The Truth About Political Commentary: How Moral Identification Has You By the Balls
This is why critical thinking is so important...
I would like to talk about one of the more subtle reasons why the “good people” of society are absolutely terrifying (in my opinion). And this includes anyone who thinks in terms of identification rather than ambiguity.
It’s like this…without sounding too antisocial here…society can, in a way, be framed as a kind of corporation whose agenda is aiding in the survival, growth and power of capitalism.
Society doesn’t know this as a whole. Some do. Most parts of it don’t. Some people within society actively support society’s capitalist agenda and some want a different kind of set up and actively oppose it.
Unfortunately, the people who oppose it often do so out of hurt or unfavorable circumstances which leads to the opposition struggling to achieve any significant transformations.
Nowadays there are many many people who are active on social media or in the media who provide commentary for sociocultural and sociopolitical issues. There is a whole dialectic which has taken over due to the significant influence of polarized social or political commentary.
I believe that many people who engage in their own version of commentary aren’t really aware that this came about as a desire to fit in and be relevant within the new societally-approved spectrum of sociocultural and sociopolitical meaning-production. I feel that capitalism as a machine has found a way to commodify this commentary into two categories. This leaves people thinking that they are thinking criticially, when, in reality, they are merely following the guide toward a particular category which capitalism is offering.
I believe that the main mechanism behind this guidance or redirecting of critical thought is a very basic moral one: it’s a world of people who choose the following identifications: Good + […] insert whatever ism you can think of. And then assign the identification of bad to others who don’t align with that identification.
And even the open-mindedness category is hijacked to this black and white spectrum, so when some people say they are open to other perspectives it is merely that they identify as good = open.
Example:
I just saw a video of a funny, intelligent creator I really like talking about sexual preference and accusing someone who challenged the idea of preference of being “hurt” and reacting to that hurt of being rejected by means of projection and rationalization.
In particular: A young woman was explaining how she feels that men rejecting her for being overweight is due to social constructionism rather than actual taste. She was explaining how the sexual rejection of an overweight person is inherently fat-phobic.
In response, the creator showed extreme certainty that the young woman’s position was silly and that she was merely insecure and projecting that onto the people around her.
Now I would like to respond by saying this: Just because you’re hurt, doesn’t mean you’re wrong.
Yes. It’s definitely possible, if not likely, that the person is hurt and reacting to that hurt. But that doesn’t negate their point. If it is informed by being rejected by a majority of people in society, it is actually very much worthy of considering as significant in a pursuit of critical assessment.
Very often, the way to approach critical exploration is to listen to the people who are rejected, discarded, shamed and shunned by society. Those people have access to perspectives which are very valuable in order to understand the workings of the system whose underlying structure has to be built on a certain level of identity politics and conformity.
So in the case of this creator and her commentary of another creator’s video outlining her experience and disbelief/disdain for the concept of preference, I find it terrifying to witness the security with which she presents the “truth” that preference is a legitimate determiner of personal desire, without even critically assessing it.
To show that this isn’t something I’m pulling out of my behind, let’s look at what cultural critics have taught us about preference by looking at Pierre Bourdieu’s work:
Pierre Bourdieu’s work on preference is primarily outlined in his book Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste.
Here are some key findings:
1. Social Space and Habitus: Bourdieu argued that individuals occupy positions in a social space shaped by economic, cultural, and social capital. This position influences their tastes and preferences. He introduced the concept of “habitus,” which refers to the system of durable, transposable dispositions that individuals acquire through socialization.
2. Field of Cultural Production: Bourdieu posited that cultural products, such as art, literature, and music, are produced within specific social fields. These fields are characterized by power dynamics and competition. The preferences of individuals are shaped by their positioning within these fields.
3. Distinction and Symbolic Violence: Bourdieu argued that preferences are a form of social distinction. Different social groups develop distinct preferences as a way of differentiating themselves from others. This leads to a hierarchy of tastes, where certain forms of cultural capital are valued more highly than others.
4. Cultural Capital: Bourdieu identified three forms of capital: economic, social, and cultural. Cultural capital encompasses knowledge, skills, education, and cultural tastes. Those with higher cultural capital are more likely to appreciate and engage with high culture.
5. Taste Classifications: Bourdieu identified different types of tastes, including popular, middlebrow, and highbrow. These correspond to different social classes and are associated with particular cultural practices and preferences.
6. Embodied Taste: Bourdieu argued that taste is not purely intellectual but is also embodied. It is expressed through bodily practices, gestures, and lifestyles. This embodiment reinforces social distinctions.
7. Reproduction of Social Inequality: Bourdieu’s work on preference highlights how cultural capital contributes to the reproduction of social inequality. Those with more cultural capital are better equipped to navigate and succeed in cultural fields, perpetuating existing hierarchies.
8. Cultural Omnivores: Bourdieu’s ideas on preference have been further developed by later scholars, such as Richard Peterson and Albert Simkus, who introduced the concept of “cultural omnivores.” This refers to individuals who consume a wide range of cultural forms, blurring traditional distinctions in taste.
This person has spent many many years exploring and researching the topic of preference.
Maybe we shouldn’t just laugh and call it projection when someone is expressing their pain.
Maybe their pain is valid and maybe they do have a point.