Checking Your (Unearned) Privilege: An Exercise in Intellectual Archaeology

What follows is a short example of what is more generally termed “systematically distorted communication” – a term coined by Jürgen Habermas – a leading figure in the Frankfurt School which is itself a major force in the development of Cultural Marxism. [Aside: The term “cultural marxism” is itself being treated as a form of systematic distortion. For those interested in exploring this thread it is reasonable to begin with the Wikipedia entry here and compare it to the link provided previously.]

This example does not originate with Habermas but comes from an Australian academic who is actively teaching his ideas to his students.

The exercise proposed here deals with the Index (and the index alone) to the book “Undoing Privilege” by Robert Pease published by Zed Books in 2010.

Before going ahead it might be worthwhile to clear up the meaning of the term “intellectual archaeology”.

Regular archaeology uses the material objects left behind by societies to determine what those societies were actually like. Tools, utensils, dwellings, buildings, roads, docks, ships, vehicles can all let us infer things about what kinds of people lived in a place and what their values were.

This presentation of only the index of a book permits a bit of “intellectual archaeology”. The index allows reader to make educated inferences (and these inferences are contingent on the education of the individual making them) about the writer, the writer’s worldview, and the worldview of those who may read it.

If we infer the “personality” of individuals from the way they speak or act, of if we infer the cultural affiliations of individuals from the way they dress or gesture, then we also engage in the intellectual process of theoretically guided inference from  so-called objective evidence.

Carrying out this task inappropriately can lead to charges of “jumping to conclusions”, “stereotyping”, and various kinds of either “-ism” or “-phobia” depending on the inference and the audience.

And how the “audience” infers the motives of the person making the inference.  The social legitimacy for people in specific categories to make  judgements is not symmetrical. Only certain kinds of individuals, for example, are permitted to make specific “-ism” charges. Only certain kinds of individuals, to extend this, are vulnerable to specific “-ism” charges.

That being said we can continue with the exercise.

In the last few years we have been exposed to the phrase “check your privilege”. There are many ways to be privileged. There is also the growing suspicion that the idea of “unearned privilege” may be an application of “partial rationality” because if all “unearned privileges” were simultaneously abolished the resulting set of social relationships would have no history, no path to the future, no plan for progress, and would therefore be an evolutionary dead-end.

The Appendix this post is long. It is the Index (scanned and tidied up reasonably well) to a book which is a veritable litany of all the kinds of “unearned privilege” and many of the groups which have arisen to combat them.

What examining the index allows us to do is gauge not only what is there but what is not there. We can see not only what kind of world the author is trying to build but also the kinds of themes which are sufficiently peripheral or marginal as to require either not mention at all or only negative depictions.

It is not fair, of course, to find fault with the book that was not written.  It is unreasonable to attack a book on poetry for its insufficient discussion of world economics.

What is fair is to examine a book advocating thoroughgoing social change and massive challenges to the existing social order with three questions: (a)where do you want to go? what kind of world do you want to build? (b)how can we get there from here? how long will this journey take and at what cost and who will bear the cost and who will benefit? (c)once this promised land is achieved will it be stable? will human beings as we know them to be through the scientific study of evolution and psychology be able to sustain this kind of society?

Two of the items missing from Pease’s index are “children” and “parents”.  Despite the frequent appeals to moral outrage there is no discussion at all of “ethics” or the need for education of the young (those missing children) into the habits of virtue.  White people are never the victims of racism. Men are never the victims of sexism. While “homophobia” is mentioned no hint to the possibility of “heterophobia” can be found. (My spell checker has put a red underline beneath “heterophobia” but not “homophobia”. No surprise.) Anti-Islamic views are in the index. Anti-Christian views are not there.

The lack of any kind of historical perspective prevents us from asking about any patterns of imperialism, colonialism, or hostility to outsiders other than that shown by White Europeans.

