White dudes — am I right?

This morning, I posted a series of tweets mocking The New Atheism. It was probably inevitable, then, that I got embroiled in a long discussion with a white dude who was very concerned to clarify that they’re not all like that. And I’m sure they’re not — but I was instantly reminded of the many discussions of race where the white dudes in the room were in an absolute panic to make sure that the conversation could not move forward until everyone posited that they personally were totally innocent of racism.

And this response is natural, because every white dude is a unique snowflake. They cannot be lumped together with any group or trend. To the extent that a white dude is associated with a group or trend, he gets to define its meaning unilaterally — so for instance, The New Atheism is not intrinsically imperialist because he personally is not an imperialist. Every white dude is entitled to total self-definition, and anyone who perceives him differently from how he wants to be perceived is committing an injustice against his personhood. Isn’t the person who presumes a white dude is racist, for instance, perilously close to the logic of racism? After all, what is racism but the making of generalizations — and hence, can we conclude anything but that generalizations are inherently racist? If I made any generalization about black people, for instance, you’d be jumping down my throat! But here you are claiming that all white dudes tend to be defensive, and are you any better?

I want to tell you a little story. Once I was on a crowded train. I observed that there was a family scattered across several seats near me, some closer to the door and some more distant, and it so happened that they were getting off at the same stop as me. Out of politeness, I waited for all of them to get off the train before proceeding to the door myself, so that they could keep their group together. When I got up, I wound up stepping in front of a young black man. He became offended and pushed past me, accusing me of racism because I had let the white family go ahead of me but felt entitled to cut in front of him.

The white dude in me was crying out — I’m not a racist! I had a perfectly justifiable reason to do what I did! I didn’t even notice who was behind me when I got up! Yet there was something else there as well, something that had developed during my years of living in a diverse community in grad school, something that said: Let it go. If he sees me as an entitled white dude, that’s fair enough. I really do look like that. I get so many advantages from looking how I look that I should put up with it on those extremely rare occasions where it proves disadvantageous as well.

I don’t want to put myself forward as a hero or an example. All I want to suggest is that being a white dude might be a least partially curable. The first step is admitting that you have a problem.

An open thread

I am translating an essay on Benjamin, whose wide-ranging interests and untimely death meant that he left more projects unfinished than most of us will ever even haltingly begin thinking about starting. Thus I am inspired with a question for you all: do you have any projects that you very seriously intended to undertake and then abandoned? Do you still believe that you will eventually be able to return to them, or has the moment passed?

Against “cloud computing”

Part of my opposition to online education is that it seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem. One can imagine situations where it would be necessary or helpful — bringing education to the handicapped, or to rural communities, etc. — but the motivation for a disruptive transformation of the normal method of education seems to be lacking. As I frequently ask in this connection: is there a sudden shortage of rooms with chairs?

Similarly with cloud computing.

Olympics Open Thread

Does anyone have anything interesting or intelligent to say about the Olympics?

Beyond pretension: On the afterlife of culture

In my recent halting quest to delve more deeply into classical music, it occurs to me that I’ve been pretty trusting of people’s advice. For instance, everyone who has an opinion seems to think that Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis is uniquely worthy of attention among his works, and so I got a recording of a performance from Netflix and watched it yesterday afternoon — turns out it’s pretty impressive. Similarly, I’ve eagerly acted on recommendations of books and recordings.

Why am I so trusting? Because basically no one is going to bother even claiming to have an opinion about classical music unless they know what they’re talking about to some degree. It’s totally “voluntary” to know about it — the culture has moved on, so there’s no payoff for pretension. Someone might tell you that The Wire is great just because they feel like they “should” think that; no one’s going to pull a similar move on Missa Solemnis.

In a way, this is a basic Adorno-esque point: previously elite artforms that have lost their accustomed role have a unique potential for “disinterested” uses. I wonder, though, how many other things are like this?

Spring Sartorial Options for the Young Academic

I posted last summer about my ongoing attempts to dress like a civilized person. My plan at that time was to aim for some level of consistency by setting “collared shirt with jacket and non-jeans” as my average, from which I could deviate by a step or two up or down on various days. In practice, I’ve probably gone dressier on average, wearing either a tie, a sweater, or both in addition to the base items. This has won me a reputation for being well-dressed, such that when I came to a weekend community event in jeans and a collared shirt, a student told me frankly, “You look weird.” And of course, I’ve obtained the all-important jacket with elbow patches — so overall, I’d say I made a strong start.

Now, however, something I’ve long feared is happening: spring is coming.

A parable of online communication

Let’s say a friend and I are on the subway, discussing what we consider to be Obama’s failures. We have discussed political matters before, and thoroughly — so that the abuse of the fillibuster, the extremism of the Tea Party, and basically all relevant matters that a reasonably informed person would discuss in this context have come up in previous conversations, the results of which are reflected in what we’re talking about now.

Then let’s say someone overhears us and says: “What you guys are ignoring is the role of Republican obstructionism.”

The paradox of nerve-hitting

When one reacts in a strongly negative manner to someone’s comment in internet discussion forums, that person will sometimes take that as evidence that he or she has “hit a nerve.” The logic behind such statements appears to be as follows: “given that you have disagreed so stridently, you must be harboring an unconscious, barely repressed intimation that my argument is correct — indeed, my argument must have triggered deep personal insecurities, which is the only explanation for your overreaction.”

Such reasoning is obviously stupid. In fact, I would venture to say that in 99% of cases, nerve-hitting is misdiagnosed: the putative nerve-hitter has misread the situation, misinterpreted the responder’s intended tone, or is simply a smug moron.

And this brings me to the paradox — claiming to have “hit a nerve” itself hits a nerve. Regardless of the concrete claims at issue, basically everyone reacts negatively when their contributions to a discussion are dismissed as reflections of a tragically flawed psychological state.

A poll

An amusing aside

In a review of two books on boredom, Joseph Epstein includes an aside about one of my primary boredom-triggers:

In the last chapter of Boredom, A Lively History, Toohey veers into a discussion of what brain science has to tell us about boredom. I almost wrote a “compulsory discussion,” for with-it-ness now calls for checking in with what the neuroscientists have to say about your subject, whatever it might be. What they have to say is usually speculative, generally turns out to be based on studies of mice or chimps, and is never very persuasive.

Here, here!