Why you can't trust your values

[sqbr]

(A continuation of my basic principles, inspired by this discussion)

In general, if everyone from group A (women, the poor, immigrants etc) just happens to violate seemingly coincidental and objective value B then:
(a) It really is a coincidence
(b) They're just inferior in general
(c) There's something skeevy going on with the way your values are contructed
(d) You're not applying your values consistently

Now (a) happens sometimes, like I have an intolerance to milk fat so tend to see french food as "inferior" but it's not that I have any deep seated aversion to the french. And I have no problem with those french dishes I can eat. That was a crappy example. A better one is the way that many societies associate black with the night, and thus scariness and evil, and afaict this has (or had) nothing to do with the racist representation of dark-skinned people as inherently bad, though the two have since become linked.

Most people will deny the possibility of (c) or (d), and once the "evidence" builds up (a) starts to look a bit shaky, and so the subtext ends up being (b). This is the justification for almost all modern intolerance, since it's no longer acceptable to explicitly say (or even think) "Group A is just naturally inferior".

But when you scratch the surface? Most of the time it is (c) or (d).

For an example of (c), classism relied on the marks of "gentility" being valued above all else, and those marks were things you only tended to get if you were upper class: the right accent, knowledge of the classics, proper etiquette, the right clothes etc. Thus, the lower classes were provably inferior! And if you think that doesn't happen now you obviously haven't encountered the idea of "white trash"/chavs etc. There are similar deliberately created reasons for the devaluing of women, non-european cultures etc.

On the other hand (to illustrate (d)), a lot of western christians will talk about how the entire middle east as a region is doomed to irrational violence because of the calls to violence in the Koran, despite the fact that the Bible has an awful lot of similar passages, so by that logic all of western europe/America etc is just as doomed.

But even if it is a coincidence you still have to think about the consequences of your actions: if you take an action against everyone who violates value B, and that adversely effects people in group A, well you have to keep that in mind.

This is why saying "It's not that I'm racist/sexist/ etc, it's just that I value *blah*" is a very weak argument, and you shouldn't make it without thinking very hard about where your values come from and how you're applying them.

Of course, "objective values" are different from subjective taste/opinion, and if you are willing to admit your subjectivity that can help ameliorate the "Everyone in group A just sucks" effect. You still have to think about the reasons for and consequences of your value judgements though, especially if your "personal taste" happens to correspond with a lot of other people's for (c) and (d)-esque reasons. For example, you can't help it if you think women are unattractive, but some straight women/gay men can use this as an excuse to be sexist which is bad.

It's important to note that you can't help having skeevy values if you live in a skeevy society, and you may not be able (or wish) to retrain ourself out of them. But it's important to be aware of where this stuff comes from and the effect it has.

Comments

[evil-megz.livejournal.com]

I would personally go for a 5th option which is similar to B) only instead of asserting that the group is inferior for violating my value, I accept that they are just different to me. That said I'm unsure how well I uphold that idea in my actions etc, and I doubt most other people are able to see things the same way.

Also I can't think of many if any groups of which every member violates one of my values, without defining that group by their violation of that value.

[evil-megz.livejournal.com]

Also I'd like to mention that the original scenario begins flawed because values are by definition subjective, and so if a person has their "objective value" violated they are already unjustified in their opinion regardless of what they conclude.

[alias_sqbr]

Yes, I forgot to clarify about matters of taste/acknowledged subjectivity. If your taste "just happens" to be against a particular group you might want to consider why that is and what effect that has on your behaviour, but for example I don't feel very sexist for not being much attracted to women :D (then again, some straight women can be really misogynistic about it so there you go)

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

Okay, if that's an example (albeit tongue-in-cheek), then you need to re-examine your definition of "values".

"I am not attracted to women" is not a value.
"Women who are attracted to women are bad" is a value, intended to marginalise lesbians.

Importantly, all values must be constructed in such a way as to categorise everyone as "good" or "bad"; they are judgement criteria.

[tevriel.livejournal.com]

I was going to make an argument for acknowledging "I value *blah*" being potentially acceptable, but then I thought more about applying it in re: racial groups. I think it's more in defense of my elitism, because I can't think of something I value that leads to racial assumptions, just classist ones.

Like I value courtesy, by the standards of manners to which I am accustomed, intelligence as displayed in an educational/interest background compatible with mine, etc.

Which leads to the conclusion that while I'll be polite and all to people who don't really fit with my value set, we're not likely to be friends, particularly.

Which then follows on to cultural barriers. Like, I have friends from different cultural backgrounds, but we have to have enough of a crossover of experience/interests to really be friends. Then again, that's not really racist either, I think; it's difficult to bond with someone with whom you have nothing in common.

So, I'm not sure what my point is, that's all a bit stream of consciousness.

[alias_sqbr]

But I assume you an learn to translate someone with different cultural expectation's behaviour into the equivalent behaviour by your standards? I can't think of a good example, unfortunately.

Overall I think it's important to figure out what you really value and not put too much faith in superficial markers. Like, my mum had trouble fitting in at my working class primary school, she made some friends but part of her wished for more people who liked Opera etc. At my posh highschool she met LOTS of opera fans..who were still shallow, cliquey idiots just like the mums at my old school, and she made roughly the same number of friends (in both cases they tended to be intelligent, sensible and unconventional women with good taste and judgement. Some of whom liked Opera :))

I think it's fairly natural to tend to make friends with people from the same cultural background, but I think it can end up being limiting if taken too far or if you let superficial differences stop you from connecting with people you are otherwise well suited to (which I don't think you would do, I'm just saying)

[capnoblivious.livejournal.com]

What about the possibility of incompatible values? (c) and (d) basically say, group B's values are faulty or badly applied, and the onus is on them to reassess them. Excluding the possibility that cultural_value_A might clash with cultural_value_B seems unfair to group B.

(I'd explore my thoughts, but I'm actually kinda busy, so I'm hoping you'll explore yours and I can argue or agree with you. :) )

[alias_sqbr]

Hmm.

I think that unless you define group A as "everyone who disagrees with me" then chances are it doesn't divide up as neatly as that. I guess I didn't talk about when group A is a subset of a much larger and fuzzy-edged group who clash with value B (as with the death penalty), I think I need to ponder that some more, though I went into somewhat in the post on cultural intolerance.

And, you know, maybe it is a coincidence. But if it is you still have to consider the way in which the fact these people are in group A interacts with the fact that you disagree with them on principle B.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

Classism violates your thesis, because the values aren't in any way "seemingly coincidental" (and no values are objective, so I'm just ignoring that bit). It's a system purely defined on the predicate that a particular group is inferior.

I would go so far as to say that in general, if everyone from group A just happens to violate value B, then value B cannot be coincidental, and must be specifically intended to marginalise group A. The only possible alternative is the application of a double-standard, as in your option (d).

[alias_sqbr]

Well, no: either someone thinks the lower classes really are inferior, in which case it's covered by (b), or they don't, in which case it's (c). There's a lot of values which stem from class but people think of as objective (or at least not class based). Like having a "silly accent" or "bad taste in clothing" or "too dumb to know correct grammar" etc.

An example I thought of after posting: blackness is often associated with evil and badness, due to night being black. Dark skinned people are a group who suffer a lot of racism. As far as I can tell, this is a complete but very unfortunate coincidence (and racists have been quite happy to blur the line between them so that they're no longer so separate) But such coincidences are VERY rare, and even in this sort of case you can't ignore the consequences of the situation (ie making "dark elves" evil is skeevy even if you genuinely just mean "dark like night")

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

No, it can't be any of the options, because all the options stem from the initial condition:

if everyone from group A (women, the poor, immigrants etc) just happens to violate seemingly coincidental and objective value B

Classism does not fulfill that initial condition, because its values are neither coincidental nor objective.

You could change your statement to be:

In general, if everyone from group A violates personal value B, then:
(a) Value B is intended to specifically marginalise group A
(b) You're not applying your values consistently

I don't agree with your darkness = scary therefore dark people = bad people example. Anyone who actually used that argument to justify racism would really be clutching at straws.

[col-ki.livejournal.com]

I've been bitten by this.

In my old job, I had a graduate engineer under me, who is indian.

At first, I really didn't like him. He was rude, stubborn, nakedly ambitious, rushed his work, refused to admit error and avoided design responsibility and a sense of ownership like the plague. In short, he violated a lot of my values.

As we worked together, I came to understand that most of these violations (to use your terminology) were culturally based. It was about pride, a determination to make something of himself and leadership, and some of it was about being young, and in a foreign country. That didn't make me any more comfortable with the issues, but it did let me see though them to to the principled and soft-hearted man underneath.

Of course, I still think that his values are inferior to my own. They wouldn't be my values if I didn't hold them as valuable.

[alias_sqbr]

Hmm. Certainly I think it's important to understand the context of people's values, I know that as a tutor it took me a little while to get used to the tendency for south east asian overseas students to have a "Academic success at all costs!" attitude(*). On the plus side it meant they tended to have actually done their homework, which was a nice change :) I find that figuring out (and engaging with) the base personalities of people with a different cultural context is almost like translating from a different language.

Interestingly, all the indians I've known/worked with have been nothing like that guy (apart from generally being very motivated) so some of it may have just been him :D

(*)Not that some weren't just as laid back as the australian students! And I think the attitude difference is partly just because they're international students, so the cost of failure is much higher. But I guess that in and of itself is a different context, albeit not a cultural one.

[evil-megz.livejournal.com]

I would personally go for a 5th option which is similar to B) only instead of asserting that the group is inferior for violating my value, I accept that they are just different to me. That said I'm unsure how well I uphold that idea in my actions etc, and I doubt most other people are able to see things the same way.

Also I can't think of many if any groups of which every member violates one of my values, without defining that group by their violation of that value.

[evil-megz.livejournal.com]

Also I'd like to mention that the original scenario begins flawed because values are by definition subjective, and so if a person has their "objective value" violated they are already unjustified in their opinion regardless of what they conclude.

[alias_sqbr]

Yes, I forgot to clarify about matters of taste/acknowledged subjectivity. If your taste "just happens" to be against a particular group you might want to consider why that is and what effect that has on your behaviour, but for example I don't feel very sexist for not being much attracted to women :D (then again, some straight women can be really misogynistic about it so there you go)

[tevriel.livejournal.com]

I was going to make an argument for acknowledging "I value *blah*" being potentially acceptable, but then I thought more about applying it in re: racial groups. I think it's more in defense of my elitism, because I can't think of something I value that leads to racial assumptions, just classist ones.

Like I value courtesy, by the standards of manners to which I am accustomed, intelligence as displayed in an educational/interest background compatible with mine, etc.

Which leads to the conclusion that while I'll be polite and all to people who don't really fit with my value set, we're not likely to be friends, particularly.

Which then follows on to cultural barriers. Like, I have friends from different cultural backgrounds, but we have to have enough of a crossover of experience/interests to really be friends. Then again, that's not really racist either, I think; it's difficult to bond with someone with whom you have nothing in common.

So, I'm not sure what my point is, that's all a bit stream of consciousness.

[alias_sqbr]

But I assume you an learn to translate someone with different cultural expectation's behaviour into the equivalent behaviour by your standards? I can't think of a good example, unfortunately.

Overall I think it's important to figure out what you really value and not put too much faith in superficial markers. Like, my mum had trouble fitting in at my working class primary school, she made some friends but part of her wished for more people who liked Opera etc. At my posh highschool she met LOTS of opera fans..who were still shallow, cliquey idiots just like the mums at my old school, and she made roughly the same number of friends (in both cases they tended to be intelligent, sensible and unconventional women with good taste and judgement. Some of whom liked Opera :))

I think it's fairly natural to tend to make friends with people from the same cultural background, but I think it can end up being limiting if taken too far or if you let superficial differences stop you from connecting with people you are otherwise well suited to (which I don't think you would do, I'm just saying)

[capnoblivious.livejournal.com]

What about the possibility of incompatible values? (c) and (d) basically say, group B's values are faulty or badly applied, and the onus is on them to reassess them. Excluding the possibility that cultural_value_A might clash with cultural_value_B seems unfair to group B.

(I'd explore my thoughts, but I'm actually kinda busy, so I'm hoping you'll explore yours and I can argue or agree with you. :) )

[alias_sqbr]

Hmm.

I think that unless you define group A as "everyone who disagrees with me" then chances are it doesn't divide up as neatly as that. I guess I didn't talk about when group A is a subset of a much larger and fuzzy-edged group who clash with value B (as with the death penalty), I think I need to ponder that some more, though I went into somewhat in the post on cultural intolerance.

And, you know, maybe it is a coincidence. But if it is you still have to consider the way in which the fact these people are in group A interacts with the fact that you disagree with them on principle B.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

Classism violates your thesis, because the values aren't in any way "seemingly coincidental" (and no values are objective, so I'm just ignoring that bit). It's a system purely defined on the predicate that a particular group is inferior.

I would go so far as to say that in general, if everyone from group A just happens to violate value B, then value B cannot be coincidental, and must be specifically intended to marginalise group A. The only possible alternative is the application of a double-standard, as in your option (d).

[alias_sqbr]

Well, no: either someone thinks the lower classes really are inferior, in which case it's covered by (b), or they don't, in which case it's (c). There's a lot of values which stem from class but people think of as objective (or at least not class based). Like having a "silly accent" or "bad taste in clothing" or "too dumb to know correct grammar" etc.

An example I thought of after posting: blackness is often associated with evil and badness, due to night being black. Dark skinned people are a group who suffer a lot of racism. As far as I can tell, this is a complete but very unfortunate coincidence (and racists have been quite happy to blur the line between them so that they're no longer so separate) But such coincidences are VERY rare, and even in this sort of case you can't ignore the consequences of the situation (ie making "dark elves" evil is skeevy even if you genuinely just mean "dark like night")

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

No, it can't be any of the options, because all the options stem from the initial condition:

if everyone from group A (women, the poor, immigrants etc) just happens to violate seemingly coincidental and objective value B

Classism does not fulfill that initial condition, because its values are neither coincidental nor objective.

You could change your statement to be:

In general, if everyone from group A violates personal value B, then:
(a) Value B is intended to specifically marginalise group A
(b) You're not applying your values consistently

I don't agree with your darkness = scary therefore dark people = bad people example. Anyone who actually used that argument to justify racism would really be clutching at straws.

[col-ki.livejournal.com]

I've been bitten by this.

In my old job, I had a graduate engineer under me, who is indian.

At first, I really didn't like him. He was rude, stubborn, nakedly ambitious, rushed his work, refused to admit error and avoided design responsibility and a sense of ownership like the plague. In short, he violated a lot of my values.

As we worked together, I came to understand that most of these violations (to use your terminology) were culturally based. It was about pride, a determination to make something of himself and leadership, and some of it was about being young, and in a foreign country. That didn't make me any more comfortable with the issues, but it did let me see though them to to the principled and soft-hearted man underneath.

Of course, I still think that his values are inferior to my own. They wouldn't be my values if I didn't hold them as valuable.

[alias_sqbr]

Hmm. Certainly I think it's important to understand the context of people's values, I know that as a tutor it took me a little while to get used to the tendency for south east asian overseas students to have a "Academic success at all costs!" attitude(*). On the plus side it meant they tended to have actually done their homework, which was a nice change :) I find that figuring out (and engaging with) the base personalities of people with a different cultural context is almost like translating from a different language.

Interestingly, all the indians I've known/worked with have been nothing like that guy (apart from generally being very motivated) so some of it may have just been him :D

(*)Not that some weren't just as laid back as the australian students! And I think the attitude difference is partly just because they're international students, so the cost of failure is much higher. But I guess that in and of itself is a different context, albeit not a cultural one.