Some More Thoughts on 'Individualism'

by Madeleine Kando

I have been racking my brain to try to understand why there is such venom spouting in this country against anything to do with 'government'. I do not presume to be an expert on these matters, but trying to clarify some key concepts might shed some light on this question.

The concepts of private versus public and its close connection with 'individual' versus 'collective' keep cropping up. There are certain aspects of life that are called 'private' for a reason. Sex is one of them. Sexual preference is another. Deciding if, when and by whom you want to have a child is a third.

Even deciding if you want to be treated for a fatal disease, for how long and when you want to put an end to it is a private matter, in my opinion.

Much of what I read and hear in this context has caused confusion in my mind. so I looked up the definition of 'individual' versus 'collective'.

Individualism: 'The belief in the primary importance of the individual and in the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence. A doctrine holding that the interests of the individual should take precedence over the interests of the state or social group.'

Collectivism: 'Any philosophic, political, economic or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human in some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual goals.'

Privately and temperamentally I consider myself an individualist. I believe in my own ability to take care of myself, whether it be my health, my education or my spiritual well-being. I practice natural healing methods for a common cold and bouts of sciatica. I educate myself by reading books, searching the internet, reading papers, etc. I go for long walks in the woods, do yoga, meditate etc.

But I am intelligent enough to realize that my freedom to act 'individualistically' on a personal level is only possible because the society I live in supports this. If there were no health insurance, schools to educate the scholars on which I rely for my knowledge, if the society to which I belong would not take care of people like me 'collectively', none of this would be possible.

In an anarchistic society without public institutions I would not be able to flourish as an individual. I would have to travel to a neighboring country where they do have hospitals, schools and libraries, all supported by the group.

Ironically, the image of ‘the rugged, self-reliant, individual’, not wanting to be told what to do, wanting less government and more individual freedom, which is the hallmark of many right wing conservatives, especially the Tea Party, is in conflict with the roots of American individualism. American individualism is based on a voluntary allegiance to the group, as opposed to one’s historically determined place in a ‘collective’ society. If anything, Americans are more conformist than many Northern European societies. Religious affiliation, marriage vows, being part of a social club, all these allegiances are taken very seriously by Americans.

The misplaced slogans of Republicans chanting ‘less government, more individual freedom’ will lead us to a place where no one will gain ANY freedom.

I agree, my individual rights should be protected by the group (i.e. government). But the rights of the group to which I belong also should be protected by me as an individual. The park where I walk my dog is public, but it can only be so because I, as an individual, pay taxes to maintain it. By deliberately dismantling all the ‘public’ institutions in this country in the name of individual freedom, everyone will suffer from the atrophy of the ‘public’ good. leave comment here Read more...

Congress and the Age of Reason

by Madeleine Kando

Last week I read an article in the Wall Street Journal called ‘Fight Against Government Flab is Personal for these Politicians’, which made me slightly nauseous. It describes how a group of mostly younger Republican Congressmen have become enamored with an exercise program called P90X . Its success is based on an approach called 'muscle confusion', meaning that it includes a hodgepodge of work-out techniques like yoga, pilates, kick-boxing etc. Republican Congressman Paul Ryan is the most ardent follower and promoter of this P90X fad. He is just as ardently leading the charge in pulling the social support net from under our feet.

While he is working on confusing his muscles with his Republican buddies Kevin MacCarthy and Jeff Flake, the rest of us can look forward to loosing our unemployment benefits, our food stamps, health care coverage and social security. All thanks to the energetic, super-healthy, super-sculpted Mr. Ryan.

Many of us don’t know if we'll be able put enough food on the table or pay our rent. It is downright infuriating to realize that the very same lawmakers that so enthusiastically work on sculpting their bodies are the ones that are most energetic about taking away our ability to stay afloat. Has it ever occurred to Mr. Ryan that obesity is the poor man's way to survive? Sculpting bodies is a rich man’s pass-time. Is it beyond his comprehension that the only type of food a poor family can afford is cheap high-calorie junk food?

Or should we follow the example of these anointed, young, vigorous Republicans. Yes, let's all head for the gym doors. Let's build those muscles while our teeth are rotting away because we cannot afford a dentist.

