shame, free speech, and hell
Now that I self-indulgently gave myself permission to write LJ posts instead of doing some real work, it's hard to go back to cleaning the house!
nihilistic_kid (horror writer Nick Mamatas) has some interesting thoughts on the intersections between shame and broadly-defined freedom of speech (relevant to me b/c of applications to many LJ "snark" communities, if nothing else):
[...] And no, free speech as a political philosophy does not necessarily imply any particular responsibility. Issues such as defamation and copyright infringement are movable feasts based again on the political moment, the role of the state as an instrument of the needs of the capitalist class, the competition between elites, and political struggles between classes. Defamation laws vary widely between the UK and the U.S., the notion of "fair use" when it comes to copyrighted material hardly exists in Japanese legal theory, etc etc. If you're talking "free speech" you are not necessarily talking about the raft of addenda and qualifiers that seem "natural" to you because of the politico-legal environment in which you grew up.
[...]
So, people can be mean. People can make you cry. People can "trigger" you with their free speech. Doesn't mean you have to have it in your journal or on your property, or that you have to listen to their speech. But the delimitations of free speech aren't, "I feel funny in my tummy when people say bad things about me," or "In the old days, spics would just take it when I'd call them spics. Now they complain...and sometimes in Spanish, which I can't understand!"
This truncated vision of free speech is heavily informed by the social regulator of shame. Some cultures can be said to be shame-based. Others will still be limned with shame and shaming even if the social utility of shaming is relatively weak. It is possible to shame someone into no longer wishing to have the attention of a community. This is where a fault line seems to emerge: "free speech" as a political notion was born of modernity and individualism. Shaming is an older impulse, one not entirely superseded by modernity. It is based on the political economy of community rather than self.
However, shaming someone into temporary withdrawal from the public sphere, or from an in-group, is not a violation of free speech. Free speech doesn't recognize the community, except insofar as the political economy includes notions such as intellectual property ("That's stealing!") or "community standards" (not in THIS taxpayer's library!).
Amusingly, some on the left are enamored with shame-based cultures, namely because they've never been right up against one. [...] "Ooh, if only we had shame, we could keep people from saying nasty things." Well, to an extent, sure, but shame-based cultures tend to have their own definition of nasty. [...] Also, and perhaps more important for this discussion, shaming is an in politic. That is, one can only shame others within the same shame-based regime. For example, I am very easily shamed by my relations. It is nearly impossible for me to experience shame in the workplace, amongst my friends, people with whom I've been romantically attached, or among the rest of you. Even as a modern person, as a leftist, as whatever, thanks to the not-even-explicit bits of my growing up, most of you Just Don't Count except to the extent that I allow you to count on a personal, individual level. You're xeni, in the end. You're all out-group.
So, as some frustrated people have found out over the years, mainly through this blog, I am hard to shame.
If you don't read his LJ yet and want to start, be aware he really enjoys posting spoilers to books and movies. However, there is frequently not much to spoil anyway, and his critiques are totally top-notch. Here's what he thought of Raimi's Drag Me To Hell:
Truth in advertising, baby. This isn't a subtle film or a subversive film or an ironic film. It could have been made in the 1930s if directors were allowed one use of the word "shit" per film (it's PG-13). It's not even a good film. It's like eating in a restaurant you used to like and then while eating a meal you remember as being better you hear the cook complain about kikes and then see him pick his nose then stick his finger into your rice pudding.
A+ material.
nihilistic_kid (horror writer Nick Mamatas) has some interesting thoughts on the intersections between shame and broadly-defined freedom of speech (relevant to me b/c of applications to many LJ "snark" communities, if nothing else):
[...] And no, free speech as a political philosophy does not necessarily imply any particular responsibility. Issues such as defamation and copyright infringement are movable feasts based again on the political moment, the role of the state as an instrument of the needs of the capitalist class, the competition between elites, and political struggles between classes. Defamation laws vary widely between the UK and the U.S., the notion of "fair use" when it comes to copyrighted material hardly exists in Japanese legal theory, etc etc. If you're talking "free speech" you are not necessarily talking about the raft of addenda and qualifiers that seem "natural" to you because of the politico-legal environment in which you grew up.
[...]
So, people can be mean. People can make you cry. People can "trigger" you with their free speech. Doesn't mean you have to have it in your journal or on your property, or that you have to listen to their speech. But the delimitations of free speech aren't, "I feel funny in my tummy when people say bad things about me," or "In the old days, spics would just take it when I'd call them spics. Now they complain...and sometimes in Spanish, which I can't understand!"
This truncated vision of free speech is heavily informed by the social regulator of shame. Some cultures can be said to be shame-based. Others will still be limned with shame and shaming even if the social utility of shaming is relatively weak. It is possible to shame someone into no longer wishing to have the attention of a community. This is where a fault line seems to emerge: "free speech" as a political notion was born of modernity and individualism. Shaming is an older impulse, one not entirely superseded by modernity. It is based on the political economy of community rather than self.
However, shaming someone into temporary withdrawal from the public sphere, or from an in-group, is not a violation of free speech. Free speech doesn't recognize the community, except insofar as the political economy includes notions such as intellectual property ("That's stealing!") or "community standards" (not in THIS taxpayer's library!).
Amusingly, some on the left are enamored with shame-based cultures, namely because they've never been right up against one. [...] "Ooh, if only we had shame, we could keep people from saying nasty things." Well, to an extent, sure, but shame-based cultures tend to have their own definition of nasty. [...] Also, and perhaps more important for this discussion, shaming is an in politic. That is, one can only shame others within the same shame-based regime. For example, I am very easily shamed by my relations. It is nearly impossible for me to experience shame in the workplace, amongst my friends, people with whom I've been romantically attached, or among the rest of you. Even as a modern person, as a leftist, as whatever, thanks to the not-even-explicit bits of my growing up, most of you Just Don't Count except to the extent that I allow you to count on a personal, individual level. You're xeni, in the end. You're all out-group.
So, as some frustrated people have found out over the years, mainly through this blog, I am hard to shame.
If you don't read his LJ yet and want to start, be aware he really enjoys posting spoilers to books and movies. However, there is frequently not much to spoil anyway, and his critiques are totally top-notch. Here's what he thought of Raimi's Drag Me To Hell:
Truth in advertising, baby. This isn't a subtle film or a subversive film or an ironic film. It could have been made in the 1930s if directors were allowed one use of the word "shit" per film (it's PG-13). It's not even a good film. It's like eating in a restaurant you used to like and then while eating a meal you remember as being better you hear the cook complain about kikes and then see him pick his nose then stick his finger into your rice pudding.
A+ material.