Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

heterodoxacademy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 235 posts

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#81

Post by leepowers »

wsxcde wrote: post #46

Let's not get bogged down by the all cultures are not equal strawman. That is not at all the key point here. Amy Wax/OP's argument is problematic because it conflates very different things using a subtly disingenuous argument. She starts off by saying something completely uncontroversial: kids from stable marriages do well in school. But she then plays on the audiences implicit biases to imply -- but not explicitly a…

> .... inner city blacks are incompatible with an advanced free market economy.

We must have read different articles because that's not what I saw - I think you're so focused on detecting a dog whistle that you're missing the key point being raised.

Values are race, gender, and class neutral. A value or system of values can be adopted by a person regardless of their race, gender, class, sexual orientation, etc. Values are the only way we can find common ground with others, they are the only way we can be unified as a society. Imagine a white supremacist. Certainly if his skin color was magically changed to black overnight he would no longer be a white supremacist. But that's not a possibility - a white supremacist cannot change his skin color. But he can change his values.

We all agree that a stable family life is very advantageous for children. Most often this stability is achieved via marriage. Examining it along this axis we can then say that bourgeois, pro-family, pro-marriage values are measurably better than others.

We can also imagine an inner city black who has a choice between two value systems - a bourgeois value system or a hedonistic "gangster" value system. Which value system should he adopt? The bourgeois one, as this one will have better outcomes for him, for his family, and for his community.

Now there's a possible danger here: that we assume that all inner-city blacks have a gangster value system. That by dint of skin color and geographic location a person must necessarily have a certain value system. So let's not make that error.

Additionally, I would be very surprised if a majority of inner-city blacks held to some sort of gangster value system. While I don't have the data or surveys on hand, I would assume that most of this population already agrees with and holds most of the pro-family bourgeois values.

If these bourgeois values are already widespread yet poor outcomes remain then we can't pin these outcomes on a person lacking correct values. There's another factor in play. It may be that bourgeois values are hostage to other social, economic, and cultural factors. That they might yet bloom into something positive but are missing other essential ingredients. Wax fails insofar as she assigns too great a weight to the impact of bourgeois values.

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#82

Post by darawk »

manofstick wrote: post #50
darawk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to compare a country like NZ to the US in a fair and meaningful way. NZ is a small, ethnically (and therefore more importantly culturally) homogenous country. Now, it's not completely homogenous, but it is much more so than the US. Being a democracy, the policies of the country are inseparable from its culture and demographics. You say universal healthcare might stem the tide of cultural breakdown. But we c…

>> NZ is a small, ethnically (and therefore more importantly culturally) homogenous country Not according to the CIA Factbook it isn't: NZ: European 71.2%, Maori 14.1%, Asian 11.3%, Pacific peoples 7.6%, Middle Eastern, Latin American, African 1.1%, other 1.6%, not stated or unidentified 5.4% USA: white 72.4%, black 12.6%, Asian 4.8%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.9%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.2%,…

That breakdown leaves Hispanics out of the US, which seems to me to be, a pretty enormous oversight. I imagine they're being lumped in with 'white'. If you break them out separately, I imagine you'll see quite a difference.

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#83

Post by darawk »

dmurray wrote: post #65
manofstick wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> NZ is a small, ethnically (and therefore more importantly culturally) homogenous country Not according to the CIA Factbook it isn't: NZ: European 71.2%, Maori 14.1%, Asian 11.3%, Pacific peoples 7.6%, Middle Eastern, Latin American, African 1.1%, other 1.6%, not stated or unidentified 5.4% USA: white 72.4%, black 12.6%, Asian 4.8%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.9%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.2%,…

Moreover, the Maori population was just as downtrodden and oppressed as the blacks of the USA, 50 or 100 years ago, and is still on the whole poorer and less educated than the white majority.

Ya, I wasn't saying they have no ethnic or cohesion problems. Simply that they are smaller and more cohesive culturally than the US.

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#84

Post by erulabs »

wsxcde wrote: post #46

Let's not get bogged down by the all cultures are not equal strawman. That is not at all the key point here. Amy Wax/OP's argument is problematic because it conflates very different things using a subtly disingenuous argument. She starts off by saying something completely uncontroversial: kids from stable marriages do well in school. But she then plays on the audiences implicit biases to imply -- but not explicitly a…

I do agree completely, but it should be pointed out that she, before mentioning inner city blacks, also mentioned:

> Nor are the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites

Its a bit silly to split that along racial terms (both Wax and the offendees)... There are plenty of single-parent antisocial working-class blacks as well.

In my mind the real conflation is the difference between an eagerness and hopefulness for upward mobility and what Wax calls "Bourgeois" or "European" values. Bourgeois is a vastly superior word than European - the two are only conflated because for much of human history, only some Europeans were wealthy. The author could have saved herself a boatload of trouble (if she in fact is _not_ racist) by just pointing out that no one really knows what a modern, international, not-ruled-by-whites Bourgeois society will look like - but that we ought to bring back a general respect for nice things - rather than a lionization of poverty.

