Originally a comment by thephilosophicalprimate on The demarcation problem.
I think the difference between “waspish” criticism and just being “mean shits” is easier to articulate than you suggest, Ophelia. What you’re talking about is rooted in this commonly recognized tension: Thoughtful people believe and say, for good reasons, that hostility and contempt aimed at PEOPLE is bad. However, some IDEAS are clearly deserving of hostility and contempt, and nothing but. The difficulty arises because it’s difficult, perhaps even impossible, to keep the hostility and contempt for the bad ideas entirely separate from the people, because it’s the people who embrace the contemptible ideas.
But which comes first, and why, does matter. Criticizing people for having bad ideas is perfectly reasonable and respects their fundamental humanity; in effect, such criticism asks others to be better people by chiding them for ideas which are bad but *which they can change*. Recognizing someone’s humanity means, ultimately, recognizing their autonomy and consequently their responsibility: You have this belief, advocate this position, and take these actions — and I argue that they are horrible beliefs and positions and actions, and that such beliefs and behaviors make you a bad person. My criticism respects your humanity by holding you accountable for your choices, and is consistent with encouraging you to make better choices and thereby become a better person.
Criticizing people for who they are — attacking their character and identity rather than their beliefs and actions, especially when the attack is on a part of their identity that is not chosen or subject to change (gender identity, able-bodiedness, race, etc.) — does not show the same respect for humanity. Generally speaking, such criticism places ideas in a secondary role: Instead of saying that you are bad because and only to the extent that you have bad ideas and engage in bad behavior, such criticism declares that only a person who is fundamentally bad would embrace such a bad idea or behave in such a way. Such criticism bears no element of encouraging or recognizing the possibility of change in it, and shows no respect for the humanity of the one criticized.
Thus, what separates a sharp and witty critic like Jon Stewart from some asshole who thinks he’s witty but is actually just a mean shit — Rush Limbaugh is a paradigm case — is the recognition of a fellow human’s humanity even when one thinks that fellow human is being a complete shit and has horrible beliefs that motivate horrible behavior. For example, Stewart will criticize Faux News broadcasters by eviscerating their bad ideas and actions — their hypocrisy, self-contradiction, blatant denial of reality, systematic deceit of the public, lack of journalistic integrity, and so on. But his criticism consistently puts the priority on the ideas: you are bad people because you have and promote bad ideas, and by implication you would be better people if you had and promoted better ideas. For the perfect counter example, Rush Limbaugh’s criticism of Sandra Fluke for testifying about the mandate for insurance to fund birth control under the Affordable Care Act was to label her a slut and generally belittle her with every misogynist insult he could spit into his microphone: He offered no real criticism of the ideas Fluke advocated, and he dismissed the idea of birth control subsidies as so obviously wrong-headed that they are something only a bad person would ever argue for in the first place — a filthy slut like Fluke.
Now, those are extreme opposite ends of a spectrum for illustrative purposes, but I think the underlying distinction is basically right: We can and should criticize people for bad ideas and bad behavior, and that can and should be uncompromising and even cutting when necessary, but such criticism is ultimately respectful of the humanity of others because it implies that they can become better people through embracing better ideas and behaviors. But attacking people for their identity rather than their ideas — especially for elements of their identity that they cannot change or choose — or suggesting in any way that their ideas spring from or should be judged according to their identity rather than the other way around, is fundamentally dehumanizing because it denies the very possibility of choice and improvement.
Dehumanisation ex fundamentum?
I don’t buy that criticising people for who they are is tantamount to dehumanising them.
Also, I can’t help but think the author equivocates insults with criticism; might as well have written that insulting people dehumanises them.
There’s also a problem in that ideas and identity overlap. Particularly with, say, religion. When people make their religion part of their identity, often because it’s mingled with their culture and even ethnicity, criticism of the religion is taken as an attack no matter what you do.
No, I agree with the primate, and I don’t think they equivocate as you suggest. For example: You have this belief, advocate this position, and take these actions — and I argue that they are horrible beliefs and positions and actions, and that such beliefs and behaviors make you a bad person.
Calling someone a bad person (including blunter phrasings of same) is insulting, so I don’t think the primate is ruling that out. But it should be connected first and foremost to the behaviour that demonstrates the moral fault you’re calling out. I’ve slung my share of word-bombs over the course of my internet career (good grief — it’s been 23 years since I discovered Usenet!!), but I try to keep that connection. If I call someone a liar, it’s because they’ve repeatedly said things that they damn well ought to have realized are false. Ditto for “fanatic”. And I generally refrain from scorched-earth vilification, because it usually doesn’t connect to *anything* concrete.
