By: anon4ce

anon4ce — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:20:14 +0000

Ed. I don’t read any hatefulness or self-hate in the column at all. All I see is a thoughtful man imploring people to understand that even beneficial social rituals have negative attributes and effects. If we ignore them, we risk harming our society and the people who comprise it.

By: Ed

Ed — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 12:31:08 +0000

The truth of the matter is that your critiques stem from self-hatred. You hate yourself and your society and wrap it up in flowery words.

By: Jon Hanson

Jon Hanson — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 04:15:56 +0000

Unsurprisingly, I wholeheartedly agree with the above responses (from SBB and Tamara). As always, Tamara, your comments were both elegant and insightful. Thanks. -jh

By: Tamara Piety

Tamara Piety — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:55:19 +0000

Apparently the fact that these comments tend to prove your point rather than engage with the substantive critiques escapes most of these folks commenting. It is sad though that some of these comments are so spiteful and hateful. Anyone who thinks work such as this is motivated by pessimism, cynicism or hatefulness has not thought very hard about this. Writing these serious and thoughtful critiques about the various social rituals and devices we have for reassuring ourselves that everything is okay when there is ample evidence that it is not so okay, requires a profound hopefulness about the essential goodness of most people, about the possibility of positive change, and a commitment to the quest for justice even where it seems that justice is elusive and difficult for us to define or locate but worth struggling for nevertheless. A cynic would not bother since it is utterly predictable that most people will respond hostilely to information that disrupts cherished illusions or half truths. The evidence of this is all around us but one striking recent example was the rioting at Penn State over the firing of Joe Paterno. I understand why the information about Sandusky and what Paterno was told was so distressing that many wished to block it out. But it surely significant that the first reaction of many was to defend the coach rather than to reflect concern for the child victims. Expressions of concern were finally forthcoming but seemed an afterthought and one driven by public dismay that so many people could have their priorities so out of order as to (in essence) cry, “What about our football legacy?!” in response to hearing about someone being allowed to prey on vulnerable children for more than a decade. I think many people are just really uncomfortable with complexity. They would like something to be all good or all bad, heroes or villains, a day of celebration or a day of infamy. But that doesn’t seem realistic since people are rarely so simple, nor anything people do. I am not sure why it has to negate all the positive associations with Thanksgiving to reflect on those unlovely aspects of our history and culture that it also represents. Why isn’t it appropriate to pause in recognition of those ills as well as giving thanks for the good? It seems we would do well to reflect on a clearer eyed vision of our past as well as recommitting ourselves to trying to avoid making such mistakes in the future.

By: SSB

SSB — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:55:37 +0000

The Economist piece and the related comments exemplify how system threat leads to system justification.

Comments on: The Economist Responds to The Situationist

By: anon4ce

By: Ed

By: Jon Hanson

By: Tamara Piety

By: SSB