[Disclaimer: I don't often discuss political or societal issues on this blog. If I do, I try to parse the nuance of an issue, to view it from a different angle, rather than automatically flying to the right or the left. Naturally, I heavily moderate any comments on my blog...I delete, rather than argue. My aim here is not to add to the parakeet squawks of pro- or anti-, but instead to muse, rationally and with as much objectivity as possible, on the implications of the issue at hand.
In reading these posts, I only ask that you set aside any preconceived notions you have on the topic. If I can spark some deep thoughts about an issue, I will consider these posts successful.]
Our controversial topic for today is the so-called "Snowflake Revolt" occurring on college campuses across America (apologies if this is a partisan term, but I couldn't find a better name for it). This particular sobriquet comes from the dictum, heavily inflected with contempt, that "every student is a unique, fragile little snowflake", whose individual experiences and anxieties must be respected by the institution they pay for their education. This is where we get the terms "Trigger Warning" (statements in material that alert students to possible anxiety triggers, i.e. conflict, trauma, rape, racial slurs, etc.) and "Microaggression" (word choices, tones, turns of phrase, or inflections directed at a student which, intentionally or otherwise, could be construed as hostility), which have become late-show joke fodder everywhere except on the particular campuses where they are used. The students involved in this movement are assertive, distrustful and indeed contemptuous of administrative and educational authority, and have the muscle to back up their assertions.
While the claims and aims of these social warriors are nothing particularly new, what has changed is the reason behind their agitation; the extent to which they seek to overturn currently accepted frameworks of speech and instruction; and the forcefulness with which they assert their will. The reason for their agitation is less a broad struggle for Justice or Civil Rights for certain groups, or a feeling that the American system is no longer a viable way of life (re the student movements of the 60's and 70's); rather, it is a backlash against hurts perpetrated upon the individual by society, and the wish to completely change society's relationship to the individual. The framework of Society Over the Individual is to be flipped; the individual doesn't conform to society, but the society provides the soil in which the individual develops. They want, in essence, a post-society society.
Sources:
Heller, Nathan. "The Big Uneasy". Article, New Yorker, May 30th, 2016.
Saadia, Manu. Trekonomics. Pipertext Publishing Co.
Sykes, Charles J. Fail U: The False Promise of Higher Education. St. Martin's Press, New York, NY.
In reading these posts, I only ask that you set aside any preconceived notions you have on the topic. If I can spark some deep thoughts about an issue, I will consider these posts successful.]
Our controversial topic for today is the so-called "Snowflake Revolt" occurring on college campuses across America (apologies if this is a partisan term, but I couldn't find a better name for it). This particular sobriquet comes from the dictum, heavily inflected with contempt, that "every student is a unique, fragile little snowflake", whose individual experiences and anxieties must be respected by the institution they pay for their education. This is where we get the terms "Trigger Warning" (statements in material that alert students to possible anxiety triggers, i.e. conflict, trauma, rape, racial slurs, etc.) and "Microaggression" (word choices, tones, turns of phrase, or inflections directed at a student which, intentionally or otherwise, could be construed as hostility), which have become late-show joke fodder everywhere except on the particular campuses where they are used. The students involved in this movement are assertive, distrustful and indeed contemptuous of administrative and educational authority, and have the muscle to back up their assertions.
While the claims and aims of these social warriors are nothing particularly new, what has changed is the reason behind their agitation; the extent to which they seek to overturn currently accepted frameworks of speech and instruction; and the forcefulness with which they assert their will. The reason for their agitation is less a broad struggle for Justice or Civil Rights for certain groups, or a feeling that the American system is no longer a viable way of life (re the student movements of the 60's and 70's); rather, it is a backlash against hurts perpetrated upon the individual by society, and the wish to completely change society's relationship to the individual. The framework of Society Over the Individual is to be flipped; the individual doesn't conform to society, but the society provides the soil in which the individual develops. They want, in essence, a post-society society.
Such a movement is, if I may make a galaxy-sized understatement, polarizing. Depending on who you ask, these students are either the vanguard of a future sociopolitical reality, bravely standing up for change and inclusion in an increasingly uncaring world...or over-privileged children with first-world problems, blind-drunk on victimhood. The debate rages. Even on the Left, the words "whining" and "fragility" are tossed around a lot. There's not a lot of societal support for these students; their revolt feels easy to us, out here wrestling with an American system that operates like a rusty old Buick with a bad carburetor. We're working so hard to just keep gas in the thing, we don't even have the energy to think about trading up...yet here are these kids, crying that their Levitators don't have antimatter charging stations (metaphorically speaking). Why give these kids a second thought?
I'm going to keep my opinions on Snowflake methodology, privilege, and fragility to myself...these points are moot. What I would like to do is muse generally on their ideas of an ideal society, a society in which human differences and shortcomings are not used as a tool of marginalization and exclusion. A tabula rasa society, in other words...one which might be our future.
