On the radicalization of the norms of discourse
What happened to the wealth divide that used to be the big drive of social change in the 20th century?
I don’t think there is a concerted action by a clearly defined homogeneous group, but it seems that for the last decade or more a core of ideas has taken root on some progressive circles about redefining the way we discuss and envision our society and its future. This new lens sees the current world as one dominated predominantly by the ‘white man’, a conservative entity that wields the power through institutions purposefully designed to undermine the needs and wants of minorities. These minorities include people of color, people with a sexual orientation that does not conform with the traditional roles defined by this society, and immigrants, many of whom fled from war zones, civil wars, and economic collapse due to a mix of unscrupulous capitalism and predatory imperialistic tendencies, either current or past. All these grievances, rightful or not (this text is not concerned on debating them), carry a desire to effectively put a stop to repeated patterns of abuse against the same. However, I am concerned that most of the energy set behind this movement, or at least some of it, is being used inefficiently, and that in some cases it even works against the ultimate goal.
One of the main points of content is in developing an inclusive language that reflects and engages a more diverse community. In theory this makes sense and I don’t see any reason to be opposed to changes in our languages per se. Languages are means of expression, and as social norms and values change, along with culture and technology, they should reflect that. I become preoccupied when we start changing them to limit our freedom of expression and thought. When we start to make them fit into a rigid framework that fosters a cleansing of forbidden or deprecated words that are determined to have no role in a given vision of the world. Most often, languages change organically, not by decree, and certainly even less by some sort of policing that only evokes the most famous dystopian novels that have been written. Is it a good strategy to expect significant changes in social behavior from changes in language? For example, will a change to a more neutral gender vocabulary be conducive of a more gender-equal society?
Current discourse in social media such as Twitter is a minefield riddled with opportunities to escalate anything to heated and meaningless discussions. These ‘discussions’ become focused on the identities of those involved in them rather than in their messages. With a sprawling number of new dimensions and categories to put people into, these take the center stage and in the extreme are used as proxies to someone’s thoughts. There are no nuances, and factors such as ethnicity and sexual orientation fully determine what you can say and the extent of your experience. For example, a white cisgender man is then limited in what he can say, since he is part of the group that has controlled the narrative for the past centuries. Even when he has benefited meagerly from this world order. There is no room for gradients. You are either part of those left behind, or you tag along with the winners of globalization and capitalism. The only thing he can do is to become aware of the actions of his ancestors in an act of penance. As for a woman, she will gather more rights, but she can never get to the same level of other minorities whose voice has been heard less. The hierarchy is extensive and all roles are predetermined. The discussions become populated with new terminology like mansplaining and tone policing. Some of these concepts are old as humankind, and are known tactics deployed in rhetoric, but now they are supposedly framed under new contexts with new names, and become trendy and cool.
What happened to the wealth divide that used to be the big drive of social change in the 20th century? Wealth inequality just keeps increasing at a faster pace, but counterintuitively it dropped from the limelight. In its place, a myriad of new ways to split society based on identities popped up. While it is crucial for the advancement of civilization to understand that the human condition is much more diverse than our single experiences, or what the majority thinks a human life is or should be, it can be an uphill battle to unite people around all these changes if we can’t find some common ground. Even more when the way we try to shed light on all these new issues comes through relentless attrition and without any room for adaptation and concession. We can’t be blinded by our own beliefs and echo chambers. There is a world out there that will not fully align with our goals. That is life in society. There is nothing good in dying on a small hill, lost in fruitless discussions that do not move the needle one single inch and only polarize people that disagree with us even more. It will just take them to the comforting arms of extremist views that in the end make all the work even more difficult.
