Is a society without “Majority Privilege” possible? What if “givens” can’t be deconstructed without the society losing the capacity to provide “belonging” to anyone? What if it is not possible to extend existential stability without causing an authoritarian backlash? If all this is so, then minorities are justified to act in a manner that will contribute to society destabilizing and the majority turning to authoritarianism: causing this destabilizing is what the oppressed ought to do. To not destabilize society, minorities must arguably act unjustly, which is to say accept and not oppose oppression, which itself can cause existential instability that makes authoritarianism appealing. Justice is tragic, and tragedy is just.
“Givens” are the barriers that must be removed to expand acceptance, but “givens” also make acceptance possible. It would seem therefore that those outside “the circle of acceptance” must stay outside of it, for gaining entrance will be the act which makes there be no acceptance there to gain (like opening the box in which Schrödinger’s Cat (doesn’t) wait(s)). To allude to the work of Conyers, “tolerance” is perhaps an effort to expand acceptance by removing “givens” (via law, social pressure, threats of losing funding, etc.), but this simultaneously makes there be no acceptance or existential stability to expand. To expand the circle is to risk erasing it, and where there is no circle, there is anxiety that makes authoritarianism appealing. But isn’t it the case that there is “no circle” for those outside the circle? Outsiders, minorities, and the marginalized suffer existential anxiety, just like those lacking “givens,” for those outside the circle do indeed lack “givens.” For them, can’t authoritarianism become appealing, and a main reason we want “a circle of acceptance” at all is to keep authoritarianism unappealing. Are the means by which we achieve existential stability also the means by which we cause existential instability? But if we don’t figure out a way to expand the circle of acceptance to those outside of it, the act of which can make the circle vanish, we will risk authoritarianism becoming appealing to those outside the circle — the disadvantaged who are vulnerable to radicalization, the minorities who have suffered injustices, etc. — but if the circle vanishes, authoritarianism might become appealing to everyone (a point those who benefit from being inside the circle might be quick to point out.) What should be done? Careful — our answer might just reflect our ideology.
Outsiders can be justly driven by existential anxiety to become insiders, the act of which will likely causes existential anxiety for insiders and make authoritarianism appealing to insiders, an act which could cause there to be no existential stability in the society for outsiders even if they were to become insiders: the distinction between “in” and “out” could be lost; the circle could vanish; everyone could become a “no-sider.” But outside, authoritarianism is appealing to outsiders, and in a democracy outsiders have just as much of a chance to control government and create policy as do insiders: those who have “Majority Privilege” are not necessarily those who will win by majority vote. Hence, making sure authoritarianism is appealing to no one is the utmost priority, but how in the world might that be possible? This seems especially unlikely once insiders resist outsiders from removing “givens” — as is perhaps inevitable, for most people seem to seek existential stability — the act of which will motivate outsiders to fight harder, which will motivate insiders to fight back, increasing existential anxiety all the while. Once this “feedback loop” begins, must it become a noose?
Why can’t Conservatives just get over themselves? If insiders weren’t so existentially and psychologically weak, things would be fine, yes? Outsiders could become insiders and the existential anxiety wouldn’t develop. Doesn’t the problem mainly rest with those “inside?” A fair argument, and this points to why efforts to increase “acceptance” and “empathy” are perhaps so widespread today. However, few if any Conservatives think they aren’t accepting, so it is unlikely that telling them to “be more accepting” is going to make a difference. Conservatives generally believe in traditional marriage, for example, and in their minds that has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with “truth.” Though they may not want to and though it may conflict with their sexual preferences, a lesbian and homosexual can get married under traditional marriage, so the door to marriage isn’t closed on LGBTs; therefore, for Conservatives, belief in traditional marriage isn’t oppressive. Rather, to Conservatives, what’s oppressive is having LGBT marriage forced upon them (all while making them feel like oppressive bigots for not favoring it); therefore, it is Progressives who need to learn to be more accepting, not Conservatives. Of course, Progressives would respond that it is true that denying LGBTs marriage is bigotry — on and on. Considering this framing, I don’t believe preaching “acceptance” and “empathy” will be enough to stop the development of the existential tension that makes authoritarianism so appealing. I don’t think the effort hurts, but I don’t think it’s likely to totally succeed either.
Furthermore, it is natural for people to have “givens,” and arguably they must (I’m not sure if even “Overmen” are entirely free of them), for “givens” seem to make thinking, functionality, living, and the like possible. As Wittgenstein taught, ‘it belongs to the logic of our scientific investigations that certain things are in deed not doubted,’ which is to say ‘[w]e just can’t investigate everything, and for that reason we are forced to rest content with assumption. If I want the door to turn, the hinges must stay put.’¹ “Givens” make “the life of the mind possible” (a point which suggests the relationship between “truth” and “rationality,’ as described in The True Isn’t the Rational), and telling people to forgo “givens” could be to destabilize their minds, and in such a state, how could people prove “accepting?” Doesn’t “accepting others” require the mind? Also, it’s easily not possible for everyone to give up their “givens,” thus making the goal unachievable. People might always require “givens,” but today because people know about “givens” — the role of unverifiable assumptions and premises about the nature of life — the “givens” no longer function as effectively as they once did. In fact, their “givens” are just “some among many,” making them not (feel) “given” at all. And yet we still require them — our existential anxiety thus worsens.
If thought requires “givens,” there is a sense in which the very structuring which thought requires to be itself requires it to be oppressive, that it is the very nature of thought to exhibit prejudice and “exclude” (which might suggest truth to Félix Guattari’s claim that “everyone wants to be a fascist”). If I think “x is true” because I accept “y given” — and if Wittgenstein is right that I must accept some “given” and believe in some truth — then I must necessarily “be against” those who think “z is true” because they accept “p given” (keep in mind that “givens” are not consciously accepted, but rather just are). We seem primed in our very being to be oppressive, exclusive, and the like, as is society structurally, which means that the value of justice will likely “justly” oppose that structure, and yet it would seem that social orders also require an ethic of justice to function. Where there was no justice, there would likely be anarchy and a lack of trust, which is precisely when society would break down and totalitarianism become appealing (and even “rational,” as described in “On Kafka, Character, and Law” by O.G. Rose). This means society structurally requires what deconstructs its structure. And perhaps this is why history seems to repeat.
It is in our nature to create “a circle of acceptance” which constitutes society, as it is in our nature to justly want access to that circle, the act of which can make the circle vanish. Must the choice come down to Nazism or marginalization? Oppression or oppression? We ought to work to make all “outsiders insiders” (not “insiders outsiders”), and if this is not possible, perhaps there is little hope to avoid authoritarianism. I’m not fan of determinism, but authoritarianism might prove “practically inevitable.” Making sure authoritarianism is appealing to no one — insiders or outsiders — is the utmost priority, but so is making sure no one is oppressed. Tragically, unless humans can “ontologically change” (perhaps into Deleuzians, Overmen, etc.), it would seem that those two major priorities cannot be addressed without destabilizing the other.
.
.
.
Notes
¹Wittgenstein, Ludwig. On Certainty. New York: First Harper Torchbook Edition, 1972: 44e.
.
.
.
For more, please visit O.G. Rose.com. Also, please subscribe to our YouTube channel and follow us on Instagram and Facebook.