The subtitle of the book is “Unearned Advantage in a Divided World”. This obviously leads to the question of what an “earned advantage” might be. It also dovetails with the question of the missing “family” idea. The word “family” only shows up in the book as the name of the Dulwich Family Centre. What a “family” is does not factor into any analysis in this book despite the fact that some “privileges” are “inherited” because they were “earned” by the parents and the children inherited them.

Words such as “property” and “inheritance” as well as “culture” are missing.  Patriarchy is prominent but matriarchy is likewise absent.

Is this book in any way an attempt to describe a single “better world” to which we might aspire to travel? Or is it just a shopping list of grievances rooted in emotion, devoid of ethical coherence, and fully resistant to logical reconciliation?

I could go on. But I’ll let the Index speak for itself.  The overarching questions relate to what terms are not defined, what relationships not examined, and  what possible future scenarios are not entertained. The “margins” of the narrative tell us as much by what is excluded as what is kept in.

APPENDIX

Index

able-bodied gaze, 161

able-bodied privilege, 143-4; construction of, 157-60

able-bodied/disabled binary, 160

able-bodiedness: compulsory, 161; normativity of, 158; privileges of, 158-9; temporary, 160

ableism, xi, 149-65; challenging of, 163-4; cultural construction of, 155-7; definition of, 156; studies in, 158

Aboriginal people, 108,122-3

academics, privilege of, 32

accountability, models of, 182-3

additive analyses, 19-20

affluenza, 49

African experience, validation of, 54-6

Afrocentricity, 55-6

ageism, 155

aggression advantage, 88

aid, alternative to, 48

allies of oppressed groups, 180

anger, constructive use of, 186

anti-colonialism, 52-4,58

anti-gay attitudes, 133-4,138

anti-globalisation struggles, 6o

anti-Islamic views, 45

anti-oppressive theory, critique of, 21-4

anti-racism, 5, 125,127

Australia: Aboriginal reconciliation in, 114; discussion of whiteness in, 115; labour movement in, 68

Australian Association of Social Workers, 112

beauty, cultural views of, 151

black nationalism, 169

black women, 55

bodily normativity, 159

body: as form of social currency,  159-60; interest in, 150; multiplicity and fluidity of bodies, 164

Bourdieu, P., 26-7, 65

Bush, George, 45

capitalism, and class division, 118

caste, 52-3

class, 79-81, 143; concept of, marginalised, 69, 70, 71; construction of, 65; constructs identities, 85; impact of, on women’s lives, 19; intersectionality of, 79; marginalisation of concept of, 65; non-fluidity of, 69; personal narrative of, 6z-4; theorising of, 64-5

class analysis, reinvigoration of, 83

class-based oppression, 81-3

class consciousness: critical, 63-4; negative, 72

class elitism, 62-85

class mobility, 64

class privilege, benefits of, 77

class relations, challenging of, 70

classism, 81-3; meanings of, 82

coalitions, against oppression and privilege, 181-2

cognitive justice, 51

colonialism, 51,52,53, 54; research as part of, 57

colour blindness,

conscientisation, collective, 187

consciousness, individual, changing of, 170

consumption: conspicuous, 49-51; in North, reduction of, 50

corporate accountability, 61

critical psychology, ix

critical reference groups, 183

critical sociology, ix

222 Index

cross-class alliances, 78-9

cultural capital, 65

cultural competence, iii

cultural institutions controlled by men, 99

cultural studies approach, 64

decentring of Westerners, 59

decolonisation, 44, 48, 51, 60; of methodologies, 58

democratic manhood, 107

development, poverty of, 46-9

dialogue: across difference and inequality, 176-8; right to, 177

difference, 71; devaluation of, 13; in coalitions, AI; listening across, 178-9; seen as essential, 14

disability: as product of capitalist relations, 152; defining of, 152; fear of, 162.; feminist writings on, 154; gendered nature of, 154; intersectionality of, 154-5; seen as personal failing, 150; social model of, 151-4,157,164; tragedy model of, 152, 1624 use of term non-disabled, 160

disability awareness programmes, 164

disability people’s movement, 153

disability studies, 144, 158, 164

disabled people: non-homogeneity of, 154; use of term, 152

disablism: aversive, 156; challenge to, 164; cultural construction of, 155-7; definition of, 155-6

discrimination, concept of, 4

distribution, politics of, 84

diversity awareness, 111-12

diversity industry, 112

division of labour, in family, 98, 1o6

dominance: challenging of, xi; doing of, 33-5; internalisation of, 25-7, 76-8; Northern, 58-9; reproduction of, 7

domination: definition of, 26; matrix of, 21; relations of, 3-16

Dulwich Family Therapy Centre (Adelaide), 183, 186

ecological footprint, 49-50

ecosystem, destruction of, 50

Ehrenreich, Barbara, Fear of Falling…, 74

elite, concept of, 3, 7

elite domination, approval of, 7-8

elite studies, vii, 7-9

elitism, compatibility with democracy, 8

emancipatory interests, development of, 174^–5

emancipatory participatory action research, 183

embodiment of privilege, 149-65

entitlement: discourse of, 95-7; sense of, 15-16

epistemicide, 51

epistemological humility, 60

epistemological imperialism, 12.8

epistemological multiversity, 60

epistemological privilege, 5I-2

equal rights, and gay politics, I41-2

equalisation of incomes, 106

ethical listening, 179

ethical resistance, 174

ethnocentrism, 42, 53

Eurocentrism, 39-61; moving beyond, 43-4; term questioned, 44

fair trade, 60

false consciousness, 5

Family Centre (New Zealand), 182-3

feminine, denial of, 92

feminism, vii-viii, 19, 22, 71, 79, 80, 86, 106-7, 125, 139, 145, 158, 169, 179; black, 19; critique of, 18; engagement with psychoanalytic theory, 92; lesbian, 140; men’s support for, 29; postcolonial, 18; radical, 17-18, 80; second-wave, 5, 86; support for, 6

feminist standpoint theory, 27-31

fitness, preoccupation with, 120

foreign aid, question of effectiveness of, 47-8

Fraser, N., 24^–5

gay constructivism, 12.9

gay essentialism, 129

gay liberation, 5, 169

gay marriage, 140-1

gay politics, 140-2

gay rights, 147

gay theory, 12.9

gender, 54, 106,118 143; as code word for women, 13; intersectionality with whiteness, 117

gender difference, 87-90

gender domination, 24, 139-40

gender equality, 107

gender order, 86-107; theorisation of, 97-100

gender role beliefs, 142

gender studies, 87

gendering, of class, 79-81

globalisation, 57; challenge to, 60

greenhouse emissions, reduction of, 50

habitus, concept of, 26-7

health and appearance, as obsession, 150

hegemonic consciousness, 22

heteronormativity, 24, 136, 146

heteroprivilege, 128-48

heterosexism, 24, 134, 155

heterosexism awareness, 144; training workshops, 144

heterosexual privilege, 137-9

heterosexual/homosexual binary, 140-1,144

heterosexuality, xi, 34, 81, 99,

178; advantages accruing to, 137; and gender domination, 139-40; and masculinity, 142-3; compulsory, 136, 139, 143, 144; concept of, recent invention of, 131; construction of, 130-3; critique of, 141; deconstruction of, 12.8; destabilising of, 144; institutionalised, 128-48; intersectionality of, 143-4; non-homogeneity of category, 138; normalisation of, 130-I; pluralising of, 146; privileges of, 148; queering of, 146-8; reconstructing of, 106, 145-6; theorising of, 129-30

Index 223

heterosexuality questionnaire, 132-3

hierarchy, perceived naturalness of, 14

Hill-Collins, Patricia, 19, 21

homo-hatred, 135

homophobia, x, 6, 13, 17, 23, 55, 128, ¹33^–4, 135, 142, 143, 144, 146, 152; among black people, 22; internalisation of, 5

homosexuality: construction of, 130, 140; natural, 129; regulation of, 130

housework: division of, 106; men’s participation in, 86, 91

identities, multiple, 181

identity, 71; in communal space, 54

identity politics, 18, 72

ideological hegemony, 5

ideological justifications for social orders, 185

Ignatieff, Noel, 120

illness, seen as personal failing, 150

impairment, 156, 160; definition of, 153-4; fluctuating experience of, 160

imperial knowledge, 42

imperialism, 46, 57; concept of, 39-40

indigenous knowledge, 56-8

inequality: costs of, 3; in world systems theory, 39; legitimation of, 4; mobilisation against, 7; naturalness of, 14-15; responsibility for, 171

