Comments on: There Shall Be Five Moral Modules Everywhere Beneath the Sun

By: John B. Cannon

John B. Cannon — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:12:56 +0000

“subaltern ingroup politics don’t actually contest mainstream (white) Americanism” … could you say more? I’d argue that subaltern ingroup politics, especially in Black communities but also to some extent in other communities of color, do create a somewhat separate space for people in those groups – and sometimes, in the margins, for people outside those groups. That space is not always oppositional, but it can become oppositional at key moments and provide resources for self-preservation in the face of mainstream whitewashing.

By: Illegal Immigrants, Loyalty, Morality - Joshua Malbin

Illegal Immigrants, Loyalty, Morality - Joshua Malbin — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 06:32:06 +0000

[...] like these are why I think I have to part with Josh K-sky on the desirability of ingroup loyalty as a moral principle, at least when it comes to those invoked in politics. A feeling of belonging may be important for [...]

By: Josh K-sky

Josh K-sky — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:28:44 +0000

You’re right on in terms of purity/sanctity and consumer politics. Certainly any politics that has to do with food, most of which is on the liberal side, is going to be a politics of purity.

That’s an interesting gap in module 3. I’m not sure it’s a fault of the model, though, because of the way that subaltern ingroup politics don’t actually contest mainstream (white) Americanism. About the “take back our country” business… well, they’re not really fooling anyone, are they? Haidt addresses the phenomenon of “Dissent is Patriotic” bumper stickers here. He’s not impressed.

By: John B. Cannon

John B. Cannon — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:18:31 +0000

I would actually say that liberal consumer politics, for example, take up purity / sanctity a lot. I used to enjoy nauseating my liberal friends by flaunting the fact that I eat McDonald’s, and, I don’t know, don’t recognize a moral difference between buying a cup of coffee at Starbucks vs. my local independent coffeeshop. (I happen to prefer independent coffeeshops aesthetically, but I won’t pretend that judgment is a moral or political one.)

On module 3) – this account seems to be strangely missing race, ethnicity, and sexuality. The difference might be that ingroup loyalty for conservatives can be, by default, identified with Americanism as a nationalism – which carries by default all kinds of assumptions about the value of dominant social groups. In many subordinate social groups, ingroup loyalty to the group tends to be at least as important as loyalty to the abstraction of the nation. These folks tend to get grouped as liberals in discussions of mainstream political discourse, whether or not that is completely an apt description. Of course the red state / blue state “take back our country” form of liberalism would be a more classic example of what you’re talking about, a format basically in which mainly white liberals have contested conservatives’ claims to be the arbiters of nationhood.