Mar 11, 2023·edited Mar 11, 2023Liked by Kate Manne
As I said on twitter, I think the next step in this argument is a consideration of children's rights. Spouses sometimes express aspirations for each other in ways that don't account for each other's agency, but parents do this to children *all the time*, and it's widely culturally validated, encouraged, and excused. Hitting kids (called "spanking") to make them conform with your aspirations is widely praised and accepted; parents pretty regularly will force kids out of the house if they're queer, parents feel they should be able to determine who their children marry, what professions they take, what their hobbies are, whether they are allowed privacy—the list goes on.
Edit: "Your partner is not a project" is a relatively uncontroversial statement, I think—but if you say "Your child is not a project" people will get very, very prickly.
This all makes sense to me and it seems right that how we think about aspirations/ambitions may just come down to temperament. And the relationship issues do seem fundamentally different. There seems to be a problem of treating people as means and not as ends going on there.
Not the main thrust of the post, but I love the country music example. I have foibles and flaws like everyone else but one thing I really like about my character is I hate not liking things. If a lot of people appreciate something, I usually think there must be some value in it that I'm just not seeing. So I work to see that value, not to "gain the value" myself but to appreciate what value one could find. Country music is an example of this in my own life.
This even points to a way that aspiration can work *against* the inegalitarian side of bourgeois striving. I learned contempt for a lot of harmless cultural things as I was clawing my way out of my low socioeconomic status Oklahoman origins. As an adult I have ... striven to unlearn that contempt and see the value in country music, clothing and linguistic affects, etc.
Mar 12, 2023·edited Mar 12, 2023Liked by Kate Manne
So interesting, thank you. Please keep thinking about this.
It occured to me (lit major, not philosophy) that Dickens is the absolute apex of aspiration observers, including in himself. The whole idea of "wanting to be a gentleman" -- Pip -- the Veneerings (!) -- almost everyone in every book. Set off by people who do -- Noddy Boffin and so many others, Fagin, Jenny Wren, the upper class Betsey Trotwood, *do* the thing. His world is full of doers. And aspirers.
(I am reminded somebody, maybe Peter Ackroyd, points out Oliver Twist was the first child protagonist; Sam Weller the first working class one.)
Thank you so much for both posts on the Callard article. They're better than most. Still I wonder if there's a subtle ablism at work in many responses to Callard? She speaks, early on in the article about her autism diagnosis. Indeed, she speaks of it with-- to borrow your apt words-- a stunning social and historical naivete, stating that she tends not to talk about it because most people think of autistic people as nonverbal. I'm sure Melanie Yergeau and other autistic scholars and activists would disagree strongly. But could it be that part of what makes us (academics, specifically, I find) uncomfortable about Callard is precisely her failure to follow received guidelines about appropriate sharing, self presentation, etc? I mean, she has her own guideline: Aristotle, Socrates, a very archaic (in my limited understanding) and narrow notion of what "Philosophy with a capital P" is doing. But couldn't the clinging to one such guideline be understood a kind of neurodivergence? Even to the point of using it to justify abuses of power.
The worst part is of course her crossing of the picket line, which you address in the best possible way as evidence of a failure to understand the ethical guidelines she seems to uphold. But that's not in the article, naturally, since the New Yorker is telling a different story.
Really, rather than faulting Callard or paying her all that much attention at all, I'm shocked and sort of embarrassed by the New Yorker's prurient interest in what turns out to be a very boring sort of polyamory, as well as its, well, stunningly naive presentation of what Philosophy as a field is about (with special assist from Jonathan Lear, ew).
Which isn't to say all the other stuff isn't true or valid. I just want to talk seriously about the autism, and nobody (including Callard) seems to want to go there. What do you think? Is it perhaps unfair of me to want to take into account a diagnosis she herself seems to dismiss?
