Uncertainty #6: Resistance Training
Vanessa reflects on feminist norms, narratives, and tree toppers.
Greetings from Valencia, where the breakfast is good and the weather is better! I (Vanessa) got out of cold New York City for the holidays and am penning this newsletter — the last of 2022 — from a beautiful apartment in an old, affordable neighborhood where fishermen used to live/roam. Today, it’s increasingly the landing spot for unintentionally gentrifying expats with remote jobs and adorable dogs. No point in coming to visit — it will be Williamsburg by the time (or, rather, the moment?) you arrive.
Sigh. On that note, to the newsletter!
Spin Class
We recently aired our conversation with economist Robin Hanson on the pod, where we mostly talk about his book The Elephant in the Brain. Hanson and his co-author, Kevin Simler, turned to evolutionary biology to try and explain the motivations that actually drive us (not the nice, fluffy ones we all say that do).
In our interview, Hanson explained that, evolutionarily, we had to present a good, well-intentioned, norm-abiding face to our group in order to be accepted. Over time, we’ve become adept at deceiving others in the most convincing way possible — by deceiving ourselves, first. Hanson uses the analogy of the “press secretary” to explain how we operate. Here’s a quote from that moment in the conversation (also clipped in audio below):
“That press secretary doesn't really present a completely realistic, accurate picture. They're trying to spin the positive picture. […] The idea is that your conscious mind is such a press secretary, that is, you like to think that you are in charge of your mind and that you are deciding what you do, but a different view is that you are the press secretary. Your job is to watch what happens and make up reasons why you did it, but to look good, not to know why, why you're actually doing things.”
Our conscious mind, according to Hanson, is constantly rationalizing our behavior and containing it within a narrative of our own goodness. The concept reminds me a bit of our “default mode network” (DMN) — which I learned about reading Michael Pollan’s How to Change Your Mind — which describes the circuit in the brain responsible for our sense of self (it comes online relatively late in a child’s development). The DMN gives us our “sense of an individual identity,” says Pollan, which is inherently also “a sense of separation from others and nature.” This is exactly what psychedelics dissolve — and why so many people seek them out as a way of “expanding” their consciousness or, put in another way, of accessing their unconscious.
Back to Hanson, who purports that our unconscious mind is the realm of our basest, most selfish motivations. Society builds/enforces norms in order to curb these desires, so society can function. Then we absorb the norms and deceive ourselves into believing that they were always our motivations in the first place.
Norm Chore
But norms don’t just stop us (for the most part) from raping and maiming and killing, they also push us in less than honorable directions. Indeed, our desire to stay in good standing with the people in our groups can lead us astray. For example, Hanson brings up mob mentality, and makes the point that we’re generally far more committed to agreeing with the accuser — and thus preserving our relationship and group identity — than (taking the likely more rational stance of) defending the accused.
The act of resisting a norm — of purposely ignoring a societal cue — is not an easy thing. Of course, you can think big, and call out the Civil Rights Movement or the Suffragist Movement as times when people conscientiously resisted norms to help create a more just world. But I’m actually more interested in the little resistances of everyday life.
For example, back in college, I developed a habit that many people (mainly women) do: calling myself fat. Here’s how the script usually went:
Me: “Ugh, I can’t believe I ate that [INSERT DELICIOUS CALORICALLY HIGH FOOD HERE]. I’m so fat.”
Friend, with empathy: “You’re not fat! You look great!”
I’d played my part again and again. And then, one day, it shorted. I said my line, and a friend said nothing. The pause was pregnant. The next time? Same thing. It was clearly an intentional move on her part — she was not going to play this game.
It’s been over ten years, and I still remember this series of interactions. At the time, I was puzzled and felt somewhat rejected. Today, I look back on it with admiration. By resisting the norm — one which encourages us to validate each other by confirming the slimness of our physical appearance — my friend actually got me to see it for what it was.
