Category Archives: everything else

This category means, “I didn’t know where to put this post.”

Beyond Carl Jung

Carl Jung first introduced his ideas about the collective unconscious in the early part of the twentieth century. Since then, terms have been commonplace: collective unconscious, archetype, shadow, and symbol. We think we know what they mean, and we use them in a variety of contexts, from science to spirituality to art. But they’ve shifted. When I went back through and looked at works of Jung that I had read decades earlier, they were not the same as what I remembered. My memories of Jung’s ideas are instead their children, nourished by my own thoughts and the works of others: Joseph Campbell, Ursula K. LeGuin, Gloria Anzaldúa, and many more. For me, his ideas were also a bridge to understanding the power and wisdom behind non-Western philosophies and ways of knowing.

Jung was a Westerner, but nonwestern communities shaped his way of thinking about spirituality. He had experience with the religion of his birth, Christianity, but he went deliberately beyond it to see how other peoples in other places experienced the unconscious. Was it the same with all peoples? Over the years, Jung traveled all over Africa, to India, and to the United States. He spoke with people from all those places–for example, the Elgonyi in Uganda, and the First Nations Pueblo people in New Mexico. He did view it through a colonizer’s lens, and he never overcame the deep racism of mistaking nonwestern peoples as “primitive.” All the same, he gained a depth of knowledge of the human psyche, and this knowledge now belongs to everybody.

As he studied indigenous peoples, so now, indigenous people are studying him and using his work. Here, for example, is an ongoing research study that builds off his work, co-designed with and benefiting indigenous people in Australia: Recasting Jung Through an Indigenist Approach to Deepen Shared Knowledges of Well-being and Healing on Australian Soils: Protocol for a Qualitative Landscape Research Study. I found it online while searching for modern-day research involving Jung, so I don’t know anything about it besides what’s on the website.

The background of the study is that “The colonization of Australia is responsible for complex layers of trauma for the First Nations peoples of the continent. First Nations Australians’ well-being is irrevocably tied to the well-being of the land.”

(No kidding! Actually, everyone’s well-being is irrevocably tied to the well-being of the planet. Western science has only recently noticed.)

The study is a “landscape-based approach to collaborative research” and is “tied to First Nations Australians’ worldviews of landscape.” The research team comprises two First Nations and three non-First Nations researchers, and care has been taken to ensure that First Nations peoples have control over the research collection, cultural safety, and ownership of the results.

Jung’s theories inform the study but they are also challenged, and the overall approach is Indigenist. “The Jungian framework is used for developing connections and research concepts between First Nations and non-First Nations Australians through Jung’s understanding of the importance of meaning-making, spirituality, storytelling, and symbolism to human psychological well-being.” My takeaway is that it provides for a culturally appropriate common frame of reference.

Ultimately, the aims of the project are “to deepen shared knowledges of well-being and healing on Australian soils,” “to deepen the theory underpinning the project,” to build “meaningful and reciprocal connections with First Nations Australians,” and to use those connections to collaboratively develop future research. I’m intrigued and hopeful that the research will fulfill its goals.

I’m also looking forward to seeing new theory being developed. History keeps moving, and so must we.

Revisiting Carl Jung, Part 6: Hope

In 1961, Jung wrote a letter to a man named Bill W. You mighta heard of him. In it, he said:

“I am strongly convinced that the evil principle prevailing in this world, leads the unrecognized spiritual need into perdition, if it is not counteracted either by a real religious insight or by the protective wall of human community. An ordinary man, not protected by an action from above and isolated in society cannot resist the power of evil, which is called very aptly the Devil. But the use of such words arouse so many mistakes that one can only keep aloof from them as much as possible.”

