Saturday, August 31, 2013

Kalb Speaks: How liberals are sterilizing our culture

I fly a lot and one of the things that surprises me is that, when you are waiting to board at the gate, there are certain people who get preferential treatment.

If you are an Executive Platinum member or Premier Access member or a member of Delta's SkyMiles program or U.S. Airways Silver Preferred, American Airlines AAdvantage Elite, or any number of other such programs, you get, in some airports, to go through an accelerated security check and in almost all cases, you get preferred boarding privileges.

And not only is this preferential treatment given, but it doesn't seem to bother anybody. And that is actually what surprises me even more. After all, we're all supposed to be equal now, right?

Imagine, for example, if, say, males received such preferred privileges over females. Or if Christians received them over Muslims. Or, heaven forfend, if married couples got preferred treatment over single people. There would be immediate and vocal outrage.

Why is it that preferential treatment based on wealth (which is what frequent flyers and business travelers have that others don't) is considered acceptable and other kinds of preferential treatment are not?

James Kalb answers this question in his new book Against [Inclusiveness]: How the Diversity Regime is Flattening America and the West and What to Do About It. He explained what I see at the airport in the first two paragraphs of the book:
Liberals pick and choose their discriminations. Financial, bureaucratic, and academic distinctions are acceptable, while natural and traditional ones are not. You can choose a Yale man over a Harvard man--the schools are a bit different, so their products may differ--but not a Yale man over a Yale woman. Engineers can earn more than janitors, and Chinese-Americans than the Scoth-Irish, but if schools discipline blacks more than whites, that is a gap that must be closed. 
The idea, it seems, is that there is something odd and irrelevant about distinctions such as sex, family, kinship, culture, and religion that makes it wrong for them to have material consequences, unless the consequences disrupt the effect of such distinctions in general. People seem to think the principle is obvious, so it is never explained, but the idea seems to be that the informal social hierarchies and the traditional patterns of conduct and belief that related to them have no legitimate functions. We should, it appears, carry on our lives exclusively through relationships that are either strictly private and idiosyncratic or contractual and bureaucratic.
Kalb has the great gift of making sense out of the seemingly senseless. In The Tyranny of Liberalism and in this new book, he roots to the root liberal assumptions that govern their beliefs and behavior. He is a cultural anthropologist, a Margaret Mead--only with liberals instead of Samoans. Oh, and unlike Mead, he's actually right about the subjects he studies.

Read more here.

14 comments:

Singring said...

We'll get to what Kalb is good at in a moment, but first and foremost, in this post Martin shows us that he is an absolute expert - possibly the best - at inadvertently illustrating why the GOP is losing among women and minorities.

As long as the right can, with a straight face, tell women who earn 30 % less than men for exactly the same work, blacks and hispanics who get stopped and frisked for no reason whatsoever and homosexuals who are not allowed to marry despite there being no rational reason to deny them that right that these problems analogous to whether or not you get priority boarding and security at the airport, there is not a hope in hell that these groups will vote majority GOP. They're gone...and so is a generation's worth of national elections.

But now to Kalb:

'Financial, bureaucratic, and academic distinctions are acceptable, while natural and traditional ones are not.'

So...when 'liberals' try to reduce the gap between poor and rich they're socialist/nazi/communist class warriors - but then when they 'accept' financial distinctions, they're evil, double-talking hypocrites?

We just can't win, can we?

'You can choose a Yale man over a Harvard man--the schools are a bit different, so their products may differ--but not a Yale man over a Yale woman.'

I am really, really struggling to believe that Kalb cannot see the distinction between making a choice based on merit/hard work (which, at least according to the right, is 100% down to the individual's choices) and a choice based on sex )over which the person has no control.

Is he honestly trying to argue that it is perfectly fine to hire a Yale man over a Yale woman purely because he is a man? How could anyone take a clown like this seriously?

I sometimes wonder what Kalb would write if he were plonked into one of those Twilight Zone episodes where is suddenly a black woman trying to land a job at a bank in Alabama.

KyCobb said...

Can't say I'm shocked to see Martin come out in favor of race discrimination. I see that more and more from the Right. Is it any wonder even the College Republicans say young people use the word racist to describe the GOP? So much for rebranding the GOP to broaden its appeal: "whites only" is the order of the day.

Daniel said...

KyCobb,

Where in the post does Martin say he favors racial discrimination? I've read it twice now, and I'm not seeing anything that would indicate that.

Sincerely,
Daniel



KyCobb said...

Daniel,

The title of the book he glowingly reviewed is "Against Inclusiveness", and he specifically identified blacks and whites as one of those distinctions which people should be allowed to make.

Martin Cothran said...

Daniel,

Be careful about confusing KyCobb. It's probably best just to nod our heads and say, "Yes, KyCobb" and smile nicely.

He is very confused about what goes on here and has trouble making basic distinctions.

For example, in a previous post, I said I thought history would sweep away the "gay community." I put the term in quotations for the very purpose of indicating that I was talking about the idea of a "gay community" (which was what the context was), not homosexual people who there will always be.

All of which was in the context of pointing out that the people who can't even imagine how anyone could think that same-sex marriage is not really marriage are such slaves to current opinion that they really can't think outside their narrow little 21st century box and simply don't have much of a historical consciousness. Attitudes change all the time and they will be completely different in 50 years from what they are now.

And I was speaking not about what I thought ought or ought not to happen, but what I thought would happen. But he didn't get the whole distinction between the is and the ought.

In the present case, he doesn't get the whole idea that Kalb is using the term "inclusiveness" in an ironic sense. When liberals use the word, it sounds like it means that everyone is to be included, but what it really means is that everyone they disagree with is to be excluded. The "Inclusiveness" [Note the quotes indicating my use of a word as a word, sort of like I used the word "gay community" as an idea (believe it or not you have to spell this out for some people)] Kalb is against is the liberal use of the word, which is not really inclusiveness.

But since KyCobb doesn't understand this he thinks that the title is really opposed to inclusiveness itself--the kind of inclusiveness liberals want us to think they mean.

This--and his overactive imagination--is what causes him to say that I "identified blacks and whites as one of those distinctions which people should be allowed to make." He apparently derives this from the Kalb quote, but, of course, the quote does not say this.

The quote merely observes the cultural anomaly in which it is acceptable to make certain distinctions and not others. The statement is purely descriptive and says nothing normative at all.

But there I go with those troublesome distinctions again.

And, in any case, Kalb is referring to cases in which some racial groups are the subject of disciplinary actions to a greater degree than others and from which it follows that racial discrimination is going on: Inequality of result is a prima facie reason for a finding of racial discrimination--something which, interestingly, doesn't seem to apply to the NFL or the NBA.

But again, we should probably just say "Okay, KyCobb, anything you say." And smile.

Singring said...

'The quote merely observes the cultural anomaly in which it is acceptable to make certain distinctions and not others. The statement is purely descriptive and says nothing normative at all.'

Eh...no, Martin, you don't get to play the semantics game here, I'm afraid.

This is what Kalb said - from the quote you glowingly put up here:

'The idea, it seems, is that there is something odd and irrelevant about distinctions such as sex, family, kinship, culture, and religion that makes it wrong for them to have material consequences, unless the consequences disrupt the effect of such distinctions in general.'

So what do you think he is referring to here as 'kinship'?

Hmmmm....

But let's read on:

'Engineers can earn more than janitors, and Chinese-Americans than the Scoth-Irish, but if schools discipline blacks more than whites, that is a gap that must be closed.'

You are saying that he wasn't saying anything normative at all.

According to you, he is simply critiquing the word 'inclusiveness' as it is used by liberals and the 'cultural anomaly' of (supposed) inconsistency in making distinctions.

Really?

Well, let's see what Kalb could possibly mean here...

If Kalb is very much against this perceived inconsistency, then he must be in favour of a different approach in one of three possible ways:

a) either consistency in the sense that the right course of action would be for everyone to make distinctions according to 'sex, family, kinship, culture, and religion' in addition to making distinctions based on financial, bureaucratic or other factors.

b) inconsistency the other way around - i.e. we should be making distinctions according to their 'sex, family, kinship, culture, and religion', but not because of finances or bureaucracy etc.

c) consistency in the sense that the right course of action would be to make no distinctions whatsoever and make sure we treat everyone exactly equal regardless of any kind of intrinsic or extrinsic factors.

Note that by 'distinctions' Kalb clearly means distinctions in how we treat people, not just in how we think of people. He makes this very clear by giving examples of how people are treated by society (disciplining of students, income, hiring decisions etc.).

Now, if you want to argue that Kalb is in favour of c - a hard-line egalitarian with a Marxist bent - then please do, we could all enjoy a good laugh.

If, however, he is in favour of a or b, then obviously he is a bigot and proud of it. Or would you like to propose another option?

I give Kalb credit for one thing, though: as verbose and obfuscating his language, at least he has the integrity to be honest about his bigotry.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

So Kalb is not making a prescriptive rather than descriptive statement in this passage because he means to include under the term 'kinship' race?