What are these kids trying to do? They're trying, however flailingly and with the somewhat comical earnestness of youth, to create a new world. The so-called political correctness movement (not exactly a movement...the term has a fascinating and convoluted history, see Wikipedia) has been around on campuses for a long time even as it filtered out into general usage; PC sought to change the nature of discourse to reflect a growing respect for minorities, other cultures, and historical accuracy. The Snowflakes take PC as a launchpad into the stratosphere. Instead of merely changing what is "polite", with the implication that hostile attitudes still roil beneath the veneer of civility, they want to change attitudes - even if that change is forceful. This isn't your grandpa's liberalism, and a lot of old-guard Lefties are understandably bewildered by it.
The new liberals, or Progressives, are looking toward a future society...and by future, I mean, Future: post-racial, post-gender, post-ironclad rules about personhood, nationhood, privilege, etc. They look toward a world where humanity has been redefined in a sci-fi manner...something you might read about in an old pulp magazine about "The World of Tomorrow". Old distinctions and divisions, with their freight of tribalism and conflict, will be broken down; the new divisions will be based on celebration of multitudinous forms and infinite variations on what it means to be human. Society-imposed guilt, or indeed guilt except in case of actual wrongdoing, will be a thing of the past.
These mind-bending notions of futuristic humanity dovetails with my recent flirtation with a post-scarcity economy. In a future economy where money isn't used, because every need is already met, it follows that societal distinctions will disappear: tribalism will dissipate from consciousness (fingers crossed), along with proscriptions on "strange" behavior (again, hopefully). Cultural pride will remain, so long as it is not in hostile opposition to other cultures. (I'm basing these suppositions on the ideas laid out in Trekonomics, an excellent book that explores post-scarcity economy through the lens of Star Trek). We can connect the idea of a post-scarcity economy back to our Snowflakes, who for four years of college basically live out this dream scenario. They look around at their world - admittedly, a bubble - and, seeing they don't have to fight for survival, focus on the other great injustice in their lives: the simple fact that their identity group faces marginalization from society, not just in the open, but subconsciously as well. The task ahead of them is not merely to combat hostile behaviors, but to rewire the collective unconscious so that the hostility has no basis for occurring.
I here wish to say a word about social change: it doesn't come from the hoi polloi. Sorry, but that's just how it is. Us hardworking Just Folks, with our "real-world" (whatever the hell that means) jobs and debts and responsibilities, don't have the extra energy or brainpower to spend on trying to change the world. We're just trying to stay afloat, day after day; we wish, for the most part, that the world would stay still long enough to finish what we are doing. These kids, on the other hand, have the time and the energy. They have time to think, and energy to act. It is through their agitation that the new synthesis will emerge; social discourse will never be the same afterward.
I'll go further: throughout history, it's been not the proletariat, but the educated that promulgate revolution - that's why dictatorships are so quick to clamp down on schools. In the American Revolution, it was wealthy landowners; France was convulsed through the actions of petty nobles and bourgeois. The Russian Revolution occurred through the actions of the sons of the bourgeoisie. They might even claim to speak for the working class, but ultimately it is these roiling, middle-class brains that channel popular unrest.
Working-class revolts are quickly put down. They're too disorganized, too desperate, too sporadic. Reprisals work far too well on multitudes already overwhelmed by life. It's folks with too much time and money on their hands that make the best revolutionary leaders.
How will this play out? If we follow the pendulum swing of history, society is due for a massive conservative backlash, of which Trumpism is merely the vanguard. As with Reagan and Thatcher in the eighties, a surprise Trump victory could roll back many hard-won politico-cultural concessions to minorities; conservative minority-bashing would no longer be thought "edgy" or "anti-PC", but simply par for the discourse. The rule of neo-neo-cons (or pseudocons, if you're grumpy) would be intense and nasty. What I'm getting at here is that, should this "Snowflake Rebellion" attempt a serious cultural turnover and fail, things could get very ugly indeed - think of the rule of Napoleon following the French Revolution.
Things are tense right now because, honestly, the Snowflakes are looking towards the future: a future where every human being is automatically understood and treated as having inherent worth, rather than based on color, creed, orientation, origin, or socioeconomic status. They dream a society that is not a structure into which one must conform or be marginalized, but a soil in which each person can grow and develop their individual talents and energy without being constantly, arbitrarily monitored and proscribed.
And my real question here is: isn't this what we all want? Setting aside our understanding of "the way things are" or "the real world" or some vague Nietzschian notions about struggle and bootstraps and whatever...don't we secretly want to be accepted for who we are? Or do we seriously think that our current societal meat-grinder, where there is no room for snowflakes or delicate flowers, is the best of all possible worlds?
Right now this movement looks at best like comedy, at worst like 1984-ish thought-policing. I personally don't like being told what to think, or have to walk on eggshells in every conversation because of my big mouth. And yeah, I'm still enough of a grouch to tell everybody to fuck off if they don't like how I conversate. But I also understand where these kids are coming from: instead of just putting up and shutting up and going along to get along, they're trying to change the culture. That's a huge order. And to these kids, I say, good luck, 'cause you're gonna need it.