What I think a lot of rich/college educated white people don't understand is that the lionization of poverty was done _by the impoverished_ - media creation was finally in our grasps, so jazz, hiphop, rap, etc bloomed. It's only inevitable that there will be an identity conflict as the poverty and hardships are (thankfully!) eased over time by technology and wealth. The solution to people being proud of being poor is _to have no more poor people_ - and the solution to that is not cultural, it's economic and legal.

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#85

Post by Veelox »

ruthvik947 wrote: post #8
wildmusings wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only way to accomplish the latter is to pull the excellent down to the level of mediocrity or worse. How do you propose to raise up a culture that doesn't value creativity and hard work, for example, to the level of success of one that does. Culture is much more than what food you eat and music you listen to. This reminds me of a famous Tocqueville quote: There is in fact a manly and legitimate passion for equali…

This is not a very meaningful argument if you don't provide metrics for 'excellence' and 'success'

Some metrics that assume long happy healthy secure lives are preferable.

* Life expectancy: this assumes longer is better

* Rate of suicide: happy secure people generally don't commit suicide

* Rate of preventable deceases: says something about health

* Rate of violent crime: secure people don't have to deal with crime

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#86

Post by TwelveNights »

rxhernandez wrote: post #73
Nomentatus wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Good and bad is in the eye of the beholder and what you value." - Now put your hand on a hot stove and say that again. Nature forces some values. (quote from apoverton but the principle, vs Hume, applies to many other comments here.)

And some people would view getting put on a hot stove as a fun and exciting thing, so no, not really. Unsure of why I'm getting downvotes.. Are people completely unaware of the fact that some people enjoy pain?

You made a pretty contrived comment to refute the parent poster, considering how unlikely it is that someone would find it a fun and exciting thing to do.

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#87

Post by padseeker »

coldtea wrote: post #30
padseeker wrote: post #19

"Nor are the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites; the anti-“acting white” rap culture of inner-city blacks; the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants" Already you lost me. There are plenty of single parents out of wedlock children in very white states like West Virginia, Kentucky, etc. How is rap culture or black people responsible for the action…

> Already you lost me. There are plenty of single parents out of wedlock children in very white states like West Virginia, Kentucky, etc. How is rap culture or black people responsible for the actions of white people in these areas? Where did the author said it is? They said there are "single-parent, antisocial habits" that are prevalent among some working-class whites" AND an "anti-“acting white” rap culture of inne…

Amy Wax said it, quoted by the author. It's in the article. 7th paragraph down.

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#88

Post by Veelox »

antisthenes wrote: post #74
bcoates wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Culture and society engage with one another. To take an extremely concrete example, our society takes every possible opportunity to treat young unwed mothers like absolute shit. "Raising up" the culture of people who are unsurprised that people at the peak of their fertility tend to get pregnant even in an environment where marriage is increasingly unattainable to that population is more about not going out of our wa…

I take huge issue with this statement because it tries to sneak certain statements past the reader without evidence. How do you mean marriage is increasingly unattainable ? A marriage license costs $55. Are you alluding to something else here? Single mothers are one of the last bastions of subsidies and welfare, especially considering how everything else has been scaled down in the recent years. > our society takes e…

Not op and not exactly what you ask for.

Welfare is structured so that single moms get more money if they stay single. It is bad for the kids to grow up without a father and it is bad for society to encourage it.

Source: Wife worked in a homeless shelter.

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#89

Post by nyolfen »

colanderman wrote: post #40
rhizome wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this should all be short-circuited by the fact that cultures are not a fixed value that can be compared for equality. Congruence, perhaps, but there are too many moving parts in culture to be able to rank them, which is an implication of solving for a single (imaginary) term.

Right. For example, there is no one "white culture". I'm white, and there are plenty of white people in my home town with whom I share little to no cultural values. Any conversation about relative values of "cultures" is probably better cast as a discussion about cultural memes (in the original Dawkins sense [1]), with the understanding that the flow of memes tend to follow social contours as clusters, and interact w…

would you say there is no such thing as black culture?

Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

#90

Post by gerbilly »

ewzimm wrote: post #53
taylodl wrote: post #7

If 'all cultures are not equal' is a false statement then we're stating 'all cultures are equal' which I interpret as saying there is no metric by which we can measure the 'goodness' or 'effectiveness' of a culture. So let's accept the statement 'all cultures are equal' at face value: all cultures are equal and therefore there exists no metric for measuring 'goodness' or 'effectiveness.' If C(now) captures my current…

You have a good point, but the next sentence clearly states the metric: "Or at least they are not equal in preparing people to be productive in an advanced economy." It's not a statement about the artistic or spritual value of cultures, only their ability to create economically productive individuals, which is easy to measure.

But an advanced economy is embedded in and affects the surrounding culture.

I see this statement as a tautology, or at the very least as an ill posed question.

Post reply on HN