I’d like to say I don’t play the game any more — and it’s somewhat true. I don’t start the script as much these days; but I still often play the role of the empathetic friend. And in a world where it’s so easy to go along with the group-think, the mob mentalities, the narratives of our sides, resistance is a skill that I — and all of us — should be cultivating more.
Feminist Critique
At the very end of our conversation with Eli Lake, he suggested I check out — and give him my thoughts — on the monologue of his episode titled “The Feminist Critique.”
In the episode, Eli asks: is it true that, as goes abortion, so too goes feminism writ large? In other words, if we lose the battle over abortion rights, will we lose the century-long war for equality? Eli says no: we've made too much progress to go back. We now accept women in all fields of public life — and we Pandoras will not be going back into that particular box.
But, by and large, liberals believe the answer is yes — and are gearing up to prevent a real-life descent into the Handmaid's Tale.
(Aside: Having now had multiple conversations with conservatives on Uncertain Things, I’m struck by how much more optimistic they seem compared to liberals. For us, it’s the end of the world, every day. As Christene Rosen put it, we’re addicted to “panic porn.” I’d go further and say, since Trump’s election, we’ve become addicted to “fight narratives.” These narratives have their purpose — they are far more likely to inspire people to action. But when the fight is a marathon and not a sprint — yet you're told again and again to keep fighting on all cylinders — it's all exhausting. Being liberal today comes with a mental burden of feeling constantly targeted and under siege.)
I’m less pessimistic than my liberal compatriots, but more cautious than Eli. I don't believe any status quo is a given (including liberal democracy, as we've discussed ad nauseum on our podcast). It is important to keep vigilant and engaged. But where do we draw the lines? What opens the door for more inequality to come — and must be stopped? And what’s a compromise we should be willing to make? When it comes to abortion, these questions are top of mind for me.
Abortion and feminism have historically been coupled for obvious reasons: womens’ autonomy or “sovereignty” over their bodies is clearly a feminist issue. However, unlike almost all other issues pertinent to feminism — fair wages, access to birth control, medical support, maternity leave, etc. — abortion directly/intrinsically involves a third party. At some unknowable point in a pregnancy, another person’s life is involved in the equation — which means there is a moment where (albeit, I believe, with some exceptions) abortion is ethically wrong. I find that many liberals, in their quest to stay on-message and on-agenda, deceive themselves on this count.
If abortion were less central to the feminist agenda (and identity) — if you could be both pro-life and still considered a "good feminist" — I think a few positive things could happen. People of more moderate positions would feel more included in the feminist cause — and feminist ranks could grow. Feminists may begin to devote more attention/resources to other important issues that also impact women — including supporting those working to expand voting rights and reject gerrymandering. These are the folks holding up democracy: a prerequisite for maintaining and safeguarding women's rights.
I'm sure there would be downsides to this approach. But if feminists keep going the way we're going, I ultimately see more division — and we might just create the very dystopian future we thought we were fighting against.
Things Worth Your Time ⏰
🎵Friend of the pod, Kreesa Lancaster shared this haunting Tunisian tune from E M E L that I’m really digging these days.
🎧 I never in a million years would have thought I’d be converted to the benefits of equine therapy, but — thanks to this episode of The Unspeakable Podcast, “Do only liberals go to therapy?” — I’m sold. If you’re not already, make sure to subscribe to the podcast, where Meghan interviews (trigger warning for Adaam) “heterodox” folks with, yes, “nuance.” And if you want even more Meghan Daum, check out our interview with her.
🎧 Friend of the pod (and my sister) recommends this two-part Freakonomics series on Adam Smith, which talks about his lesser-known works on the morality of economies and the way “the invisible hand” has been misconstrued on the right.
What We’re Working On ⏭
Adaam and I will be recording an episode looking back on our favorite episodes of the year. Herein lie my predictions for Adaam’s picks: Mark Lilla, Yascha Mounk, and Vishaan Chakrabarti. Will I be right? Will I be wrong? Will we finally create the Noam Chomsky jingle we’ve all been waiting for? Tune in next week to find out :)
One Last Certain Thing…
It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas…