Honor, Dignity and Victimhood

[Cato]

I was going to share this in the recent 'Bully Hotline' thread, but thought it warranted its own discussion.

Jonathan Haidt, Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business, recently authored a blog that builds on the content of a recent paper attempting to explain the proliferation of 'microagressions and trigger warnings' on college campuses. I have been keeping tabs on the dialogue since the concepts are so alien to me. Haidt's commentary has helped in framing a potential understanding of the phenomenon.
http://righteousmind.com/where-microaggr...come-from/

Haidt suggests that we are in the throws of a shift in our moral culture to a Culture of Victimhood. What preceded was a Culture of Honor followed by the more recent Culture of Dignity. Lengthy quotes to follow for those that are interested, but don't have the time to read the article.

Culture of Honor:

Because of their belief in the value of personal bravery and capability, people socialized into a culture of honor will often shun reliance on law or any other authority even when it is available, refusing to lower their standing by depending on another to handle their affairs (Cooney 1998:122–129). But historically, as state authority has expanded and reliance on the law has increased, honor culture has given way to something else: a culture of dignity.

Culture of Dignity:

 But in keeping with their ethic of restraint and toleration, it is not necessarily their first resort, and they might condemn many uses of the authorities as frivolous. People might even be expected to tolerate serious but accidental personal injuries…. The ideal in dignity cultures is thus to use the courts as quickly, quietly, and rarely as possible. The growth of law, order, and commerce in the modern world facilitated the rise of the culture of dignity, which largely supplanted the culture of honor among the middle and upper classes of the West…. But the rise of microaggression complaints suggests a new direction in the evolution of moral culture.

Culture of Victimhood:

A culture of victimhood is one characterized by concern with status and sensitivity to slight combined with a heavy reliance on third parties. People are intolerant of insults, even if unintentional, and react by bringing them to the attention of authorities or to the public at large. Domination is the main form of deviance, and victimization a way of attracting sympathy, so rather than emphasize either their strength or inner worth, the aggrieved emphasize their oppression and social marginalization.

Comparatively:

Public complaints that advertise or even exaggerate one’s own victimization and need for sympathy would be anathema to a person of honor – tantamount to showing that one had no honor at all. Members of a dignity culture, on the other hand, would see no shame in appealing to third parties, but they would not approve of such appeals for minor and merely verbal offenses. Instead they would likely counsel either confronting the offender directly to discuss the issue, or better yet, ignoring the remarks altogether.

I am intrigued by the idea if for no other reason that it provides some explanation for what I have been witnessing with the confused horror of someone witnessing a train wreck. 

Personally I identify with the Culture of Dignity, not by choice apparently, but because it was the moral culture in which I was reared. For this reason it would be easy for me to opine that the Culture of Dignity is superior; rallying support and invoking authority to take action for every insult and slight is just as alien to me as promptly beating the shit out of someone or challenging them to a duel for the same (Culture of Honor).

[Wyrd of Gawd]

America = The Land of the Professional Victims' Association.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Don't you imagine that these cultural differences require corresponding shift in social identity theory. A Culture of Honor would prioritize individual identity over group identity. The culture of dignity seems to balance individual and group identity. The Culture of Victims seems to prioritize group identity over personal identity.

[Cato]

Interesting thought. I'll have to keep that in mind as I continue to explore, but my initial reaction is to agree that social identity theory would also shift. My limited knowledge creates a chicken/egg dilemma though. Is the moral culture idea intertwined with social identity theory and to what extent? Insofar as they can be considered separately, does one predominantly drive the other?

Haidt talks about mass communication in the last decade allowing the aggrieved to more rapidly reach a greater number of third parties. Building on this, particularly through the lens of social media, I can't help but consider the potential that it triggers a form of herd/mob mentality that previously could only be possible in groups physically together.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Thinking more about it, Frankfort School Critical Theory seems to be ever present in the background.

Secondly, I do not believe this is a one directional cultural shift. Identity in the ancient world was far less individualistic than Anglo-American culture. People got their primary identies from group participation: genealogy (who's your daddy), gender, and geography.

[Divinity]

I'd say it's less a culture of victimhood, and more of a culture of empathy. One where we actually start learning to understand one another, and take into consideration the feelings of others. It's a culture where empathy is valued higher, much like honor is valued higher, and dignity is valued higher in their respective cultures.

It's easy to attach a negative word to any of these cultures. Instead of Culture of Honor you could call it a Culture of Arrogance. Culture of Dignity could be considered the Culture of Apathy. It's all a matter of presentation.

[Cato]

Secondly, I do not believe this is a one directional cultural shift. Identity in the ancient world was far less individualistic than Anglo-American culture. People got their primary identies from group participation: genealogy (who's your daddy), gender, and geography.

I haven't yet gotten my hands on the incipient paper, but Haidt mentions this even today. All three cultures are in play depending on where in the world one is and as you mentioned very dependent on the type of culture on is in at large. The attention is being driven because a culture that has most recently been a Culture of Dignity is experiencing a shift.

Of course as with all things culture, we're discussing generalities and I think it's fair to acknowledge that their are likely pockets of the less predominant moral cultures perhaps everywhere we go.

[Cato]

I'd say it's less a culture of victimhood, and more of a culture of empathy.  One where we actually start learning to understand one another, and take into consideration the feelings of others.  It's a culture where empathy is valued higher, much like honor is valued higher, and dignity is valued higher in their respective cultures.

It's easy to attach a negative word to any of these cultures.  Instead of Culture of Honor you could call it a Culture of Arrogance.  Culture of Dignity could be considered the Culture of Apathy.  It's all a matter of presentation.

I find it a bit more nuanced than that. I don't read the article as differentiating the moral cultures based on empathy, but rather the reaction to insult or slight; i.e., when there is something to be aggrieved about the empathy is apparently already gone. 

Another observation I have made that compels me to not consider the level of empathy as a source of difference between moral cultures is that the response of students and faculty in the Culture of Victimhood is immediately vitriolic. It's as if there is an expectation to be on the receiving end of the empathy of others, but reciprocation isn't required.

[Divinity]

I think it's fairly simple. If you view a culture negatively, you'll attach a negative word to it's name. If you view it positively you'll attach a positive one. I think this is fairly clear by how people describe the 'culture of victimization'. One could just as easily call it the culture of empathy, and could call the others the culture of apathy or arrogance, or even one of them the culture of privilege. Obviously given that you identify with the culture of apathy, you view their use of the court system as frivolous (and are more likely to point out those examples)

I mean take for example the gay rights movement, black lives matter, and even the new atheist movement. All groups who have started to stand up, rather than happily sit quietly while other groups oppress them. None of these things have come out of the culture of 'honor' or the culture of 'dignity'. It's the so-called culture of 'victimhood' that gave rise to it. They bring attention to the public at large sleights like the inability to get married, the lack of trust, and the lack of respect. Some of them go about it in the wrong way--much like others in the other cultures go about theirs in the wrong way (they did, and do). Some of them go too far, but again that applies to all cultures, and those other cultures could be presented just as negatively if one took the time and care to do so.

[Cato]

I think it's fairly simple.  If you view a culture negatively, you'll attach a negative word to it's name.  If you view it positively you'll attach a positive one.  I think this is fairly clear by how people describe the 'culture of victimization'.  One could just as easily call it the culture of empathy, and could call the others the culture of apathy or arrogance, or even one of them the culture of privilege.  Obviously given that you identify with the culture of apathy, you view their use of the court system as frivolous (and are more likely to point out those examples)

I mean take for example the gay rights movement, black lives matter, and even the new atheist movement.  All groups who have started to stand up, rather than happily sit quietly while other groups oppress them.  None of these things have come out of the culture of 'honor' or the culture of 'dignity'.  It's the so-called culture of 'victimhood' that gave rise to it.  They bring attention to the public at large sleights like the inability to get married, the lack of trust, and the lack of respect.  Some of them go about it in the wrong way--much like others in the other cultures go about theirs in the wrong way (they did, and do). Some of them go too far, but again that applies to all cultures, and those other cultures could be presented just as negatively if one took the time and care to do so.

The focus of the paper, the subsequent article, and this discussion is the phenomenon of microaggressions and trigger warnings, most frequently demonstrated on college campuses. This is about reactions to actual and more often potential minor insults resulting in offense, perceived or real. I don't understand you conflating this with actual examples of unequal treatment. The American Civil Rights Movement was not advanced on an appeal to victim status in an effort to have black Americans coddled and sheltered from every insult and slight that could potentially come their way, it was a monumental struggle for equal treatment under the law (same for the gay rights movement and black lives matter). 

I want to be considerate with your replies, so I'll assume you haven't read the article rather than assuming a gross misconception on your part. It's your insistence that the Culture of Dignity is apathetic; none are.

Empathy is fundamental to human morality and nobody has a monopoly on it. Here's an example of the superior empathy displayed by the Culture of Victimhood:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IEFD_JVYd0

This is just one example of the reaction to the Yale Halloween costume controversy. Yale administrators had published a mass email providing suggestions on certain types of costumes that should be avoided. Students complained to the professor couple that live on campus with the responsibility of fostering the student living environment. The link is the resultant email that was an attempt to foster an intellectual approach to the 'controversy'.

I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students.

. 
https://www.thefire.org/email-from-erika...-costumes/

This ignited the backlash, the above video being just an example.