
Dignity - collate
https://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2019/08/22/chris-arnades-book-dignity/
======
ssivark
One of the most poignant and evocative things I've read of late. I don't want
to spoil the experience if you plan to read, so just two excerpts.

> _What I learned from the book is that the differences between the back and
> front row are more than money, marginality, jobs, and education. That is,
> the back row kids chose lives and educations that weren’t going to get them
> fancy jobs and high salaries, and they did it only partly because their
> schools and towns and society hedged them in. They also chose the lives that
> were going to keep them close to their communities, their families. I
> believe that, I’ve seen it. And it’s admirable._

> _Looking back I had never expected to have my atheism challenged. Certainly
> not in the drug dens of the South Bronx, but that is what happened. Part of
> it was recognizing a simply utilitarian value in faith. It was a more
> informed scientific view of religion. The realization that what the cold
> secular world that science so often offers up is just that, Cold & secular.
> Science is not very appealing and often hard for those dealing with trauma
> to see what “good” it offers. [...] It became a realization that being
> educated and wealthy had removed me from the best evidence for the “truth”
> behind faith. When you shield yourself from the messy details of life it is
> easy to convince yourself that humans can figure it all out, that we all got
> it under control, or that with enough data, thinking, and computer power, we
> could figure it out. Maybe, just maybe, we couldn’t and can’t ever do so.
> Maybe there is stuff just too big and complex to understand and perhaps that
> is the essential truth._

\--

Succinctly illustrates something that is a complete blind spot for the
mythical "Silicon Valley", with it's mood of techno-optimism and focus on
"technology" (sic software). I'm sure reality is much more nuanced even for
people with one foot in this bubble. I don't want to kickstart a cliched
thread so we can all pile on SV, but I wonder how (where from) others here get
such broader perspective in life. It would also be great to hear from people
in very different circumstances & geography, about how they manage their
intellectual interests and their human side.

~~~
tremon
_I had never expected to have my atheism challenged [..] part of it was
recognizing a simply utilitarian value in faith_

That feels odd to me. Recognizing the value of community doesn't seem at odds
with a rejection of supernatural entities. Likewise, I don't see the value of
evangelizing my agnosticism to communities of different structure. Pluralism
to me is an essential component of a society as large as our current one.

 _Maybe there is stuff just too big and complex to understand and perhaps that
is the essential truth_

Speaking only for myself here, but I don't need a god to acknowledge that our
material and social world in complex beyond comprehension. At the same time, I
also don't feel the need to have a being in my life that does comprehend all.
It is enough for me to know the limits of my knowledge, and to scope my life
within that context. Even more to the point, I find that the quest for "one
essential truth", to the point of denouncing different conceptions of the
unknown, is in itself detrimental to society.

So as to your question, I believe there is tremendous value in allowing people
to be secure in their religion. It provides security, comfort and community
for them. And I believe the recent surge in anti-scientific movements is in
part motivated by (atheists') relentless attacks on the core tenets of other
communities. Gods have always resided in the unknown, not in the unknowable.
As the limits of our knowledge progresses, so have gods changed their shape.
But by attacking faith _on the unknowable_ , people have created much more
animosity and defensiveness than should have been necessary.

~~~
screye
> But by attacking faith on the unknowable, people have created much more
> animosity and defensiveness than should have been necessary.

You skipped over the fact, that religions hinge on explaining the unknowable,
often in ways that harms certain communities and life styles. The attacks on
religion have been squarely targeted at those aspects of religion. Atheists
attacking a person's belief in a higher being (deists) is rather rare.

Friction is central to any change. If anything, the defensiveness and
animosity is a necessary part of shifting power away from religious
organizations.

~~~
einhverfr
> that religions hinge on explaining the unknowable

I don't think that is right. Mircea Eliade suggested that the primary function
of mythology was a series of stories our lives could participate in and
experience, and I think that's closer to the way religion is usually
understood in most parts of the world outside the corner of Protestantism
where your view holds most weight.

> often in ways that harms certain communities and life styles

My kids get to navigate three very different cultures -- traditional
Indonesian society where getting married, procreating, and raising children is
central to the family business economic order, the US where those are entirely
separated from each other, and Germany where the recognition is you cannot
have gender equality without support particularly for motherhood. I don't
think you get that the conflicts between these are not merely religious but
much more about the economic and social constitution of the societies, and
that seeking to deprive, for example, Indonesia of their family business
economic order in the name of sexual individualism or whatever harms these
communities by opening them up to foreign exploitation. It's colonialism pure
and simple.

Religion is an expression of culture and we assume our superiority over others
culturally at great peril to both sides.

------
theobeers
Check out the book if you can. Among other things, it gave me a new
perspective on McDonald’s as one of the greatest social institutions in
postmodern America. I think a lot of HN readers would find that part
interesting.

Like others, I was struck by the discussion of (not) moving away from home.
Arnade describes the bewildered reaction that he usually got from people if he
asked them why they never left the area where they grew up. i.e., how is that
even a question?

------
AlexCoventry
What curriculum doesn't teach you about negative numbers until the 7th grade??

~~~
coldtea
He mentions coming from a small 750-strong or something poor town? Perhaps
that curriculum?

~~~
frosted-flakes
Isn't the curriculum set by the state?

~~~
HarryHirsch
Wikipedia has an article about the former principal of Randolph County High
School in Alabama:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulond_Humphries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulond_Humphries)

There were tensions over interracial prom dates, then the school burnt down
(it was unclear whether the Panthers or the Klan was to blame, but the smart
money is on the Klan), there was something of a consent decree, and the
principal was promoted to superintendent.

There are large tracts in the country that are so backwards that they cannot
be improved, also because anyone capable left generations ago.

------
choeger
This is all about travel. In the terms of the author I have to consider myself
a front-row person. But I can easily go back to the rural area I come from -
and I do so regularly - and I really enjoy it every single time. If I could, I
would probably live there.

The thing is: you cannot live where your roots are and be who you want to be
at the same time. You have to travel. A guy from the Ukraine cannot be a
Stanford professor and be close to his parents at the same time.

But traveling technology can make this simpler. It will probably never fully
resolve this issue, but it can get better.

In all these talks about how traveling damages our climate and our cities we
should never forget what purpose it can serve.

~~~
new2628
> A guy from the Ukraine cannot be a Stanford professor and be close to his
> parents at the same time.

They can, however, use their experience from Stanford, and try to improve
education in Ukraine, be an independent researcher in Ukraine, try to create a
"mini-Stanford" around themselves in Ukraine, etc. An uphill battle for sure,
but possibly with more immediate impact.

~~~
choeger
That is not the point. This would be like telling people who want better
working conditions to found a company and implement them. When our
hypothetical professor starts building Stanford in the Ukraine he stops being
what he wants to be, a Stanford professor, and becomes something entirely
different, a Stanford builder.

~~~
new2628
Sure, I got the point, one cannot do the exact same thing in both places.

> This would be like telling people who want better working conditions to
> found a company and implement them.

In some situations that may be a reasonable thing to say, and indeed, many
companies are founded that way.

But let me back down for a different reason: in the same situation I am not
practicing the advice I was giving.

------
woadwarrior01
Russ Roberts interviewed[1] Chris Arnade on his excellent podcast EconTalk
about this book, a month ago. It’s been on my reading list since then.

[1]: [http://www.econtalk.org/chris-arnade-on-
dignity/](http://www.econtalk.org/chris-arnade-on-dignity/)

------
pjc50
Dignity is a really under-used word these days. And leaving it out is why so
many of the discussions on class and money get nowhere - because it exists
outside the monetizable sphere. Or rather, there are all sorts of ways to sell
it but few to buy it back again.

~~~
AstralStorm
There is a way to buy it back, but it is very expensive, with time and a lot
of thought and even more of actions.

I do not expect this title has anything to do with reasoning about people's
choices at all. Nor with the concept. I think it might have more to do with
dismissal. Its opposite.

What irks me is that talking as if "people/science cannot understand" is a
different kind of hubris. Not humility.

It's only that this limited quant approach is not enough. Too reductionist,
too simplified. World is much richer than such spherical cow models.

To falsify this idea, consider when people thought men flying on daily basis
was impossible. Yet here we are. And we can do, as a whole, so much more.

The idea that something is unknowable is not productive. It may make you feel
good or accept your limitations, but there are so many other ways of doing
that which are not regressive and do not apply your presumption on state of
knowledge, humanity or the world on others.

Respect is a two way street. Lacking in the USA lately, while forced and faked
in the some Asian cultures.

Respectability is a separate matter stemming from it.

Dignity is a word of many and inconsistent meanings, mostly undefined.
Excellent way to hide what you really mean.

------
einhverfr
Very interesting and provocative read, so another book on my reading list.

I grew up in small town America myself. I now live in Europe because in part
it reminds me of the nice life I experienced there -- focus on family and
community rather than the atomistic, anonymized individual of the big city.
Europeans support families (and in particular raising kids) better than
Americans do.

I sometimes talk with Americans about the problem of urban privilege, and the
fact that urban Americans a) can't usually understand where rural Americans
are coming from and b) see themselves as superior. Every point you can make
about white privilege applies to the urbanites and the urban/rural split as
well. I have lived in Sweden, which reminds me very much of rural Utah
culturally, and in Germany which strikes me more like where I lived in rural
Washington State.

I love how this guy seems to have made it across this divide both ways, and
come to understand the quiet strength, admirable characteristics, dignity, and
community that lies behind rural life and to understand the fact that this
urban privilege can be seen through (as he calls back-row rather than front-
row).

------
motohagiography
Having recently finished "Hillbilly Elegy," this interview reminded me of
similar themes. America doesn't really have a meaningful discourse on class I
suspect because the Soviet machine dominated it for so long it became a kind
of third-rail topic.

If you are from a working class background, or find yourself navigating it,
what you notice about people who have left it is they leave behind that very
"dignity," (or honour) that defines working people. They become placeless,
"political," "from anywhere," as opposed to "from somewhere."[1] It's because
an elite education broadens your perspective so that the symbols and things
you previously thought were meaningful and powerful don't figure in with the
same significance when you see the bigger picture of possibilities. What
working people treat as a localized cultural dignity can seem like
superstition when viewed against much greater power in a global context and
perspective. This dignity is still important, but higher education "pops," you
out of that view.

The side effect (or cause of problems) of this is that today, even the most
elite institutions do not create enough cultural distance between working
people and the new administrators, and so you have this insecure burgher class
in America who define themselves with displays of contempt for "white trash,"
"rednecks," etc, because even their advanced education and high paying jobs
(or cultural capital) do not provide them with enough distance and certainty
that they are in fact sufficiently different, that working people wouldn't
even register as a threat to their identity.

The reason a "noble," person can treat people equally is because there is
absolutely no danger of the association harming their identity and position.
It's also why country people can seem extra egalitarian, because they just
don't have a stake in the affectations of city class navigation.

You can also see how the most militant critics of working class values and of
the underclasses' dignity systems and honour codes are the people who most
closely resemble them, or perceive they are only a few paychecks away from
them: "artists," with middling if any higher education, unionized workers,
city dwellers with precarious culture and media jobs. The lower middle who
need to distinguish themselves and work harder so they don't lose,
"everything," and be reduced to those people they are trying so hard to
separate themselves from. On the upper end, there is a kind of haughty
mystification at why anyone would actually fear wearing red or blue in certain
neighbourhoods, but when they say they don't understand, what they mean is
they don't need to.

