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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
There's an idea that I've been considering for a while, a partial explanation of the origins of Blue-Tribe and Red-Tribe as political forces, and I'd appreciate thoughts.
tl;dr: Blue-Tribe gains status with better communication tools, Red-Tribe gains status with hierarchical structure and industrialization. These groups have relatively consistent social and political beliefs, and attempt to use their status to structure society according to their predispositions.
Moderately expanded:
Abrahamic religion comes along ~2000 years ago and upends the social landscape. Importantly, the new religion provides new benchmarks for which to assess individuals, and therefore disproportionally raises the status of individuals with behaviours that best fit the religious structure. Specifically, individuals high in conformism and/or rule-abiding behaviour. These become the new elite.
As Rome declines and the Catholic Church gains prominence there is again a redirection in the social landscape, this type disproportionally benefitting rule-abiding and hierarchical neurotypes above that of other religious types. We'll call this group the Conscientious, which roughly maps to the modern Red-Tribe. The religious subtype that is now playing a distant second fiddle, with an inability to enforce power across large geographical distances, we'll call the Conformists, roughly mapping to the modern Blue-Tribe.
Western society trods along for around 1000 years with the Conscientious as the clear dominant neurotype. But the printing press is then introduced, a technology that overwhelmingly facilitates Conformist power above that of the Conscientious. Significant upheaval occurs as the two groups become roughly balanced in power.
The Conformist vs Conscientious struggle at this point is widely prevalent, becoming a primary axis for conflict. First it's Protestantism (Conformist) vs Catholicism (Conscientious), but then as Protestantism takes hold within Northern European nations and schisms occur people begin to self-select into denominations that favour their predispositions (e.g. Lutheranism overwhelmingly Conformist, Calvinism overwhelmingly Conscientious). Even as the explicit religions change, the general political and social tendencies remain consistent. Conformists favour abolition and liberalism, the Conscientious favour stringent sexual morality, and so on.
The printing press facilitates books, universities and the media, all heavily advantaging Conformists. But economic expansion also creates industrialization, which advantages the social status of the Conscientious. While other neurotypes continue to exist, the power of Conformist and Conscientious circles is so far above that of everyone else that even minor shifts in the balance of power have social ramifications. But for the most part the trend is clear, communication tools advance year over year, advantaging Conformists, with only relatively minor reversions due to periods of industrialization.
While Conformists attempted to maintain Conformity centered around the Bible, this increasingly became absurd as contradictions and inconsistencies are made apparent. A shift towards conforming around "reason" and scientific knowledge occurred, as the contradictions can be buried at a much deeper level. Conformists eventually become the modern agnostics and separate from Christianity. Protestant sects that remain are overwhelmingly Conscientious.
Over the last 50 years we have the trifecta of rapid advancement in communication tools, deindustrialization of the West, and (possibly as a consequence of the first two) a decline in religiosity. The decline in Conscientious power is so extensive that, as of the last few years, they no longer hold sufficient power and status to constitute a bloc in their own right, with a broad coalition of Anti-Conformism taking up the mantle as designated opposition.
And two final notes:
I recognize the label of "Conformist" is relatively derogatory, but for now it feels the most appropriate. I do not believe that a desire to conform is necessarily inherent within the broad collection of people that can be called 'Conformist' (although it certainly applies to a subset, there are factions even with Conformists), but rather the general appreciation for debate and argument forces individuals to use a common set of axioms, which as a byproduct causes thoughts and beliefs to converge. (I could write quite a bit on the irony of debate causing a convergence of axiomatic beliefs, but I'm unsure if its been done)
Even to the extent this whole concept may be true, it is only one axis among many.
This is first time I've attempted to organize my thoughts on this, so I apologize if it's rough or if the formatting is a pain.
My theory is that the recent deepening of the left-right divide is partly because people have different responses to peer pressure. Some people prefer to fit in and others prefer to stand out. As the pressure to adopt left-wing ideology increases, the fit-in types are pushed further to the left, and the stand-out types are pushed further to the right. When I introspect, I can see that this is the primary force driving my own move rightward over the last 2 years. I have also observed this motive throughout the right-wing spaces that I frequent online.
Of course, this explanation works best for my narrow demographic: upper-middle class young people who are plugged into the internet. I doubt this explains why steelworkers in the rust belt voted for Trump. It also doesn't explain how the left-right divide came to exist in the first place.
More options
Context Copy link
There have been many attempts on the Motte to somehow explain the left-right divide from deep archetypes or psychology, life strategies, etc. I think the supposed insight is a mirage. There are no perfect mappings to such clean sides, the two American sides are idiosyncratic cultural developments specific to time and location; their positions on issues does not follow from basic human first principles. But this is the particular battle that keeps your mind busy so it looks fundamental. Maybe an Indian would find that Hindu vs Muslim is the fundamental eternal opposition based on wholly different human types and brains.
This particular attempt seems weak to me, it's guesswork without evidence. Conscientiousness is one of the traits on the "big five" model of personality, and is about something like being organized and structured, keeping to a schedule, remembering rules, etc. Conformism as a concept maybe maps to low openness to experience. I can't really see how Conscientiousness and Conformism form two ends of some kind of axis.
Evidence is unambiguous that political opinion is significantly genetic, which would imply there are innate attractions to a general political aesthetic. We're in the very early days of understanding what those attractions are, so it's unsurprising there are many false starts.
Regarding plausibility of the specific idea, there is very direct path to grounding the concept. With a initial premise that public opinion is shaped by elite discourse it's a relatively straightforward conclusion, once you recognize an institution can disproportionally raise the status of some over others, that a long-lasting powerful institution could leave a mark on our social fabric.
Given two points in a n-dimensional plane you can reduce everything to the relative proximity to each point. Conformist and conscientious behaviours aren't some inherent axis, they're just the two dominant behaviours that were advantaged by the introduction of organized religion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not sure I follow the lineage you trace back to the birth of Abrahamic religion, or the Conformist/Conscientious mapping.
However, I think this
fits in broadly with the existing data on how income and educational attainment impacts support for the left today (see the attached image).
I think historically, we can see this conflict play out repeatedly. Power concentrates around the ability to have a monopoly on force (princes, kings, the state) or resources (early agriculturalists, medieval landowners/ merchants, and modern industrialists). It seems the red tribe today has its basis in many local businesses (small monopolies), that don’t require much education to run. Think of a local landscaping business or car dealership.
Subverting power requires coordinated action. A religion in one respect is an early broadcasting system, as people carry its message with them when they travel. Particularly, Christianity can be thought of as communicating ideas about how to individualize. More individualized persons in society is important because generally they are more productive, but more importantly for subverting power, they will put pressure on existing elites to push society towards equality (Peter Turchin’s theory of elite overproduction and conflict comes to mind here).
I think the modern blue tribe has its roots in the church and its role as counterweight to kings. The modern blue tribe is made up of high education/low income voters. Where might you find these people? I think most commonly, within our communication structures, particularly academia and media. The manufacturing of ideas and control of the spotlight can act as a counterweight to power by coordinating action amongst the masses. The people who get to do this are awarded high status and get to mingle with those with high income. However, they do not make high incomes because there’s no way for them to monopolize or own their influence (though the rising creator economy may change this dynamic).
/images/1663873426410395.webp
Yeah its clear I need to clean up my explanation. My original point with it is that Abrahamic religion provided a societal structure that significantly advantaged 'The Religious Type' (of which Conformists and the Conscientious are the two major components), who then built institutions according to their dispositions; the church, the legal system and education being heavily Conscientious, academia and the media being heavily Conformist. But I got distracted going over the history, and left out the explanation of its importance.
It's hard for me to say just because I don't know as much about the church in its role as counterweight, I know much more about the enlightenment era, but opposing a heavily conscientious institution in the monarchy would certainly fit the pattern.