A few of us have been jousting with a creationist over on Pharyngula. It’s gotten a bit heated, and I’ve been blunt, even insulting. But most of it is *about his behaviour* (the logical fallacies, quote mining, and wild assertions).
Eamon above:
When is not calling someone a bad person a criticism of that someone “for who they are”?
I can but quote the OP: “Criticizing people for who they are — attacking their character and identity rather than their beliefs and actions, especially when the attack is on a part of their identity that is not chosen or subject to change (gender identity, able-bodiedness, race, etc.) — does not show the same respect for humanity.”
Note that “especially” there, which indicates that attacking their character and identity rather than their beliefs and actions* is bad regardless of whether they are chosen or subject to change.
—
* I addressed that in the original thread.
[meta]
PS
Bully for you and your virtuousness!
(There surely must be satisfaction in practicing what one preaches)
Very lucidly put, philosophicalprimate! I’ve thought the same thing myself but in a much more confused way. You’ve given it clarity (and I’m sitting here smiling with an “Ahhh” feeling.)
I would say criticizing people for their character is only bad insofar as character is unchangeable. But it is commonly held one can develop one’s character, is it not? So criticizing someone’s character should be allowable, too.
On the other hand, bad character leads to bad behaviour, which is how we detect it in others. So it is almost always better to focus on the behaviour, in the hope that the target of your criticism will get the point and change their behaviour. If they do, they may well develop a bit of character in the process!
Even so, I think it’s acceptable to attack someone’s character, but it should be reserved for extreme cases where such a sledgehammer approach seems called for. Rush Limbaugh must surely a legitimate target – he seems such a slime ball.
Apart from the relationship between the speaker of waspish criticism/mean-shittery and the recipient, there’s the effect on the hearers (a very large group in Internet communications). If you hear me say ‘John Smith’s a fucking asshole’, all you know is that I dislike and disapprove of him. That repetition of content-free insult does seem to have an effect in swaying people’s opinions. People who already like and approve of the speaker are likely to get behind the opinion without asking for much in the way of evidence.
If I say ‘John Smith’s an anti-semitic bastard’ now you know roughly what horrible thing I’m accusing John of. If you usually like and approve of me and dislike anti-semitism, you may be even more likely to support my view of John – without checking to see how, when and why he’s anti-semitic.
On the other hand, if I say ‘I hate John Smith’s guts – he’s always blaming Israel for harassing Palestinians’ you’re much more likely to judge John (and me!) on the basis of the reasons for my hatred. It’s fairer to John, and to you, the listener – but you can probably guess why some people don’t like to use it! In the first two statements the speaker protects their own positions and behaviors from criticism, in this one, the speaker’s position is clearly exposed, with the possibility that even some of their usual friends will turn on them and start defending John! That’s why we tend to call mean-shittery cowardly – whereas waspish criticism is taking a risk. People who disapprove of the speaker’s position will usually turn up the level of the disapproval based on the waspishness.
I see that the OP has gathered some praise, but there were also some critical comments. Fair warning: I’m afraid I’m going to be one of the critics.
Here are the most serious objections which have been raised so far:
– The distinction between ideas and identity is blurry (John-Henry Beck #2). Sometimes the ideas form a part of your identity.
– It’s far from clear that the identity (or the character) is unchangeable (Harald Hanche-Olsen #7). Indeed, one can suspect that in some cases changing someone’s ideas won’t be really easier than changing someone’s identity. (This may be connected with the previous point).
I think these are fair observations. However, it seems to me that the proposal from the OP contains a more fundamental flaw. In my opinion viewing dehumanization in terms of the distinction between criticizing ideas and criticizing people (or their identity) is not really as terrific as it might sound. Here is the thing: you can do both without engaging into dehumanization but you can also do both while dehumanizing others. Moreover, in the latter case the catchy phrase “I’m just criticizing ideas!” functions in practice as a handy excuse of what you do. And that’s exactly the danger of concentrating exclusively on the ‘people/ideas’ distinction.
Pick a person whose ideas are not to your liking. On your website, concentrate on these horrible ideas, while quoting almost exclusively the person of your choice. Do it constantly and relentlessly, maybe for a couple of years – make this person a terrifying example, for the enlightenment of the others! At least ten times a day repeat to yourself “I’m just criticizing ideas!” – this will help you to avoid stomach ulcers.
