I think left intellectual discourse is going to fail in a very, very serious way if it deems research as "bad" because it opens up a line of inquiry that might not jell with perceived political priorities. /1
currentaffairs.org/2020/06/has-th…
currentaffairs.org/2020/06/has-th…
A study into the effects of rioting on voter perception might be *used* to blame rioters, but the study itself is not doing that. It's asking a social scientific question about its effects. A politico-intellectual scene that fears asking and answering these Qs cannot be robust./2
Any serious intellectual scene should be able to disentangle the ethics of rioting from the efficacy of rioting. They are separate things! /3
Furthermore, in my opinion this analysis subtly falls prey to the trope of rioting as a reflex of the mob. But as the historian E.P. Thompson famously argued, property destruction/violence has historically manifested as a form of direct action with clear goals. /4
Which is to say, it is in the left's own interest to investigate if rioting and other forms of militance work, because people do it consciously and deliberately. /5
Sure investigate this too! My point is "let's investigate questions that can confirm my theory of change" or "we must shun questions that can complicate the priorities of the movement" are both political and intellectual malpractice. /6
I think it's really under-valued that there is an inherent tension in being a public intellectual — one's political commitments and one's intellectual commitments can clash or undermine each other. This stuff is genuinely difficult to navigate./7
But ultimately if one averts their eyes from truth-seeking that causes discomfort in the name of morale/narrative, that is reneging on the purpose of being an intellectual. Morale is the primary business of a frontline activist or comms people, not the intellectual. /8
Anyway, this is just riffing based on one part of that article bc it's a recurring trend. Other stuff in there I agree with @NathanJRobinson.
This was inspired by the exchange below:
cc @zackbeauchamp @DKThomp @mattyglesias
/9
This was inspired by the exchange below:
cc @zackbeauchamp @DKThomp @mattyglesias
/9
The point that the question itself "gives away" motive is sometimes true, but not always. And it's also increasingly deployed as a bullshit ad hominem. It is in fact the very point of being an intellectual to ask vexing questions. /10
Specifically regarding the race / IQ debate, that's beyond the scope of this thread but 1) racists use bad science - expose it, don't be afraid of it! 2) the left should be building (and already has) a politico-ethical framework that has answers to racist darwinist arguments. /11
.@NathanJRobinson has given a thoughtful response here (it's a thread).
My response to it:
1)This response seems predicated on the notion that there is almost no scholarship on the kinds of conditions that cause social instability. But there is!
/12
My response to it:
1)This response seems predicated on the notion that there is almost no scholarship on the kinds of conditions that cause social instability. But there is!
/12
There is a TON of scholarship on the factors that give rise to police brutality, uprisings, social change etc. And scholarship is not zero sum: sitting down with one question doesn't come at the expense of others — and a social scientist can only ask one question at a time! /13
2) Again I don't think Nathan has addressed my earlier point about riots being an *consciously employed strategy.* In fact the author of the study, @owasow, has cited debates among black activists as part of the context informing his inquiry. /14
So as I said earlier in the thread, I think Nathan's analysis is locked in the frame that riots are reflexive and need to be explained away, but is not engaging with the notion that the riots themselves are a legitimate object of study and that people behind them have agency. /15
Lastly, I don't buy the "Charles Murray defense" because nothing I'm arguing is premised on the notion that inquiry is neutral, or that any phenomenon shouldn't be examined from several angles. /16
Tangent but if you've read this far and want to dig into some more thinking about riots, I wrote this for my newsletter about the racialized narratives surrounding who is responsible for the George Floyd riots:
mailchi.mp/4b4ba79cb496/a… /17
mailchi.mp/4b4ba79cb496/a… /17
