Interview with Helen Lewis on ideology, religion, and guru dynamics (Video) *UNEDITED*
Added 2022-08-23 23:02:14 +0000 UTCHey everyone,
Another advance interview for you to enjoy. This one travels widely and is unavoidably culture war related but hope you enjoy.
Helen is a journalist who has focused on politics and recently made a BBC audio documentary and published an article for the Atlantic considering whether social justice was a religion. Online this led to the predictable polarised response and general exasperation that such comparisons had been done to death and there was nothing left to say. But I think this interview helps to clarify some of the points Helen wanted to raise and illustrates that there is points worth discussing here.
We also do get into both the Jordan Peterson interview and the Gender Critical / Trans controversies, but they aren’t the focus of the episode.
Anyway, as always interested in any and all feedback!
Cheers
Comments
Well that's depressing. I posted my second point, which took a while to write, saw a stray "it's" instead of "its" in the final para and used the little pencil "edit" facility to remove it, and now it is gone into the ether. Serve me right for being a spelling pedant. Ho hum. Take 2 then... On the religion thing, I think the more general term people are looking for is "ideology", which can be religious or secular. As Matt mentioned in his short spiel on the secularising of "cultural catholicism", just because you don't (or stop) believing in god, life after death, demons (*ahem*), etc, doesn't mean that most people don't have some framework of values that allow s them to make sense of society and their own place in it, and their personal networks. Apart from some very marginal exceptions, we all broadly have value frameworks that outline what is good about existing society (strengths), what is broken or problematic (weaknesses), what the possible changes for the better could be (opportunities) and from what "society must be defended" (threats). This value or ideological framework not only shapes our attitudes about society (political, cultural, etc) but gives us a sense of what it means to be a "good person" and how we can self-valorise through our own activity and participating in social networks, whether familial, professional, cultural or even political. None of this is particularly earth-shattering, nor does it specifically rely on supernatural beliefs or dogmatic adherence to a specific doctrine. But people don't like to use the term "ideology" to refer to people's social value frameworks. AFAICS one possible explanation for this, is that the dominant doxa is that centrist thinking is defined against ideology, as being "common sense" and "non-ideological", despite the fact that to have no values whatsoever, you would need to be a clinical psychopath or a Trump-level malignant narcissist. The result of this prejudice against values being a part of normal life, is that factions either firmly within the centrist groupthink, or only very partially departing from it - i.e. what Helen refers to as "woke" and I prefer to call "radical liberal" (radlib) each accuse the other of being "ideological" (and generally impelled by malign motives) and themselves as being "non-ideological" and "just liberal and caring". Helen accuses the bulk of the trans-inclusive feminist movement (although I don't recall her admitting that they are actually feminists who disagree with her definition of same) as denying that their position is ideological. I agree entirely. But she then goes on to present her own GC position as not ideological and merely "sensible" feminism. In the trans-inclusive vs trans-exclusive feminist divide, each side claims the other side to be "ideological" (A Bad Thing) and their own to be just caring liberalism. The symmetry is overwhelming. It also leads to some hilarious consequences, like the example Chris mentioned, of certain GC people going so far in their jihad to denounce "gender ideology" that they then propose that "identity is a lie, fake news!" as if this wasn't the most bonkers ideological contortion imaginable. The moral of the story is that the centrist (and radlib) "ideology of non-ideology" is a doubly harmful nonsense. Harmful in that it leads people into absurdities in proposing that their partisan position in an ideological difference of opinion is not ideological but "just good", therefore the opponents must be "just evil". And also harmful in reproducing the general social prejudice that ideology is necessarily a great evil, that curses its "victims". A) we are not victims of ideology, to a certain extent we choose the value framework that best suits us, and B) given that it is through our shared values that we have positive social interaction and make meaning in our short lives, ideology is a blessing, not a curse.