This negative cycle of downward class anxiety and neuroticism from the new
middle just provokes entrenchment of working tribe values and reactionary
views, and you get the culture wars of today. America's new elite is not
exceptionally elite by historical standards, and it knows it, and their
impostor syndrome is expressed mainly as contempt for an underclass and the
scapegoating of working class people.

The solutions are more complex, but the problem seems stark as day.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/22/the-road-to-
so...](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/22/the-road-to-somewhere-
david-goodhart-populist-revolt-future-politics)

~~~
einhverfr
Very insightful reply.

I think there is a specific problem in the discussion of how class is
discussed in the US today, which is that Americans think of class in
_quantitative_ terms, i.e. it is about how much money you make. But these
theories start with Adam Smith who saw the primary division as being between
working class (labor), landlord, and employer classes. To Smith, you have two
different rentier classes and a working class, and the difference is
qualitative. (Now, assuming Picketty is right that returns on capital are
greater than economic growth, qualitative differences lead to quantitative
differences, but one is cart and one is horse.)

Until we start recognizing that we as software developers are working class
too at least until we cash in enough options to own real assets, we can't have
this discussion.

------
coldtea
In much the same topic, I recommend this one too:

[https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008AUKKUC/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?...](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008AUKKUC/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=7a8f5654-37f5-4688-a266-a74309cad748&pf_rd_s=lpo-
top-
stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0312626681&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1DTQXZS8Y925P2MHJ3V5&pf_rd_r=1DTQXZS8Y925P2MHJ3V5&pf_rd_p=7a8f5654-37f5-4688-a266-a74309cad748)

~~~
huhtenberg
This points at "Nickel & Dimes" by Barbara Ehrenreich

/your friendly amazon link deofuscator

~~~
coldtea
Yep, though actually "Nickel & Dimed" (the book's title. The Amazon page is
mistitled).

------
djrobstep
One day in the future I hope we can take classism as seriously as other forms
of bigotry like racism and sexism.

Explicitly racial segregation is over, but capitalist class society segregates
people by socio-economic class implicitly (it's explicit in only certain
places like airplane cabins).

Of course, class is a great way to continue to run a racist society: Just cram
the underclass with most of the minorities!

The only solution is to replace the class system with something that provides
unconditional dignity for all.

~~~
skrebbel
I have this pet theory that much racism is actually wrongly interpreted
classism. In many countries, big ethnic minorities (eg African Americans and
Latinos in the US, or the Turkish & Maroccan Dutch where I live) are much
poorer, on average, than the national average.

I suppose that many people might think that poorer people are more likely to
break into their homes, rob them on the street, sell drugs etc than richer
people. So they prefer to avoid poor people if they can. I mean, that's
classism in a nutshell right?

If you're black in the US or Turkish in NL, it's like having an "I'm poor"
sign on your forehead. Especially if you don't dress overly businesslike.

~~~
cousin_it
That doesn't explain the racism against Jews, or Asians.

I think the explanation is more biological. You're hardwired to feel that
people who look and talk like you are the easiest to ally with. Sometimes it
even becomes a self-reinforcing loop - if blue people have a slight preference
to ally with other blue people, then green people will find it easier to ally
with greens than with blues, which will be noticed by the blues and so on.

~~~
skrebbel
> That doesn't explain the racism against Jews, or Asians.

True, but it does explain some of why white people in a super white
neighborhood call the cops when a black guy is walking down the sidewalk. It's
totally ridiculously bigoted but I think there's a big "this guy looks poor,
is he going to break in somewhere?" component to it. And that's classism, not
racism.

I'm not saying classism is any better btw. I am saying that trying to solve
classism-disguised-as-racism by talking about skin color or culture is missing
the mark. The narrative "most black people don't $negative_stereotype" is
common, but I hardly see any "most poor people don't $negative_stereotype"
messages out there.

