The Hubris of Guilt

ssu

One of the important aspects in our Western culture and society is self criticism and introspection. It surely pushes us to improve things and forward issues that correct faults in our society. In a democracy it is something needed to avoid the system form becoming stagnant or just resting on it's laurels and hence making current problems worse in the future. imply put it, self criticism is needed in self improvement. Yet this self criticism has morphed into a very strange mindset that conceals what is basically arrogance and haughtiness, which might not even be noticed at first. Let me try to explain this with an example.

I love reading Noam Chomsky's political books. Chomsky has been a fierce critic of US foreign policy for long, long time. Chomsky started his political books with an anti-Vietnam war essay in 1967 that makes quite clear the authors own objectives: The Responsibility of Intellectuals. It has a book cover with the words "It is the responsobility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies". A quote from the essay depicts clearly Chomsky's reasoning:

Let me finally return to Dwight Macdonald and the responsibility of intellectuals. Macdonald quotes an interview with a death-camp paymaster who burst into tears when told that the Russians would hang him. "Why should they? What have I done?" he asked. Macdonald concludes: "Only those who are willing to resist authority themselves when it conflicts too intolerably with their personal moral code, only they have the right to condemn the death-camp paymaster." The question, "What have I done?" is one that we may well ask ourselves, as we read each day of fresh atrocities in Vietnam—as we create, or mouth, or tolerate the deceptions that will be used to justify the next defense of freedom.

The moral ethos and the importance of self criticism are evident from the above quote. The objective is also obvious, to embrace those high minded values we have and that it's the job of the intellectuals to uphold them, hence we indeed have to be critical about ourselves. The linguist has made far more books and articles on politics than in his academic field, where typically the viewpoint are the wrongdoings of the US.

Historical knowledge of the facts that Chomsky writes about is of course crucial in understanding the present day. For example, the hostility of the Iranian government towards the US is related to the US assistance towards the previous Imperial region and things like Operation Ajax and the Iranian coup in 1953. The term 'blowback' is used commonly to depict the phenomenon. But here we notice the focus of the narrative. It's a narrative about the West exploiting the Third World, namely the US but also other Great Powers like the UK and France being the culprits for everything gone wrong. And here lies the problem: the narrative is focused on the West, it excludes other narratives, mainly those that look at the events happening from the domestic angle with domestic actors and domestic political reasons with the Western countries only being one actor that even if they do have an effect on the outcome, they surely aren't the main reasons. The reason is above, it's not about the people in question that aren't us, it is just about self criticism of us.

And here we find how the hubris and haughtiness of the guilt that "the West" is responsible for the problems in other countries comes to existence. The reason is that "the West" is given simply too much importance the World. So much that basically it's quite condescending towards other non-Western people: as if they would be helpless children that are abused by evil adults from the West. In a twisted way, the attitude is a continuation of the 'white mans burden' from the age of imperialism, just turned on it's head to being 'the burden caused by the white man'. Yet the both appear quite imperious as they give huge importance to the white man. Politics beyond the impact of colonization are simplified. Especially in the case of Africa, you find this narrative of there being 'warlords' exploiting the poor civilians, that somehow there isn't a political fight behind the crisis. And if the West isn't in any way involved in some event however huge it is, it doesn't matter. It isn't important.

Yet non-western countries are totally capable of imperialism and intervening in other countries when they are weak. Yemen and also Libya are existing examples of this, but the First and Second Congo War or as they are sometimes called, the African World Wars, are an example in many ways of this Western self centered guilt. That independent African countries did create their own version of the Great War simply cannot be explained by colonialism. The war also goes against the idea of pan-African unity. Few in the West know about the war where a multitude of African countries sent their military forces to support their own side in the wars. Of course, when the US or the West wasn't involved in the wars, a conflict that resulted in many millions of people being killed, it was hardly noticed in the West.

Naturally this is my view and would like to hear comments about 'Western guilt'. Are there reasons that I've missed? One factor that I didn't mention are the effects on Christianity on this issue. That when we have it good and are more prosperous than others, we have this guilt that we ought to do good to others, which might add to the guilt. As the Bible goes:

If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.- I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Thoughts?