You mentioned social capital — and that seeking to acquire at least one species of social capital will “reek of a kind of middle-class striving I can’t help but find distasteful....” Aspiring to and acquiring social capital is actually quite important. For example, in so many areas of life, those who can effectively navigate complex organizational or social networks tend to be able to have more agency or control over their lives — as opposed to being constantly buffeted by external social forces. Those who can (genuinely) confidently work with a broad range of people are simply more effective in matters which require social cooperation (which is pretty much everything). I think one of the biggest disadvantages common among those in a low socioeconomic class is not so much the lack of money but the lack of social capital because, for many (most?) in that class, they rarely saw it being modeled by parents or others in that class. It’s a huge disadvantage. Lacking much social capital was something I struggled with for a long time in my early years. It took years of intentionally thinking about, learning about, and acquiring it to give me the confidence and ability to effectively navigate organizational and social networks. I didn’t do it because I necessarily liked it (like, say, one who wants to develop a better understanding of art — just for the sake of enjoyment and self-enrichment). When I was young, I was repulsed at the idea of “networking” — it seemed mechanical and phony to me. But part of that was due to the fact that I didn’t have the social capital to really understand what real networking was. It wasn’t meeting people and nervously handing out a business card. It was about building actual relationships — not friendships (necessarily) but meaningful organizational and social relationships. I think a lot of people blanch at the idea of having “non-substantive” factors influence success (the possession or lack of social capital) — “I should be measured solely on the objective merits of my work!” That works in robot cultures but not in human cultures. Critical intangible (non-cognitive) skills, as human beings, are vital to living and working in a human world.
I have a question unrelated to the topic of this post - I hope you don’t mind me asking.
I have a 14-year-old who’s very bright but is completely adrift and nearly flunking in school. She asked me last night what I would do if I encountered the trolley problem. (I’d been thinking for a while that logic/philosophy might appeal to them.)
Which brings me to my question...Would you have some book recommendations for a young person to get them started in logic/philosophy - something that would appeal to them and also be accessible to their comprehension level?
Thank you for sharing your refreshing view that substack is a place for perhaps slightly less polished work. I'm just starting my writing here, and the process of starting, of finding my way and my voice has been terrifying.
I don't think it's just personal temperament at all. There's something fragile and narcissistic and doomed to failure in wanting to be a music lover rather than responding to the beauty of music. And I think, although I can't make a knockdown argument for it that it's more likely to enriched by new relationships and crosscurrents -- for example I could love the Brandenbergs and then realize -- wow I never thought about the social setting that made chamber music possible and then come to care about what sorts of societies create what sorts of music. IOW actual music has a sort of infinite multi-dimensionality that being a music-lover as an identity doesn't.
As I said on twitter, I think the next step in this argument is a consideration of children's rights. Spouses sometimes express aspirations for each other in ways that don't account for each other's agency, but parents do this to children *all the time*, and it's widely culturally validated, encouraged, and excused. Hitting kids (called "spanking") to make them conform with your aspirations is widely praised and accepted; parents pretty regularly will force kids out of the house if they're queer, parents feel they should be able to determine who their children marry, what professions they take, what their hobbies are, whether they are allowed privacy—the list goes on.
Edit: "Your partner is not a project" is a relatively uncontroversial statement, I think—but if you say "Your child is not a project" people will get very, very prickly.
This all makes sense to me and it seems right that how we think about aspirations/ambitions may just come down to temperament. And the relationship issues do seem fundamentally different. There seems to be a problem of treating people as means and not as ends going on there.
Not the main thrust of the post, but I love the country music example. I have foibles and flaws like everyone else but one thing I really like about my character is I hate not liking things. If a lot of people appreciate something, I usually think there must be some value in it that I'm just not seeing. So I work to see that value, not to "gain the value" myself but to appreciate what value one could find. Country music is an example of this in my own life.
This even points to a way that aspiration can work *against* the inegalitarian side of bourgeois striving. I learned contempt for a lot of harmless cultural things as I was clawing my way out of my low socioeconomic status Oklahoman origins. As an adult I have ... striven to unlearn that contempt and see the value in country music, clothing and linguistic affects, etc.
So interesting, thank you. Please keep thinking about this.
It occured to me (lit major, not philosophy) that Dickens is the absolute apex of aspiration observers, including in himself. The whole idea of "wanting to be a gentleman" -- Pip -- the Veneerings (!) -- almost everyone in every book. Set off by people who do -- Noddy Boffin and so many others, Fagin, Jenny Wren, the upper class Betsey Trotwood, *do* the thing. His world is full of doers. And aspirers.
(I am reminded somebody, maybe Peter Ackroyd, points out Oliver Twist was the first child protagonist; Sam Weller the first working class one.)
Thanks for so thoughtful a take.