International Monetary Fund (IMF), 40, 48, 49

intersectionality, xi, 18-24, 186; in construction of African identity, 56; of class, 79; of disability, 154-5; of privilege, 35; whiteness and, 117-19

Jefferson, Thomas,x

Johnson, A., 137

Kimmel, Michael, 184^–5

knowledge, ecology of, 51

knowledge systems, diversity in, 51

224 Index

Latham, Mark, 68

listening, 180; as condition of democracy, 179

local knowledge, promotion of, 44

male crisis discourse, 103-4

male domination, 17-18

male entitlement, 104; internalisation of, 92

male privilege see privilege,

male male violence, 9, 15, 31, 86, 89, 90, 96, 98; prevention of, 183

marginalised, role of, 5

Marx, Karl, 73

Marxism, 17-18, 24, 26, 28, 53, 55, 56, 64^–5, 66^–7, 73, 75, 79, 80, 84, 92, 118, 143, 169

masculinity, 85-107, 142-3; complicit, 89-90; costs of, 103; dimensions of, 88; hegemonic, 89 (unlearning of, 119); hierarchy of, 90; institutionalised, 88; non-Western, 102; research, internationalization of, 102; social construction of, 87-90; straight queer, 147-8

masculinity studies, white Western bias in, 59

May-Machunda, P., 158

McIntosh, Peggy, 9, II, 77, 116-17

men: as agents of women’s oppression, 80-1; coalitions with feminist women, 181-2; deny reality of privilege, 102; natural entitlement of, 15; profeminist, 178, 180; resistance to change, 104-5; social divisions among, 101-3

Men Against Sexual Assault (MASA), 180, 182

men’s groups, 86

meritocracy, myth of, 67-70

Messerschmidt, J., 33

micro-enterprise lending, 60

middle class: activism of, 72, 78; black, 79; concept of, 67-8; new, 73; privilege of, 76-8; radicalism of, 75

Mills, C. Wright, 7-8

missionaries, 55

modernisation, 41, 46, 47

multi-issue coalitions, 169

negative identity, construction of, 175

neo-liberalism, 39

neo-Marxism, 53

new social movements, 71, 72

non-disablement, pathology of, 161-3

normal, politics of, 141

North, division and inequality in, 61

Occidentalism, 45

oppositional consciousness, 5; differential, 6

oppression, 3-16; challenging of, 172; class-based, not discussed in US, 66; complicity in, 186; consequences of, 82; elimination of, 170; interlocking, 34; internalisation of, 5; non-class, 79; personal experience of, 173; racial, 56; reproduction of, 4; responsibility for, 171; self-identification as oppressed, 186; single cause theories of, 17-18; social construction of, 84; strategies for challenging of, 169; theories of, 83

oppressor, concept of, 171

Orientalism, 44^–5

othering, process of, 13

partnership model of social organisation, 185-6

patriarchal dividend, 86-107, 117

patriarchy, 6, 20, 30, 81, 88, 92, 93, 145; and control, 96; and systemic domination, 93-5; challenge to, 107; critique of, 105

patriarchy awareness workshops, 86, 180, 182

Peavey, F., 179

pedagogy of the privileged, 171-4

phallocentrism, 93, 95

physical capital, 151

physical difference, fear of, 162

political economy, 62-85

positionality, viii, 27^–31, 39, 40, 58, 62, 109, 147, 149, 176, 186; of the privileged, 177