Judaka

↪ssu

I don't think it's hubris, there are two aspects, the first is about taking responsibility for a connection you feel is relevant such as an ethnic or racial or cultural connection. That's how responsibility works, if you used the wrongdoing of others to contextualise your actions, you downplay their severity. Crimes aren't more or less wrong based on how common they are. The question is whether or not guilt is an appropriate response to crimes you neither committed nor could have stopped.

I think anything before the 16/17th century is commonly contextualised as "part of the era". We need to ask what the Western nations were really like in the 16th/17th/18th/19th/20th centuries and how appropriate it is to judge them as though they thought like we did. I think a large factor in how likely someone is to feel Western guilt is their understanding of that. I feel like 20th-century GB vs 21st-century version of the UK are worlds apart, it is a bit odd to talk like a citizen of the 21st-century should feel guilty for what happened in the middle east after WW1 for example.

I don't think the problem is Christianity but rather nihilism and moral relativism are mostly to blame for why people in the West feel this way. That's the second aspect, this idea of "being lucky to be born in the West", being unable to reconcile their fortune with the absolute poverty across the world. I think there's a real rejection to add insult to injury by talking about how superior the West is to the other nations and cultures around the world. I think nationalism, ethnic pride, racial pride and Christianity serve as antitheses to Western guilt, as a way to understand your fortune and own it. An appreciation and gratitude for how blessed we are or a focus on the negative aspects to the rest of the world rather than focusing on the few good things. Claiming your birthright as a proud Christian or proud citizen of your nation.

It's the same with gender, race, class and many other things which many people seem unable to reconcile the advantage and the meaninglessness and arbitrary nature in which they got those advantages. If you are just a person who happened to be born in the West, or a white man and none of that means anything to you and it was all just luck, how do you then feel good about those things? It's understandable that one might see things in a way where guilt arises, you've got all these nice things and you're doing well but a lot of complex feelings about it arise when talking about people who weren't "lucky".

I think things like intelligence and attractiveness aren't targetted because these are "owned" even by nihilists and moral relativists. I foresee this changing for attractiveness, there's already a lot of people pushing for that kind of interpretation.

I am an atheist, nihilist and moral relativist and personally, I don't feel any guilt because I think guilt is inappropriate and I feel that I wouldn't be born if my parents didn't have me, I can't just be "anyone". That's my answer.

Terrapin Station

Wait. What is the thesis of the initial post? I can't figure out what you want us to focus on/address.

ArguingWAristotleTiff

Thoughts? — ssu

My initial thought from what you posted is that unless the West is involved, often times if the US isn't involved, conflicts go unnoticed or under noticed. I am not sure if that is what you are saying but maybe you can expand on your thought.

However, the Uber inflated image of the West is something that I am learning is not all that it appears. As I learn about how the USA's actions have had far reaching effects not just in the community in immediate focus but how our perception of what happened ripples through the current history we are making today.

If it is unknown to others, the current generation of future leaders are not on the same page as the current leaders. That can be seen as problematic if we, the West, the USA in particular, feel the need to be Uber Powerful but that concept is dying and anyone willing to give it life support is shunned for doing so.

Did I come close?

BC

Thoughts? — ssu

As one reviews the history of the world, not just since 1960 AD, but back to 1960 BC, or 5960 BC, one finds recurrent waxing and waning of one group or another, of one group OVER another, or one group ESCAPING another, or one group just DISAPPEARING. Where once we were primates claiming this batch of trees, now we are primates claiming this fertile valley, that gold mine, this great fishing bank, that part of a continent, and so on. Eventually the sun was unable to set on the primate's empire of that esteemed ape, Queen Victoria.

It isn't that primates (homo sapiens sapiens) are evil. We are what we are. We are acquisitive. We are aggressive. We are smart. We are exploitative. We are sophonts (creatures capable of sophisticated thought). We are... various and sundry things. We are nice to OUR PEOPLE much of the time, and not very nice to THOSE PEOPLE most of the time. The alleged virtue of the oppressed is a figment of our imagination. Had things worked out differently, central African people would be driving white slaves in the cotton fields of the former Aboriginal peoples of North America. Or maybe the Aboriginal peoples of North America would be planting corn and squash in the soil of formerly German lands. Maybe we would all be speaking Mandarin.

