Views from the Abyss #50: Factoring Out and Suppressing Humanity

Q. First Brexit, then Trump, now Le Pen... 'Progressives' can't seem to catch a break these days. Why is it that they're having so much difficulty reading the underlying mood of their contemporaries?

A. Their greatest failing in this regard is in their constant factoring out of humanity.

Now this is by no means unique to political progressives, but it's an integral part of the many abstract 'nebulous idea space' ideologies they advocate for. In fact, it's an integral part of most liberal arts degrees as well. Little wonder people are graduating university understanding the world less well than when they entered.

Factoring out humanity in essence is a less politically loaded description of the 'Appeal to Hubris' alluded to in a previous bulletin. The idea is that by focussing on social patterns and influences, one make the rookie mistake of interpreting the patterns as being entirely predictive in nature, thus eliminating the individual agency of a sizeable chunk of the population. Naturally, this typically only applies to those whose views are not in line with those of the speaker—him and his ilk are well informed and free of bias, hence their views are the correct ones; those who disagree are merely... you get the picture.

Sometimes, the patterns themselves are insufficient to explain a given phenomena, so rather than assume that people are somewhat chaotic, what with their independent thoughts and actions and that, it's easier to just assign a blanket motive that robs them of agency entirely. 

How often did you hear that Trump supporters were simply lured in by appeals to their own hatred of anybody that's different—blacks, gays, women, immigrants—and were voting blindly based on this? 

How often did you hear that they're just angry they're not in charge anymore and want somebody to smash the system they feel has betrayed them? 

How often did you hear that they were just uninformed and had no idea they were voting against their own interests? 

If your answer to any of these is a number greater than "never", then congratulations, you have witnessed the factoring out of humanity of a sizeable chunk of the population, with a straight and sincere face. 

There are of course times when this line of thinking is acceptable and even effective, marketing being one of the more transparent examples. It's perfectly fine to target products and advertising at specific demographics, reducing your perception of their relevant agency to the influence you can hold over them, because it's the specific behaviour you wish to coax out of them that's important—the one where they give you money. 

This cannot work with governance though, because governors need to work with the governed. Reducing the people to automatons is the quickest way to mistake yourself for god. That's how dictatorships are started. Of course, laws themselves cannot be tailored to the individual, but that's exactly why the individual must always be given the upmost consideration when writing them.

All is not lost though—humanity is very robust, and will not be suppressed by abstract ideology, no matter how rational. Humanity always reasserts itself. It always prevails.

Q. Are there any other examples of humanity being suppressed by abstract ideology, only for it to reassert itself?

A. Many. One such example is in diversity quotas.

'XX% of managerial posts must be occupied by women by 20YY' is a frequently floated ultimatum. 

We can see straight away that the individual women don’t matter, and nor do the often more qualified men that are going to miss a promotion. Humanity has to play second fiddle to an abstract system of point scoring.

However, even those who would benefit from it are often quick to point out its shortcomings. It will never be universally accepted, because humanity will always reassert itself.

Another of the more recognisable situations occurs when a pregnancy is prematurely terminated.

Now I should state outright that while I take a largely pro-life stance on such things, I do recognise that there are situations where terminating a pregnancy may be considered the 'better' option, and that within reason the decision should be in the hands of those closest involved.

However, the constant romanticising of abortion as a feminist issue really isn’t doing anybody any favours. 

People who find themselves terminating a pregnancy typically fit one of the following patterns:

1. Those for whom the termination is a regrettable act, but ultimately the lesser of two evils, e.g. an abortion out of medical necessity or as an act of kindness to a child that would otherwise suffer from a birth defect or serious disability.
2. Those for whom the termination is an exercising of their right to bodily autonomy e.g. it's not convenient for the mother to have a baby right now, or she would prefer a baby by a different father etc.

Those in the first group typically turn out alright. They face the ordeal with honesty, and allow themselves to come to terms with the truth and consequences of their decision, so they may move on (as we also will).

Those in the second group are more of a mixed bag. Some end up regretting the decision later, and find a way to forgive themselves. Others don't, and it's them we will be focussing on. 

Those of them that aren't psychopaths often end up going mad, sometimes decades after the fact.

The problem is that they are presented with two conflicting versions of what happened, and are free to choose the version that suits them best.

One version is that of a commonly spread abstract ideology, which is apologist in nature. It asserts that having the abortion was empowering, that it was their body and their choice, that the foetus was not a real person—just merely a clump of cells, "what kind of life would the child have had if I’m not ready to be a mother”?

The other version of events comes from the true voice of their humanity, and is accusatory in nature. This one asserts that a literal piece of themselves died when they chose to murder their own child, that their soul is forever tainted by the stench of their heinous crime, that the blood of the innocent is on their hands, and will never be cleansed.

The first is the comfortable lie, the second is the harsh reality they know deep down to be true. 

And however much they cling to the lie, their humanity will persist; the barely perceptible tapping from the basement will increase in volume with each passing year until it becomes a mighty roar that shakes the very walls that protect them. And the longer they leave it, the harder it will be to ever open that basement door; to ever face the truth of what they did, in order that they may move on from it.

Most instead choose to go mad.

Humanity will always find a way to reassert itself, even if it kills the host in the process.