A culture of victimhood and intolerance

Bradley Campbell on the sociology behind the culture wars on campus

Safe spaces, microaggressions, trigger warnings and No Platforming have become ubiquitous on college campuses on both sides of the Atlantic. Identity-driven grievances, hair-trigger sensitivity to slight and a censorious policing of language have even bled out into mainstream society and politics. Could there be a sociological explanation for these phenomena?

Bradley Campbell is the co-author, alongside Jason Manning, of The Rise of Victimhood Culture. spiked caught up with Campbell to find out how today’s victimhood culture compares with other cultural and moral frameworks.

spiked: What made you realise that victimhood culture was distinct from past cultures?

Bradley Campbell: Most of my work is on the sociology of conflict and morality, particularly violence and genocide. My co-author, Jason Manning, was interested in that, too. We then became interested in conflicts happening around us on campus. I had become particularly interested in hate-crime hoaxes. I wanted to know why people would make false accusations and report false crimes. For instance, there was a woman at Claremont College, California, who had vandalised her own car with anti-Semitic graffiti.

Similarly, I was following a case at Oberlin College, Ohio, where there had been some racist graffiti which caused an uproar. Then, somebody reported spotting a Klu Klux Klansman on campus. All classes had to be shut down. It turned out that it was just somebody wrapped in a blanket. It wasn’t a hoax but people were very quick to believe the claim rather than scrutinise it.

In 2013, we came across a website called Oberlin Microaggressions, which was the first time we had seen the term ‘microagression’. Microaggressions are small slights directed at disadvantaged groups which are said to be important because they all add up.

We started thinking about microaggressions and what was going on on college campuses in terms of comparative morality. There are other kinds of environments where people will say, ‘sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me’. Or where people say that you should have thick skin and ignore minor slights.

We wanted to know why people were so concerned about a particular kind of minor offence and were publicising it to others. We connected this to the hate-crime hoaxes by understanding that we were witnessing a new kind of moral culture among left-wing campus activists. We called it victimhood culture, to emphasise the fact that victimhood had itself become a marker of status. We were also contrasting it with older cultures like honour culture and dignity culture.

spiked: How do these cultures differ?

Campbell: In honour cultures, honour confers status, based on your reputation for bravery. In honour cultures, people are sensitive to slight, so there is a similarity with today’s victim culture. Men would fight duels over minor insults. But the difference is that people in honour cultures portrayed themselves as strong and able to handle their conflicts themselves, rather than appealing to others.

There’s a conception of honour going right back to ancient civilisations. This then comes to be replaced by a dignity culture, where people are said to have equal worth and equal dignity. This emerges in the United States in most of the country around the beginning of the 1800s. You have Aaron Burr fighting a duel with Alexander Hamilton in New York in 1804, which is one of the last major duels. Honour culture continued in the American South until after the Civil War.

Cultural change is a gradual process, and not always complete. At first, despite there being a dignity culture, dignity was not realised for all people. You had Jim Crow laws and discrimination against women. But common assumptions about dignity could be appealed to. In the civil-rights movement, people appealed to the notion that people have equal worth and should be treated as such

Dignity cultures make a distinction between major and minor offences, between speech and violence. People are taught to not insult others, to not take insults personally, and to interpret others’ words generously. That is where the idea of ‘sticks and stones’ comes from.

Victimhood culture is different from both, in that calls attention to minor slights, but only if these slights are said to further the oppression of disadvantaged groups. Everything is interpreted in relation to perceived oppression. Of course, there are other moral values at play, but the central value of victimhood takes precedence over other values like compassion.

Concerns about microaggression or the establishment of safe spaces are also very different from the civil-rights framework that emerged from a dignity culture. Safe spaces are not demanding equality but protection, extending the notion of harm from physical violence and slurs to political disagreement and ordinary speech.

spiked: Why is victimhood culture so prevalent on the most elite college campuses?

