates the un-privileged is sometimes the correct tact. But sometimes the correct tact is to ensure that social construct X is merely reconstructed to include or be accessible to the un-privileged currently further marginalized by that construct.
To reflexively prefer the thoughts of the spinal cord to the intuition of the brain is bad whether it's being done by a feminist attacking the patriarchy or Holy Joe kissing up to the GOP in the name of bipartisanship. To reflexively find all social constructs propagated by a patriarchy or plutocracy to be wrongheaded is just as misguided as the right's embrace of all such constructs. Dismissing X merely because of its ideological implications is something we expect from the right but not from liberals. To claim that because X is un-attainable currently by some, X should be un-attainable by all, not only reeks of the "levelers" whose hypocrasy Sam Johnson so acutely skewered, but also is the mirror image of the moral relativism and nihilism of the religious right. To be obsessed with ferreting out social constructs that people intuit are somehow reality is puts one in bed with (pun subconsciously must have been intended) as the Stevens (Levitt and Pinker) crowd which privileges the counter-intuitive over the intuitive in a manner which ultimately privilages the status quo we lefty moonbats should be trying to reform!
A proper liberal would see a social construct and decide whether the construct should be destroyed or opened up. But to reflexively see any social construct as wrong is really to become a dragon whilst fighting dragons.
# posted by alberich @ 10:22 AM 