We are at the mercy of a group of 'Generation X' Republicans, obviously more concerned with their looks than how a civilized democracy should be run. A group that is lacking any sense of social equality.

What they are good at is not only trimming their own fat but ours as well. Ryan and his gym-buddies are prancing around in their gym shorts and have the audacity to vote to lower the top tax rate to 25%. They are bent on muscling out income tax on capital gains, kick box the corporate income tax into oblivion, rip Social Security, crunch the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance, and power walk all over traditional Medicare and most of Medicaid, all in the name of budget deficit reduction.

The article inspired me to look at some age statistics for our current Congress. Of 429 Representatives, 57 are from the 'silent generation' (people born between 1925 and 1945.)** There are 253 'boomers' (those born between 1943 and 1960) and 119 ‘Generation X’ Congressmen (those born between 1961 and 1981.)

Twice as many 'silent' generation Congressmen are Democrats, about an equal number are 'boomers', but there are three times as many Republican ‘Gen-Xers’ as Democrats. Does that mean we are seeing an age imbalance in our government?

I don't blame our ‘Gen-X’ Congressmen for wanting to stay in shape. They still have to worry about their looks. But I don’t want to know about it. It’s in bad taste. Leave the job of public exhibitionism to Jerry Springer. For the rest of us who are trying to make ends meet, who cannot afford a health club membership and who rely on cheap, high-calorie food for subsistence, it would be a lot less painful if right-wing conservative politicians would keep their private lives out of the media and their gym-shorts out of sight.

** Why they are called the 'silent' generation is a mystery to me because most rock stars of the 60s were of the Silent Generation, including the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix and Elvis Presley. Marlon Brando, Marilyn Monroe, Clint Eastwood and James Dean are also members of the silent generation. leave comment here Read more...

The curse of the 'R'

by Madeleine Kando

If you want my opinion, the most difficult letter to pronounce in any language is the letter ‘R’. You can spend a life-time perfecting a language which is not your own, but the ‘R’ will always give you away.

Take me, for example. I had to learn French, Dutch, German, English and Spanish and it would have been a cynch for me to masquerade as a native had it not been for the cursed ‘R’.

That evil-doer always gave me away. It doesn’t help that we are all deaf to our own voice. Yes, deaf. If you want to hear your own voice the way others hear it, you have to record it first. Either that or travel to the Grand Canyon and shout something, to hear it echoed back. Even then, you might think: 'Wow, that person sounds weird. I am glad I don't sound like that.' Yes, if non-native English speakers knew what they really sounded like, they would stop talking altogether.

But to get back to my eternal enemy, the notorious ‘R’. I have to admit that things could have been worse. Had I been born in China or Japan my battle with the ‘R’ would have been lost the day I was born. I would have been doomed to order 'flied lice' for dinner for the rest of my life.

The thing is, the ‘R’ is a mischievous little bugger. It knows that it is a consonant, but the sneaky bastard enjoys getting a free ride on the back of the poor vowel that precedes it.

Take the word ‘part’, for example. In many languages the ‘R’ has the decency of standing on its own, so that a Frenchman will correctly say: ‘parrr’, pronouncing the ‘R’ as a third, distinct, sound in that word. The ‘R’ in English, (especially British English) however, often will ride piggyback on the vowel in front of it.

If you live in Boston, the 'R' becomes particularly lazy and the word is pronounced ‘paht’. But it isn't satisfied by just riding piggyback; it also changes the sound of the 'a' in front of it, and the way the word is pronounced by native Bostonians brings shivers down the spine of any 'normal-English' speaking person. It is pronounced: 'paaaht'. See what I mean?

So what’s a foreigner to do? Well, it depends on which language you speak originally. The expression ‘you cannot teach an old dog new tricks’ surely applies here. If you are from Spain or France, there is no way you will loose the habit of pronouncing ‘R’s like rolling marbles in your mouth. That's what 'R's are meant to do, or they wouldn't be called 'R', don't you agree?

You are supposed to say: 'Bears are usually barred from bringing beer to bars before breakfast.' You don't say: 'beahs are usually bahed from bringing beeh to bahs befoh breakfast.' (Unless you have the misfortune of being Bostonian or a New Yawker.)

So, if Americans cannot agree on how to pronounce their own 'R', how do they expect foreigners to learn the correct pronunciation?