So let's drop the obsession with sexism, racism, imperialism, nationalism, and all that. We are all about equally guilty, and equally innocent.

Deleteduserrc

↪ssu

If you're trying to determine the contours of your own responsibility (as Chomsky is), wouldn't you have to focus on those things for which you bear some responsibility? It seems to me that a book about the responsibility of [western] intellectuals would, necessarily, focus on those things for which [western] intellectuals could be held responsible.

What would be hubristic would be to insist that the narrative relevant to this kind of project (the narrative of western intervention and moral cupability) is exhaustive, or at least is the narrative that most adequately integrates relevant historical detail.

But the existence of narratives of western responsibility (especially when put in the service of determining one's own responsibilties as westerners) does not entail that those who create or consume such narratives must necessarily discount other narratives.

An analogy : A niche academic historian might produce a study on e.g. the impact of technological changes of leatherworking on the economies of 1000-1600 Europe. Would one attack that historian along these lines : "And here lies the problem: the narrative is focused on Leatherworking, it excludes other narratives." Well, yes the focus is on leatherwokring, because Leatherworking is whats relevant to the study.

ssu

Thanks for the comments, people!

Wait. What is the thesis of the initial post? I can't figure out what you want us to focus on/address. — Terrapin Station

Lousy me for this. Hope the answers to your comments make this more clear.

My initial thought from what you posted is that unless the West is involved, often times if the US isn't involved, conflicts go unnoticed or under noticed. I am not sure if that is what you are saying but maybe you can expand on your thought. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

This is part of it, Tiff. Now it's understandable for Americans to focus on the actions of their country, but what I'm arguing is that it goes beyond that. As I stated, it's good to be critical about policies of one's government. Yet just being critical, not seeing any things positive, creates a serious bias. Also, when the starting point is "How has the US made things worse on this or that issue / country?" gives likely a negative US centric answer. This naturally opens the doors for a guilt syndrome. Why I picked as an example Noam Chomsky is because he at least is very consistent and quite open about his agenda. For example this video below tells it well what I tried to portray in the OP:

So, is it really so that the US hasn't done anything good other than Dubya helping fighting AIDS in Africa? That really is the only thing that comes to mind? I would think that there exists a South Korea was a good military action on the behalf of the US, just to give one example.

It seems that giving and answer that is both critical and approving confuses people too much.

ssu

So let's drop the obsession with sexism, racism, imperialism, nationalism, and all that. We are all about equally guilty, and equally innocent. — Bitter Crank

If we only could. The present day discourse goes against this. Because if you say that we are all equally guilty, equally innocent, you are actually sexist or racist etc.

ssu

But the existence of narratives of western responsibility (especially when put in the service of determining one's own responsibilties as westerners) does not entail that those who create or consume such narratives must necessarily discount other narratives. — csalisbury

It doesn't entail that, but it does have a big effect on the discourse. The thing is that unlike with the effects of Leather working, where the topic and perspective are quite narrowly defined, the discourse here is general.

I'll take an example of NATO enlargement. One dominant narrative is that Russia was weak, Clinton wanted votes of those with East European ancestry and didn't think that Russia would ever be a problem. The points are true, how this nice US centric narrative forgets totally the other countries involved: the countries wanting to join NATO and the other NATO countries. For example with the Baltic States, the US (and actually the UK) approached behind closed doors Sweden and Finland first if our countries could give security guarantees for the newly independent again Baltic states. Our answer was "HELL NO!!!" and both countries were genuinely happy that the Baltic states did join NATO.

Hanover

"It is the responsobility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies" — ssu

The hubris is in self-declaring one's self an intellectual, suggesting one belongs in the court of philosopher kings. It is at the heart of liberal elitism, and it forms the core of the left/right polarization. Who is the intellectual in Chomsky's view? I'd suggest it's Obama and not Trump, despite Trump hardly being an intellectual light weight. It's hard to read that without laughing isn't it, it being so ingrained in us that the right and its leadership is thought to either be composed of simpletons or those puppeteers manipulating simpletons.

So, per Chomsky, the duty then is shifted upon those who know better, not the simpletons, not the manipulators, but those even tempered, well educated, well informed academics whose wisdom should guide us. It would seem that it must be Chomsky himself who would be the top intellectual, which should come as no surprise.