While I agree that Blue Tribe served as a very significant counterweight between the 16th and 20th centuries, I would disagree that being a counterweight is inherent to their structure, despite their constant efforts to frame themselves as such. While they certainly acted as a counterweight when one was needed, the media and academia both hold significant amounts of inherent power and today they are the thing that must be counterweighed.
True, partially, yes, with the exception of academics. The capture of rents from "science" and upper-education constitutes a sizable jobs program.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is not a good description of the reformation, though? Far from being libertine and concerned with equality, early Protestants were often puritanical and had fewer qualms about slavery than Catholics. Modern day Protestants often but not always have fewer or less stringent moral rules than Catholics, but that’s in large part because Protestants have the ability to change their doctrines in fairly short timescales. Abolitionism was a within Protestantism fight for the most part, with catholic countries ending slavery relatively gradually or under the influence of napoleonic enlightenment ideals.
I am aware, which is why I don’t call the two sides liberal and conservative. I only intended to speak to the last few hundred years in that particular point, but the wording was poor and I need to revise that.
Regarding infighting among Protestants, the point isn’t Protestants are Conformist and Catholics are Conscientious, but rather when people had the opportunity to self-select, they would do so in a way that fit their disposition. Within the Northern nations the self-selection occurred among Protestant sects, as Catholicism was not an option.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is a good post, although I think you’re going to face pushback on that conformist name.
The conformists seem to be the ones who keep “not-conforming” to the structures of their day?
Then once they do create an alternative belief structure, historically those beliefs tend to splinter into a million little factions and flavors. E.g. Protestantism and socialism.
Thank you, I appreciate the kind words.
Yeah, I see I’m playing a dangerous game with the names. In my mind there’s a clear distinction between rule-following and social conformity. In that one is a convergence of actions (you must obey, even if you disagree) and the other a convergence of beliefs (you must agree, even if you disobey). But the two frequently overlap.
I’ll need to pick different names.
Yes, I tried to touch on it briefly in the final note, but this is one of the great absurdities of the situation. Intense disagreement is frequent. The process of debate seems to cause divergence at the first level, on whatever is being argued about, but causes an unconscious convergence of values and higher-order beliefs.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Your classification of "conformist" doesn't really work and indeed, you could just as well say "centring your religious behaviour around Scripture alone" is Conscientious. Especially when trying to tie it to the printing press and the Protestant Reformation - the printing press was the tool to challenge social orthodoxy, be it Pope or King, and the Reformers were not 'conforming' to anything but their 'consciences'. And they certainly were not liberals as you say "Conformists favour abolition and liberalism", as may be seen when the fringe movements of Dissenters etc. come into conflict with the new Protestant major denominations. Lutherans weren't any more soft on Anabaptists than the Calvinists.
Besides, the initial popularity of Christianity - if we take the example of Rome - was amongst (1) the lower classes, including slaves and (2) rich noble women, a strange mixture.
I don't think you can neatly divide Red Tribe/Blue Tribe along religious grounds. Religous affilation/behaviour as part of the tribal backgrounds, sure: the Blue Tribe tendency to be the "plain living and high thinking" that evolved into Boston Brahmanism of the Transcendental type, and the Red Tribe burned over district tendency in contradistinction, but in practice in both groups you have functional atheists/agnostics/freethinkers. The Blue Tribe may be more overt in being secular, but there are plenty of Red Tribe who are 'cultural Christians' only.
And would you define, say, Joe Biden as Blue Tribe or Red Tribe? Democrat - Blue Tribe; Catholic - Red Tribe (or Conscientious in your formulation); claims to working-class background - Red Tribe. But while he may mention his rosary beads, he's fully in line with the values on gay marriage, contraception, abortion, etc. So - Conformist or Conscientious? Red Tribe or Blue Tribe?
And how about someone from Red Tribe background and family, with Blue Tribe cultural tastes?