My advice to you is to not even try. Just lay it on thick with your foreign accent. Usually it will charm at least a certain percentage of the people around you and the rest? Well, you can please some people some of the time but you cannot please all the people all the time. So there!  leave comment here Read more...

Revenge

by Madeleine Kando

I have to tell you a secret. My favorite movies are the ones that have some kind of revenge as their theme. Like 'Rob Roy' or 'The Brave One'. They tap into a very deep seated emotion: a feeling of deep satisfaction when a wrong has been put right by the vengeful act of the victim turned hero. In 'Rob Roy' the wronged hero is played by Liam Neeson, a giant of a man. In 'The Brave One' the hero is played by Jodie Foster, one of the smallest actresses I know. They both get even with the bad guy(s) and live happily ever after.

Revenge and the act of vengeance are a very old practice in the history of mankind. Every primitive society practices the art of revenge, and the older the society, the better it is at it. From the Scottish clans to the Japanese Samurai class, revenge was the way people doled out justice.

Vengeance is sweet. 'Revenge is a dish best served cold' says Vito Corleone in The Godfather. Waiting to take revenge until the one that harmed you least expects it, is the best way to take revenge.

Another proverb, attributed to the Chinese philosopher Confucius, states that "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves." The implication here is that a desire for revenge may ultimately hurt the seeker as much as the victim. Read more...

The Incredible Shrinking Woman

by Madeleine Kando

I heard on the news the other day that 'walking six miles a day might improve memory in the elderly'. Because the brain has to cope with a lot of different inputs as you walk, the way you place your foot on the ground, the sounds you hear and the things you see, all have to be processed and this keeps brain cells active. It prevents the brain from shrinking.

So, why is meditation so good for you? Isn't the goal of meditation to 'empty' your mind of thought? Wouldn't a meditator's brain eventually shrink to the size of a peanut? Maybe that's why gurus and other idols of the art of meditation are so 'nice', so 'at peace'. They have emptied their mind of all the disturbing thoughts that living in this cruel world generates in any normal sized brain.

If you are honest with yourself, you have to admit that most human functions shrink as you age. I won't go into too many depressing details, but everyone knows that as you age you lose some of your height, vision, hearing, muscle mass etc. The only thing that doesn't seem to shrink with age is your waist size.

Ok, so I can look forward to turning deaf, blind and becoming a midget. But if walking helps brain cells, why not devise a method to exercise your eyes, your ears and your stature to stop their functions from shrinking?

I tried to enroll in a 'eye yoga' class but couldn't find one, so I started my own 'eye exercises'. I take my eyes for a 'walk' every day. I sit in front of the mirror and make big circles with my eyeballs, look left and right, up and down, squeeze them, look cross eyed, the whole shebang. I cannot really tell if my eyes are rejuvenating though. I might just end up looking cross eyed as I get older.

Ears are pretty sedentary things, so you cannot really exercise them, but I have tried to turn music down to a point where I have to strain to hear it. I turn on the television and sit in another room to see if I recognize any of the familiar anchormens' voices.

To stop myself from shrinking I hang upside down on my gravity invertor at least twice a day. When my husband comes home after work, I unobtrusively inch my way close to him to see if I have gained any height. So far, I haven't noticed any difference, but you never know. Better safe than sorry, I always say.

On the other hand, part of me thinks that shrinking as you age might not be such a bad idea. Nature has been kind enough to give us humans time to adjust to growing into adults. Can you imagine how traumatic it would be if you were born an adult?

Shrinking with age might be nature's way to make it easier for us to ultimately completely disappear when we die. Who knows, if we could live to be two hundred years, we would all shrink to the size of a little clump of clay and it wouldn't be so hard to say farewell. leave comment here Read more...

Deficit, Schmeficit

By Madeleine Kando and Tom Kando

Wisconsin’s Governor Scott Walker and his Republican minions are now trying to take away most collective bargaining rights from public employees (shrewdly excluding police, firefighters and state troopers). Other Midwestern states are moving in the same direction. The purported objective is to help close the state’s $3.6 billion budget deficit. Most states have a budget deficit these days. Wisconsin’s is by no means the worst.