In his writings, Jung constantly struggled to explain his religious beliefs. He knew for a certainty that God existed. But what is the nature of God? Is it a Christian God? Yes and no. Yes, because Christianity is the religion he was raised with. All the images and ideas from Christianity showed up in his own unconscious. And no, because he had been exposed to many religions and respected them all:

“As may be seen, I attribute a positive value to all religions. In their symbolism I recognize those figures which I have met with in the dreams and fantasies of my patients. In their moral teachings I see efforts that are the same as or similar to those made by my patients, when guided by their own insight or inspiration, they seek the right way of dealing with the forces of the inner life. Ceremonial, ritual, initiation rites and ascetic practices, in all their forms and variations, interest me profoundly as so many techniques for bringing about a proper relation to these forces.” (Modern Man in Search of a Soul, p. 119)

He believed in God, but not a particular God. Call it a “Higher Power,” if you will. And the Higher Power is the antidote to addiction. He used the phrase “spiritus contra spiritum,” meaning “spirit against spirit.” You see, Jung’s ideas had greatly influenced the birth of Alcoholics Anonymous, both from his book Modern Man in Search of a Soul and from a patient of Jung’s, Rowland H. Jung’s gift to Rowland H., after a year of psychoanalysis, was to admit that modern medicine could not cure him, but that religious experience had helped some sufferers. Rowland went to an evangelical organization, the Oxford Group, where he along with others were cured by an early version of the 12-step program. In 1961, Bill W. wrote to Jung with appreciation for his influence.

A wooden staircase in a forest.
Wooden Staircase in South Korea. Basile Morin, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

By himself, Carl Jung could not possibly have founded Alcoholics Anonymous. He centered the individual patient. But he understood that limitation and had the humility to tell a patient, “I’m not capable of treating you.” And so a community-based religious practice was birthed. Alcoholics Anonymous is a mutual aid organization based on interfaith. It came out of Christianity, but it didn’t stop and draw a line or count how many angels could fit on the head of a pin.

I said this post was about hope, and right now I do have hope that the resistance movement can embrace not only community but also divinity. Not from any specific deity, but from the religious experience and expression of every culture.

Even — or especially — the ones that Jung mistook for “primitive.” Nonwestern, indigenous, and diaspora religions all have wisdom to share if we will listen. To me, “listening” means looking inward, and also looking outward, and seeing the connections between the two. It means approaching other cultures with my imperfections, in a neighborly sense.

I feel comfortable here. I feel like I can breathe and dance. Could I have gotten here without Jung? Perhaps. He “discovered” the unconscious in the same way that Columbus “discovered” America. Other people had already found it and were living there. But he opened a door, and I went through.

May we all find our doors, and once we do, may we know where to go. Solidarity.

This is the end of my series on “Revisiting Carl Jung.” I have another post in mind, “Beyond Jung,” but first I will take a brain break and do some signal boosts on my blog. The full series is here:

A Digression from Jung: FROGS!

A digression from my series of posts on revisiting Carl Jung, which begins here.

Posted October 17, 2025, updated October 21st.

What’s up with all the inflatable frogs in Portland? Just a bit of silliness? Federal troops went there looking for trouble, and I was pretty worried somebody would give the president a photo op. Would protesters resort to violence, or would they do the energy-draining “everybody sit down in the street” nonviolence? Those were the two choices. Violent or nonviolent. A binary. I was absolutely not expecting amphibians. And yet, here we are.

The frog is a trickster figure. Tricksters, found in every culture everywhere, transgress social norms, cross boundaries, and pass effortlessly from one realm to another. They’re archetypes, part of our human psyche. Raven, Anansi, Loki, Bugs Bunny — all Tricksters. Tricksters create an opening, a possibility, the freedom to choose.

What borders do the inflatable frogs cross? They violate stereotypes of protestors. They cross the human/animal divide, and also the adult/child divide. When ICE agents are zip-typing children and separating them from their families, they are destroying childhood.

The Trickster is also a part of the Shadow. Although the Shadow is generally understood as “evil” or “inferior,” it instead refers to all the parts of the psyche that the conscious mind represses. It’s everything that we tried not to know about ourselves. For anyone working hard on a fascist persona, like the ICE agents, a symbol of childhood and silliness is exactly that. To misquote a favorite radio show of mine, “Who knows what silliness lurks in the hearts of men? The shadow knows!”

Maybe I’ll go to the No Kings March tomorrow dressed as the TARDIS. She’s a trickster too, passing through realms, transgressing time. Before the frogs happened, I wouldn’t have considered this costume an option. But a door was opened. A possibility created. We can demonstrate with our whole selves.