Your focus in your OP is in pointing out that many other countries owe their failure to themselves and that the West has not created ALL the problems of the world. That is empirically and clearly true. The bigger question is whether the West has been overall shameful in its behaviors. The predominant liberal view is that it has, despite the view of the right that says it has not. The left is thought of as apologetic and therefore understanding and the right unapologetic and therefore stubborn.

Here's what I think. The US has made tactical mistakes, has faltered morally from time to time, has misstepped and caused unnecessary misery, and has not been a purely angelic force on the world at every turn. Without it though and never having had it on the world stage, we'd all live in a state of barbarism and fear, far less advanced in all regards, and not listening to the musings of Chomsky.

BC

if you say that we are all equally guilty, equally innocent, you are actually sexist or racist etc. — ssu

Yes.

I have heard of the concept but I have never met the reality of the race-blind, sex-blind, various-other-features-blind person. I do not think one race is superior to another, or even much different. The sexes, on the other hand, are different in a number of ways, and each one has unique strengths, strategies, and needs. Biology is destiny to some extent.

I prefer that we not become blind to racial, sex-based and other differences. There is no good reason to blind ourselves to our beneficial uniquenesses.

ssu

↪Πετροκότσυφας

Definitions like 'The West' are surely vague and can be discussed in many ways, but are still understandable.

As we have these Western values of democracy, human rights, some see it as a mission to uphold them. If you ask those Americans who critisize the US about these values, they will likely say that they are defending these values and it is their mission, just like Chomsky defined the responsibility of the intellectuals. And here's where that vagueness comes so handy: Michael Moore can say that he is for the values that America stands for just as the total opposite of him. Both progressives and the alt-right find something to theirselves in 'America' for themselves. And both can even say that they defend these Western values.

If I put my argument in another way, it is that people become prisoners of the agenda in the way that anything that might 'hurt' the agenda, here namely that you wouldn't be so critical of the West/the US all the time, would be as if they 'betrayed' those ideals you have. And while people do like to 'do the right thing', be righteous and compassionate and not be seen as being racist or imperialist, the discourse veers off from reality. And this creates the hubris. Because when you start to look at everything from a certain critical point of view, you start overemphasizing that what you are criticizing.

It's like the problem with a university student that basically is taught postmodernism. The student is surely learns to be critical about things like objectivity etc, but if the student doesn't know what modernity means or what the philosophers of the enlightenment really thought, his or her arguments simply aren't balanced to make really a coherent point.

ssu

I do not think one race is superior to another, or even much different. — Bitter Crank

Me neither. In fact it seems even the racists have let go of the idea of whites being so superior to Asians, which is telling (and amusing). Yet it feels like that above definition of racism, the way I interpret it also, is being replaced with a broader or another definition. Perhaps as a justification to seeing abundant racism when the old-school late 19th - early 20th Century ideas of white supremacy are quite dead.

ssu

It would seem that it must be Chomsky himself who would be the top intellectual, which should come as no surprise. — Hanover

Chomsky doesn't even hide this.

The bigger question is whether the West has been overall shameful in its behaviors. The predominant liberal view is that it has, despite the view of the right that says it has not. The left is thought of as apologetic and therefore understanding and the right unapologetic and therefore stubborn. — Hanover

As Πετροκότσυφας pointed out, the definition of the West is quite vague and hence the question of it being shameful or not overall is a quite confusing question. Yet the stands taken by the political field here, even if a bit stereotypical, are how you define it. The sad thing is that when there is this kind of division along the political fault lines, people think that you are making a political statement when discussing the issue. Or worse, just reurgitating what the talking heads on your side have poured in your head.

frank

It's just politically motivated rhetoric. — Πετροκότσυφας

On both sides, isn't it? What decadent force threatens our values and traditions? The West.

I like sushi

I think every “nation,” or otherwise arbitrary geographic delineation, is guilty of exporting it’s trauma to gain immediate benefits. It’s a case of out of sight out of mind combined with the distant effects upon peoples far away.

Even now with the world’s populace more aware of the immediate effects their living standards have on others they will inevitably dilute their attention to avoid living a life of perpetual guilt and shame.