Join an internet site with a group of likely minded people. Make every stranger on your site a target: look carefully for horrible ideas, nitpick, be vigilant. If you find something, raise alarm immediately, then dogpile … and destroy. Make this stranger a terrifying example, for the enlightenment of the others! At least ten times a day repeat to yourself “I’m just criticizing ideas!” – this will help you to avoid stomach ulcers.
(I hope you get the picture. In plain words: criticizing ideas is not a fool proof remedy against being a “mean shit”. I’ve started to believe that it’s not even a particularly good remedy – it’s just too excellent in the role of the excuse!)
Here goes my feeble attempt at generalizing the situation. What these (and many other) examples have in common is that in all of them you treat a person as a tool for promoting your own – noble or ignoble – goals. It’s not that you do not recognize the humanity of your target on a theoretical level: when asked, you will surely answer “of course, s/he is a person, s/he has thoughts, feelings, autonomy, the right to take decisions”. The point is rather that in such cases all of this has no bearing on your practice – it’s a mere lip service and no more than that. In practice the person becomes a tool – a mere object. You don’t talk to the person, you are showing an example. You are not discussing with the person, you are exhibiting a horrible specimen. A mere object. Nothing more.
Whether you are criticizing identities or ideas, whether your agenda is noble or ignoble, dehumanization lurks just behind the corner.
Ariel, thanks for teaching me something new. I was about to agree with John Morales that OP used the word ‘dehumanizing’ inappropriately, when IMHO ad hominem would be a better fit. But your comments reminded me of Kant’s categorical imperative:
“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.”
Your examples are spot on. They illustrate that your internet target was indeed being used as a means only. This is, then, an example of dehumanizing and I agree with OP’s use of the word in this case.
@Ariel #9
Your points are important, but I think the OP’s distinction holds.
I’m afraid there is no foolproof remedy! Nevertheless, I’m sure you’ll agree that the answer isn’t that we stop criticizing bad ideas.
I think the Primate has offered a good rule of thumb, which, like all heuristics, needs caveats like yours. There’s still a distinction to be made between “You’re a jackass because you believe women are inferior beings who should be controlled by men” and “You’re a jackass because you’re a man” (beyond the ad hom).
In which cases? My own experience tells me it’s possible to change ideas, even world views, that felt like part of my identity. I don’t think I’m an extraordinary person, and I know others who’ve done the same, so I suspect it’s within the bounds of ordinary human behavior. Of course it’s going to be harder for someone in a homogeneous social world. But not impossible.
Voss #10: thanks!
Lady Mondegreen #11:
Agreed. Note however my next sentence in the previous comment: at the moment I really doubt whether it is a remedy which works.
Yes, of course I agree. But I don’t think the answer is that we stop criticizing identities either.
Ah, well, “a rule of thumb”, you say. Do you mean the Primate’s “when the attack is on a part of their identity that is not chosen or subject to change”? Your example points in this direction. If that’s the intent, then I agree that there is indeed a distinction to be made. I *do not* see it however as a simple, workable rule of thumb for telling a difference between “waspish” criticism and just being “mean shits” (which was promised by the Primate in the opening paragraph). It’s just not, because it covers only very special (even though important) selection of misbehavior, leaving a plethora of “mean shits” unidentified. Lady Mondgreen, it’s like … you want to know a rule of thumb which permits to identify criminals? Here is the rule: find a murderer and you will find a criminal. Simple and workable, isn’t it? Isn’t it?*
To settle this, we would have to decide what we mean by “identity”. I tried to stick to the Primate’s usage, with “identity” containing both changeable and unchangeable elements. The point – not really mine, see again John-Henry Beck #2 and Harald Hanche-Olsen #7 – was that beliefs may be so important as to form a part of a person’s identity (John-Henry Beck mentioned religion in this context). On the other hand … hmm, my wife rather effectively fought against passivity and laziness, which were my deeply entrenched character traits. Contrary to what the Primate claims, all of this is really far from simple.
*To tell you the truth, a rule of thumb which has always worked best for me was something like “Ariel, you twit, you are not here to use and abuse other people, no matter what ideas dance in your stupid head!!!”. Alright, I must admit that unfortunately even this wasn’t foolproof.
That almost sounds like the difference is between consequentialist and deontological moral ideas vs. Virtue Ethics.
Tho OP lays out why I think it’s still useful to be able to refer to someone as e.g. “a racist” – someone who embraces and/or advocates racism. Indeed, this is functionally no different than calling someone a bigot – one who advocates/embraces bigotry. We can and do label people on the basis of behaviors in which they engage, and this is useful becasue we can and should criticize behaviors that (unjustifiably*) harm people (and celebrate those that help!), for which we need to establish categories for “people who engage in [behavior]”.