Paul Bowman
2022-08-30 13:47:57 +0000 UTCTwo thoughts/reactions, I'll break them up. First one, a little tangential, I really liked Matt's (spur of the moment?) little riff on the "political economy" of epistemic trust. i.e. the more robust/less hackable way to do it, is that you have to build a network of trustworthy sources, rather than rely on a single source. This reminded me of the idea of market investors who have to build a balance portfolio of financial assets, across various sectors, with some parts hedging the risk of others, etc. Rather than put everything you own into Gamestop or Bitcoin and wish for the stars. The problem is, as Matt said, this is a huge overhead, very nearly a full-time job - which is fine if it is actually part of your job, like for academics and certain professional specialists. But for most ordinary punters, who just don't have that amount of spare time or idle cognitive capacity (or interest, tbh), a "heuristic" (Helen's term, I think - kudos) is the more affordable option. The problem then being, that the criteria by which we commonly select our chosen human Bitcoin, "to hodl ever after", are really terrible, for known psychological reasons.
Paul Bowman
2022-08-30 09:55:41 +0000 UTCOh, I actually screencapped it in a Twitter thread last year and tagged you, Chris. :-D https://twitter.com/GretchenKoch/status/1459174996165730306 Turns out I was wrong-- it doesn't call supernatural agency irrelevant, but instead claims that "Wokeism" makes claims about white historical guilt etc. that qualify as "supernatural or mythological." Michael Schellenberger wrote the piece, and collaborated with (surprise!) Peter Boghossian to create the "taxonomy" (spoiler: not actually a taxonomy) chart. The piece: https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/why-wokeism-is-a-religion The thread: https://twitter.com/shellenbergermd/status/1458789318231744512 The chart: https://i2massociates.com/downloads/WokeReligionTaxonomy2021.jpeg In the process of looking for these sources I again came across Patrick Casey's very worthwhile essay "Stop Calling 'Wokeness' a Religion," which focuses on the question of whether such analyses are actually illuminating-- what I was trying to get at in point 8. https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/stop-calling-wokeness-a-religion/
Gretchen Koch
2022-08-25 15:51:58 +0000 UTCOh yeah I get the frustration but I think in most cases people are making a selective vibe based comparison either to be disparaging or to note that people treat political affiliation like a sacred value, which is certainly true.
Christopher Kavanagh
2022-08-25 15:10:51 +0000 UTCOn 8, I know that within religious studies as a whole, there's a seemingly indefinite debate about how and whether to apply the label "religion," e.g. Russell McCutcheon who, to my understanding, still maintains that it isn't appropriate to do it at all. While I disagree, I do find it bizarre to juxtapose that debate with the near-certainty of people like Andrew Sullivan, McWhorter, and Lewis that not only is it appropriate to apply the label, but it's definitely appropriate to apply it to social justice. And 9 follows from that thought-- I think we'd probably agree that supernatural agency should play a role in any social phenomenon we call a religion, and yet this potential requirement doesn't seem to even warrant a mention in most arguments that social justice is a religion. I do recall seeing it discussed in one such portrayal, but only for the sake of claiming that it (supernatural agency) is not actually relevant! I'll try to dig that one up-- it was an article accompanied by a chart, and it was a hoot.
Gretchen Koch
2022-08-25 14:56:38 +0000 UTCI can't answer for Helen but I think I have some ideas about some of them: 1. I don't think that's the argument. There is a middle ground and a lot of people in it. Also, the right has definitely become more extreme, I think Helen would agree with all of that. 2. We discussed that exact point. It's later in the interview but you can at least see that point being brought up. 3. I think I was the one that referenced that concept? And I think we also did discuss the fact that these kinds of dynamics apply outside of religious contexts and this makes any comparison weaker. I don't know if I would agree, however, that because there are lots of scenarios where collective effervescence applies, it's useless to discuss it in specific cases. It seems a useful concept to me. 4. Not sure but I think he was more being used as an examplar of someone who has argued the parallel quite strongly. He is probably one of the most prominent proponents of that view. 5. Maybe? She did discuss in the interview the fact that a lot of the comparisons were based on parallels drawn to Christianity/Western religions and that this was a significant limitation. 6. I don't think she is that mystified but she did seem to spend some effort to highlight potential positive parallels too. In the interview she was comparing it to the kind of religion displayed by her parents... who she seems fond of. 7. *shrugs* didn't cover it. 8. I think there can be useful comparisons drawn... it all depends on why you are doing it, what definitions you are applying, and how consistent you are being. In my academic discipline, people argue the same thing, I'm in the camp that they are wrong and the term religion is useful. But I agree most people just use it as a derogatory comparison. 9. That was a point I would have! But I think the counter-argument would be that there are people who treat political ideologies almost as if they are channelling supernatural forces... or at least have the potential to lead us to a utopian future. Last point... because it's a polarising topic and people feel very strongly about it. Lot of people making disparaging comparisons and a lot of people who find any comparison to religion to be extremely insulting. Bad combination.
