Monday, May 08, 2017
Elder of Ziyon
Elder
summarized an interesting article that talked about how societal norms
change not due to decisions made by the majority, but as an accommodation to an
inflexible minority.
This phenomenon can be thought of in economic terms. For example, the fact that most commercial
beverages are kosher is not because that choice was forced or imposed upon the
drink industry by the Orthodox. Rather,
the fact that those who don’t keep
kosher wouldn’t care (or even notice) whether the beverages they drink are
kosher or not means going 100% kosher gives a beverage manufacturer access to
100% of the market without the cost of creating and maintaining separate
product lines.
This idea can also be thought about in light of evolutionary
theory. For instance, which religion is
likely to have more staying power in terms of natural selection: one that is
indifferent to (or even encourages) members to explore alternatives, or one
that exacts a high price (up to and including death) on those who leave he
faith?
There are some confounding variables which prevent this idea
from morphing into a theory of inevitability.
For instance, a faith that is intolerant to apostates might apply that
term to people within the faith who stray from orthodoxy, leading to the kind
of population-reducing religious civil wars we’ve seen throughout history. But the theory does demonstrate the power an
intransigent and even irrational minority can have over a culture – for good or
for ill.
I’d like to explore the ill side by looking at the concept
of the BDShole – you know who I’m talking about – in light of a book I read a
while back called Assholes: A Theory by philosopher
Aaron James. Behind the amusing title is
an idea of a unique type of unpleasant person – the asshole – which is distinct
from the jerk, the shmuck or other types associated with rude or unpleasant
behavior. For the asshole (quoting from
James) uniquely combines the following characteristics:
1.
He allows himself to enjoy
special advantages and does so systemically.
2.
He does this out of an
entrenched sense of entitlement.
3.
He is immunized by his
sense of entitlement against the complaints of other people.
As an aside, James prefers “he” in the belief that the
majority of assholes are male (which he explores from a sociological
perspective), although in the case of BDSholes I think it’s safe to say this is
a gender-neutral term.
If you buy into James’ descriptive list, you can see why the
asshole’s behavior is particularly infuriating.
For a jerk cutting into a line in front of you because he’s in a hurry
is annoying. But when an asshole does
the same thing, he (or she) is informing everyone they cut in front of that they
do not matter – a message all of us react to with anger and resentment. This might explain why we might fight with or
avoid the asshole, even if we forgive a rude friend for the same misbehaviors.
Looking at the BDSholes behavior in light of James’ three
characteristics, consider a phenomenon discussed frequently on this site: the
fact that BDS advocates (and anti-Israel activists generally) demand we take
them seriously as human rights activists and insist we respond to their
accusations (usually illustrated with bloody photographs) of Israeli
“atrocities” in the name of human dignity and justice.
But when confronted by the fact that the Palestinians and
their Arab nation-state supporters are guilty of these same crimes a hundred
fold, the BDSer becomes angry – even furious - ignoring any appeal to the same
humane values they insist we use when considering their accusations.
This behavior makes sense, however, in light of James’
description of the asshole. For the
BDShole insists that title of human-rights champion as well as the vocabulary
of justice and virtue belongs exclusively to them, and does so in a consistent
(actually permanent) manner. The BDShole
does so out of a sense of entitlement that they, and they alone, are part of an
all-seeing vanguard that understands the world in ways all others do not. And this entitlement allows them to say and
do whatever they like, whenever they want to, despite the harm their words and
actions routinely cause others.
Why would the boycotters cause mayhem and misery on campus
after campus, church after church, civic organization after civic
organization for paltry real-world political gain? Why would the coopt every campaign and
organization genuinely dedicated to human rights, decimating those institutions’
ability to actually fight on behalf of the poor and weak, just to use them as
weapons to harm their political foes?
What are they even thinking when they scream their heads off at the mere
mention of the violence and misogyny and bigotry of those with whom they are
allied?
It is because they systematically assign to themselves the
privilege of defining both themselves and others out of a fantasy-driven
sense of entitlement which immunizes them against any and all criticism.
In short, they are assholes.
And if the general tone on campus is any indication, other political
groups have been taking notes about the power such assholiness has over others
and are starting to act upon what they’ve written down.