I agree very much with the OP. Several objections above make the point that parsing is not always easy (and in some cases may not be possible), but I don’t think situational difficulties with putting the principle into practice invalidate the principle – it’s still a good guide in many, many cases.
*Sometimes, becasue of a given context, harm is inevitable, and the choice is onto whom harm should be visited. If you’re about to nuke a city, and I can stop you only by killing you, it’s immoral for me to not kill you and instead let the city burn. In reality, most cases aren’t nearly that clear-cut, but the underlying philosophy is why I cannot abide a moral system that categorically rejects violence as unacceptable. My ethical framework is primarily consequentialist.
I’m glad I didn’t have a chance to revisit B&W until long after Ophelia elevated my comment to a post and the comment thread evolved a bit, because I think this discussion is valuable and interesting — a not uncommon feature of the commentariat at B&W for many years now.
Ariel, I think your counter-example is a strong one, but note that the *structure* of the counter-example: Your example involves no longer looking at *a* criticism and discerning the difference between idea-focused and identity-focused criticism, but noting that even legitimate criticism focused on ideas rather than identity can become a useful tool for harassment by applying it in a certain way. On the one hand, I think you’re absolutely right about that; unsurprisingly, context and patterns of behavior introduce more information to consider than the basic “Are you criticizing people’s ideas or simply attacking them for their identity?” test for mean-shittery I articulated.
On the other hand, I don’t know of any actual examples: Everyone I’ve ever seen engage in the sort of stalkery, harassing, “I’m gonna follow every word you say and criticize it” behavior has inevitably devolved into more identity-insulting than idea-criticizing, and usually sooner than later. Take Ophelia’s most persistent critics. (Please!) All of the examples of such behavior that I can think of have demonstrated consistent inability to focus intelligibly on her ideas and arguments, frequently engaging in childish personal insults and attacking as “her ideas” things she has never said or even hinted at, and projecting their own worst behaviors onto her in a way that’s obvious to anyone who doesn’t share their obsessions. But perhaps you had a smarter, better class of critics in mind. (Personally, I think Ophelia should use Voltaire’s only prayer as her e-mail signature quote.)
The other criticism that I think is most interesting and relevant, and something I’d intended to address in my comment but didn’t get around to, is the difficulty some people have — perhaps all people to some degree, but clearly some people more than others — separating their ideas from their identity. I agree that there is no clear dividing line; in my original post, I intended the assessment of someone as a bad person *because* of their bad ideas and behavior to be an explicit acknowledgement that there is no such line. But that is also why I emphasized that the *priority* of what is being criticized and how is the proper basis for making the assessment. Keeping the focus of criticism on ideas and behavior is different from keeping the focus on identity, even if we acknowledge that our ideas and behavior are informed by our identities and vice versa. And I still think the difference matters for precisely the reason I explained: If one focuses criticism on a person’s ideas and behaviors, one is clearly addressing something that the person *can* change. (The extent to which people really can change is obviously variable. But people DO change, just as obviously, and being held accountable for one’s ideas and behavior one causal factor in such changes.) If one instead focuses criticism on a person’s identity, even if the criticism focuses on a part of a person’s identity that *can* be changed (and not all can), the criticism still seems to be essentialistic: It strongly and I think almost unavoidably implies “You are a bad person” full stop — not “You are a bad person because of your bad ideas and behaviors (which you can and should change to become a better person).”
Perhaps “dehumanizing” was a poor word choice and threw some people off, if only because it is over-used and mis-used and has several different meanings. But I do think that the potential to learn and grow and change IS a fundamental part of what it means to be a human, and so criticism of a person which assumes or implies that change isn’t an option denies something fundamental about that person’s humanity.
(And yes, Voss, there’s some Kantian deontological thought in what I wrote about respect for humanity, but in a deliberately attenuated form. I’m an ethical theorist by trade, but not a Kantian. And doublereed, there are certainly some virtue theoretic ideas floating around in there, too. To some extent, I believe Aristotle’s conception of character was basically right: While we certainly may have predispositions and tendencies, character is ultimately formed by repeated behavior through a process of habituation. Of course the actions we engage in repeatedly shape who we are and make us more likely to act in similar ways in the future! I keep being surprised by how often modern neuropsychology and learning theory just reiterates and provides mechanisms for what Aristotle already knew about human nature.)