Yes, this is what I would define. In that the Conscientious follow the specific prescriptions of the bible, whereas the 'Conformists' would use the bible as a higher-order reasoning device from which to infer social principles. Both would have used the Bible, hence why they gained status relative to other groups, but would use the Bible in noticeably different ways. My train of thought on this is "ingroup conformity as a consequence of debate and disagreement," which I have slightly elaborated on elsewhere in this thread, but it's clearly confusing people and I need to explain it better or ditch it. Your criticism that the label of "Conformist" doesn't really work is taken, and I'll have to figure out how to define the cluster in a more appropriate way.
If I understand what you're saying, I disagree. Hating the outgroup isn't incompatible with being liberal.
Women grade measurably higher in agreeableness and conscientiousness, and as far as I'm aware have always been considerably more religious than men. Strange a priori I'd agree, but given what we know of the last 2000 years it's relatively unsurprising.
Just reading more about the Burned Over District, as I'm unfamiliar with it, but I would consider the Burned Over District to be heavily conformist (blue tribe). The sexual experimentation feels like a a pretty clear giveaway, especially relative to the heavily Presbytarian (red tribe) regions of New England that many of the immigrants to the Burned Over District originated from. One of my points, which I've poorly expressed, is that Conformists and the Conscientious represent two psychological dispositions that frequently splinter off each other. Even if heavy self-selection occurs, families will produce kids across a new continuum, and across generations families will once again self-select.
Blueish-Purple. Political leaders are often chosen for electability, so they frequently converge towards the mean of the electoral base.
I would consider them to be Purple. To the extent that they represent the Blue end of the continuum of traits that can be produced by Red Tribe parents, and will likely self-select into a more neutral environment.
I appreciate your comment, it's helped me identify some of the thoughts I need to clean up.
There's development in degrees in all this:
(1) First, we start off with the very convinced, those who believe the doctrines and follow the rules because they believe (although even sorting this out into "Abrahamic religions" ignores that, for instance, as soon as Moses had gone up the mountain to talk with God, the people waiting below in the camp started worshipping an idol from when they were in Egypt). That would be your "Conformists" in your typography
(2) Then the movement/religion gets more widespread. The traditional take on this is the Donation of Constantine and establishing Christianity as the state religion. Now, whether you really do believe all the doctrines or not, everyone is an X and you go along to get along. You go to church on Sunday, you say the right things. You may not be very well versed in the faith, you may not follow all the rules, but you're there.
(3) We get to a stage, be it during the Protestant Reformation or today, where it's more or less 'cultural Christianity'. X is the dominant social direction, so even if you don't believe a word of it, you don't stand up and shout about not believing a word of it. Everyone is worldly in practice, whatever about theory, Cue your "Conscientious" who arise and start reforming, be that Protestants going back to the "pure Gospel" or the modern social justice/CRT lot, who are all out to stamp out systemic racism and the likes. They are the zealous true believers.
(4) We get New Stage (2), which is probably where we are at now. Wokeness is now the new social and cultural dominant force. Companies bedeck themselves in Pride Flags for June and produce DEI policies for their mission statements. Even if you don't agree, you go along to get along.
So are we "Conscientious" or "Conformist"? We're 'conforming' to a 'conscientious' agenda. Rule-following = Conscientious, 'obey even if you disagree', Social conformity = Conformists, 'agree even if you disobey'. You can see how this is confusing terminology? If we take 'wokeness' to be the dominant social ideology of the moment, and that everyone is being pushed to "you must agree", then is that conforming (going along with social consensus) or conscientious (giving lip-service to the shibboleths, e.g. HR diversity training, while privately not believing "trans women are real women")?
I think I see what you are trying to get at, but you need to clear up your terminology. And, as I said, there is always an admixture of the True Believers and the wider mass of people who are just nodding and saying "yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir" be that cheering for the king this year as he passes by on royal progress, or cheering as they cut off the king's head next year.
Definitely, yes.
I think what I’m realizing is that my initial choice of terminology unintentionally framed this as two continuous factions that have “survived,” rather than the consequence of self-organization and a constant structural force.
Nonetheless, you’re correct the terminology is messy, compounding on an already messy concept.
