We have come to call these fields “grievance studies” in shorthand because of their common goal of problematizing aspects of culture in minute detail in order to attempt diagnoses of power imbalances and oppression rooted in identity. (
The effect I'm focused on here isn't designed to distinguish between legitimate complaints, and likely it doesn't. Of course this isn't the only process going on, so we do on average try to make that distinction. I gave two links re farmers vs foragers.
In this system of judgment, how does one determine if a complaint is legitimate? Taken to the extreme, it seems to be a great way of maintaining the status quo, especially if there are legitimate problems with a plan.
Also, I think your argument would be better expressed if you would contrast the point of view of "farmers" and how those differ from "foragers"...
Great post. Vaguely reminiscent of Nietzsche’s theory of "ressentiment" and "slave revolt in morality”.
"How did we get from the widespread acceptance of good/bad valuation to the near universal dominance of good/evil thinking?
Nietzsche’s famous answer is unflattering to our modern conception. He insists that the transformation was the result of a “slave revolt in morality”. //
People who suffered from oppression at the hands of the noble, excellent, (but uninhibited) people valorized by good/bad morality—and who were denied any effective recourse against them by relative powerlessness—developed a persistent, corrosive emotional pattern of resentful hatred against their enemies, which Nietzsche calls ressentiment."
Nietzsche did now know much about human pre-history though (I suppose not much was known at the time) and in particular, he didn’t know that human hunter-gatherers grew more egalitarian than other animals. Instead he thought that egalitarian ressentiment came with Christianity.
It might be better to frame this as a balance of effects. Three strikes and mandatory minimums don't strike me as weaker punishments. The balance may shift, but there are always countervailing forces that oppose or limit these, or do you classify any such forces as residual farmer virtues, or farmers and foragers in each of us and the only difference being where each of us lie on the spectrum and more mindsets rather than distinct groups?
Maybe we'd find that disagreements about which complaints are legitimate can be explained by disagreements about who is seen as "up" and "down" - but also that there is broad agreement that complaining up is OK and complaining down is less so.
The effect I'm focused on here isn't designed to distinguish between legitimate complaints, and likely it doesn't. Of course this isn't the only process going on, so we do on average try to make that distinction. I gave two links re farmers vs foragers.
In this system of judgment, how does one determine if a complaint is legitimate? Taken to the extreme, it seems to be a great way of maintaining the status quo, especially if there are legitimate problems with a plan.
Also, I think your argument would be better expressed if you would contrast the point of view of "farmers" and how those differ from "foragers"...
Great post. Vaguely reminiscent of Nietzsche’s theory of "ressentiment" and "slave revolt in morality”.
"How did we get from the widespread acceptance of good/bad valuation to the near universal dominance of good/evil thinking?
Nietzsche’s famous answer is unflattering to our modern conception. He insists that the transformation was the result of a “slave revolt in morality”. //
People who suffered from oppression at the hands of the noble, excellent, (but uninhibited) people valorized by good/bad morality—and who were denied any effective recourse against them by relative powerlessness—developed a persistent, corrosive emotional pattern of resentful hatred against their enemies, which Nietzsche calls ressentiment."
https://plato.stanford.edu/...
Nietzsche did now know much about human pre-history though (I suppose not much was known at the time) and in particular, he didn’t know that human hunter-gatherers grew more egalitarian than other animals. Instead he thought that egalitarian ressentiment came with Christianity.
It might be better to frame this as a balance of effects. Three strikes and mandatory minimums don't strike me as weaker punishments. The balance may shift, but there are always countervailing forces that oppose or limit these, or do you classify any such forces as residual farmer virtues, or farmers and foragers in each of us and the only difference being where each of us lie on the spectrum and more mindsets rather than distinct groups?
Isn't it obvious? Eg, describe the "same" complaint, but vary the dominance & prestige of parties A,B,C,D & see how sympathy changes.
Maybe we'd find that disagreements about which complaints are legitimate can be explained by disagreements about who is seen as "up" and "down" - but also that there is broad agreement that complaining up is OK and complaining down is less so.
What predictions does this framework make? "Existing trends will continue" does not count.