Christopher Kavanagh
2022-08-25 01:29:22 +0000 UTCI read Lewis's Atlantic article and watched this video, causing some questions to come to mind: 1. If there's a significant lack of ideological "middle ground" between left and right, why assume that the lack of middle ground is a problem to which both sides contributed, rather than evidence of the right running screaming into dark night of extremism while the "left" actually IS the middle ground? Or at least, what used to be? 2. Why would a few SJWs using religious language be evidence that social justice is a religion, rather than of a few (or more) SJWs being religious? Is Lewis aware that most Americans are religious, and that there's been a strong and widespread movement of social justice within those religions since before America was founded? 3. Has Lewis-- or Lukianoff, or Haidt-- ever noticed that the term “collective effervescence" could be applied to literally any gathering of excited people? And if so, did it occur to them that if a term can be applied to everything, it's pretty much useless to apply it to any one thing in particular? 4. Does Lewis know that John McWhorter, famous for declaring that "the elect" are a new religion, has said quite openly that he's done no actual study of religion? 5. Has Lewis noticed that McWhorter's entire argument that social justice is a religion is based on his own very basic, Sunday-school perception of Christianity? Which, if he'd actually studied religion he would understand, is not the only one? 6. Can Lewis be genuinely mystified at people seeing a comparison between social justice and religion as pejorative when her "evidence" is that SJWs venerate their heroes blindly and won't tolerate criticism, form unhinged crowds of overblown outrage, and engage in rampant virtue signaling? 7. Is there something wrong with not wanting to date someone who shares a politically ideological label with people who Donald Trump was, is, and will continue to be a victim of the maniacal left? And whether there is or isn't, what does that have to do with religion? 8. How does calling social justice a religion actually teach you anything about either one? For that matter, has there ever been a point to arguing about definitions, which is to say how words *should be* used, when a definition (by definition, har) reflects how words *are* used? Isn't that almost literally trying to make "fetch" happen? 9. Have any of these people stopped to reconsider their apparent stance that it doesn't in any way complicate their definition of social justice as a religion that belief in supernatural agency is totally, not at all, an important factor? ....Why does it feel like otherwise thoughtful, intelligent people have just taken the logic train waaaaay off the tracks with this "social justice is religion" thing?
Gretchen Koch
2022-08-25 00:34:06 +0000 UTCThis was really great, how could you let Helen get away with that monstrous question? I'm all out of sense!
Exai
2022-08-24 23:14:30 +0000 UTCI went to Sussex University and it was famous for being a very left wing University so it was slightly odd to see it presented on Twitter as the right wing harbour of Kathleen Stock. Brighton is also famous for Pride and a place which celebrates LGBTQ+ culture .....and the place that Twitter can present as the home of very right wing Christian lesbian Kathleen Stock. Brighton is also a place that saw the Corbyn Cult grow out of nowhere in the local Labour Party to the extent that they decided they must defeat Caroline Lucus (our only Green MP) and attack the Labour MP in Hove who wasn't Momentum approved. Twitter is a very strange place for the flattening of history and politics into a very particular US history.
Nina Davies
2022-08-24 10:11:27 +0000 UTCAhh. She is like me and all my friends. It is fab to hear you talk to someone where I get all the references. I feel 10 years younger.
Nina Davies
2022-08-24 09:09:45 +0000 UTCShe's really great. I could happily watch a lot more of this conversation.
Sue Sutton
2022-08-24 07:23:00 +0000 UTCShe was a great guest 👍
Kyle Wilson
2022-08-24 02:24:28 +0000 UTCMatt just blowing epic plumes
Kyle Wilson
2022-08-23 23:37:41 +0000 UTC
