Sunday, 29 January 2012

Post 7: More Rabble Rousing Gibberish


Simon and Samuel here.

This is a picture that we are largely sympathetic to. The first post on this blog was a massive rant against libertarianism, and this picture appeals to our lily-livered commie sensibilities. But we think that it misses the mark in several very crucial ways. Libertarianism is a sensible ideal with very broad support, and arguments against it should reflect that. This picture does not. We are tremendously sympathetic to the plight of the poor, and please don’t forget that as you read this post. It’s just that you cannot defeat poverty without understanding why it exists, and you cannot vanquish dangerous ideals without thinking through your arguments.

For starters, this picture misses the meaning of the word enterprise. I’m not sure how much more can be said about this. It’s an admirable thing, working day in and out with the goal of feeding your family. But it isn’t enterprise. Almost more importantly, no one has ever claimed that enterprise - or the much more ambiguous statement of “hard work” - will lead, or even should lead to wealth. Under a purely capitalistic worldview (the kind we imagine Mr. Monbiot is speaking for), your work will only lead to prosperity if it’s the kind of work people are willing to pay you for. Trying to self-sustain doesn’t qualify. We understand what Monbiot is saying - these women break their backs (we shudder to use the word “slave”) on a daily basis, and need help. But his approach, just like the Assange-Zuckerberg comparison from last week, is a cheap way of putting it. A picture of two women, tired, sweating, and uncomfortable, is sad. It is not a debate.

But it’s also irrelevant. We have never heard anyone claim that wealth is the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise. Poverty in much of Africa is the complex result of a lack of infrastructure (roads, policemen, hospitals), the withholding of financial aid by corrupt governments, and an inability to coordinate sales or trading across much of the countryside --- and that is without even mentioning the lasting institutional horrors introduced by colonialism. No one ever says that African women are poor because they are lazy. That argument, which was the primary criticism used against the #Occupy movement, is always used against American youth in American cities. Why is that an important distinction? Because America has infrastructure. America has roads and policemen and hospitals. America’s government does not withhold money from the people, and if they do then they can be fired and replaced. The internet, cell phones, and highways make it exceptionally easy to coordinate sales across rural America, while its government and its institutions are its own by choice. The argument then would be that any American who is poor is poor of their own volition. We might not agree with that, but there is a genuine debate to be had there, and how you answer that question pretty much decides whether you are or are not an economic libertarian. But if you ask the question about Africa, no one is going to say that the women of Botswana are poor because they choose to be so. No one says that girls of Namibia are too lazy. This picture doesn’t address any meaningful school of thought.

What could it have done for us to agree with it? Easy. It could have shown a fifteen year old Mexican migrant worker in California, picking oranges after dark for $2.5 an hour. That would have been a powerful image with a powerful message. Instead, we get a totally off-the-mark piece of pathos to counter an argument that doesn’t actually exist - an all too common tactic of the soundbite school of debate. What a wasted opportunity.

But, once again, we would like to end with an impassioned plea. If any of you aren't into charity, we don't imagine we'll convince you in a few brief paragraphs. Thankfully, one of the greatest philosophers alive today wrote a pretty damn compelling book about it. For those who donate to charity, we would like to direct you to this wonderful website. Don't like charity? Disagree with anything we've said? Leave a comment!

As always, stay cool and keep on trucking.

16 comments:

  1. For anyone who cares, this post has undergone a few minor edits since last night. I hit my residence bandwidth cap earlier in the weekend, so I didn't get a chance to do things like embed the links and resize the picture before it went up.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Philippe here.

    I agree with this post. I'm fairly libertarian-ish and I'm glad to see a sloppy argument against my side being taken down.

    I'd go further than you with this, of course. I'd say that the Mexican migrant wouldn't be a great example either. Because

    a) he might well make good on $2.5/hour. He'd need to save and invest his money well, but that's not impossible.

    and

    b) he isn't really taking the initiative to better his situation. He's fitting himself into a crappy niche that society has prepared for him instead of creating success for himself. This might well be smart of him, since making a new niche is risky and difficult. But the best thing about capitalism is that it can be done.

    Also I don't like Singer's utilitarianism.

    But apart from all that, I'm on your side here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, you take the axiom that fairness is not good. I'm not sure that it would be productive for me to respond to this.

      Delete
    2. or, rather, I suppose, that we shouldn't bother to strive for fairness because it won't happen anyways. I think it gradually is happening. But that's probably mostly the result of a) conditioning and b) the synthesis, on both of our parts, of way more cultural information than we could hope to do justice to here.

      So all in all, essentially an axiomatic difference. Which does not make for a very productive debate.

      Delete
    3. Philippe here again.

      I dunno about that.

      I don't really think that my dislike of attempts at fairness is an axiom. I was lead to it by a whole bunch of silly attempts to be fair.

      If I were to be presented with examples of situations where striving for fairness worked, then I might change my tune.

      And for what it's worth, I also think that the world is becoming fairer. I would thank science and economics rather than conditioning and culture, though.

      Delete
  3. I understand these images you guys assess in your blog not necessarily as arguments being made but almost like poetry. So, like, this image is an artistic - not a logical - expression of an issue (can an image and a quote even constitute a logical argument? Of course not).

    I think it was Hardy or someone who said something like "art is a disproportioning of reality." That's what this image is - it doesn't present the whole issue (it doesn't aim to) but it attempts to point out and AMPLIFY (as art does) something about the human condition (for the purpose of what I have to say, it doesn't really matter what that is).

    I'm not saying that the arguments you guys make in your blog are wrong - they're perfectly reasonable. I'm also not saying the message suggested through the image is correct. But I dislike that you consider your blog a place where you prove people "wrong" (according to your subheading). If you understand these images as essentially poetic/artistic expressions of an issue, as opposed to logical ----- well...these images present a disproportioned view of reality, but that is what art is, a disproportioning to make a point - and how can you call that -art- wrong? Artists don't seek to present an unbiased, logical view of the world. The aim of a poem is not to be right - in fact, I might go so far as to say that poetry will inevitably be wrong because it is a disproportioning of reality and you thus will never get all the truth in a work of art.

    I guess you guys might think, this is art that makes a point, and we're arguing the point being made. But I still find the whole concept very unusual...You said in this post "A picture of two women, tired, sweating, and uncomfortable, is sad. It is not a debate." And, well, that's just it. The image is, like, an appeal to emotion, to consider the state of the world. It is a pathetic image (and I mean "pathetic" in the literary sense - evoking pathos). It's not a debate, so why ARE you debating it?

    But then, I mean, I guess, the question is... what's wrong with debating a point, even if that point is not made as part of a formal argument - ie. debating an informal (or, even, artistic) argument? I think, though, it just seems...unfair. Unfair to the original work to frame it within this sort of formal, argumentative context - like, taking it out of the context in which it was created, thus making it seem stupid when it wasn't stupid, just...an artistic glimpse at an issue. You're contrasting art with logic and that's an unfair comparison in my opinion, because the two do things differently.

    In your post, you wrote "We understand what Monbiot is saying...But his approach...is a cheap way of putting it." I understand this as you saying the artistic approach (the approach which doesn't appeal to logic, the disproportioning approach) at making a point is cheap. And then you devote your blog to showing these approaches as cheap. And that seems so...I dunno, putrid?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Okay. Let me see if I can't clarify why I'm perfectly comfortable doing this.

      I don't really get why you think we cannot take a logical approach to the argument presented in this image. Clearly the image is trying to shape your behavior. Clearly the image is trying to shape your perspective. I'm always wary of arguments that go something like "you cannot examine this argument rationally because it was not constructed in a rational fashion". Well, okay, but where does that leave me? Do I have to examine it artistically? And if I'm examining it artistically, how do I do that? Am I supposed to evaluate the macro based on its camera angle, based on its exposure, based on the font choice? I mean, obviously this image seeks to alter my behavior in some empirically noticeable fashion. Clearly the change it wants to enact is a practical and measurable one (as is the change that any socially conscious art wishes to effect; you quote Hardy, whose specialty was concocting absolutely wretched pieces of fiction for a very specific social purpose: questioning gender double standards, in the case of Tess, which is the only Hardy novel I've had the intense misfortune of reading). Why should I not be able to approach the change that it seeks from a rational perspective? It's like if I look at Shepard Fairey's "Hope" poster and decide I'm voting for Obama, and someone starts explaining to me why they disagree with Obama's politics, and I refuse to listen because my understanding of the campaign is an artistic one and not to be swayed by logic. Seems pretty preposterous. I am very, very wary of arguments that predicate that you can't examine them rationally. Seems like a great way to tell lies without any repercussions.

      So I think what you're saying is that we shouldn't use logos because this image bypasses logos. Well, that's exactly why we must use logos! Because people who look at this and just make up their mind based on the distorting pathos of the image will obviously not have thought it through. They will have this vague notion that libertarians are wrong or something. I would like to live in an informed society. Why shouldn't I help inform?

      Delete
    2. Also, slight wording issue: you say that you "dislike that you consider your blog a place where you prove people "wrong"". I take issue with the use of the word "prove". I absolutely contend that we do no such thing. While the header is admittedly a bit flippant, the last thing I would suggest is that we have rigorously proven anything. Maybe it's my math training, but it really, really makes me itch when people write a couple paragraphs about a social issue and then claim they have presented some sort of proof. To be crystal clear, that's completely not what we aim to do or think we are doing. We're just advancing contrary opinions that we personally believe are more reasonable.