We propose a much better plan, one that would keep public workers from demonstrating and still satisfy the Republican governor and his supporters:

Wisconsin has about 30,000 households making over $1 million a year (It also has 100,000 millionaires, measured by NET WORTH). (Source: Wealth, Income and Power by Sociology Professor William Domhoff).

People who make over a million a year don't get taxed more than someone who makes $380,000. It's all the same to Uncle Sam, whether you earn $380,000 or $10 million, you get taxed at 35% max. Does that seem logical to you?

In addition, most states also levy income taxes. For example, Wisconsin’s rates range from under 5% to nearly 7.75% of income over approximately $300,000.

Why not tax those who make over a million dollars a year a few percent more? Note that we are talking about INCOME, not just being a mere “millionaire,” which many of us approach by just owning a relatively nice house and a few investments.

If 30,000 Wisconsinites would each pay 5% more on each million they make, this would yield $1.5 billion on just their first million! Add to this a 5% tax on the additional millions earned by the super-rich, and presto, your budget deficit is gone. End of story. All these people need to do is forego a few trips to the Bahamas.

You may say that we are mixing apples and oranges - state and federal taxes - and that we are proposing to raise federal taxes to remedy state deficits. But how revenue is increased is irrelevant. There are plenty of mechanisms for the different levels of government to share revenue with each other. The federal government already rebates billions to the states all the time.

We can hear you say: 'Oh, that reeks of socialism. That's not what America is about'. Really? Did you know that in Holland the highest tax rate is 52%? Compare that to the highest bracket of 35% in America, which only kicks in if you make more than $380 thousand! And of course, they also have additional levels of taxation over there, just as we do.

This brilliant plan would not only solve many states' budget deficits, but it would also make this country more equal. On this list of countries by income equality, you can see where America ranks on the 'Gini index'. The Gini index is a measure of income inequality. A country that scores 0.0 on the Gini scale has perfect equality in income distribution. A score of 100 indicates total inequality where only one person corners all the income.

The most equal countries on the list are Denmark and Japan. Holland ranks fairly high in terms of equality. America, as you can see, ranks about the same as some very underdeveloped countries in Africa, like Sierra Leone and Senegal. We are not suggesting bringing back proscriptions. This was the method used by Roman dictator Sulla and emperors such as Julius Caesar to solve their budget deficit. They declared a list of the richest citizens - many of them senators - to be criminals, chopped off their heads and appropriated ALL their assets. We don’t favor this method, even though our own average senator’s net worth is $14 million, and Congress’ total net worth is $2.5 billion. (Source:Your Senator Is (Probably) a Millionaire).

We suggest a more civilized form of redistribution (another taboo word in America, along with “socialism.”). Redistribution based on a more progressive and therefore more just tax system, one more similar to the one in Europe, Japan, Canada and the rest of the Western world.

What is so abominable about the current fiscal debate in this country is that there is a near consensus that the problem is just one thing, namely overspending at the public level. Anyone who dares to suggest that there are two sides to the issue - too much spending and insufficient revenue - gets tarred and feathered. So it’s open season on Unions, on teachers and on the entire public sector. No matter that spending by the states is already way, way down.

As a society, we are driving in the wrong lane, in the wrong direction. We are trying hard to emulate the enormous inequalities of banana republics. Not content to have a top tax rate of 35% for millionaires, the Republicans want to reduce the rate to 29%! The 2010 elections prove that the brainwashing of the public is now complete. leave comment here Read more...

Delayed Gratification

by Madeleine Kando

I am not very good at delayed gratification. When I wake up in the morning, half dead, I cannot wait for my first cup of coffee. If the gratification of caffeine rushing through my veins gets delayed, I become intolerable to the people around me.

But sometimes delayed gratification pays off. A man yelled at me in the therapy pool yesterday, because I had positioned myself in his ‘lane’ (how you can swim laps in a therapy pool the size of a large bathtub is beyond me). He became loud and verbally abusive and my instinct was to kick him in the you know what. But I called the manager and revel in the knowledge that this man will pay for his crime by being officially reprimanded. Delaying my gratification will make my revenge taste that much sweeter.

However, when it comes to one of our shower cells, my capacity for delaying gratification knows no limits. It needs so much work that it looks like a bomb exploded in it. My husband and I talk a lot about our shower cell project. Every month or so we go over the details of the soon to be installed tiles, the color of the curtain, etc. Discussing our new non-existent shower has given us great satisfaction for the past five years. So why not just delay indefinitely and forget about the gratification? This way it doesn’t cost us a penny.