Thank you for all the feedback.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
IME the red tribe is a lot blunter about their religion, and tends to say things like ‘I’m not very religious’ or ‘church helps a lot, you should check out mine’, while blue tribers don’t like overt discussions of religion beyond superficiality.
Blue tribe adult converts to or second gen raised by blue tribe converts to non-Christian, especially non-Abrahamic religions tend to be very open to overt discussions about religion. Typically Wiccans, blue flavors of Neopaganism or various Buddhist sects (ironically Soka Gakkai codes blue in the US in-spite of Komeito being an LDP partner).
Did not know that about Soka Gakkai. I was under the impression they were universally a conservative sect- are these regular blue tribers or conservative blue tribers?
And is red tribe Neo-paganism a thing? I know some are conservative but was under the impression that aside from a few Nazis with ties to organized crime these were mostly blue tribe conservatives, while red tribers who think American Protestantism is too modern become orthodox or tradcath.
I know wiccans are open about religion, though, probably should have specified.
More options
Context Copy link
I think easier to sort them into "spiritual but not religious" and "religious but not spiritual" 😁
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think that what you're looking at is https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/04/a-thrivesurvive-theory-of-the-political-spectrum/ but the "thrive" side are not chill hippies, but the people who compete with their fellow man rather than with sabertooth tigers etc. So "survivalists" like small rigid hierarchies because they are good for surviving a zombie apocalypse, while "thrivists" like huge social hierarchies where they can backstab their way to the top with utter disregard for external reality.
From that point of view "First it's Protestantism (Conformist) vs Catholicism (Conscientious)" gets it exactly backwards.
Very interesting essay.
If I can put on my Objectivist hat for a moment, I think the "leveling" effect he discusses is a major part of the trap. An exemplary hunter will probably accrue social power just by the obvious fact of providing more meat. In a zero-sum social game, this is a threat to the less successful hunters. Gossip, mockery, and reputational attacks are much easier than becoming an exemplary hunter, but they'll reduce the rewards and power of the exemplary, which helps keep society trapped in stagnation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Any attempt to project the current political-cultural divide further back than maybe like 1950 at the very earliest always seems like a tortured version of Whig history to me. The idea that the Protestant Reformation was somehow the same movement as the modern movement that supports same-sex marriage and gender theory as core values is so absurd that I'm not even sure how to respond.
I joke with my wife that if Martin Luther could see the churches with his name today he'd have more theses.
More options
Context Copy link
Fair enough, I’ll have to spend more time explaining the broad structural forces rather than specific instances.
2000 years is an astonishingly brief period of time, and I don’t think it’s outlandish to suggest that a particular strong societal institution could favour certain subgroups.
Not the same movement, but caused by similar structural forces.
More options
Context Copy link
I would say it is an age old battle between two fundamental desires. On the one hand we want to belong to a strong group and therefore want to act in a way that benefits the group, on the other hand we want to get ahead ourselves even if it hurts the group. Religion and tradition is a way to push people towards group oriented behaviours, aka have children, don't sleep around instead marry young, don't divorce your wife even if she is less hot at age 50 and your secretary wants to bang, what counts is how good you are for the afterlife and not how well you have it currently.
The ideologies that have sprung up in the last centuries have largely been individualist from capitalism claiming that there is no bond between elite and the rest apart from purely contractual agreements, to genderstudies that want to abolish virtues for women while arguing that women should get special privledges. In WWI lots of Barons, millionaires and other high status people died in the trenches, today the individualist elites would flee and would focus on their personal survival. China is building twice as many warships as NATO since the elite in the west tossed their workers under a buss and moved ship production to China, so they could mistreat workers, thereby providing China with the world's premier shipbuilding industry while the west has to build ships by hand as prototypes.
As we have more and more fossil fuels and cheap natural resources harsh group oriented values have been replaced by individualism. For example instead of family first because if you get sick you need your family to provide for you we get genderstudies that promotes personal interests over family with the argument that if you get sick the state or an insurance company will care for you.
The issue is that a society that is entirely individually oriented will be highly corrupt and increasingly dysfunctional, thereby recreating the need for group oriented values.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link