We know that humans are all too willing to accept responsibility for positive outcomes (even when they did literally nothing) and to place the blame on others when it is they who have dirtied their hands and caused a negative effect - maybe unbeknownst to themselves?

Our biggest threat is our biggest hope. Ourselves.

ssu

I think every “nation,” or otherwise arbitrary geographic delineation, is guilty of exporting it’s trauma to gain immediate benefits. — I like sushi

What do you mean by this? And how has Andorra exported it's trauma?

We know that humans are all too willing to accept responsibility for positive outcomes (even when they did literally nothing) — I like sushi

Are they in this case? Just take South Korea and America. How many American see it as a positive outcome that South Korea survived and then accept responsibility of the positive outcome? When put like this, few might disagree (and assume the Koreans would be better off with the whole Korean Peninsula under the juche-ideology). However this isn't the point. How many talk of this?

Because the way I see it the discourse just sidelines the whole issue and focuses on the intervention in Vietnam.

I like sushi

↪ssu

I said humans are “all too willing” in the sense that they’re heavily biased to accept responsibility for positive outcomes over negative outcomes (we know this well enough.)

As for Andorra, I don’t claim to know its history, but I’m not inclined to change tack simply because ethy’ve reaped the benefits of others at some historical/geographic distance (which they will have given that every society is built upon the blood, sweat and bones of those that came before).

Deleteduserrc

The hubris is in self-declaring one's self an intellectual, suggesting one belongs in the court of philosopher kings. It is at the heart of liberal elitism, and it forms the core of the left/right polarization. Who is the intellectual in Chomsky's view? I'd suggest it's Obama and not Trump, despite Trump hardly being an intellectual light weight. It's hard to read that without laughing isn't it, it being so ingrained in us that the right and its leadership is thought to either be composed of simpletons or those puppeteers manipulating simpletons.

So, per Chomsky, the duty then is shifted upon those who know better, not the simpletons, not the manipulators, but those even tempered, well educated, well informed academics whose wisdom should guide us. It would seem that it must be Chomsky himself who would be the top intellectual, which should come as no surprise. — Hanover

Chomsky's pretty smart though. He proved himself in linguistics, smart guy. Does that qualify him to speak on politics? Maybe, maybe not. But we know that this tradition isn't a specifically liberal thing. How do we know?

Buckley, for example, who was very much a part of this tradition. And then, going back: Burke, Chesteron. so on and so forth. There's a robust tradition of self-declared intellectual conservatives. The national review is still, more or less explicitly, running on the fumes of their previous existence.

My sense is Buckley would disagree with Chomsky, but agree with him on the importance of the intellectual's role.

But maybe you don't like Buckley either? Trump is smart, undoubtedly, I don't buy the bumbling idiot thing for a second. BUT - he's not an intellectual in the Buckley sense. Trump is smart, I sincerely believe that, but he doesn't seem to be interested in political ideas and their implications at all. Maybe for a second. But only insofar as that consideration carries him through this room and onto the next.

Maybe you think that's laudable. Fine. But I think - in fact I'm quite convinced - that trumps' mercurial self-identity, if displayed by Obama, or others - that this would be fodder for your criticism of them, were they to act similarly with Kim Jong, or others. My sense, too, is that if there were a Buckley for today, you'd make use of him.

I have a strong feeling ithat you'll adjust to whatever the circumstances are, so long as you can can maintain a no-nonsense persona. I have a strong feeling youll impose that willigness to shift on liberals, especially wheb youre dosing it yourself. Of course, liberals do do that. be better, then.

You have ideas, but you're content to bracket them, in order to get a rise. Racy joke --> the lesser sense of humor of others --> self-identity, and political ideas confirmed. There's something to that. But there are others as well-rounded as you, and they're not all dry, sardonic trumpians.

tldr: you're playing on an old 'smart 'experts'' vs 'honest, realistic americans' trope, even if you would balk at that trope put so baldly. And you're making that trope align with the liberals vs conservatives dichotomy, even though that isn't accurate, and would give most traditional conservatives minor seizures.

But why are you doing that? Who are you talking to?

[suspicions about old idealisms, compromise, and redirection of annoyance, using what's at hand.]

