Don't Be a Hater
How about a no place for "hate rhetoric" sign? I'd buy that in a second and display it proudly.
The Anti-Defamation League's "No Place For Hate" program has been getting lots of heat for awhile now. Another city has decided to kick them to the curb:
From the Boston Globe:
SOMERVILLE
The city has joined a growing number of communities ending their relationship with an Anti-Defamation League program, No Place for Hate, over the organization's failure to "unequivocally recognize" the Armenian genocide, a spokeswoman for Mayor Joseph Curtatone said yesterday. Curtatone is president of the Massachusetts Mayors' Association and sits on the board of its parent group, the Massachusetts Municipal Association. After that group voted unanimously to sever ties with No Place for Hate, which promotes diversity and antibias efforts, Curtatone decided to have Somerville do the same, said spokeswoman Lesley Delaney Hawkins. The city will join the National League of Cities Partnership for Working Toward Inclusive Communities, she said.At my college, I'm greeted with various versions of "no place for hate" signs when I walk through the door. It always makes me cringe. "Hate" belongs to the lexicon of phrases that irritate me such as "reverse discrimination" and "playing the race card". I'm not sure exactly how it happened, but it seemed back in the 90's all this "hate" rhetoric became wildly popular as a way of addressing prejudicial attitudes, statements, and behaviors. Just as "love" is a phrase that becomes cheapened with misuse, the politically-correct labeling of attitudes, statements, and behaviors as "hate" has had a similar effect. I have at least three problems with this tendency:
1. Saying that a person's attitudes, statements, or behaviors are hateful is sometimes a true statement, but other times is simply a rhetorical weapon used against those whose views you do not agree with. This abusive tactic is quite common in contemporary American society where various groups struggle for the power to impose their version of reality on others. Due to the psychologizing of social problems (race is one but there are others) that I have mentioned before, throwing the word "hate" around can knock one's opponents off their feet very effectively.
2. Hate rhetoric is a symptom of the very psychologizing of social problems that I have already critiqued. It focuses on the "feelings" of the alleged perpetrator distracting us from the real issue which is the distribution of power.
3. It implies insight into the inner-workings of people's minds and hearts that frankly few of us actually possess. How do I know that "hate" is the motive behind another person's attitudes, statements or behavior? (Also why is that important anyway? See point #2)
My point is not to create a false dichotomy between psychology and sociology. As I have said, what happens in our minds matters, not only regarding what we say and do, but to our very spiritual development and ultimately, civilization itself. Baha'is believe in the power of love and the need to reduce the amount of hatred among the peoples of this world. Psychologizing social problems however is not about acknowledging the dynamic relationship between the mind and the social order, it is about giving a primacy to the mind that distorts reality and obscures the unequal distribution of power which is the well-spring of inequality and oppression.
My vote is that we retire the "hate" rhetoric from our public discourse entirely. It adds nothing to the meaningful analysis of social problems and cheapens the word itself.
"Consumer culture, today's inheritor by default of materialism's gospel of human betterment, is unembarrassed by the ephemeral nature of the goals that inspire it. For the small minority of people who can afford them, the benefits it offers are immediate, and the rationale unapologetic. Emboldened by the breakdown of traditional morality, the advance of the new creed is essentially no more than the triumph of animal impulse, as instinctive and blind as appetite, released at long last from the restraints of supernatural sanctions. Its most obvious casualty has been language."
(Commissioned by The Universal House of Justice, One Common Faith)
6 comments:
Phillipe, while I see your point, and get the same 'cringe", maybe we should at times defer to the "meet the 'client' where they're at" principle of social work in order to attract individuals who seek change? Provided of course we have a vision of change, not an acceptance of status quo.
From my own experience: my parents for many years in the 60's and 70's had a bumper sticker, "tolerate difference", that used to make me cringe. "Tolerance" is not a word I view as a change agent.
My parents were also at that time very active members of B'nai Brith/Anti-Defamation League. (with which I had and still have many a bone to pick when I take the time to think about it).
I still remember the day my dad resigned from the organization, where he held local leadership. He said to me: "I can't see belonging to an organization that my own son- in-law and my own grandchildren couldn't join just because they are not Jewish."
My now 91 year old mom went on to accept the Faith 13 years later, and my Dad, now in the next world, grew to love the Faith, and all it's teachings. He would tell everyone he knew and met to look into the Baha'i Faith, it held the true solution to the world's ills.
As another relative on the other side used to say, "I say that to say this":
Sometimes forbearance with those who have a very limited view of things but are sincere of heart and on the right path will bear fruit. Others mouth all the right words, but with the wrong motives.
"Oh Son of Spirit! My first counsel is this: possess a pure, kindly and radiant heart, that thine may be a sovereignty ancient, imperishable and everlasting."
Baha'u'llah
judith w.
--
Judith, you are coming on strong with the comments! It's important to meet people where they are at and at the same time keep moving forward toward real change. I always enjoy how you bring your Jewish heritage to bear in reflecting on the things I put out there on this blog. I wish more readers would take the challenge and let other readers know what they think and exchange ideas.
Phillipe:
Judith's Jewish heritage (the name means "Jewess," after all) conveniently illustrates your point. The Holocaust was possible because anti-Semitism was built into the social fabric of the German-speaking peoples, as well as much of Europe. It was not merely the result of some Germans (well, an awful lot actually) having the wrong thoughts about Jews (Roma, Slavs, gays, etc.). Babies drank anti-Semitism with their mothers' milk. It was part of the way of life. The surprise is not that so many German-speaking people participated in the Holocaust, the surprise is in the ones who resisted it -- the Max Schmelings of the world are the mystery, not the Hitlers. We like to dwell on Hitler's particular pathology, and too much emphasis on it leads to wondering why the people who produced Beethoven and Mozart and Goethe and so on could have followed this raving lunatic. If Hitler were simply a nut case, all the "normal" Germans would have ignored him or put him in a straitjacket. They elected him. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence AND owned slaves and had children by one or more of them.
And so it is with the long life of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright case. It goes on and on because racism in this nation is systemic, not because it's a mental illness that a bunch of unfortunate souls are afflicted with. The Wright case provides very good cover for concealing the racism of our society, against which Wright was and is reacting. Obama tried to explain that, but only those who already knew it understood. Wright's occasionally over-the-top pronouncements are the symptoms, not the disease. And the disease is in the body-politic, not any particular body or mind. The Divine Physician has the cure.
Victor Kulkosky
Nice analysis as usual Victor. God willing we will meet in person someday and have a great conversation. The Bible tells us that we wrestle not against flesh and blood but power and principalities. You could say in the contemporary sense that we wrestle not against individual minds, but the institutionalization of thoughts springing from those out of their minds. Bad ideas pose little threat without the power to impose them systemically. Racism is but one example but there are many.
Psychologizing social problems (which ultimately are spiritual problems) is so seductive because it gives a kind of legitimacy to the dominant ideology in American society which is individualism which because it keeps people focused on themselves, undermines the possibility for unified action toward social transformation (among other things). One of the great thing about the Baha'i analysis of social problems is that it lays equal emphasis on the social, psychological and spiritual dimensions of these problems, an integrative approach mostly lacking in contemporary discourse regardless of what political ideology (conservative or liberal) that people align themselves with. Day after day, night after night we are subjected to the commentary of otherwise intelligent people who talk about what is happening in the world as if neither God, nor the soul existed (even some who claim to be religious or spiritual in private!). Is it any wonder humanity finds itself in such a condition?
It's posts like this that first got me reading your blog. Phil, you and your commentators have given me a whole new insight into what racism is.
I especially liked: Psychologizing social problems (which ultimately are spiritual problems) is so seductive because it gives a kind of legitimacy to the dominant ideology in American society which is individualism which because it keeps people focused on themselves, undermines the possibility for unified action toward social transformation (among other things).
Because:
That which the Lord hath ordained as the sovereign remedy and mightiest instrument for the healing of all the world is the union of all its peoples in one universal Cause, one common Faith. This can in no wise be achieved except through the power of a skilled, an all-powerful and inspired Physician. This, verily, is the truth, and all else naught but error. Each time that Most Mighty Instrument hath come, and that Light shone forth from the Ancient Dayspring, He was withheld by ignorant physicians who, even as clouds, interposed themselves between Him and the world. It failed, therefore, to recover, and its sickness hath persisted until this day.
Relating that to what has been said, I would agree that we should work with all who want, and I thank you for helping me better understand the world's situation as diagnosed by Baha'u'llah so that I can do the same for others.
Jalal, you have made my day with all your commments. I especially appreciate your use of Baha'i scripture. It's an excellent habit. Keep coming back and sharing your thoughts.
Post a Comment