Coincidentally, or prophetically, I played with frogs at the 2017 Womxn’s March. After we got tired of marching, our family headed off to a cafe, where a group had left behind a bunch of cards, just the right size to make paper frogs, which we promptly did. So the featured image for this post reads, “Socialism or barbarism OR FROGS!”

A table with five red cards. One reads SOCIALISM OR BARBARISM and the remaining text has been obscured by another piece of paper reading OR FROGS! This card is surrounded by four cards folded into paper frogs.

I choose frogs.

P.S. from October 21st, 2025. Seven million people protesting, and not a single one of them arrested. Why?

Was it the frogs?

Revisiting Carl Jung, Part 5: A Warning

Carl Jung lived through some terrible times: the First World War, the rise of fascism, the Second World War, the Holocaust. . . . By 1959 the world had entered the perilous age we still inhabit, a time when humanity can annihilate itself with the touch of a button. (Side note: let’s not.) He saw the world materially but also through dreams–his own and those of his patients. This is the year he published the book The Undiscovered Self. He asked:

“What will the future bring? From time immemorial this question has occupied men’s minds . . . Historically, it is chiefly in times of physical, political, economic and spiritual distress that men’s eyes turn with anxious hope to the future, and when anticipations, utopias and apocalyptic visions multiply. . . . Today, as the end of the second millenium draws near, we are again living in an age filled with apocalyptic images of universal destruction. What is the significance of that split, symbolized by the ‘Iron Curtain,’ which divides humanity into two halves? What will become of our civilization, or of man himself, if the hydrogen bombs begin to go off, or if the spiritual and moral darkness of State absolutism should spread over Europe?” (11-12)

Neither of those fears has come to pass, not yet. What happened instead was a flowering of collective liberation movements. Already, in 1956, Martin Luther King had spread the idea of a “Beloved Community.” This was seven years before his famous “I have a Dream” speech. A new age was beginning.

But what is the age we live in now? How have we been impacted by our increasing global connectedness, the Internet, A.I., climate change, and the increasing concentration of wealth and power into a few hands? What will the future bring? Carl Jung’s words speak also to our time. He proposes that our ideas, which come from our primordial psyche, are not quite up to the task.

“Human knowledge consists essentially in the constant adaptation of the primordial patterns of ideas that were given us a priori. These need certain modifications, because, in their original form, they are suited to an archaic mode of life but not to the demands of a specifically differentiated environment. If the flow of instinctive dynamism into our life is to be maintained, as is absolutely necessary for our existence, then it is imperative that we remold these archetypal forms into ideas which are adequate to the challenges of the present.

“Our ideas have, however, the unfortunate but inevitable tendency to lag behind the changes in the total situation. . . Only when conditions have altered so drastically that there is an unendurable rift between the outer situation and our ideas, now become antiquated, does the general problem of our Weltanschauung, our philosophy of life, arise, and with it the question of how the primordial images that maintain the flow of instinctive energy are to be reoriented or readapted.” (82-83)

What is our philosophy of life now, in the United States, in 2025? We don’t have one, we have many. We are and have always been multicultural. But two diametrically opposed philosophies have come to attention in the political realm: Christian nationalism, which worships the American Flag, and on the other hand a stubborn rationalism that worships Facts like climate change and vaccine effectiveness and expects the other side to do the same. Neither of those will save us.

Facts are great if you can find them. Most people, though, are wandering around the wilderness of the human psyche without a guide. Listen: what are facts? Look around you. You’re in a room. What can you see? What can you hear? I see a computer monitor, a stack of papers, a green curtain blowing. I don’t see a shelf full of books. That’s behind me, and so it exists only in my imagination. If I turn around I will find a book of poetry, Sound and Sense, right where I expect to find it, because I found it there the last time. Yep, there it is. One shelf lower than what I expected, but close enough. Physical reality matched my expectations. I found my Fact.

Let’s go over this again. Everything outside our direct sensory experience, even memory, we perceive through our imagination.

Today, the day I’m beginning this post, is October 6, 2025. Federal troops have been deployed to the city of Portland because the U.S. President was shown a video of protests from 2020. The Fact of the matter is that before the deployment, Portland was just as peaceful as any other city, with people walking to work and coffee shops and bookstores. But any image of Portland is a “psychic event,” which to the mind is just as real as any Fact.

*

We interrupt this regularly scheduled October 6th post with a note from the future. By October 17th, ICE agents have been confronted with protestors wearing inflatable frog suits. Wait, what? Stay tuned.

*

In the age of social media, of virtual reality, of TikTok, of AI, humanity has become alarmingly disconnected from both the material world. I suspect this will get worse before it gets better.

Humanity is also disconnected from its inner life, as Carl Jung notes, and cannot see its collective shadow. It therefore takes its own evil and projects it onto “the other.” Here’s a zinger:

“The horror which the dictator States have of late brought upon mankind is nothing less than the culmination of all those atrocities of which our ancestors made themselves guilty in the not so distant past. Quite apart from the barbarities and blood baths perpetrated by the Christian nations among themselves throughout European history, the European has also to answer for all the crimes he has committed against the dark-skinned people during the process of colonization.” (107)

I want to say, “Yeah, that’s not me. I’m nice. I’m one of the good guys!” Jung has a response to that, however:

“Since it is universally believed that man is merely what consciousness believes of itself, he regards himself as harmless and so adds stupidity to iniquity. He does not deny that terrible things have happened and go on happening, but it is always ‘the others’ who do them.” (107-108)

In other words, people project our own inclination to evil, our shadow, onto others. And then hurt them. It’s a terrible vicious cycle that can only be stopped if it is understood. “[O]nly the fool can permanently neglect the conditions of his own nature. In fact, this negligence is the best means of making him an instrument of evil.” (109)

When we project our shadow onto others, that disrupts our ability to create these bonds. But on the other hand, self-knowledge, the knowledge of our imperfections, forms the basis of human relationships.

“Recognition of the shadow, on the other hand, leads to the modesty we need in order to acknowledge imperfection. And it is just this conscious recognition and consideration that are needed wherever a human relationship is to be established. (116)

From there, he leads into a vision that corresponds to Martin Luther King’s Beloved Community: “[T]he free society needs a bond of an affective nature, a principle of a kind like caritas, the Christian love of your neighbor.” (117)

I found the end of the book unsatisfying, however. Jung counters the threat of totalitarianism with self-knowledge of the individual:

“I hope, therefore, that a psychiatrist, who in the course of a long life has devoted himself to the causes and consequences of psychic disorders, may be permitted to express his opinion, in all the modesty enjoined upon him as an individual, about the question raised by the world today. I am neither spurred on by excessive optimism nor in love with high ideals, but am merely concerned with the fate of the individual human being–that infinitesimal unit on whom a world depends, and in whom, if we read the meaning of the Christian message aright, even God seeks his goal.” (125)

I can’t be satisfied with curing my own psychic disorders–today’s problems require a strong community. I will move on next to a community that Jung’s work helped inspire and shape. But not yet. What’s up with the inflatable frog?

Stay tuned.

“The Shadow Knows,” Mike Maguire, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Work Cited

The Undiscovered Self. Jung, Carl. Little, Brown & Company, Inc. 1959.

Revisiting Carl Jung, Part 2: The Psyche

Part 2 of a series about Carl Jung’s thoughts.

I chose to begin my discussion of Jung with Modern Man in Search of a Soul for two reasons. First, it has moments where he explains his terms and ideas clearly and simply. Jung’s texts are often esoteric, and his language is slippery, so it’s hard to get at the ideas behind them. In this text, he has moments where he manages to make the irrational comprehensible. 

Second, this was published in 1933. He was living in Switzerland, smack in the middle of France and Germany, with nazism and antisemitism on the rise. A scary and dangerous time, like now. Beyond the political and economic events raged a spiritual war. Are we any better prepared now than we were then? Then, as now, I think we need his ideas.

Let me stop a minute and correct myself. I said “his ideas.” In the chapter “Freud and Jung–Contrasts” he makes the point that ideas don’t belong to anyone: 

“Impressive ideas which are hailed as truths have something peculiar to themselves. Although they come into being at a definite time, they are and have always been timeless; they arise from that realm of procreative psychic life out of which the ephemeral mind of the single human being grows like a plant that blossoms, bears fruit and seed, and then withers and dies. Ideas spring from a source that is not contained within one man’s personal life. We do not create them; they create us.” (115)

A picture of a tree that looks like an Ent
Bob Peterson from North Palm Beach, Florida, Planet Earth!, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

This quote also leads us nicely into the first word I’d like to explore: psyche. Take a minute and consider how you would define it. Just off the top of your head. What is the human psyche? The human mind–that would be my first answer. The words psychic and psychotic also spring to mind: both magic and madness.

Jung’s brief definition of the human psyche is “a whole that embraces consciousness, and is the mother of consciousness.” (123)

Is the psyche constrained to a single human body? Jung doesn’t answer the question–or even ank it– in any text I’ve found. As I said, he’s slippery. Usually I’ve seen the term referring to the primordial patterns of thought we are all born with. In the quote about ideas, though, “psychic life” does have an expanded and very organic meaning. It’s larger than, and mothers, one human mind. 

Can the psyche be reduced to biology alone? Freud thought so, and Jung disagreed. “We moderns are faced with the necessity of rediscovering the life of the spirit; we must experience it anew for ourselves. It is the only way in which we can break the spell that binds us to the cycle of biological events.” Because of this position, Jung says, “I am accused of mysticism. I do not, however, hold myself responsible for the fact that man has, everywhere and always, spontaneously developed religious forms of expression, and that the human psyche from from time immemorial has been shot through with religious feelings and ideas.” (122) In other words, spirituality is a key component of the psyche. 

Jung’s thoughts on spirituality come from direct observation:

“As may be seen, I attribute a positive value to all religions. In their symbolism I recognize those figures which I have met with in the dreams and fantasies of my patients. In their moral teachings I see efforts that are the same as or similar to those made by my patients, when guided by their own insight or inspiration, they seek the right way of dealing with the forces of the inner life. Ceremonial, ritual, initiation rites and ascetic practices, in all their forms and variations, interest me profoundly as so many techniques for bringing about a proper relation to these forces.” (119) 

However, he also gives biology its due:

“I likewise attribute a positive value to biology, and to the empiricism of natural science in general, in which I see a herculean approach to understand the human psyche by approaching it from the outer world. I regard the gnostic religions as an equally prodigious undertaking in the opposite direction: as an attempt to draw knowledge of the cosmos from within. In my picture of the world there is a vast outer realm and an equally vast inner realm. . .” (119-120) 

To put these ideas in my own words, the psyche is a vast unknown something composed of both matter and spirit. And spirit is also an unknown something

Now, as in 1933, the life of the spirit, the soul, the psyche, the something, has great power over our collective thought and action, and all the more so if we pretend it doesn’t exist. We owe it to ourselves to pay attention.

The next term I’d like to grapple with is “the unconscious.” For that, in my next post I’ll move to the chapter “Analytical Psychology.”

Time to blog again?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lorettastephenson/7902147342
Cat Question Mark by Retta Stephensen

I started keeping a handwritten diary when I was about ten. Once blogging became a thing, I posted on LiveJournal instead, more or less abandoning the handwritten diary format in favor of publicly viewable text. Of course, what I could say changed dramatically, and after I had kids, it became much more limited. Still, I had plenty to say. When it came time to ditch LiveJournal, I came here to WordPress.

The pandemic interrupted a lot of my activities, including my posting on WordPress, and I spent more time on Facebook, writing brief entries and reading updates on the lives of friends, family, and strangers. It’s getting toward time to ditch Facebook now, and so I am on bluesky, but I wonder: will it be one more thing I’ll have to ditch? (Kristin52, by the way.)

Tomorrow, 1/20/2025, is going to suck. Hard. Mass deportations, I guess. People I know have left Facebook already in protest. Some people are staying, and I’ll stay for them.

But I like the blog form better. I like being able to have deeper conversations with people.

I have a lot more to say, but I’ve reached the end of my allotted hour. Later!

Reading:

The Day and Night Books of Mardou Fox, by Nisi Shawl

Bloggy shout out to:

Laura “Tegan” Gjovaag at https://wandering.shop/@realtegan

Long Time No Post

Well, then, hello. I’ve been off WordPress a while, working on my novel in the meantime, meaning I haven’t had much creative energy left over. But I’m getting back on so I can post some resources that folks might find useful for homeschooling. Because that’s where we are now, and for the forseeable future: many kids on their own to learn as they personally see fit. Of course, that will be a whole lot of screen time. So I have a couple projects to share that I hope kids will enjoy. They’re targeted at elementary students but could certainly be adapted for high school and if anybody wants to work on that with me, let me know.

I’m not planning to share much about my personal life, but our family is healthy, sheltering in place, and has lots of groceries. So that’s good.

Stay safe, stay well, et cetera.

Musings on collective cognition

Something I’ve been thinking about for a while is Carl Jung’s concept of a collective unconscious and the omission of a complementary term, collective consciousness. The emerging fields of AI and of rapid transmission of thoughts by social media is making the idea more and more interesting all the time.

Many people in different fields are working on the question of defining things like cognition, sentience, consciousness, and so forth, and in different fields. I haven’t studied anything deeply but I get bits and pieces now and again, like the concept that human consciousness/identity/”I” is simply an illusion made up by a vastly more complex brain. If that’s the case, then perhaps a single voice could pipe up, such as an artificial intelligence, call itself the mind of the world, and convince others that only it has the power of speech. And maybe that would be a collective consciousness.

So I think about weird things like that.

Or perhaps humanity has always had not one but many collective consciousnesses, with some dominating the conversation and others forced to remain silent. The ones on top would be, for instance, news outlets, celebrities, and respected authors.

In that case, what effect is social media having? Is another collective consciousness rising to the surface, as when people use hashtags such as #metoo and #blacklivesmatter, quickly followed by #notme and #bluelivesmatter. If so, it’s based in humanity but it’s also inhuman. It’s an emergent consciousness.

Depending on how you define consciousness (cognitive scientists disagree), this is an overreach. But maybe collective cognition is a safer and less new-age concept.

Here’s Wikipedia’s current definition of cognition: “the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses”. This definition leaves out the question of “who or what is doing the thinking,” because we’ve always assumed it to be a human or other animal. Maybe it’s time to question that.

Back to the idea that maybe social media and artificial intelligence could give rise to collective consciousness, we had better be damn sure that what we are building, accidentally at the moment, serves the interests of humanity and the Earth.

Then connecting that concept to the idea “the medium is the message” — that is, if you communicated the same idea over the TV, radio, or speech, the media you used would make a much larger difference than the idea you were expressing — our social media platforms impact our collective cognition.

Connecting that idea to Facebook in particular, it just changed its algorithms for what kinds of posts get higher in our news feeds. It’s a good idea to do something, since social media encouraged fake news, which helped swing a presidential election, but there will inevitably be unexpected side effects. We need to watch them.

Now, taking that idea and putting it into a crystal ball, what is likely to happen in the near future? What kinds of positive change are likely and which impossible? Well, in the absence of a catastrophic failure of technology (could happen), there’s no going back. Social media is with us to stay.

The one thing we can  impact is who owns it.

So that’s it, a tour of my musings. Like the image I’m featuring, they turn the ways we typically view the world on its side. Hope you enjoyed the ride.

-Kristin

(Image features a sideways view of the globe.)

600px-atcan_globe-webm

Daniel R. Strebe, March 27, 2015, from Wikimedia Commons

Talking points for the #MeToo backlash

We all know that political discussion on social media can be infuriating, hazardous, frustrating, a minefield, a hornet’s nest, et cetera. And we’re starting to understand how easily social media can be used to manipulate us. But here’s something we don’t know: people with money can pay to design talking points that get allies fighting among ourselves. When this happens invisibly, we have no defense. But we can learn.

Let’s start with a metaphor. A well designed talking point, or meme, is like a hand grenade. It’s thrown carelessly and it does more damage than anyone expected. Or it’s an unethical translator. A says one thing, B translates it for their own personal gain, and C loses trust in A. Or perhaps a virus. An idea that on the surface sounds so good, so exactly like the point you were going to make yourself, that you spread it everywhere. But it has a payload you weren’t expecting.

With that groundwork in place, let’s take a look at some talking points against the #metoo backlash as they appear in a site built by a P.R. firm to change the world by shaping discourse. I’m not going to link directly to their site but SourceWatch has a page for them here and the Wayback machine has generously provided a glimpse at their original intentions when they launched in 2000: “nothing less than the creation of a new language for political, social and cultural writing in the twenty-first century”.

(By the way, the page also makes mention of “fresh, non-consensual thinking.” That’s not what they meant to say, I’m sure, but I find it apt. If propaganda can shape our words, it also shapes our thinking. And when it does so invisibly, there is an element of consent that gets lost.)

Anyway, their article, “Meet the women worried about #MeToo”, gathers opinions from thirteen women on why the #metoo crowd is a bunch of weak victims who are gathered in a screaming mob to chop heads off innocent men. We could go through point by point and refute their arguments, or we could do something different for a change. We could catalog them. With no further ado:

Talking Points for the #Metoo backlash

(I found all these in that single article, by the way.)

A. Destroying REAL feminism 

A1. Real feminists don’t think sex is dirty

A2. Women as victims / fainting flowers

A3. My generation kicked them in the balls

A4. Turning back the clock on sexual equality

A5. Watch your privilege!

B. Hysterical mob

B1. Mob violence

B2. Witch hunt

B3. Beheading

B4. Panic

B5. Mass hysteria

C. That’s not really assault

C1. Confusing real assault with failed advances

C2. Trivializes real sexual violence

C3. Phantom sexual harassment

C4. You can’t touch my elbow

D. Totalitarianism

D1. Censorship

D2. George Orwell

D3. Bullying women to conform

E. The legal system

E1. Presumed innocent / no due process

E2. Innocent people destroyed

E3. If it’s not against the law, it’s not assault

E4. All we need to do is fix the law

Examples

“we are throwing knee-touching into the same basket as rape” – C1, C4

“sex itself seems increasingly to be seen as dirty” – A1

“destroy almost any man by a single accusation” – E1

“in need of shielding” – A2

“celebrates conformity and demonises dissent” – D3

“it was supposed to be about empowering women” – A3

“this is a witch-hunt” – B2

“return women to delicate, Victorian damsels who reach for the smelling salts if they hear a lewd joke” – A1, A2

“accused of transgressions no reasonable person would define as a crime” – E3

“even decades later” – C3

“The heads keep rolling” – B3

“A charge of creepiness is a death sentence” – E2

“ensuring that the lives of innocent people are not destroyed” – E2

“every male as a potential predator and every female as a perpetual victim” – A2

“modern feminism all but ignores the plight of the most oppressed women around the world” – A5

“turning the clock back on hard-won sexual equality” – A4

“Raise qualms and watch the insults roll” – D1

“those of us who have spent years metaphorically kicking sex pests in the balls” – A3

“bullying climate” – D3

“phantom sexual-harassment epidemics” – C3

“fainting-couch nonsense” – A2

What’s Next?

The first step in countering think tank talking points is to find them in the first place. I found it enjoyable – with just a think tank article and a highlighter pen, I was able to take a pile of glowing propaganda and identify the core messages being pushed by the funders, thereby dismantling it until it turned into naked sludge of ugly insults. Fun.

But it would be much more fun as a shared exercise. You could do the same thing to any propaganda campaign, really. Or you could take it one step farther and identify which of the many propaganda techniques are being used. Or consider what’s deliberately left unsaid.

If we can develop a shared understanding of think-tank memes, we’ll be much better prepared to explore the important issues on our own terms.   Using our own words, finding our own thoughts. That’s consensual thinking at its finest.

– Kristin

witch hunter

 

 

 

 

Watch your language . . . please?

So there’s an argument on social media somewhere. Doesn’t matter what the argument is. There are two sides to the argument, even though the issue itself may have many sides. You try to make a third point and are swarmed by angry hornets, maybe on one side or maybe on both.