Do you suppose some climates are more conducive to a culture of delayed gratification than others? For people who live in a gorgeous, warm place with palm trees, delicious fruits and vegetables growing abundantly and beautiful, half naked girls strolling down the pristine beaches, delaying gratification doesn't make sense. Why would they want to delay the gratification of eating, drinking and having sex all day?

Compare that to where I live in New England. As I write this I am looking out on my backyard where the squirrels are scrambling to get a grip on the huge piles of snow. It is so cold that I don’t go outside unless it is an absolute emergency. I am delaying gratification on almost everything right now. I cannot go for walks, so I write. I cannot relax in the sun, so I clean the house. I cannot meet my friends for coffee, so I do my bookkeeping instead. Does delaying pleasure make you work harder? Is there a hidden advantage to spending my life in this frozen inferno?

Many studies have been conducted on the subject of delayed gratification. It’s tied in to things like ‘temporal myopia’ which, in turn, leads to ‘hyperbolic discounting’. ‘Temporal myopia’, means that clarity decreases the further things are in the future. People's view of global warming is a good example. Because we are myopic to future events, we discount their importance in the present, which is called ‘Hyperbolic discounting’.

In the famous Stanford Marshmallow Experiment (1972), four year old children were offered a marshmallow and told that if they waited fifteen minutes without eating it, they would get another one. Eighty percent of the children ate their marshmallow, but the twenty percent that waited turned out to be more successful in adult life.

Ah, but were they happier? Did they ever regret having missed the opportunity to feel that wonderful sense of instant gratification?

I am sure hyperbolic discounting is just as useful as delayed gratification. There is a risk attached to all that waiting. If you don’t survive today there is not much point to the delay, is there? Someone else will be eating your marshmallows and you'll be cursing yourself for eternity. leave comment here Read more...

Passing the Buck

by Gene Barnes
Professor Emeritus of Physics
California State University

Former U.S. President Harry S. Truman was reported to have had a sign on his desk reading: “The Buck Stops Here.”. The sign was intended to mean that he—as the top executive in the U.S. Government—was willing to take the final responsibility for the decisions made by his administration.

Today, at the highest levels of our government and of our industrial and financial corporate enterprises, almost no one is willing to accept any responsibility for anything. Passing the buck has become our national pastime, instead of baseball. I believe that passing the buck is truly bi-partisan, practiced by both Republicans and Democrats alike. Let’s look at some of the evidence of this during the last decade or so.

In 2000, George W. Bush was elected President. After the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, the responsibility for the attack was attributed to al- Qaeda on the basis of intelligence reports gathered from the CIA and the FBI. As it turned out, quite a lot of the information concerning the conspirators had been obtained prior to 9/11, but it had never been taken seriously enough by the senior officials in these organizations. Even when information on the possibility of “attacks involving airplanes” was given to then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice by Security Advisor Richard Clarke, she chose not to pay much attention. On the day of the attack, President Bush had no immediate response, preferring to finish reading a story to school children. The order to scramble U.S. fighter jets was not given until it was too late to stop even the second plane from hitting the other twin tower nearly an hour later. To my knowledge, none of the members of the Bush administration have accepted any responsibility for their failures to provide an adequate defensive response to these attacks. For example, George Tenet, who was the Head of the CIA from 1997 until Robert Mueller’s confirmation 7 days before 9/11, never accepted the responsibility for the mismanagement of the information by his agency. Later, President Bush awarded the Medal of Freedom to him.

In contrast, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in1941, hearings were held to establish the responsibility for the inadequate defense of the Naval Base. Some of the senior Navy officers in command were reduced in rank as a result. Historians still argue as to whether President Roosevelt himself could (or should) have foreseen the possibility of an attack and strengthened the Pearl Harbor defenses. He was, after all, a former Assistant Secretary of the Navy.

