It's been a while since I've last written in this blog, but today I want to talk a bit about the current situation involving #BlackLivesMatter and some of my thoughts and concerns. Primarily, I am worried that in our zeal to 'do the correct thing', we end up confusing a social cause with the justification for it. We end up silencing those who oppose us not based on the counter arguments they raise, but based on a (perceived) judgment on their character and upbringing. I will argue that not only is this practice immoral, it is also irrational and unhelpful. I will describe a concept of 'peaceful dialectic', where individuals make arguments in order to determine the truth of an issue. I will then draw an analogy between peaceful dialectic and peaceful protest and that our reasons to favour the latter also apply to the former. Finally I will argue that if one's position is correct, then it is both epistemically and ethically better to establish it via peaceful dialectic.
As an initial disclaimer, I believe in objective truth (i.e. things are true independant of whether we believe them to be) but I also recognise that it can be difficult to convey truth as I will see things from my own perspective. Still, I will try to provide the context to this all in a neutral manner, as the purpose of this post is less on who is correct, but on how we should approach things.
Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a social movement that campaigns against racism and system violence against black people. It has recently seen a resurgence after the death of a black man - George Floyd - at the hands of a white police officer. Protests began soon after the death, some of which have over time become violent riots. American police have been ordered to control the protests and have faced criticism for using heavy handded tactics. Around the world there has been a call for solidarity with Black Lives Matter, and many organisations and individuals have made public statements. At the same time there has been backlash against the movement itself and against violent protests.
There are three main phenomena that I think will be useful to help illustrate some ideas:
1) All lives matter and the backlash towards this
2) Silence indicating compliance towards racist structures
3) Backlash towards the violent protests
1) In response to BLM there appears to be a counter movement that take issue with the slogan #BlackLivesMatter. Some reasons provided by proponents of the counter movement is that #BlackLivesMatter places overemphasis on race - in particular blackness - as opposed to the fact that death has occurred. They might agree with the #BlackLivesMatter but only as an implication from their claim that #AllLivesMatter.
There has been a common counter response against the #AllLivesMatter movement that proponents are missing the point. It is argued that the emphasis on black lives is specifically because black people are more likely to lose their life or experience violence at the hands of the state. The slogan #AllLivesMatter implies that all lives are equally at stake, when they are not.
2) I've seen a number of posts on social media that argue this point. The point is that if one is being silent in this situation, then they are being compliant with racism. Instead individuals should feel compelled to make a statement - presumably in this case - in solidarity with BLM. In particular here, and also with the first example there has been a demand for individuals to educate themselves on the matter.
3) There are two parts to this - backlash towards the protestors and backlash towards the police. Let's start with the protestors. There's an interesting tension here as I think most people are against violent protests, but they can also sympathise with the reasoning behind the protest. They can understand why it is done, without necessarily agreeing with it. The police case appears to be different and there currently appears to be a lot of anger towards the police and how they have responded to the protests. The suggestion to potentially bring in the Army may not have helped here.
The examples above illustrate a few interesting observations. The first observation is that many people appear to see these issues as (forgive the pun) black and white. There is the right side and the wrong side. And if you're not on the right side, then you're on the wrong side (particularly evident in the second example).
The second observation is that it seems if one is on the 'wrong' side, then their opposition can be framed as racist, a term which can imply moral corruptness. The prevalence of the term 'educate yourself' I think escalates this a bit further. Not only are you immoral, you are also uneducated or are epistemically sinful. If I claim that my position is correct and tell you to educate yourself if you disagree, then there's a strong implication that my position is factual.
The third observation is that there cases where we might not normally condone of an action, but because the actions are committed by those that we favour, we might see it as permissible and justified. We might for example see violent protests as generally problematic but can sympathise with those who do it in certain cases. The question here is whether are sympathy extends further - do we actually feel like it is justified?
A brief comment - this post is primarily targetted at those who believe the 'right' side is in favour of BLM. In fact, I agree with them - but I still think there are a large number of issues with how the proponents are behaving. I am also open to the possibility that I myself am wrong. Also as I'll argue later, this 'sides' thinking is problematic as well.
Peaceful dialectic
First, some quick definitions. Let us say that a position on a topic (such as BLM) is one's overall set of views about the topic can be considered as a collection of statements that they agree with. As a result, positions can be extremely specific. Sides on the other hand can be considered factions of an issue where rival factions disagree on a core set of statements
I see the practice of vilifying those that we disagree with as really problematic and I worry that we are focusing too heavily on which 'side' individuals are on, and not enough on what justifies it. For if our side is truly justified, we should not need to denounce others are villainous for disagreeing, or denounce others as silently complicit for not shouting about it. The truth should come out by itself. To simply brand those who disagree with you as racist / stupid can be seen as an ad hominem. Given how precise positions are there is likely considerable disagreement even with those on your 'side'. Some of this disagreement can be incredibly helpful and help us refine our views without undermining them.
I can appreciate that some sides may have more riding on their position, both emotionally and physically. However whilst I can sympathise with this, I think one should also be wary. The truth is independant. For the truth is that which reality actually is like, and it is the truth that our own behaviours and beliefs should conform towards.It is also plausible that one's opposition does not engage in these practices, but this does not justify oneself in not doing so. We should lead the way.
I propose we engage in what I call peaceful dialectic. Peaceful dialectic is a manner of discussion where agents are truth seeking. Both sides propose their arguments to one another (without engaging in fallacious practices such as villifying / ad hominem). The aim for each side is not necessarily to win, but to come to a shared agreement. Remember that if your position is correct, we expect the result of this to show that your position is correct. If your position is wrong, then you should admit your position is wrong. One useful way to engage in peaceful dialectic is to consider what your 'opponent' would need to establish to convince you of their side. This has two major benefits - first it humbles us into remembering that we are not always correct, second it helps to refine and allow for abstractions of our position.
Not doing so, I argue, is both ethically and epistemically wrong. Ethically, because you are treating someone (presumably negatively) without being justified. You're accusing someone of wrongdoing without understanding what they have done or where they come from. Epistemically because your practice does not maximise truth - you are outright cutting yourself from further evidence that may expand your view point.
I see this as similar to peaceful protests more generally. If one's protest is justified we should expect for people to be convinced by it without needing for one to engage in physical violence. In fact, engaging in violence can often deter others from supporting one's position.
Rarely is one proposed position completely right and one proposed position completely wrong. Likely there are aspects of each position that make sense, and thus why not take that middle ground and accept that one's own views can have issue? For example, it might be reasonable to agree broadly with a social movement whilst denouncing certain practices as problematic. Similarly we might recognise that a broader structure such as the police force has many problems, without villifying them all or calling for their own suffering. It is because of this observation that I think 'sides' is a problematic concept, because it tends to turn to require uniform judgement on all statements within it. We're unable to admit we made a mistake because it risks undermining the entire position.
(Interesting note - my argument shares some minor parallels to what is known as 'conciliatory' views of disagreement. These views face what is known as self undermining argument, that one cannot be conciliatory about the conciliatory view itself. It might appear that I experience the same problem here where I frame actions or dialectic behaviours as being ethically wrong. There are examples in the literature that defend conciliatory views, which I think could potentially also apply here.)