Just don't yell at me, ya privileged punks.
Rick Out.
The new liberals, or Progressives, are looking toward a future society...and by future, I mean, Future: post-racial, post-gender, post-ironclad rules about personhood, nationhood, privilege, etc. They look toward a world where humanity has been redefined in a sci-fi manner...something you might read about in an old pulp magazine about "The World of Tomorrow". Old distinctions and divisions, with their freight of tribalism and conflict, will be broken down; the new divisions will be based on celebration of multitudinous forms and infinite variations on what it means to be human. Society-imposed guilt, or indeed guilt except in case of actual wrongdoing, will be a thing of the past.
These mind-bending notions of futuristic humanity dovetails with my recent flirtation with a post-scarcity economy. In a future economy where money isn't used, because every need is already met, it follows that societal distinctions will disappear: tribalism will dissipate from consciousness (fingers crossed), along with proscriptions on "strange" behavior (again, hopefully). Cultural pride will remain, so long as it is not in hostile opposition to other cultures. (I'm basing these suppositions on the ideas laid out in Trekonomics, an excellent book that explores post-scarcity economy through the lens of Star Trek). We can connect the idea of a post-scarcity economy back to our Snowflakes, who for four years of college basically live out this dream scenario. They look around at their world - admittedly, a bubble - and, seeing they don't have to fight for survival, focus on the other great injustice in their lives: the simple fact that their identity group faces marginalization from society, not just in the open, but subconsciously as well. The task ahead of them is not merely to combat hostile behaviors, but to rewire the collective unconscious so that the hostility has no basis for occurring.
I here wish to say a word about social change: it doesn't come from the hoi polloi. Sorry, but that's just how it is. Us hardworking Just Folks, with our "real-world" (whatever the hell that means) jobs and debts and responsibilities, don't have the extra energy or brainpower to spend on trying to change the world. We're just trying to stay afloat, day after day; we wish, for the most part, that the world would stay still long enough to finish what we are doing. These kids, on the other hand, have the time and the energy. They have time to think, and energy to act. It is through their agitation that the new synthesis will emerge; social discourse will never be the same afterward.
I'll go further: throughout history, it's been not the proletariat, but the educated that promulgate revolution - that's why dictatorships are so quick to clamp down on schools. In the American Revolution, it was wealthy landowners; France was convulsed through the actions of petty nobles and bourgeois. The Russian Revolution occurred through the actions of the sons of the bourgeoisie. They might even claim to speak for the working class, but ultimately it is these roiling, middle-class brains that channel popular unrest.
Working-class revolts are quickly put down. They're too disorganized, too desperate, too sporadic. Reprisals work far too well on multitudes already overwhelmed by life. It's folks with too much time and money on their hands that make the best revolutionary leaders.
How will this play out? If we follow the pendulum swing of history, society is due for a massive conservative backlash, of which Trumpism is merely the vanguard. As with Reagan and Thatcher in the eighties, a surprise Trump victory could roll back many hard-won politico-cultural concessions to minorities; conservative minority-bashing would no longer be thought "edgy" or "anti-PC", but simply par for the discourse. The rule of neo-neo-cons (or pseudocons, if you're grumpy) would be intense and nasty. What I'm getting at here is that, should this "Snowflake Rebellion" attempt a serious cultural turnover and fail, things could get very ugly indeed - think of the rule of Napoleon following the French Revolution.
Things are tense right now because, honestly, the Snowflakes are looking towards the future: a future where every human being is automatically understood and treated as having inherent worth, rather than based on color, creed, orientation, origin, or socioeconomic status. They dream a society that is not a structure into which one must conform or be marginalized, but a soil in which each person can grow and develop their individual talents and energy without being constantly, arbitrarily monitored and proscribed.
And my real question here is: isn't this what we all want? Setting aside our understanding of "the way things are" or "the real world" or some vague Nietzschian notions about struggle and bootstraps and whatever...don't we secretly want to be accepted for who we are? Or do we seriously think that our current societal meat-grinder, where there is no room for snowflakes or delicate flowers, is the best of all possible worlds?
Right now this movement looks at best like comedy, at worst like 1984-ish thought-policing. I personally don't like being told what to think, or have to walk on eggshells in every conversation because of my big mouth. And yeah, I'm still enough of a grouch to tell everybody to fuck off if they don't like how I conversate. But I also understand where these kids are coming from: instead of just putting up and shutting up and going along to get along, they're trying to change the culture. That's a huge order. And to these kids, I say, good luck, 'cause you're gonna need it.
Just don't yell at me, ya privileged punks.
Rick Out.
Sources:
Heller, Nathan. "The Big Uneasy". Article, New Yorker, May 30th, 2016.
Saadia, Manu. Trekonomics. Pipertext Publishing Co.
Sykes, Charles J. Fail U: The False Promise of Higher Education. St. Martin's Press, New York, NY.
Comments