The Wrong Side of History
Dec. 23rd, 2010 12:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rowynHistory is full of things that are abominations in modern Western society but which were not only tolerated but seen as outright positive things in prior eras (and which continue to be treated as such in some parts of the world. Eg:
* slavery
* treatment of women as property
* racism
* sexism
* serfdom
* indentured servitude
* colonialism in the name of "civilizing the savages"
* criminalization of miscegenation
Etc.
These are things that people pretty much don't argue in favor of in modern America. Granted, there are enormous debates over how much discrimination remains based on gender or race. But very few people will argue that discrimination on those grounds is good. In other areas (like sexual orientation or discrimination against those who are not cisgendered), the debate is more vehement. The trend line is towards acceptance but we're not there yet.
Sometimes I wonder what's next. In two or three hundred years, what will humanity be looking back on and saying "How could those 21st century Americans commonly accept something so awful, so abominable, as that"? Not something that we're really debating right now, but something that most people don't even think about. Something that's just the background of our lives, just the way things are and always have been.
Some of my candidates:
* Animal rights: maybe in 2310 "pet ownership" will seem as cruel and inhuman as "slave ownership" today.
* Employment: "employee" will be considered a step up from "indentured servant" -- "It's not as bad as slavery, of course, but still wrong".
* Children's rights: all current forms of disciplining children will be regarded as child abuse.
These aren't things that I actually think are horrible, mind you. I'm just trying to imagine what things I could be terribly wrong about, just as I consider many things people in 1710 took for granted as "part of the natural order" to be terribly wrong. And of course, there are fringe groups on these issues already: PETA, Communists, "unparenting" in its more radical forms.
What do you think that you might be wrong about?
* slavery
* treatment of women as property
* racism
* sexism
* serfdom
* indentured servitude
* colonialism in the name of "civilizing the savages"
* criminalization of miscegenation
Etc.
These are things that people pretty much don't argue in favor of in modern America. Granted, there are enormous debates over how much discrimination remains based on gender or race. But very few people will argue that discrimination on those grounds is good. In other areas (like sexual orientation or discrimination against those who are not cisgendered), the debate is more vehement. The trend line is towards acceptance but we're not there yet.
Sometimes I wonder what's next. In two or three hundred years, what will humanity be looking back on and saying "How could those 21st century Americans commonly accept something so awful, so abominable, as that"? Not something that we're really debating right now, but something that most people don't even think about. Something that's just the background of our lives, just the way things are and always have been.
Some of my candidates:
* Animal rights: maybe in 2310 "pet ownership" will seem as cruel and inhuman as "slave ownership" today.
* Employment: "employee" will be considered a step up from "indentured servant" -- "It's not as bad as slavery, of course, but still wrong".
* Children's rights: all current forms of disciplining children will be regarded as child abuse.
These aren't things that I actually think are horrible, mind you. I'm just trying to imagine what things I could be terribly wrong about, just as I consider many things people in 1710 took for granted as "part of the natural order" to be terribly wrong. And of course, there are fringe groups on these issues already: PETA, Communists, "unparenting" in its more radical forms.
What do you think that you might be wrong about?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
One thing about your list
Date: 2010-12-23 10:01 pm (UTC)( a ) the powerful have power in a given arena for good reasons, and are using it essentially (or totally) correctly
( b ) those with less power in an arena are relatively deprived of it for a good reason. They should be gracefully resigned to the justice of the systemic and pervasive limits on their power.
So seeing stuff that belong on this list?
I'd say whatever word we use for the way the bulk of academic feminism is practiced. Opting to make women (or a subcategory of women) a power privileged class is going to be seen one day for the hypocrisy it is (however well meaning). I don't care what the theory of feminism is, the way the bulk of the academics practice it boils down to this attempt to create privilege. And I was one of them, so I know :) This doesn't in any way lessen the horror of how many women are treated or the obscenity of the beliefs they're taught. It's just this isn't the cure. Not as it's being spread in the actual world outside our window, anyway.
On the other hand, I think one day we will also have a word for a type of subtler deprivation/power enhancement that most people today don't even recognize as a problem. ( Much less a serious one.) Namely, the type that tells people that a person with "moral authority" can demand _for essentially arbitrary reasons_ that someone change their behaviour. The authority possessor has some spurious rationale that this change is for some indispensable key outcome. But the litmus of this type of imbalance is there is no outcome they are desiring that can only be exclusively gained by the conformity demanded.
To put that kind of awkward generalization into practical example:
Telling a woman because she's female, she should be sociable, emotionally expressive, and concerned with appearances. This are all traits that could be separated from the outright demands of sexism that she accept less pay, being dragooned into being a nurturer, being a sexual object on call for men (there is a new "appearance standard" the makes a credible stab at saying it's not about sexual enticement) etc. This is the less traumatic but still serious deeper layer of what is called sexism (currently) which I think is deeply wrong. And one day I hope it will be recognized as wrong.
Or another example, parents of an upper middle class insisting their offspring must be oriented on maximized lifetime earnings "for their own good". The person's own welfare can be maximized by many paths. Insisting that the only way this can happen is by a preset plan...it's just extremely narrow minded and inflexible. It seems to me most parents force this sort of things on their children because they don't really grasp their child are separate people with unique traits, needs, strengths and weaknesses.
A family counseling psychiatrist I talked to said the majority of parents really don't understand this and can't even grasp the point once it is pointed out. (That is, except by repeatedly having practical demonstration of the fact their child has differences by very vivid repeated examples.) (For a somewhat overdone example, if they have a very socially withdrawn child whom they're trying to turn into a good networking extrovert. They will maybe see their child isn't sociable and this is not necessarily bad for them if the kid goes and wins an award for $100K for some fantastic mathematical proof. Once the kid points out that they live and breathe higher math which they found the time to focus on because they refused to spend energy socializing save when coerced.)
I figure the animal rights thing will hit its stride once we do more work on understanding non verbal communications. We've made some startling discoveries the last thirty years: prairie dogs have shockingly detailed descriptions of relevant information (incoming predators) which we wouldn't intuitively expect simple barks articulated by such a tiny brain could consistently form and recognize. There is so much more going on in nonhuman animal brains than we used to recognize. And in hindsight, I think our ignorance of this fact is going to look partly like we didn't want to listen.
Re: One thing about your list
Date: 2010-12-24 12:58 am (UTC)Important nuance
Date: 2010-12-25 12:03 am (UTC)Which really irks me. John Stuart Mill wrote extensively about liberty and said it best that generally speaking, other people do NOT know what is best for you...he does not preclude the possibility but believes that anyone making that case should acknowledge they have a high bar of proof to meet to sustain their claim. I suppose I am so easily irked since I've been so guilty (in my head, not that I've ever had the power to do this) of abusing this myself....
Conformity is a very powerful demand to make on someone, tapping into shame, guilt and fear in such strong measures. While I reluctantly concede these negative emotions can be harnessed to useful ends they can also tear lifelong wounds in you applied carelessly.
Re: One thing about your list
Date: 2010-12-24 08:43 pm (UTC)With all due respect, I want to amend your statement.
I think that most people don't really grasp that other people are separate identities with unique traits, needs, strengths, and weaknesses.
Both liberals and conservatives forget this fact with their solutions for problems.
Re: One thing about your list
Date: 2010-12-24 11:58 pm (UTC)