Ae we supposed to think that reasoning is actually cogent?

Singring said...

'Are we supposed to think that reasoning is actually cogent?'

I don't know - I asked you what you thought he meant by 'kinship' and you refused to answer.

Luckily, Kalb gives us an example of what kind inconsistency of distinctions he is so irate about:

'Engineers can earn more than janitors, and Chinese-Americans than the Scoth-Irish, but if schools discipline blacks more than whites, that is a gap that must be closed.'

Next, you'll be telling us that by 'blacks and whites' he means students wearing black or white clothes.

But back on point: why do you think Kalb is upset with the 'liberal' position that 'Engineers can earn more than janitors, and Chinese-Americans than the Scoth-Irish, but if schools discipline blacks more than whites, that is a gap that must be closed.'?

Does he want us to discipline blacks and whites differently? Does he want us to treat engineers and janitors exactly the same?

Is he a bigot or a marxist?

Or will you argue that he is none of the above? Maybe a radical anarchist?

And what on earth does the salary of a janitor have to do with the disciplining of school children? Is it that Kalb just loves mixing his analogies?

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

It's a crazy idea, I admit, but I have found that actually reading the book I'm asking those kind of questions about is usually the best way of answering them.

And one not very good way of answering them is to make illogical inferences based on facts you don't know. It's funny how facts and logic can make sense of things if you actually employ them.

In regard to whether he means to include, under the term "kinship," race, I don't know, he might. But if he did it wouldn't make your argument (and I use that term loosely) any more coherent.

You still have no proof for your contention either that what he is saying is not descriptive or that his statement is somehow racist.

I know you don't feel like you have to have arguments and evidence for your wild accusations, but there are some of us out here with some standards.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

In regards to the gay community, I'm glad you finally made an effort to explain what you met. However, I always assumed you did not mean the physical elimination of homosexuals, but rather meant that they should be forced back into the closet through coercion so that there is no visible gay community. Because people will always form communities around common interests, so as long as homosexuals can be open about their sexuality there will be a gay community.

"And I was speaking not about what I thought ought or ought not to happen, but what I thought would happen. But he didn't get the whole distinction between the is and the ought."

Martin, that simply isn't true. You said that it would be a "better time" when history had swept away the gay community. That is obviously an ought statement. Anyway, you having basically been asking me to assume the best about your intentions without giving me any reason to do so. Certainly, if I said something like "a better time, when history has swept away the Catholic Church", I doubt you would give me the benefit of the doubt as to what I intended that to mean.

Singring said...

'I know you don't feel like you have to have arguments and evidence for your wild accusations, but there are some of us out here with some standards.'

I have laid out in detail why Kalb's statements reveal his bigotry. Of course, you are free to put on a show and pretend that when Kalb says, disapprovingly:

'Liberals pick and choose their discriminations. Financial, bureaucratic, and academic distinctions are acceptable, while natural and traditional ones are not. You can choose a Yale man over a Harvard man--the schools are a bit different, so their products may differ--but not a Yale man over a Yale woman. Engineers can earn more than janitors, and Chinese-Americans than the Scoth-Irish, but if schools discipline blacks more than whites, that is a gap that must be closed. The idea, it seems, is that there is something odd and irrelevant about distinctions such as sex, family, kinship, culture, and religion that makes it wrong for them to have material consequences, unless the consequences disrupt the effect of such distinctions in general.'

...he is not stating his support of one of the alternatives I have presented (of course one that would be 'justified' by reference to self-evident natural law).

But you know what - let's give you and Kalb the benefit of the doubt and assume he's a hard-line Communist egalitarian who would like to see everyone treated exactly equally, regardless of effort, work, deeds or anything else.

Of course, if that's what he believes, I can see why he would have such a bone to pick with moderate socialist 'liberals'.

Old Rebel said...

Singring, KyCobb,

Here's a conservative writer ADMITTING to practicing discrimination based on race, sex, and species.

Sic 'em, boys!

Anonymous said...

The illustrious Singring, he of the Church of Scientific Proof, states that American women are paid 30 per cent less than American men for EXACTLY the same work. Dearest Singring, I have several attorney friends whose kids need new shoes and such who would appreciate your forwarding names and specifics so that they could have an easy payday. Even though it's illegal, some would even be willing to spiff you somehow for your referrals. They are lawyers, after all.

Franklin said...

I wish we could just have a logically consistent application of standards; after all, we discriminate on the basis of appearance every day. Good looking people get jobs that others don't.