Campbell: Certainly, the people making claims of victimhood are not those you would think of as the most disadvantaged. We were inspired by the sociologist Emile Durkheim, who, writing in the late 1800s, said that even in a society of saints, there would still be sinners. And so tinier offences would create bigger scandals. Environments like Oberlin or Yale are pretty tolerant places, with high degrees of diversity and equality. That doesn’t mean there isn’t any discrimination, disparity or disadvantage. But compared with poor parts of the inner cities, people are more equal and more tolerant of difference in terms of race, gender and sexuality.

Campus environments also have people to appeal to who can punish these offences or who can train people to change their behaviour. The presence of a responsible authority is important in driving these claims of victimhood. Genuinely disadvantaged people don’t have administrators who will listen to and respond to them.

spiked: How have appeals to victimhood manifested themselves on the right?

Campbell: Victimhood is stronger on the left because it has a moral framework based around oppression. But as victim status becomes more attractive and confers benefits and support, then others are going to take advantage of that, too. Social psychologists talk about competitive victimhood. You see this in particular with Donald Trump, who is constantly calling attention to the way he has been ‘victimised’ by the left.

On campus, conservatives have legitimate grievances – they are outnumbered and their opinions are marginalised. But it is about how you frame things. Conservatives might not use the same language of microaggressions or have the same moral framework around oppression, but they do make opportunistic appeals to others to recognise their victimhood.

spiked: Is the rise of victimhood culture an inevitable historical process or can we push back against it?

Campbell: Some of the factors that have created victimhood culture are pretty entrenched – and nor are they things we would want to alter. For instance, if increasing diversity and equality is contributing to a victimhood culture, I certainly would not want to challenge that. I would rather challenge the attacks on free speech and due process directly.

The way to combat victimhood culture intellectually is to understand that even though some of the concerns that people on the left have are good, claims to victimhood are likely to cause more conflict. They can make it impossible to get along. Worse still, they can provoke a reaction. I am worried that alt-right movements and some people’s embrace of racial hierarchies are arising in reaction to victimhood culture. So victimhood culture doesn’t actually help the people it claims to be helping and there needs to be a better way of dealing with conflicts when they arise.

In particular, we need to insist on the difference between speech and violence. Activists have tried to blur this distinction. This has meant that controversial speech has been met with violence. When Milo Yiannopoulos went to Berkeley and there were riots, a student newspaper said that the violence was ‘self-defence’ against his speech. That kind of idea is poisonous and destructive to free speech.

SOURCE 







UK: Muslim parents and children chant against primary school lessons they say promote homosexuality

Muslims do something useful at last -- defying the homosexual tyranny

Muslim children were encouraged to chant 'shame, shame, shame' towards their headteacher who told them it was okay to be gay during a protest this week.

During the protest against Birmingham headteacher Andrew Moffatt's decision to introduce lessons on equality, same-sex marriage and relationships one speaker said being gay should not be given a 'positive spin'. 

He then called the lessons, designed to teach the children at Parkfield Community Scool about equality and introduce them to books called 'Mummy, Mama and Me' and 'King & King', 'toxic' and an 'aggressive indoctrination'.

More than 200 people turned up waving placards and shouting through loudspeakers outside the gates in Birmingham

He said: 'We have to make one thing very clear. 'This program is not just about telling people there are other families and other types of lifestyles exist it is actually aggressively promoting them.

'Giving a positive spin and telling people that it is okay or you to be Muslim and for you to be gay. Mr Moffatt. Shame, shame, shame.'

The speaker then questioned where the headteacher of the school received his religious education and called him a 'mufti moffatt' which caused a laugh from the crowd. A mufti is qualified to give an opinion on a point of Islamic law.  In history they were a scholar who interpreted what Islamic laws meant.

The speaker said: 'I did not want to make this personal but Mr Moffatt has decided to reinterpret our religious scripture. 'Our beliefs are not here to be changed.

'This is an aggressive indoctrination that we are against. If it was not aggressive promotion then you would not have had all these parents come out on the street.

'As I have said to you this program is very toxic. Not only are we going to have it abolished at this school but in every school in Birmingham and every school in the country. 'That is going to happen from parents coming out and fighting for their children’s rights.'     

Despite an earlier report the lessons had been scrapped the school has insisted the 470-pupils at Parkfield Community School learn about same-sex relationships in classrooms after Easter.

The school said 'equalities education' will continue at the school and that staff will be working in consultation with parents.

Parents at the school, where 99 per cent of pupils are Muslim, want the lessons scrapped because homosexuality is banned in Islam. They also said their children are 'too young' for the content while one mother complained her child told her 'it's ok to be gay'.

Today children and parents protested outside the gates waving banners saying the school is 'Exploiting Children's Innocence'.

Many of the children were dressed as fictional characters such as Captain America, Mary Poppins, and the Incredible Hulk, for World Book Day.

Placards being waved by the youngsters read: 'Say no to sexualising children' and 'Respect and be respected.'

Parents also created a podium in which they voiced their concerns from a microphone and speaker mounted on the back of a truck.

Seven police officers also attended the 45-minute protest which passed off peacefully.

Father-of-three Abdul Muhammad, 46, who has a two-year-old at the school said: 'We are here today to protest for our children's rights.

'The school is denying our right as a parent, the equality act of 1994 states it's the parents right, when it comes to education you cannot teach anything that the parents are not ok with. This school has made some kind of experiment thinking, they can do this behind the parents. 'The school has not provided us with any consultation.

'We are against this programme, we are not homophobic, we are not against anybody. 'We are saying this is not age appropriate for the children.'

Mariam Ahmed, 30, full-time mum-of-two, was one of the first mothers to protest 'No Outsiders' said: 'When I first saw it I had a few concerns. 'As I started speaking to other parents about it, they started coming forward saying that their children are coming out with saying 'it's ok to be gay.'

'Mr Moffat was telling them it was ok to gay and Muslim, you can be whatever you want to be. 'It just gradually got worse, it has been taught in lessons continuously, they are saying it's only five times a term but it's not. 'They're doing weekly assemblies and role plays.

'Mr Moffat even tells the children about his own personal life, I'm sorry but you shouldn't be doing that.

'My child is coming home to me saying 'I can swap clothes with opposite gender and change my name too.' 'Why is my four-year-old coming home and saying things like this?  'She should be concentrating on things like Maths and English and not homosexuality. 'It's way too young for children of this age.'

Last week the school denied making a U-turn after reports the classes had been shelved following pressure from parents.

Hazel Pulley, Chief Executive of Excelsior Multi Academy Trust which runs the school, said: 'The lessons are there for after Easter. 'Equalities education will continue.'

Parents say they will continue to hold protests outside the school every week until the 'No Outsiders' programme is scrapped.

SOURCE  






Covert brainwashing of Australian kids is taking its toll

What are our kids actually being taught? It’s almost impossible to know because students won’t usually tell and their teachers will normally reveal only what they think we want to hear.

If the stats are to be believed, Australia is falling down the international league tables of school performance, despite ever higher levels of government funding. And while a couple of our universities figure in the top 50 rankings, there seem to be more and more students doing variants of lifestyle studies and fewer and fewer doing the hard disciplines.

The book "Reclaiming Education: Renewing Schools and Universities in Contemporary Western Culture" doesn’t exactly contain scarifying tales from the chalkface because its contributors’ concerns are about other teachers’ classrooms, as their own would be models of old-fashioned academic rigour. But while what really takes place across the nation’s schoolrooms and lecture theatres will remain largely hidden (at least until all classes and lectures are freely posted on the web), the authors draw back enough of the curtain to justify real concern about ideological force-feeding at every level.