Thank you so much for both posts on the Callard article. They're better than most. Still I wonder if there's a subtle ablism at work in many responses to Callard? She speaks, early on in the article about her autism diagnosis. Indeed, she speaks of it with-- to borrow your apt words-- a stunning social and historical naivete, stating that she tends not to talk about it because most people think of autistic people as nonverbal. I'm sure Melanie Yergeau and other autistic scholars and activists would disagree strongly. But could it be that part of what makes us (academics, specifically, I find) uncomfortable about Callard is precisely her failure to follow received guidelines about appropriate sharing, self presentation, etc? I mean, she has her own guideline: Aristotle, Socrates, a very archaic (in my limited understanding) and narrow notion of what "Philosophy with a capital P" is doing. But couldn't the clinging to one such guideline be understood a kind of neurodivergence? Even to the point of using it to justify abuses of power.
The worst part is of course her crossing of the picket line, which you address in the best possible way as evidence of a failure to understand the ethical guidelines she seems to uphold. But that's not in the article, naturally, since the New Yorker is telling a different story.
Really, rather than faulting Callard or paying her all that much attention at all, I'm shocked and sort of embarrassed by the New Yorker's prurient interest in what turns out to be a very boring sort of polyamory, as well as its, well, stunningly naive presentation of what Philosophy as a field is about (with special assist from Jonathan Lear, ew).
Which isn't to say all the other stuff isn't true or valid. I just want to talk seriously about the autism, and nobody (including Callard) seems to want to go there. What do you think? Is it perhaps unfair of me to want to take into account a diagnosis she herself seems to dismiss?
You mentioned social capital — and that seeking to acquire at least one species of social capital will “reek of a kind of middle-class striving I can’t help but find distasteful....” Aspiring to and acquiring social capital is actually quite important. For example, in so many areas of life, those who can effectively navigate complex organizational or social networks tend to be able to have more agency or control over their lives — as opposed to being constantly buffeted by external social forces. Those who can (genuinely) confidently work with a broad range of people are simply more effective in matters which require social cooperation (which is pretty much everything). I think one of the biggest disadvantages common among those in a low socioeconomic class is not so much the lack of money but the lack of social capital because, for many (most?) in that class, they rarely saw it being modeled by parents or others in that class. It’s a huge disadvantage. Lacking much social capital was something I struggled with for a long time in my early years. It took years of intentionally thinking about, learning about, and acquiring it to give me the confidence and ability to effectively navigate organizational and social networks. I didn’t do it because I necessarily liked it (like, say, one who wants to develop a better understanding of art — just for the sake of enjoyment and self-enrichment). When I was young, I was repulsed at the idea of “networking” — it seemed mechanical and phony to me. But part of that was due to the fact that I didn’t have the social capital to really understand what real networking was. It wasn’t meeting people and nervously handing out a business card. It was about building actual relationships — not friendships (necessarily) but meaningful organizational and social relationships. I think a lot of people blanch at the idea of having “non-substantive” factors influence success (the possession or lack of social capital) — “I should be measured solely on the objective merits of my work!” That works in robot cultures but not in human cultures. Critical intangible (non-cognitive) skills, as human beings, are vital to living and working in a human world.
I have a question unrelated to the topic of this post - I hope you don’t mind me asking.
I have a 14-year-old who’s very bright but is completely adrift and nearly flunking in school. She asked me last night what I would do if I encountered the trolley problem. (I’d been thinking for a while that logic/philosophy might appeal to them.)
Which brings me to my question...Would you have some book recommendations for a young person to get them started in logic/philosophy - something that would appeal to them and also be accessible to their comprehension level?
Thank you for sharing your refreshing view that substack is a place for perhaps slightly less polished work. I'm just starting my writing here, and the process of starting, of finding my way and my voice has been terrifying.
I don't think it's just personal temperament at all. There's something fragile and narcissistic and doomed to failure in wanting to be a music lover rather than responding to the beauty of music. And I think, although I can't make a knockdown argument for it that it's more likely to enriched by new relationships and crosscurrents -- for example I could love the Brandenbergs and then realize -- wow I never thought about the social setting that made chamber music possible and then come to care about what sorts of societies create what sorts of music. IOW actual music has a sort of infinite multi-dimensionality that being a music-lover as an identity doesn't.
It’s weird how many people aren’t.