A note on Soo Tian Lee’s article on
–isms.
At the time of the Molotov-Rippentrop
Pact in 1939 (no I wasn’t there!), between the Nazis and Stalin, a
sadly unnamed wit in the British Foreign Office observed “All the
Isms are now Wasms”. If we feel this today, we might well feel
like saying that “I am an Ism-free Zone.” But perhaps they are
merely pragmatic... or perhaps they are not even that.
Now, some time before Issue 34, before
we indicated the issue articles belonged, Soo Tian Lee wrote On the
Claim of Not Being an ‘-ist’ of Any Sort. In this he stated:
My view on this is quite simple: to
claim that one is not an ‘-ist’ (or an ‘-ian’, an ‘-ive’,
or whatever suffix one uses) is to hide from oneself and (some)
others the views that one really does hold. And the danger with this
is that quite often, these views will just be rather mainstream and,
quite possibly, rather centrist. In other words, the dominant strands
of political thought that are the building blocks of one’s
political viewpoint will be the ones that are widely accepted and
transmitted through newspapers, popular film and music, random
conversations on the bus, and so on. For example, I have never met a
post-political person who did not think that capitalism is the least
objectionable (if not the best) way to organise society. Neither have
I met a post-political person who objected to society being organised
according to hierarchical structures. In both these cases, there were
political beliefs behind these opinions, namely supporting capitalism
and believing in formalised leadership. But these political beliefs
were hidden by claims which rejected ‘politics of the old sort’,
claims which acted as a fig leaf that covered the nakedness of the
post-political position.
In fact my very first article in this
Newsletter, way back in 2011, was to be a reply to this perception,
but I was told to write about ‘Love’ instead. Which I did, but I
wasn’t to be outdid: my article was entitled Love: the ultimate
-ism!
In fact I think we can turn to the
prevailing analyses of modern logic, which deals in strong and weak
operators. I gave a hit of this in Love: the ultimate -ism, when I
contrasted
with
this latter being an example of a weak
modal operator.
What is the difference between a strong
and weak operator: if X is possible, this means that non-X is not
necessary. Like if Y is permissible, then not doing Y is not
obligatory.
So when people say they don’t have
any –isms, they should mean they don’t believe in
anti-capitalism. This does not in fact strictly mean they believe in
capitalism, but if capitalists are going to abuse the
trust-by-default of these people, it is sufficient that they have a
weak belief in capitalism.
So if I do not believe in the
activities of Iain Duncan Smith, if I have no strong belief they are
wrong, then in effect I weakly believe that his actions are right.
Surely you don’t believe in
scroungers? Or DO you?
Martin Prior
Philosophy Takeaway Newsletter 64