ZhouBoTong

Are they in this case? Just take South Korea and America. How many American see it as a positive outcome that South Korea survived and then accept responsibility of the positive outcome? When put like this, few might disagree (and assume the Koreans would be better off with the whole Korean Peninsula under the juche-ideology). However this isn't the point. How many talk of this? — ssu

Ok, I think I finally understand what this thread is about (probably wrong though). I would just point out that I finished High School in 1999 and I still went through school during the "America is Perfect" days. Isn't the current environment where everything is phrased as "well what did America do wrong in this case?" just a backlash to the previous 50 years where America was only framed as "the God ordained force for good in the world"? I am not saying the current way is right, but it is likely necessary before we will find the correct "middle" position.

Deleteduserrc

I'll take an example of NATO enlargement. One dominant narrative is that Russia was weak, Clinton wanted votes of those with East European ancestry and didn't think that Russia would ever be a problem. The points are true, how this nice US centric narrative forgets totally the other countries involved: the countries wanting to join NATO and the other NATO countries. For example with the Baltic States, the US (and actually the UK) approached behind closed doors Sweden and Finland first if our countries could give security guarantees for the newly independent again Baltic states. Our answer was "HELL NO!!!" and both countries were genuinely happy that the Baltic states did join NATO. — ssu

I admit, I'm probably missing something due to my own historical ignorance, but I don't understand the relevance of that to what we were talking about.

Hanover

But maybe you don't like Buckley either? — csalisbury

It's not so much a question about whether I agree with Buckley or Chomsky. It's a question of whether they deserve special attention because of their self-perceived elevated position in society. Questions about what direction society should take are not necessarily empirical and they aren't matters where there will be universal agreement. They are matters of value and particular moral based worldviews, where different people place different value on different things. Chomsky (and Buckley) have no special power of discerning what it right from a value perspective than does the local minister at the church, the guy working the assembly line, the trust fund baby, or the college professor. When anyone steps forward and declares their values and perspective deserving of special attention because of some superiority they believe they have, they are creating a culture war, saying their religion, their god (or their lack of one) is superior to yours

I have a strong feeling ithat you'll adjust to whatever the circumstances are, so long as you can can maintain a no-nonsense persona. — csalisbury

If you're saying that at the end of the day I'm pragmatic, then I'm likely to agree.

You have ideas, but you're content to bracket them, in order to get a rise. Racy joke --> the lesser sense of humor of others --> self-identity, and political ideas confirmed. There's something to that. But there are others as well-rounded as you, and they're not all dry, sardonic trumpians. — csalisbury

Interesting psychoanalysis of. me, along with some defensiveness on your part that suggests I'm elitist myself, being dismissive of those I don't think are smart as me. It really is interesting insight, but I don't know what it adds to the discussion.

tldr: you're playing on an old 'smart 'experts'' vs 'honest, realistic americans' trope, even if you would balk at that trope put so baldly. And you're making that trope align with the liberals vs conservatives dichotomy, even though that isn't accurate, and would give most traditional conservatives minor seizures. — csalisbury

Is the objection you pose here that I'm using hollow rhetoric, pandering to my pro-American base? I don't follow that because @ssu, who seems aligned with me (and typically he's very much not, so I'm trying to get use to this) is Finnish, a progressively liberal Scandinavian country (although from what I gather, a bit more suspicious of communistic leanings due to their proximity and history with Russia).
At any rate, I'm not sure what to make of it because it doesn't appear as a specific objection to something specifically I said, but I'm open to hearing more on this.

ssu

I admit, I'm probably missing something due to my own historical ignorance, but I don't understand the relevance of that to what we were talking about. — csalisbury

Well, it goes to the narrative of how NATO enlargement is explained. Was it an example of American hegemonic expansionist imperialism or had it something to do with the countries (and former Soviet states) that had been occupied by the Soviet Union not trusting Russia? Or more clearly: do you think that the war in Ukraine can be blaimed on the US? And if not fully, at least partly? That's the guilt hubris I refer to.

ssu

ssu, who seems aligned with me (and typically he's very much not, so I'm trying to get use to this) is Finnish, a progressively liberal Scandinavian country — Hanover

Lol. Indeed we Europeans can be confusing to Americans. Our right wing conservatives might seem not even to be RINOs, but some centrist Democrats if not pure pinko-liberals.

The Hubris of Guilt

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions