• In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Divided We Fall - Chapters 1 - 5

#181: April - June 2022 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
LevV

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Agrees that Reading is Fundamental
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 8:45 pm
13
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 202 times
Canada

Re: Divided We Fall - Chapters 1 - 5

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 3:48 am French describes “negative polarization”, whereby people don’t think their own side is particularly good but they do think the other side is far worse.
In chapter 5 French describes his introduction to this idea that does nothing less than “explain America”. This paper, “The Law of Group Polarization” was written in 1999 by Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor. In fact, he clearly states that if there is only one thing you take away from this book, this is it. And what is its point? French boils it down to these simple words: “When people of like mind gather, they tend to become more extreme.”
This level of extremism leads not only to the nasty words on social media but also to the horrible incidents we are all too familiar with, from “Pizzagate” to the shooting at a congressional baseball game to the numerous single and mass shootings around the country.
People will be acutely aware of the violence inflicted on their allies, French tell us. But, they tend not to hear about the violence inflicted on their opponents. Each side is well informed of its grievances, and only lightly aware of the other side’s. So the narrative builds. They have wronged us, and we must fight for our lives. They are dangerous, and we are innocent.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Divided We Fall - Chapters 1 - 5

Unread post

LevV wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 5:56 am “When people of like mind gather, they tend to become more extreme.”
Confirmation bias means a group constructs a worldview that excludes uncongenial information, accepting only confirming information.

Excuses to ignore data require rationalisation, like Christian apologetics.

People tell stories that fossilise into popular mythology to justify social values and beliefs.

The psychology involves emotional comfort and fantasy trumping logic and evidence.

Confirmation bias in politics expands when a group is isolated from disconfirming facts.

Social media has directly enabled this social process of fostering extremism.

This situation impinges US national security, creating risks of secession and war.

Jonathan Haidt's suggestions to regulate social media, mentioned in my comments above, could mitigate this danger.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Divided We Fall - Chapters 1 - 5

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 5:57 am

Confirmation bias means a group constructs a worldview that excludes uncongenial information, accepting only confirming information.

Excuses to ignore data require rationalisation, like Christian apologetics.

People tell stories that fossilise into popular mythology to justify social values and beliefs.
The Haidt article was an eye opener. It's a shame these social media companies don't optimize their algorithms for truth instead of profits. As they are structured currently the algorithms feed on human bias and fear. David French shows us how Democrats view Republicans as enemies of the state, and vice versa. But much of our hostility towards one other is based on exposure to largely exaggerated or outright false information.

How do we learn to be critical of info delivered by mass media? I'd argue that we are personally responsible to check our sources. Limit our exposure and be skeptical, especially of things that are likely to appeal to personal bias. Now, more than ever, we need to learn to be critical thinkers.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Divided We Fall - Chapters 1 - 5

Unread post

The Red and the Blue
French draws attention to the obvious geographic, cultural, religious and political separation that is driving a tectonic rift valley between the two cultural clusters of the USA. Most Americans now live in political “landslide counties”, a process that has been rapidly growing as people choose to live among those who share their values, termed the Big Sort. This fissiparous tendency, splitting the nation just as fissile atom bombs split the atom, has comparable destructive potential to nuclear weapons.

In sport and television, the splittism came to a head with Trump’s call to fire NFL players who took the knee, resulting in politicisation of Sunday afternoons that had previously brought people together, as viewers were forced to ponder identity politics.

Religious division involves “fundamentally different beliefs about life, death, sin and redemption.” My sense is that religion is both a dangerous factor and a potentially reconciling factor. The key message in the New Testament, in my reading, is that love of neighbour demands mutual respect and engagement, pitched to overcome the instinctive tribalism that is at the core of traditional psychology. If Christianity could present a debate about how human social organisation can evolve, it has potential to unite rather than separate. Unfortunately, traditional faith rests primarily upon fantasy. Literal acceptance of supernatural myths confronts the old observation that delusion is the main cause of suffering. Where a society supports widespread delusion, it creates significant risk of splitting apart, between those who support and those who oppose the prevailing myths.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Divided We Fall - Chapters 1 - 5

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 2:14 am The key message in the New Testament, in my reading, is that love of neighbour demands mutual respect and engagement, pitched to overcome the instinctive tribalism that is at the core of traditional psychology. If Christianity could present a debate about how human social organisation can evolve, it has potential to unite rather than separate.
My sense is that religion will always remain more of a divisive force, especially because of the small but very vocal subgroup of fundamentalist Christians who seem to eschew liberal traditions in favor of authoritarianism.

French mentions in the introduction a piece written by Sohrab Ahmari, called "Against David French-ism." Ahmari argues against tolerance and diversity, saying “the only way is . . . to fight the culture war with the aim of defeating the enemy and enjoying the spoils in the form of a public square re-ordered to the common good and ultimately the Highest Good.”

That line gave me a chill when I first read it. The “enemy” Ahmari talks about I guess is pretty much anyone not on board with their fundamentalist reordering of society into the “Highest Good.” That sounds to me like something out of the Handmaid’s Tale. This is why Donald Trump’s brand of authoritarianism appeals so much to them. That seems the direction we’re headed.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusi ... french-ism

And indeed, French makes a convincing case for pluralism. Unfortunately, Americans are so split politically that we perceive each other as the enemy of the state.
“French” wrote:Again, the perception is that major American cultural institutions are angrier at their mainstream domestic political opponents than they are at actual hostile and oppressive foreign governments.
More than anything French has convinced me of the vital importance of both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Intolerance runs both ways. It’s not good that some religious Americans feel marginalized by our culture war. Maybe striking down Roe vs. Wade can be seen as a good thing if it gives more autonomy to the states and feels right to religious right communities? Is this secular blasphemy?
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Divided We Fall - Chapters 1 - 5

Unread post

In Ch. 3, David French makes an argument that traditional Christians are being cast "outside the boundaries of mainstream American society, placing them in the same category as racists for upholding a biblical definition of marriage."

French discusses the cultural divide between blue and red states, each side's propensity to wage war against the other instead of making allowances for the other. And French also discusses ways that Americans in blue states likewise feel ostracized. For example, some of us desperately would like to have some common sense gun restrictions. But in the last decade or so, gun laws have become dramatically more permissive, mostly due to pro-gun attitudes by conservatives.

But do we buy conservatives' rejection of gay marriage as a religious freedom? I struggle with this. Everyone is free to attend the church of their choice or not to attend church, as they wish. It never occurred to me that by winning the cultural war, liberals are disenfranchising conservatives. To what extent do we make allowances for religious beliefs that can be discriminatory towards minorities or the LGBTQ community?

Then again—SPOILER ALERT—French offers a way out of this in later chapters. French argues giving states more autonomy to decide what's right for their own residents. What's right for Californians isn't necessarily what's right for Mississipians. We would have a patchwork quilt of a nation, politically, but potentially we would be more tolerant of one another.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Divided We Fall - Chapters 1 - 5

Unread post

geo wrote: Fri Jun 10, 2022 11:06 am In Ch. 3, David French makes an argument that traditional Christians are being cast "outside the boundaries of mainstream American society, placing them in the same category as racists for upholding a biblical definition of marriage." French discusses the cultural divide between blue and red states, each side's propensity to wage war against the other instead of making allowances for the other. And French also discusses ways that Americans in blue states likewise feel ostracized. For example, some of us desperately would like to have some common sense gun restrictions. But in the last decade or so, gun laws have become dramatically more permissive, mostly due to pro-gun attitudes by conservatives.
I thought this chapter title, ‘The Kindling Awaits the Spark of Fear’, well described the heightened emotional tension in American political conflict. French sees the conditions for a red-blue divorce from the observation that both cultures, in their separate geographical and cultural strongholds, see their identity as under threat. Every event is seen through the lens of culture war. Religion has become a touchstone for hatred and contempt.
geo wrote: Fri Jun 10, 2022 11:06 am But do we buy conservatives' rejection of gay marriage as a religious freedom? I struggle with this. Everyone is free to attend the church of their choice or not to attend church, as they wish. It never occurred to me that by winning the cultural war, liberals are disenfranchising conservatives. To what extent do we make allowances for religious beliefs that can be discriminatory towards minorities or the LGBTQ community?
For many Republicans, the culture war over gay marriage is not about personal freedom of gay people but rather cultural manipulation to enforce progressive morality. Perceived subversion of a religious institution to enforce acceptance of gay marriage played heavily into the election of Trump, with Obama’s lawyer telling a court conservative universities might be financially punished if they held to conventional views on marriage.

The anger in the culture war is shown for French in his work as a lawyer for university students who feel their choices are to renounce their faith or be expelled for being Christian, with the device that secularists can force Christians to allow non-Christians into their clubs. French asks “how dare reporters hunt for Christian business owners for the purpose of ridicule and reprisal?” He believes progressives consistently underestimate the anger produced by their punitive intolerance. For example, there is a progressive hypocrisy where their loathing of right-wing transphobia seems more intense than concern about much more egregious human rights abuse in China.

Of course the loathing is bipartisan. Trump preventing California from providing sanctuary for illegal immigrants is an unjustified breach of federalist principles. Political correctness to one person is reform of grievous injustice to another. The tinder for this bonfire in French’s view is the growing rage at decisions that override the right of communities to govern themselves.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Divided We Fall - Chapters 1 - 5

Unread post

French mentions in the introduction a piece written by Sohrab Ahmari, called "Against David French-ism." Ahmari argues against tolerance and diversity, saying “the only way is . . . to fight the culture war with the aim of defeating the enemy and enjoying the spoils in the form of a public square re-ordered to the common good and ultimately the Highest Good.”

That line gave me a chill when I first read it. The “enemy” Ahmari talks about I guess is pretty much anyone not on board with their fundamentalist reordering of society into the “Highest Good.” That sounds to me like something out of the Handmaid’s Tale. This is why Donald Trump’s brand of authoritarianism appeals so much to them. That seems the direction we’re headed.
I haven't read much of this book, but I suspected the piece by Ahmari would be objecting to "both-sidesism," since French seems to be holding pretty close to that kind of judicious view. I assumed Ahmari would be coming from the left, though, instead of the right, maybe because I myself feel that there isn't equilibrium left vs. right, as far as who's causing the most mischief. That feeling only intensified after the last election, the evaluation of which French wasn't able to make while he was writing.

I can only conclude from Ahmari's very hard line that for him, the political is, and must be, also personal. That hostile view of the side that doesn't agree with me is what I am trying to escape--though I admit it isn't always easy. Also I have to marvel at the profundity that intellectuals on the right have read into Donald Trump's political thought.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Divided We Fall - Chapters 1 - 5

Unread post

DWill wrote: I haven't read much of this book, but I suspected the piece by Ahmari would be objecting to "both-sidesism," since French seems to be holding pretty close to that kind of judicious view. I assumed Ahmari would be coming from the left, though, instead of the right, maybe because I myself feel that there isn't equilibrium left vs. right, as far as who's causing the most mischief. That feeling only intensified after the last election, the evaluation of which French wasn't able to make while he was writing.

I can only conclude from Ahmari's very hard line that for him, the political is, and must be, also personal. That hostile view of the side that doesn't agree with me is what I am trying to escape--though I admit it isn't always easy. Also I have to marvel at the profundity that intellectuals on the right have read into Donald Trump's political thought.
I see the dispute between Ahmari and French as a schism within the Republican party. However, French's support for pluralism makes him kind of an odd duck with today's Trumpians. If he were a governor or senator I'm pretty sure he'd be labeled a RINO.

I like the term, "both side-ism" though. If you examine the world's many religions, it may strike one as odd to consider that a person's religion is highly dependent on the region in which they are born. So, for example, if you are is born in Afghanistan, chances are you will be a Muslim. In Israel you will probably be a Judaist. In India, a Buddhist, etc. It might make you reconsider how "true" your religion really is and perhaps be more accepting of other people's beliefs.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to see that people are usually inclined to be progressive or conservative or somewhere in between. And, yet, everyone seems so sure they are right! And so French's "both-sideism" might be more realistic in that sense. Though French is conservative at heart, he eloquently argues that it is crucial to accommodate other people's diverse viewpoints. And several times he points to the wisdom of our founders, and particularly to James Madison's federalist paper #10.
French wrote:How then does a functioning nation manage the challenge of faction? Madison has the answer—pluralism. A broad diversity of interests and groups across a federal union helps prevent any one interest or group from attaining dangerous dominance.
As such Ahmari's take-no-prisoners approach is exactly the kind of factionalism that Madison warned against. Ahmari's re-ordering the public square to the "Highest Good" (capitalized) seems almost like a throwback to the divine rights of kings. Not sure if Ahmari truly wants a theocracy in America. But how else do we interpret "Highest Good?" If nothing else, we know that the religious among us will never agree on what that means. And secularists will want nothing to do with it at all. Injecting religious doctrine into politics will always be divisive.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Divided We Fall - Chapters 1 - 5

Unread post

Unless I'm mistaken, French sees this will to dominate as a two-sided problem. Progressives also want their own vision of the Highest Good to prevail, he believes. French thinks the enmities we see so much of result from culture, not politics, at the origin. Politics is "downstream" from culture, suggesting that irrational dislikes of people with different customs have more to do with our politics than we want to acknowledge.
Post Reply

Return to “Divided We Fall - by David French”