post-Marxism, 71

postcolonial studies, 52-4

poststructuralism, 53

poverty, vi; link to affluence in West, 49; reduction of, 48

privilege, x, 3-16, 176; able-bodied, 143-4 (construction of, 157-60); access to, 21-22; accompanied by oppression, 23; advantages of, 9; and positionality, 27-31; and sense of entitlement, 15-16; appropriated, 26; as function of power, 7; as structured action, 33-5; challenging of, xii, 184, 185, 187; concept of, 7; damaging effects of, 174; defence of, 28; education about, 172; embodiment of, 149-65; emotions associated with, 123; epistemological, 51-2; generation of, 6; globalising of, 40-1; heterosexual, 137-9, 178; historically specific, 20; institutionalisation of, 170; internalisation of, 25-7; investigation of, 35; invisibility of, 6, 9-12; male, vi, 27, 86, 200-1, 155, 175, 178; middle-class, 76-8; moral humility required, 178, 179; naturalisation of, 12-15 (challenging of, 170-1); of academics, 32; of activists, 172; of class, 83 (benefits of, 77); of men (consequences of, 103-4; theorising of, 90-3); of silence, 31; outside speakers for, 30; personal, interrogation of, 32; relinquishing of, 27, 183-5; reproduction of, challenged from within, 169; requires recognition, 115; social construction of, 14; social dynamics of, 17-35; strategies for challenging of, 169; to be made visible, 4; Western, 49; white, 43, 100, 111 (complexity of, 127); recognition of, 115-17; rejection of, 121,relinquishing of, vii, ix, 122; resistance to change, 123-4) see also pedagogy of the privileged

Index 225

professional work, proletarianisation of, 75-6

professionals, 64: class politics of, 62; contradictory class location of, 74; hybrid identity of, 76; in service occupations, 75; politics of, 72-6; theorisation of, 73

proletariat, as force for political change, 62

pronouns, reflecting power relations, viii

queer theory, 140-I, 144

queering, of heterosexuality, 146-8

race: as ‘other’, 111-12; impact on women’s lives, 19; invisibility of, 10; social construction of, 108; theory of, 71

race cognisance, 113

race relations, teaching of, 112

race theory, critical, 117

race to innocence, II, 173

race traitor, 120 see also traitorous identities

racial formations, 108-27

racialised gaze, 114-15

racialising of class, 79-81

racism, 6, II, 13, 20, 22, 79, 108, 109, 155; as prejudice, 109-10; as prejudice plus power, 111; aversive, 111; experience of, 126-7; institutionalised, 127; levels of, 121; see also anti-racism

radical scholars, challenge to, 32

recognition, politics of, 84

reconciliation circles (Australia), 186

redistribution, theory of, 24^–5

relations of ruling, 170

research epistemologies, critique of, 57

respectability, as normative standard, 77

revolutionary force, 62

Rich, Adrienne, 139

Rochlin, Martin, 132

Rudd, Kevin, 115, 122-3

226 Index

Said, Edward, Orientalism, 44-6

self-interest, 174-5

Sennett, Richard, and Jonathan Cobb, The Hidden Injuries of Class, 63

sexism, vi, II, 13, 17, 23, 55, 93; and coercive control, 95-7; use of term, 4

silence, privilege of, 31

slavery, abolition of, x

social dominance orientation, 28

social mobility, 67-70, 78

social sciences, perceived as universal, 58

social theory, ethnocentricity of, 58

social work, professional imperialism in, 57

social workers: as working middle class, 74-5; code of ethics for, 112

socialism, 66-7

Southern theory, 58-9

speaking for others, 30

stratification theory, 64

subaltern studies, 52; impact of, 53

subjectivity: different understanding of, 56; reconstruction of, 184

subsidies, agricultural, 48

symmetrical reciprocity, 178

third way approach, 68

traitorous identities, 29-30; construction of, 175-6

transnational capital, 39

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), fall of, 66

unionisation, 76

unmarked status,10

‘untouchables’, in India, 52.

victims, blaming of, 5

violence, male see male violence

wealth, inequality of, 46

Weber, Max, 64, 73

Weinberg, George, Society and the Healthy Homosexual, 133

West: as divided entity, 46; challenge to supremacy of, 42-3; idea of, 41; opposed to Orient, 45; seen as pioneering modern world, 42

Western dominance, 39-61

Western model of progress, 47

Western social work: challenge to, 57; models of, 55

white identity, autonomous, 119

white man’s burden, 48

white supremacy, 108-2.7

whiteliness, 121

whiteness: and intersectionality, 117-19; as invisible norm, 113; as privilege, 109, 125; connected to Western dominance, 43; critical, 114; defence of, 123-4; diversity within, 118; doing and undoing of, 12.0-2; internalisation of, 121; intersectionality with heterosexuality, 143-4; list of advantages of, 116; mediated by gender, 118; politics of, 124-6; positive identity of, 120; recognition of privilege of, 115-17; relation with heterosexuality, 143; theorisation of, 115; transforming of, 119-2.0; visibility of, 112-15 see also privilege, white

whiteness studies, 113, 12.4-5

Wittig, Monique, The Straight Mind, 139

women: autonomy of, 106; earnings of, 98-9; experience of oppression, 79-81; notion of privilege of, 23; struggles of, in USA, x; subordination of, 97;  white, privilege of, 18;  working-class, 82

working class, 83; living conditions of, 69; new, 73; radicalism of, decline of, 70; white, and racism, 119

World Bank, 40, 48, 49

World Social Forum, 25, 61

world travelling, 60, 176

youth, eternal, fantasy of, 162

Luck: An Observation. Of Traffic Accidents and Colonialism.

A traffic accident does not usually make national or world news unless it is unusually violent. This is the case regarding the accident near Toronto, Canada in which a driver in one car hit another killing a grandfather and his three grandchildren while sending the grandmother and great-grandmother to hospital.

The collision is said to have taken place at right-angles.

Allowing for the two vehicles to be the size of a normal SUV, and also allowing for a speed of about 100 kph, we can reasonably estimate a “time window” for the collision of three seconds.

If either vehicle had gotten to the intersection five seconds earlier or later than the other then four people would not be dead, two would not be in hospital, and one would not be facing 18 criminal charges.

Luck. Fortune. Fate.

Despite the “luck” factor in this accident, the driver will face serious punishment no doubt including incarceration.  Justice demands he suffer because the means for avoiding this event were his. He had broken some laws regarding speed and alcohol consumption and he will suffer the full brunt of the retribution.

But sometimes what we call “luck” relates to how we are born. The driver who killed four people was “lucky” to be born into a family with a net worth well over $1 billion.  Such luck did not excuse him from adhering to the laws of the society in which he lived.

Just because he was lucky enough to be born into material wealth did not mean he was exempt from other laws and conditions in his society.

Luck, though, is never really meaningfully discussed or analysed. Being lucky in the selection of one’s ancestors does not allow us to do as we please otherwise.

What about being unlucky?

If someone is unlucky enough to have been born in Pakistan or Afghanistan or Iraq or Mexico does that make it legal or moral to rectify the situation by illegally entering another country? What if that action materially diminishes the standard of living and life chances of least advantaged “aboriginal” members of the host society? Is it just “their bad luck”?

As we consider the idea of “luck” and then consider it further in the two contexts of a local traffic accident which directly effects a few families and major demographic shifts which could have historical significance for untold future generations we confront the limitations of our own ways of understanding.

We effortlessly and unconsciously shift our “interpretive schemes” from one “partially rational worldview” to another.

We place boundaries on which facts will be allowed, which disallowed, and what moral codes involved in making the determination of “appropriateness” in response.

We use the same words. With different meanings.

Chaos theory reminds us that even minor changes to the “initial conditions” can lead to massively different outcomes.

A five second delay can spare two families untold grief. Some ill-chosen words can lead to a continent in flames.

Where is the boundary which separates luck from prudence?

Artificial Apologies and Partial Rationalities

Not long ago someone use the Google “Photos” app to use artificial intelligence to go through a large number of photos and classify them automatically. Anyone who has taken hundreds of photos can appreciate the temptation to let someone (or something) else look after the sorting-out.

Most of the classifications were fairly predictable. One of them caused Google to issue a sincere apology for the unintended racism of the category applied to one photo.

“We’re appalled and genuinely sorry that this happened”

Google apologises for Photos app’s racist blunder – BBC News

Elsewhere in the story we learn the app sometimes classified dogs as horses. No doubt other errors also appear on a regular basis.

Anyone familiar with writing computer programs or the idea of fuzzy logic can appreciate the general problem.

Consider this example. On a scale of “1” to “4” for “birdness” (i.e. how good an example of a bird is this creature?) rate: chickens, bats, eagles, puffins, emus, ….

Bats?

Bats are not birds but a significant number of people will rank them with a “5”. Just outside the “bird” boundary. Why? Since they fly with wings and so do most birds the ranking illustrates the proximity of “bats” to the general category of “birds” along the crucial dimension of being able to fly.

The dimensions used in the classification process plus the precision with which each dimension is represented is the basis of being “correct” or “incorrect”.

In this case the software got the “primate” part correct but after that it did not get the type of primate correct.

What is really interesting here is not whether the person who wrote the software should get at least a B+ (but obviously not an A+) for the effort.

It’s the apology. It’s about “being sorry” for something which neither involves any kind of intentionality on the part of the person making the statement nor even any realistic chance the person offering the apology had any way of averting the event. It’s even about how to classify something as “racism” — a socially constructed term with ethical connotations — instead of a “classification error” as it relates to image processing software. In other words: “causality”.

It’s also about identity, individuality, group membership, and collective guilt.

And luck.

Everyone presently alive exists because their ancestors survived. Some of those ancestors were possibly saints while others were possibly psychopathic monsters. Each of the ancestors shaped the trajectory of history in such a way as to allow all of us to be here today. In legal doctrine there is a concept known as “the fruit of a poisoned tree”. It means evidence which is collected illegally cannot be used in court.

But what about the seeds of the fruit of the seeds of the fruit of the poisoned tree?

Are the children of war criminals guilty of war crimes? The grandchildren? Do we have to wait for ten generations?

And what about the rest of the people: those whose psychopathic monster ancestors have not yet been identified by the descendants of their victims?

It’s very difficult to discuss these ideas with examples which directly relate to present-day allegations of collective guilt, collective entitlement, collective identity, and each individual’s sense of self.

These matters often arise in the discussion of matters concerning preferential policies for hiring, promotion, and other forms of “restorative justice” when various social engineering devices are introduced in order to correct in the present injustices which happened in the past.

The counter-arguments normally involve claiming that those who get the benefits did not suffer the original injustice while those paying the price did not commit the original misdeeds. Victimhood gets inherited by one individual through the means of cultural transmission while guilt is inherited by others. In these cases it is clear that the concept of “culture” is assumed to be very real indeed.

It is interesting to notice how “cultural inheritance” arguments are considered gauche or invalid when discussing jihadis.

Which brings up the underlying feature of this episode. It yields yet more examples for “locally rational” or “partially rational” worldviews.

The major aspects of the worldviews will be the point of view of the individual who holds it, the dimensions and boundaries for the worldview, and the various statuses and classifications for those entities and processes which make the worldview function.

The narrator of the worldview may be speaking for individual or collective advantage, the general purpose of the narrative is either to enhance or diminish an idea or the identity of another, and the means for doing this can be emotional, logical, or the introduction of things purporting to be historical facts.

Recalling Aristotle’s categories for Rhetoric, these are appeals to emotion, appeals to tribal or ethnic values or advantage, and appeals to the more objective ideals of “logic and evidence”.

Thus we can have a Google executive classify a software glitch as “racism”.

Or we can have 25-year-old members of Culture A demanding apologies from 25-year-old members of Culture B for events which took place 75 years ago. And maybe they need to do this in order to maintain the respective traditions of both of their cultures.

Maybe it’s not “rational” for some cultures to mingle with others.

Maybe it’s easier for us to discuss these topics when the substantive details are furnished by software errors and science fiction stories.