All credit to editors Catherine Runcie and David Brooks for assembling a range of high-quality contributors and contributions. It’s a timely volume because, if education is tending to degenerate into postmodernist brainwashing, as these authors largely suggest, it’s our material wellbeing that’s at risk, as well as our cultural and spiritual wellbeing.

In their own way, all these contributors testify to the long march of the Left through the institutions, a kind of soft Marxist version of the old Jesuit maxim: “Give me the child for the first seven years and I’ll give you the man.” Our youngsters may well be emerging from educational institutions confident, articulate and affirmed in themselves (unless, of course, they betray signs of “toxic masculinity”), but what have they actually learned except that the traditional belief systems of the West should no longer be taken seriously?

You wonder why the traditional notion of marriage received so little public support in the 2017 vote; why hitherto taken-for-granted understandings of gender have suddenly become so fluid; and why even the hallowed idea of free speech now has to accommodate all sorts of politically correct “safe spaces”. This book helps you to understand. It’s because our kids are being deprogrammed by the teachers and by the curriculums that are supposed to impart the best that’s been thought and said.

All of these essays are challenging, and some are gems. One of the best is by David Daintree, who until 2012 was president of Campion College. “Far too many children,” he says, “leave school never having learned to read, write and think straight, before going on to university to become criminologists, sports psychologists — or teachers! The introduction of continuous assessment from the 70s onwards to take the stress out of exams and, as student numbers soared, to make it easier for the less intelligent to get degrees (that of course was never admitted to be the reason) has contributed greatly to the gravity of the situation. Education can now be chopped up into even smaller units or modules for ease of digestion and subsequent oblivion.” As Daintree points out, until a couple of centuries ago, knowledge needed to be collected. Due to the explosion of publishing, it now needs to be culled, so the challenge is knowing what to keep. His plea is for the continued general study of the works that have shaped the Western mind.

Another fine contribution is from Karl Schmude, the former long-serving librarian at the University of New England. Schmude points out the importance of a common educational tradition as the foundation for the moral and intellectual values that are required for a culture to endure. Like Daintree, he’s scathing of the modern tendency to premature specialisation, which not only produces narrow and unimaginative “experts” but makes any general public conversation hard to maintain.

“The concentration on vocational knowledge,” he says, “does not fully equip students for the experience of life. It does not supply a cultural breadth and depth, nor does it nurture the intellectual flexibility needed in the workplace and beyond, in the way that an educational grounding in the liberal arts can do. A professional degree has no time or capacity to deal with the ultimate realities that affect human beings — love and beauty, adventure, struggle, suffering and death — which inspire or haunt their lives. It focuses on the ‘how’ questions … rather than the ‘why’ questions”, which, of course, are the ones that matter most. “The person who knows ‘how’,” he points out, “will always have a job (but) the person who knows ‘why’ will always be his boss”.

Another contributor, David Furse-Roberts (disclosure: he’s helping to edit a collection of my speeches), cites Sir Robert Menzies’ affirmation that “history and literature must enter into any education; for they are the chief record of man and his ways”. Sir Winston Churchill, likewise, thought that a knowledge of history was essential because “in history lie all the secrets of statecraft”. Yet the study of literature has all too often become the treatment of “identity”; while history is invariably episodic rather than narrative and similarly suffused with identity studies.

What can be done? Politicians don’t get to appoint university and school heads, let alone academics and teachers, or to set curriculums. Our education system is more a reflection of our society than a product of political decision making. All that elected leaders can do is speak up for common sense at every opportunity and be ready for the inevitable push-back from the academic establishments that have let it go.

Recently, some Liberal students asked me what might they do to armour themselves against their left-wing lecturers. My response: familiarise yourselves with the bigger story of which we Australians are but part. And a good place to begin is to read and regularly re-read the New Testament (it’s our core document) and to read cover to cover Churchill’s History of the English-Speaking Peoples,because you can’t understand us without knowing that.

SOURCE