site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   28223 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 23, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

First, you seem to be talking about who is going to be able to create their own state at some point, rather than what merits deeming a particular group to be a nation.

Yeah, kind of. Having found the intellectual problem unsolvable, I have napkin-mathed the practicalities.

Perhaps definitions are in order? What do you mean by "nation" as distinct from "state"?

Well, the standard distinction (note that I am merely describing the standard usage rather than advocating for it. I think that nationalism (this one, not the vernacular synonym with patriotism) is a pernicious doctrine). This does a decent job re the distinction:

A State is an independent, sovereign government exercising control over a certain spatially defined and bounded area, whose borders are usually clearly defined and internationally recognized by other states. . . . A nation is a group of people who see themselves as a cohesive and coherent unit based on shared cultural or historical criteria.

Hence, the Kurds are arguably a nation. But they don't have a state. Ditto the Basques. Ditto the Uygyurs. Ditto the Catalans. Perhaps even the Walloons or the Quebecois.

A nation is a group of people who see themselves as a cohesive and coherent unit based on shared cultural or historical criteria.

This seems entirely too broad. Is a street gang a nation? A knitting circle? A hundred remaining members of a defunct native tribe? A thousand? In the context of our discussions this week, there's tens of millions, maybe a hundred million descendants that can look back to the Confederacy and the South more generally as a shared cultural and historic criteria. Are they a nation?

Tabling that for the moment, and assuming we have a solid definition for nationhood on this basis: Do nations have the collective right to own land, control that territory and engage in group violence to acquire/protect it? Is the "nation", however defined, the proper unit and scale of violent action? Is it the state? Individual?

The question as I see it is which level of human organization is recognized as the proper scale for violent conflict.

This seems entirely too broad.

Yeah, that goes back to our original discussion. I do know that there is usually an assumption that a nation is something that someone is born into, so that leaves out gangs and knitting circles. But where to draw the line is obviously going to be highly contested.

there's tens of millions, maybe a hundred million descendants that can look back to the Confederacy and the South more generally as a shared cultural and historic criteria. Are they a nation?

The most important point is that they must see themselves as a distinct nation. I don't think that is the case of the descendants of those who were residents of the Confederacy (in fact, even at the time, as I understand it, those people saw themselves more as Virginians or Texans, rather than Confederastas or Southerners). But, if they do see themselves that way, then they would have a reasonable claim to being a nation.

Do nations have the collective right to own land, control that territory and engage in group violence to acquire/protect it?

Well, since nationalism is the belief that every nation has the right to its own state, then those who believe in nationalism would mostly say "yes", since a state by definition controls territory and has the right to engage in violence to protect it. Whether a nation without a state has a right to engage in violence to acquire it is a different question. I would say no, but then as I said I don't believe in nationalism. As I understand it, there is no single answer to that question that is inherent in the idea of nationalism itself.

The question as I see it is which level of human organization is recognized as the proper scale for violent conflict.

Well, under international law, I believe that only states can legitimately engage in violent conflict. And under just war theory, war is permissible only if it is engaged in by a "proper authority".

The most important point is that they must see themselves as a distinct nation.

So, like economics and politics, the international order is mostly just feels? But that brings us right back around to my practical point, which is the only way we know how strongly people feel about being a nation is usually when they start killing people over it. So, being a large enough group that feels strongly enough about their "nationhood" to begin organizing militarily is a functional definition of a "nation". If this nascent group can maintain that organization in the long term, they will most likely achieve some territory, become a state and we're back at "might makes right".

  1. The international order? No. The international order is composed of states, not nations, and international law largely governs the interactions of states, not nations.
  2. By using the term "feels," it seems to me that you are failing to engage with the issue. Lots of human behavior/interests/institutions/etc are downstream of "feels" such as love, patriotism, filial devotion, notionsof justice, etc.

  3. being a large enough group that feels strongly enough about their "nationhood" to begin organizing militarily is a functional definition of a "nation

No, military organization is not required. See, eg, Gandhi.

4 > we're back at "might makes right

You are conflating what is with what ought to be. Nationalism is a claim about what ought to be (i.e., every nation ought to have its own state). Obviously, nations with more power are more likely to see those oughts come to fruition. But your initial question was an "ought" question. You asked, "Exactly what are the features of a group with the right to claim territory and "self-determination"?" That is an "ought" question.

1: Fair enough, but nations that have achieved states are a selection pressure away from the nations that tried.

2: I'm not denigrating "feels", just using a colloquialism. The level of feeling that produces group violence is an important milestone, but there are perverse incentives to recognizing it as the dividing line between legitimate and illegitimate violence.

3: Do see Gandhi, please. Note the massive ethnic cleansing and the several wars fought with the other side of that partition. You make my point quite precisely, nothing requires that the military organization be used against the previous ruler specifically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

4: I disagree somewhat on your definition of nationalism, because I think the causality can run both ways. Nations may or may not become states, and states may or may not become nations.

Which brings us to the crux of the question of mine you quote. I take it your answer is the state? If so, with some exceptions I agree with you.

Do see Gandhi, please. Note the massive ethnic cleansing and the several wars fought with the other side of that partition

Yes, but that was after the states were established. The movement for self-determination vis-a-vis the British did not require violence. Note however that the subsequent ethnic cleansing is precisely why I oppose nationalism, because often the notion that every nation has a right to its own state is conflated with the notion that every state must be composed of a single nation. That is not always the case (see here), but it often is.

disagree somewhat on your definition of nationalism, because I think the causality can run both ways. Nations may or may not become states, and states may or may not become nations.

  1. It isn't my definition
  2. Yes, it is possible that the creation of a state can eventually give rise to a feeling of a broad nationhood (that seems to have happened in France, Germany and Italy, as previously local identities were subsumed within a larger identity), but I wasn't making a causal claim. I was merely describing the distinction.

Which brings us to the crux of the question of mine you quote. I take it your answer is the state? If so, with some exceptions I agree with you.

No, because that doesn't make sense in the context of nationalism. The central claim of nationalism is that nations have the right to self-determination, which is defined as the right to form a state.* It doesn't make sense to say that a state has the right to form a state. But again, that is the view of those who believe in nationalism, which I don’t. I don't believe in the right to self-determination at all, so my personal response is "nobody."

*Edit: re self-determination: "external self-determination refers to full legal independence/secession for the given 'people' from the larger politico-legal state."

Forget "nationalism" for a moment, then. What is the correct level of organization for group conflict, or is there none?

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats