I met James Croft at Freethought Festival, and he kept tweeting at me that he was changing his talk in response to something I’d said. I have no idea whether he ended up doing any of that, but it is a fascinating talk either way.
Using someone else’s language to speak to them about our interests is often viewed as manipulative. I don’t doubt that it can be, but it is also what we do when our intent is nothing more nefarious than putting someone at ease. Similarly, we work to speak to their concerns when we simply want to not bore someone. Is what James is talking about any different?
8 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Simon
July 5, 2012 at 2:46 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I’d be curious to see the credentials of whoever says that this is ‘manipulative’…
baal
July 5, 2012 at 3:59 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I’ll have to rehear this talk at another time as well. He really covered two distinct ideas and there was a lot of content to them. I’ve been giving the Harvard Humanists a second look because I’m convinced the only way forward for everyone requires a certain meme that I’m only seeing from him (and to a lesser degree the hard core philosophical atheists). That meme is compassion. (and i’ve just deleted a sentence about where compassion is glaringly missing from; I like having an intact hide)
I agree with Stephanie that James is advocating small ‘m’ manipulative speech. That’s actually his entire first point. If you have the goal of solidifying the nones into actual atheists or humanists (as opposed to wishy-washy folks to go where ‘ere the tides lead them) then you need to speak in terms that people with conservative minds will be able to accept or integrate into their heads.
There are two problems with that. First, if you try to use the language of a group to which you do not belong and fail to get the semantics right, it can come off as a fraud, a wolf-in-sheeps-clothing, a mole, a trojan horse or some other variety of dishonest person. That’s really bad and will turn off your audience for being big ‘M’ manipulative. The second problem is that I have a headache and have now forgotten the second problem. I’m sure it’ll hit me right at bed time.
Regardless, I don’t think borrowing language is fundamentally unfair or unjust. Neither does it bother me that James is going for moral persuasion. Folks do that all the time in many contexts and I don’t see the atheist community attacking the xtians for using moral persuasion. The attack on the xtians is for asserting that they have the only truth. The corollary ethical attack is that xtians say atheists are without morals. In light of those, it doesn’t offend me to assert we do have ethics and moral and that the xtians don’t own the shop. Using the right language is part of reclaiming morality from the xtians or to allow ex-xtians to feel more comfortable in the atheist thought-sphere (we’re not that alien).
I need to think more on the second point; atheism needs leaders and they can be created or supported or trained specifically. This is a somewhat top down approach and given Harvard’s self-conscious role in elite circles as well as academia, this pro-leadership model or formulation is par for the institution. I’d be surprised actually if the James’ group at Harvard took a different primary approach.
Brony
July 5, 2012 at 7:16 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Absolutely it is manipulative. In the sense of manipulating language as a tool. That tool can be used well and badly and there are a lot of value judgements involved.
I have personally used the symbols of others in discussions and arguments to give me an advantage. I think of it as effective and perceptive. How you do that is the question.
For example I like to talk to libertarians in their own language. They just don’t like talking about things like externalities. It sure gets the run-of-the-mill followers to go away quick though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
Mikey
July 5, 2012 at 7:45 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I’ve been on the receiving end of “talking like us” to manipulate me. As a Navajo, sometimes you get non-natives trying to talk like a movie Indian or what you hear stereotypically, either to be insulting or genuinely thinking this is how we talk. I think it’s a case of people who use it insultingly ruining it for others to try in good faith. Or you have non-black people talking ghetto or hip hop to blend in/be cool and it comes off as inauthentic at best or sorta like culture tourism at worst. This is pretty specific but it can be insulting. The way he described using it in the video, however, I agree with as it requires the user to have an understanding the different culture and not just a gloss over touristy knowledge to it.
I found his other points very interesting tho.
smhll
July 6, 2012 at 8:49 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I think this is a really good point.
As a born and raised female person, I’d probably start with a cautious framing if I was going to use the language of “others” to make points for my own POV.I know this sounds meek, but I’d probably say — “Maybe it would be like if….[usage of their memes in an analogy that reinforces my bottomline]”
(I think meekness is an implied way of saying “Correct me if I’m wrong; I don’t insist that I am right in this case.”)
(I think compassion requires openness and vulnerability, and I know I can’t do it if I feel attacked. It’s definitely more achievable when everyone has reason to trust each other.)
Deen
July 6, 2012 at 4:48 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Indeed, appealing to other people’s values carries a high risk of coming across as disingenuous. And it may even be against our own values to use arguments we don’t actually believe ourselves. But what really makes me wonder is how this strategy could help if the disagreement under argument is precisely our difference in values? Our the proper prioritization of our values?
Simon
July 6, 2012 at 4:58 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@Deen:
Just who is advocating we adopt arguments we don’t believe ourselves?
J.C. Samuelson
July 6, 2012 at 9:28 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I agree that part of what James suggests seems mildly manipulative in that it requires using someone else’s iconography and language to make points. Yet I think there’s an even larger point to be made in that we can reclaim the language of morality. It belongs to all of us, after all.
As humans I think we share those moral impulses regardless of religious identity. That is, I don’t think they stem from a religious foundation. So, when we have the opportunity to address a mixed or hostile audience we’ve every right to appeal to those impulses.
I suspect that non-sectarian – and perhaps even implicitly or explicitly secular – iconography and language could be used in lieu of borrowing from religion. I think that would help in the integrity department.