Fast-forward to the financial crisis of 2007-2010, resulting in the bailout. A recent editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle entitled, “Why did the economy sink?” describes the verdict of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission’s 545-page report on the causes of the crisis. Apparently, this bi-partisan Report dealt rather heavily in generalizations, rather than specific accusations of individual misconduct—an ideal way to pass the buck. Phrases such as “the crisis was the result of human action and inaction,” and the Chronicle’s suggestion that “plenty of smart people did stupid things” are not very enlightening. One of those so-called “smart people” was probably Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board under both President Clinton and President Bush. But when Greenspan testified before Congress, he seemed confused and not especially intelligent. He didn’t seem to understand the simple fact that self-regulation in government or industry does not work, and has never worked, something that really can be learned in kindergarten, if you are paying attention. Still, he managed to pass the buck. Apparently, however, this was a lesson that President Clinton had also failed to learn, because he signed the Gramm Leach Bliley Act in 1999, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. According to Wikipedia, this repeal “removed the separation that had previously existed between the Wall Street investment banks and the depository banks and may have caused the collapse of the subprime mortgage market that led to the financial collapse of 2007-2010.” Neither President Clinton nor President Bush have assumed any responsibility for the financial crisis, to my knowledge.

Among the many other Wall Street investment ploys that contributed to the crisis was the now-infamous Credit Default Swap. Basically, to create a CDS, you sell an investment to a buyer who can insure the investment so that if it fails the insurance will pay him a certain par value. However, this insurance (the CDS) is not subject to the same regulations as casualty or life insurance, and can be traded or sold to someone else. Thus, you can buy insurance on someone else’s investment that seems likely to fail—such as a mortgage loan to someone who can’t afford to keep up the payments. You might wonder who would be foolish enough to insure something like that. AIG would, if you were careful enough to pay the investment rating services such a Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s to give it a AAA rating. Most of the largest banks and investment firms in America sold the packaged mortgages all over the world, and profited from their demise—until AIG ran out of money and had to be bailed out. None of the CEOs of these banks have been charged with criminal misconduct, though a few have resigned—with golden parachutes. One of these firms, Goldman Sachs, seems to have done especially well. President Obama appointed Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, and Ben Bernanke—all former “smart people” from Goldman Sachs—to top economic posts in his administration. They all passed the buck, with the help of President Obama.

This is a very long blog already, so I’ll stop here—even though I haven’t mentioned Monica Lewinski, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Torture, or Healthcare. I’m sure that the leaders of other countries are also very good at passing the Buck, or the Franc, or the Deutsche Mark, etc. Why not send some of your own favorite examples. I welcome both Liberal and Conservative contributions, though I reserve the right not to respond unless it seems worthwhile. leave comment here Read more...

Generalizations

By Tom Kando

I tried to post this as a comment. Too long. Won’t accept it. Hence, a separate post:

We are honored to post Prof. Ten Have’s excellent article. It raises the level of scholarship and the quality of our blog.

The piece is called 'On the use of collectivity nouns.' I take this to mean that it is essentially a critique of certain kinds of “generalizations,”- and their moral or judgmental usage. Sorry, I now generalize about Ten Have’s article.

Ten Have ‘deconstructs’ a recent exchange between Johnny and me, triggered by events in Egypt. (In the old days, we used the word ‘analysis,’ but ‘deconstruct’ sounds nicer and more post-modern).

Regarding the use of collectivity nouns, I am now going to comment about generalizations. This is not a straw man, but an attempt to grapple with Ten Have’s argument.

Obviously, generalizations can be bad. We all know about the evils of stereotyping, racism, nationalism. Furthermore, many generalizations, even when containing some truth, are shallow and do not do justice to reality.

BUT: Isn’t Sociology foremost in the business of generalizing? Without generalizations, there is no Sociology.

The first thing freshmen are told is that Sociology is about group patterns, not individuals. For example, the instructor asks the students in Sociology One: “Who are you likely to marry?”

They reply: “Whoever I fall in love with; it all depends on the individual.”

And then the instructor lectures about assortative mating, that tall people are more likely to marry tall people, etc. Patterns; generalizations.

Surely we can agree that the question is not whether to use generalizations, but which ones, and for what purpose. A generalization can be good or bad. I can think of at least 3 criteria:

1) is it true or false?
2) is it shallow, does it do violence to important details?
3) Is it used for a nefarious purpose, when combined with moral judgment? This last point is central to Ten Have’s argument.

Examples of generalizations:

A.“Jews are miserly.”
B. “American children are more overweight than Japanese children.”
C. “The US has a high crime rate.”
D. “Americans are more optimistic than Frenchmen.”

Generalization #A fails all three tests. It is false and it is malicious.

Generalization #B passes the first test, maybe not the second, but it does pass the third test: Moral judgment embedded in a generalization does not automatically disqualify the generalization. For example, this generalization could be a call for positive social action.

Generalization #C: same as Generalization #B. Someone might say:

“Don’t generalize; Where I live, in Iowa, we have very little crime.” True.

Generalization #D: This is the sort of generalization which has become problematic - generalizations about the psychological characteristics of groups and nationalities.
Years ago, the Adorno group, Kurt Lewin, the study of national character, the “authoritarian personality,” the Culture and Personality school in Anthropology - these all made the study of such things respectable.
But because of the horrors of nationalism and racism, we now agree that one should tread very carefully in this area of research - if going there at all...

Still, what are we to do with the social sciences’ central concept - culture?

If I say, “Americans are more optimistic than Frenchmen.” (Generalization #D), and this is based on surveys, and it is NOT meant to force Frenchmen to become more optimistic, does it not pass my 3 tests?

There IS such a thing as “American Culture,” and maybe even a European Culture, or at least a Western European Culture. In statistical parlance, maybe “between-group” variations are greater than within-group variations...

Granted, the great weakness of most generalizations is criterion #2 - shallowness. To this, I plead guilty. This is a blog. Our average post has 600 words.

Finally: Prof. Ten Have is defensive about my discussion of possible European anti-Semitism. After all, it’s been over 60 years since the Holocaust.

I am only preaching caution. Nothing dies harder than Culture (remember Ogburn?). A century and a half after the abolition of slavery and after decades of Civil Rights enforcement, the South remains America’s most racist region.
I have no evidence that Europe is more anti-Semitic than America. But 60 years is historically not very long. Caution in criticizing Israel is still a good idea for Europeans, who should be as aware as possible of their motives.
Is the criticism rooted in anti-Zionism, and the fact that the creation of Israel has caused a great deal of Palestinian suffering, or in a general feeling that Jews are still a problem? (As in the not uncommon allegation that US foreign policy, Hollywood, etc. have been hijacked by Jews).

How anti-Semitic Europeans are, is an empirical question. I am just saying: make sure you continue to be vigilant about its potential reoccurrence. leave comment here Read more...

On the Use of 'Collectivity Nouns'

by Paul ten Have
retired Associate Professor, Sociology,
University of Amsterdam

This is an invitation to (re-)consider the use of what I will call ‘collectivity nouns’. What I mean is nouns like ‘America’, ‘Europe’, etc, as well as their derivatives like ‘American’, and even pronouns such as ‘we’, when used to denote a collectivity such as ‘the American people’, or ‘Europeans’. I will in particular examine and criticize occasions in which such collectivities are discussed as if they were moral actors. My critique is intended to stay on the level of discourse. Its target is discursive practices rather than material ones.

My reflections were triggered by my reading of recent posts on the events in Egypt, by Tom Kando and reactions under the name of ‘Johnny’. I was at times a bit confused, or at least slightly irritated, by the terms and phrases they used.

I can, of course in the context of its use disambiguate ‘America’ as referring to the U.S.A., and Tom’s ‘we’ and ‘our’ as showing his identification with that same object. ‘Europe’ is more difficult; does that refer to the western part of the Eurasian continent, or to the EU or to a loosely defined cultural unity? For me, as a European, what strikes me most is the immense variety within Europe, socially, culturally, politically. It is only in a global contrast with other areas or countries, like ‘America’, that a semblance of a unitary object is created.

A rather different semantic problem concerns the events in Egypt: is what is happening there rightly called a revolution? I would say it is a ‘revolt’ or an uprising. The possibilities of a crack-down of the revolt, or a marginally adapted but firm restoration of the ancien regime do still exist.

Here are quotes concerning the America/Europe contrast in relation to Israel, which is a key factor in the further development of the events in the international arena. Kando and his opponent are in agreement that the issue of Israel is ‘complicated’.

Kando writes: “Europe is more critical of Israel than America is. America is more involved in the Middle Eastern Peace Process. It is not clear who is more right, and where anti-Zionism ebbs over into anti-Semitism. In light of 20th century history, Europe should not be too vocally anti-Israel.”