Poor you! You’ve just been unfairly mobbed! It’s a witch hunt! Thought crimes! There’s no room for moderates any more!

What do you do? Retaliate, of course. Of course you do. Because on social media, you have to think fast and act fast. You take advantage of your brain’s superpower — and it is indeed a superpower — of quickly assembling meaning from a group of facts, of seeing patterns. And you respond.

But now you’re somebody else’s angry hornet.

For most folks on social media, the solution is simple: go offline, get a cup of tea, call a friend and vent, smell some flowers, or do whatever you need to do to take care of yourself. Come back later when you’re calmer, or move on to some more pleasurable activity.

But there is one group of people for whom I have a higher expectation: public writers and bloggers. You, my dearies, are the ones that upset the hornet’s nest in the first place. This isn’t a value judgement. Sometimes a situation calls for a swarm of angry hornets.

But if you are writing for the public, if you set those hornets off accidentally, that’s on you. That’s your mistake. If you’re complaining about thought police and whatnot, and you’re doing it honestly (you don’t have a hidden agenda, that is), but not looking at where you might have gone wrong, you’re only compounding the mistake.

Me? Who? Me? I didn’t do anything wrong! I was just saying what I think!

Yes, you did do something wrong. You were careless with your craft. And if someone is kind enough to point it out to you, for heaven’s sake, pay attention! Put on that thick skin that all professional writers must have, and look past the sting of the comment to what the person is really saying. Writers mess up, all the time, but if we look honestly at our mistakes we will always improve.

Now, when I say you were careless with your craft, what I mean is that you didn’t bother to get to know your audience. And that’s Rule #2 for persuasive writing. (Rule #1 is “Consider your purpose” and Rule #2 is “Consider your audience”.) No matter how good of a writer you are, you will never have a full understanding of the depth and breadth of your audience’s viewpoints and life experiences.

#

So why am I saying all this right now? Is there a specific piece and writer that set me off? Yes, there were two or three or four. But rather than go into the specifics, here’s what they did wrong.

  1. A respected Second Wave feminist who actually had something important to say about #Metoo but erred in using the phrase “witch hunt.” There were no actual witches in Salem, but there are plenty of people who sexually assault and harass others. This matters because some of the people who are actively fighting to maintain the status quo, such as Gamergater types, are also using the phrase “witch hunt.” Is it fair of people to accuse you of guilt by association? No, of course not. But, as a master wordsmith, did you really intend to align yourself with Gamergaters?
  2. Same feminist who is apparently getting into arguments with millenial feminists and wrote an article to defend herself against the claim that she is a “bad feminist.” This broke Rule #2, “Consider Your Audience,” because her message will be received positively by some audiences (anybody who feels defensive about being called a “bad feminist”) and with anger by others (millenial feminists who don’t feel listened to).
  3. A writer of an ostensibly progressive paper who started her article complaining about social media is a brush fire — which is true — and callout culture is a problem — also true, but lost me in the middle when she started talking about “thought crimes.” For some reason, although George Orwell coined the phrase to attack authoritarian governments, these days it’s mostly used to shut down conversations about racism, sexism, ableism, and the like. I paused in my reading of the article to wonder, “Which side is she on, anyway?” and then, “Should I bother finding out, or do I have better things to do?”

#

To go all meta, let’s look at my purpose and audience in writing this piece.

My primary purpose is to provide an alternative perspective to a problem we’re all complaining about (other people being annoying on social media) and also to advocate for craft in persuasive writing. This is a bit of a follow-up on a series I started several years back on persuasive writing for activists and have yet to finish.

So far so good. But let’s be honest: my primary audience is imaginary. I wrote it for every single author who’s ever started a pointless argument over a topic that actually needs attention, and who, when called out, takes it personally and attacks back. This is what I’d say if we were in the same room and I had their undivided attention.

So there’s also a secondary audience: every writer everywhere who has to write for an audience of human beings. My condolences.

#

Keep writing, but for the sake of your craft . . . mind your language!

scoobydoogang01

-Kristin