Archive for January, 2010

On Pessimism

Thursday, January 28th, 2010

Continuing the recent riff on the distinction between optimism and hope, I had a thought in the doctor’s office this afternoon. I spend a lot of time thinking about underlying assumptions and motivations for orientations to this or that issue. In the midst of that consideration this afternoon, something novel occurred to me: pessimism is, at bottom, an expression of vulnerability. Many friends who self-identify as pessimists have related to me over the years that if one is pessimistic, one is never disappointed. When one is vulnerable to disappointment, one is best served to protect against that disappointment- or so the argument goes. While on the surface, this ethos seems pragmatic and utilitarian- it reveals a deep interest in, engagement with- and vulnerability to- expectations and outcomes.  Pessimists are not apathetic and they are not naive. In a very real sense, then, pessimists -not blind optimists- are the best candidates for conversion to the camp of HOPE. Facing the fear of disappointment, taking into account the obstacles faced and remaining open to life’s tough bargains seems to me to be a useful enterprise.

Perhaps not, but I am hopeful.

A Friendly Reminder To Challenge Your Assumptions

Friday, January 22nd, 2010

While I am not ready to accept the argument that it is a “natural” human trait, there is certainly plenty of evidence of a particular kind of logical fallacy swimming around in analysis and arguments of all kinds. Often, when folks describe the actions, intentions, or character of a group of someones with whom they disagree, they ascribe to that group a a great deal of homogeneity. We’ve all heard it and we’ve all done it: “They’re all the same…They all read from the same playbook…They all do this or that.” When folks talk about what “Black folks think” or “How religious people are” or “How women drive,” they are assuming that all members of those groups are the same. That their identities and interests are all the same, or at least markedly different from members of other groups.

The fact is- as the diagram above represents- that in-group variation is often greater than between group variation. Put another way, two members of the same group (Category A) might be more different from one another than any two members of different groups (a person from Category A and one from Category B).  To use a practical example, two randomly sampled pizza delivery guys are just as likely to be different from one another as they are to be similar- in many, many ways.

This post is meant to serve as a reminder, not least to myself, to question my own assumptions about the groups and categories of people that I encounter and study.

Race and the Religious Right: Example 4,342

Friday, January 15th, 2010

It’s not just that what Pat Robertson said is heartless, mean-spirited and hateful. It’s not that it is totally historically inaccurate, and it’s not that it is a nearly unprecedented example of blaming the victim. It’s also worth noting, however briefly, that it is terribly racist as well.

Robertson, and I suspect millions for whom he is a guiding light, has a hard time explaining how it was that people of African and Native American descent threw off the chains of imperialism so long ago without the help of a some supernatural force.  Yes, long before much of the rest of the hemisphere had emerged from colonization and subjugation, proud group of people of color- led by revolutionary Toussaint L’ouverture- crushed  the mighty French empire. So invested is Robertson in his own whiteness, that he cannot imagine a situation in which black folks might get the better of white folks without the help of the Devil. Robertson’s quirky theory is not just about his usual God-on-our-side attribution of disaster (see his comments about 9/11 and Katrina)- this time it is a clear representation of his racial politics.

This vision of the Haitian people and their history also absolves people of European descent- especially those from the United States- of any complicity in the degradation and overwhelming poverty suffered by the Haitian people for so long. No market reforms, no amount of economic or humanitarian aid will make a difference- these people are cursed and doomed to their fate. This kind of supernatural attribution, then, serves both to rob black folks of their agency and proud history of resistance while obscuring the role of the rest of the world in creating a situation in which Haitians (even without natural disasters) live and have lived for so long.

As with any comment like this one, it is not so shocking that an individual holds such a worldview. What warrants attention is that Robertson’s choice to publicly endorse such a position suggests that there are millions who share this way of seeing the world. And that, not unlike the earthquake that destroyed thousands of human lives, is a true disaster.

INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS DONATIONS

Another In A Long Line of Random Observations

Tuesday, January 12th, 2010

I was just listening to an interview with folks involved in the making of the movie  The Big Fan and something occurred to me. For most folks, being a true sports fan is about having strong opinions- to be filled with certainty about a team’s personnel decisions or what factors might cause a team to do well or to do badly.

I offer an alternative: in sports analysis, like political analysis, being truly engaged is about seeing things from multiple points of view, understanding that things have many causes, and that solutions are seldom simple. To be clear, this kind of understanding- this kind of orientation to the situation- is not mutually exclusive with strong opinions or strong engagement. I submit that perhaps the opposite is true. One can only truly arrive at a strongly held perspective when one understands the full complexity of the issue at hand- including evidence to the contrary of that strongly held perspective.

A big part of our problem, it seems to me, is that this kind of analysis is (so they tell me)  not good TV. So we have Jim Rome and Glenn Beck. But once again, I stand astride the the disappointment of today and am hopeful for tomorrow. I am a Chicago Cubs fan, after all.