His opponent says: “Another reason you (that is the US) are spending so much in the middle east is to protect Israel. The resources it costs the US is immense and the moral justness of supporting this regime can be more and more questioned. (Especially from a Palestinian point of view.)”

And: “Europeans indeed have a lot of guilt for the genocide and atrocities practised by the Germans in WWII. However, I believe that you don't gain a right to practice atrocities by receiving them. Even atrocities on a different scale and certainly not against people who did not have anything to do with it.”

These densely formulated quotes seem to hint at a variety of reasonings that one needs to ‘unpack’ in order to understand and evaluate what is going on there. The first sentence in the Kando quote, ‘Europe is more critical of Israel than America is’, seems at first sight clear enough, and as a summary statement quite correct. It is not too clear however what the actual, concrete objects are of the terms “Europe’, ‘America’ and ‘Israel’. Tom probably meant to refer to a general trend in the public opinion of people in ‘Europe’ versus those in ‘America’. But what about the object ‘Israel’? This could include the very existence of ‘Israel’ as a state, the current or recent overall policy of the state, the general situation of ‘Israel’ (including the occupied territories and the settlements), and/or specific recent actions like the wars in Lebanon and Gaza. In the second part of his third sentence, ‘ It is not clear who is more right, and where anti-Zionism ebbs over into anti-Semitism’, Kando suggests that there are two basic attitudes, which he calls ‘anti-Zionism’ and ‘anti-Semitism’, which are hard to distinguish. The first can be defined as a negative attitude towards the Zionist project in toto, i.e the very existence of ‘Israel’, while the second refers to a general negative attitude towards Jews as Jews. His ‘punch line’ is: ‘In light of 20th century history, Europe should not be too vocally anti-Israel’. It is not hard to understand which part of ‘20th century history’ is meant here, the Shoah. And this is indeed what the opponent reads in it, as can be seen in his quotes above. What is suggested, then, is that because the Shoah happened in Europe, more than 60 years ago, Europeans should still not be openly critical of (any?, some? which?) aspects of 21st Century ‘Israel’.

The Shoah was undoubtedly one of the most unjust and terrible events in human history, inflicted on innocent individuals by the perverted Nazi regime in Germany. In many European countries they were assisted in their misdeeds by individual collaborators. But there were others, some in Germany, more in some other countries who resisted the Nazi pursuit, although most Europeans passively stood by (and were informed about the event and its scale only afterwards). The Nazi regime was defeated in 1945 and many things happened in the years following, both in Germany and elsewhere. One of these was the establishment of the State of Israel in Palestine in 1948. This certainly had lots to do with the Shoah, but it was also a culmination of the Zionist project which started much earlier.

Now I want to return to the words of Tom’s opponent. From the first quote above: “The resources it costs the US is immense and the moral justness of supporting this regime (the Israeli one) can be more and more questioned. (Especially from a Palestinian point of view.)” So he suggests that supporting the current Israeli regime is becoming more and more morally questionable. In the second quote he makes two separate statements. In the first he seems to agree with Tom: “Europeans indeed have a lot of guilt for the genocide and atrocities practised by the Germans in WWII.” But he adds: “However, I believe that you don't gain a right to practice atrocities by receiving them. Even atrocities on a different scale and certainly not against people who did not have anything to do with it.”

So both Tom and his opponent argue in terms of a collective European responsibility and guilt of Europeans for the Shoah, although they draw different consequences from it.

I disagree with this extended responsibility, extended first from the perpetrators and collaborators to all individuals living in the same part of the world, and second from those active in WW2 to the present population of Europe. Should I, a child during the war, refrain from criticising, say, phosphor bombing in Gaza, or olive tree destruction by settlers in the Occupied Territories, Tom? And should I feel ‘a lot of guilt for the genocide and atrocities practised by the Germans in WWII’, Johnny?

What I oppose, then, is the use of collectivity nouns in moral arguments. And I also oppose generalized moral statements on the qualities, positive or negative, of large scale population categories, whether based on nationality, race, religion and/or ethnicity. Nationalism and other ‘groupisms’ are a major pest in the history of humanity.

Over to you, whatever the category you identify with. leave comment here Read more...