      I try not to speak too much for Simon, but I do feel comfortable saying this: I think both Simon and I are most interested not in why such an image exists but in why such an image achieves broad popularity on Facebook. What is it about an image like this that makes people share it? I think in most cases it is that someone who shares this image is an individual who shares any image at all of overworked women in Africa. My friends are often these sorts of people. Those are good people. And most of the images that seek to shape my perspective about Africa are absolutely spot-on, and are images I'm glad are being sent around. I would love it if more people thought about Africa. What we objected to in this post was that this image exploits that sentiment and turns it against libertarianism. That is stupid and ignorant and wrong, whether it's presented in song, dance, or colorful cuneiform. This image wants you to think about the world in a way that is incorrect, and so it should be corrected. I don't know why you would ever permit someone to violently twist your moral code just because they do so by means of photographs.

      I understand that art presents messages in a way that logos cannot, and I understand that those messages hold a very certain sort of power. This is exactly why you should be very careful about what that message is. Would you excuse a pro-child molestation poem because it is a poem? And would you blame me for railing against that poem for pages and pages? I'm afraid you're going to have to elaborate on what you believe art should and should not be allowed to do, and why we shouldn't protect ourselves intellectually from incorrect opinions presented in art, because I am finding it distressingly easy to reductio ad absurdum the argument I think you're presenting.

      Delete
    3. That would have been a one-part response, but there is a distressingly low character limit on comments.

      Delete
    4. Also, if you take our header and our post titles seriously, you will think we are some pretty mean guys :( Don't!

      Delete
    5. Also also, now after this I'll really shut up: Someone who creates an image like this goes through some logical process of agreement, and someone who shares something like this obviously goes through some logical process before they agree with it, and that is the process we're addressing, not the image itself. Which is how I justify spending ages talking about why an image or a single sentence is wrong: if you believe it's right, I'm going to take the time to tell you why I think it's not, no matter how you've chosen to present the thought.

      Delete
    6. Do we have any reason to believe these are intended to be taken as art as opposed to as arguments?

      Delete
    7. Are you suggesting I should not have replied to this commenter in case their post was actually a freeform poem and consequently not to be argued with?

      Delete
  4. Nah, I don't actually think you shouldn't be arguing this stuff. Actually, I love that you're arguing on the internet and let yourselves get riled up over stuff posted on facebook. I think that's totally cool and makes you a good human being. (y)

    I just take offence at the fact that you called this a "cheap approach." I say it's an artistic approach because it is a photo and a quote - a quote doesn't constitute a logical argument; people that look at this image get, like, BOOM a reaction; it's a reaction based on pathos, not a rational reaction. I'm sure the person that created it went through some "logical process of agreement" but they didn't map out their entire logical process here (like you do in your posts), they present the issue artistically, leaving things out, disproportioning.

    So ok, I like that you're arguing against the message set forth, but it seems unfair to me, the way you're doing it by setting it up in contrast to your logic (though that will happen inevitably when you argue it) and then calling it "cheap" --- *particularly* that you're calling it cheap. All artistic approaches in the light of your blog are bound to be cheap because they "exploit sentiments" and promote a particular ideology through sentiment. You are arguing that particular ideology being promoted - ok, fine, that's cool - but to call the image itself a cheap approach just because it promotes ideology through the exploitation of sentiments (like all art)? To call art a cheap approach? Ehhhhh. Maybe it's just your wording I take issue with!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well that's understandable, and we'll take it into account in the future. I agree that the wording is unusually harsh --- an unspoken part of our shtick, I think, is that we appear to get *unreasonably* worked up about these things, mostly because that makes for better reading. Well, except for Ian. That guy means business.

      Understand that we love art! And thanks for the feedback. The next time I feel like really putting the logical smackdown on a piece of art I'll refrain and give you a shoutout instead.

      Delete
    2. Yo not to play the artist card, but, you know, I do art. I enjoy art. I don't think this makes what I have to say any less or more valuable, but I'm just making sure I don't come off as some kind of art hater or whatever. I understand what you're saying, but the problem with this particular piece is the flawed quotation. I mean, totally, the point is to invoke a reaction, and I'm sure whoever made it had a specific idea in mind about what the piece is about and what it means, but the issue is the quotation. The piece succeeds at what it is supposed to do: elicit a specific emotional reaction from the viewer, and create a discourse. But if the quotation inciting the discourse misses the point, then presumably the discussion will too. So yes, it's art, and it does what it's supposed to as a work of art, but as a discussion piece it comes up short, and that's what Simon and Samuel were criticizing.

      Also thanks for the sweet words, Samuel. Even if I was hoping to come off as unusually upset!!

      Delete