I read a really interesting article by Paul Graham entitled “What you can’t say”. It explores the nature of human moral taboos. It’s a thought-provoking piece that provides a few easy guidelines for wrappping one’s head around “moral fashions”.
Some gems:
- “To launch a taboo, a group has to be poised halfway between weakness and power. A confident group doesn’t need taboos to protect it.” I think about the Religious Right, and the recent proclamations against homosexuality by various religious denominations, contrasted against the Liberal Left and, among other things, the phenomenon of Political Correctness.
- “Most struggles, whatever they’re really about, will be cast as struggles between competing ideas … It’s easier to get people to fight for an idea. And whichever side wins, their ideas will also be considered to have triumphed, as if God wanted to signal his agreement by selecting that side as the victor … We often like to think of World War II as a triumph of freedom over totalitarianism. We conveniently forget that the Soviet Union was also one of the winners.”
- “So if you want to figure out what we can’t say, look at the machinery of fashion and try to predict what it would make unsayable. What groups are powerful but nervous, and what ideas would they like to suppress? What ideas were tarnished by association when they ended up on the losing side of a recent struggle? If a self-consciously cool person wanted to differentiate himself from preceding fashions (e.g. from his parents), which of their ideas would he tend to reject? What are conventional-minded people afraid of saying?”
- On the question of why raise questions about forbidden subjects in society: “To do good work you need a brain that can go anywhere. And you especially need a brain that’s in the habit of going where it’s not supposed to.”
- “Training yourself to think unthinkable thoughts has advantages beyond the thoughts themselves. It’s like stretching. When you stretch before running, you put your body into positions much more extreme than any it will assume during the run. If you can think things so outside the box that they’d make people’s hair stand on end, you’ll have no trouble with the small trips outside the box that people call innovative.”
- “When Milton was going to visit Italy in the 1630s, Sir Henry Wootton, who had been ambassador to Venice, told him his motto should be “i pensieri stretti & il viso sciolto.” Closed thoughts and an open face. Smile at everyone, and don’t tell them what you’re thinking. This was wise advice.”
- “The people you can say heretical things to without getting jumped on are also the most interesting to know.”
- “Another way to counterattack is with metaphor. Arthur Miller undermined the House Un-American Activities Committee by writing a play, “The Crucible,” about the Salem witch trials. He never referred directly to the committee and so gave them no way to reply. What could HUAC do, defend the Salem witch trials? And yet Miller’s metaphor stuck so well that to this day the activities of the committee are often described as a “witch-hunt.” … Best of all, probably, is humor. Zealots, whatever their cause, invariably lack a sense of humor.”
- “…when people are bad at open-mindedness they don’t know it. In fact they tend to think the opposite. Remember, it’s the nature of fashion to be invisible. It wouldn’t work otherwise. Fashion doesn’t seem like fashion to someone in the grip of it. It just seems like the right thing to do. It’s only by looking from a distance that we see oscillations in people’s idea of the right thing to do, and can identify them as fashions.”
- “When you hear such labels being used, ask why.” (Particularly “-ist” labels: conformist, racist, communist, etc.)
- “When a child gets angry because he’s tired, he doesn’t know what’s happening. An adult can distance himself enough from the situation to say “never mind, I’m just tired.” I don’t see why one couldn’t, by a similar process, learn to recognize and discount the effects of moral fashions … Everyone encourages you to grow up to the point where you can discount your own bad moods. Few encourage you to continue to the point where you can discount society’s bad moods.”
I find it interesting that, it seems, many comedians get most of their source material from “forbidden topics”. I am trying to think about topics that make my friends very uncomfortable; the list is uncomfortably long. Many of them, you can dance around the core issue and be just on the verge of comfortability, yet if you drive to the heart of the question, it makes people very uncomfortable.
- Hate Speech: what makes something “hate speech”? It seems to me that, generally, it’s whatever someone finds offensive.
- Web Filtering: Kids see breasts from their first waking moments. Reproduction is part of human existence, and much more acceptable for children to understand in other societies than in ours.
- Age of Consent: What makes an 18-year-old different from a 16-year-old, really? Why the arbitrary line? An 18-year-old can marry an 85-year-old, yet a 17-year-old can’t? I’m not saying it’s desirable; I’m just saying that arbitrary line seems weird.
- Abortion: “Pro-choice” “Pro-life” “Anti-Choice” “Anti-life”… it all seems so loaded with labels. The difference in positions always boils down to moral fashion.
- Absence of Deity: Sure, I can say I’m agnostic around my friends and they handle it. If I imply, directly or indirectly, that deity simply doesn’t exist, people get really upset. I think they are too uncomfortable with the ramifications… because if deity doesn’t actually exist, then they are delusional. Nobody likes that message. Conversely, if deity does exist, that means I’m delusional 🙂 I’m OK with being wrong though.
- Divisiveness: In my opinion, it’s just fine to be “divisive”. Show people the truth and make them suddenly realize they’re on different bandwagons, or on the same bandwagon for dramatically different reasons. Draw some artificial distinctions, then tear them down. Thinking hard and talking hard about why you’re doing (or not doing) something is just good sense, not an attempt to falter some “national will”.
There are too many things to list, I think. Too many ideas, particularly in today’s repressive climate, that can get you in trouble. If someone said they supported the motives of the terrorists (oops, there’s a label!) who flew planes into the Pentagon, the two towers, and that New Jersey field… that one little statement could haunt them the rest of their lives.
Very interesting article. It makes ya think.