Purity spirals

[RoyalCorgi]

This is a brilliant piece by Gavin Haynes, tied to a radio programme, about the concept of "purity spirals" - the idea that's taken hold in certain groups that you have to continually demonstrate your ethical credentials. The example he gives is anti-racism in the knitting world, but obviously it can apply equally trans activism. Anyone who isn't 100% pure is regarded as morally beyond the pale. He makes historical analogies with Maoism, amongst other things. Fascinating - and spot on.

unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a-purity-spiral/

Fascinating. Could you explain what he means by this?

A purity spiral occurs when a community becomes fixated on implementing a single value that has no upper limit, and no single agreed interpretation. The result is a moral feeding frenzy.

What does he mean by no upper limit? No boundaries on how far they will go to prove their morality?

That's a really interesting article. I think the article and the documentary would be quite useful to share.

It's brilliant - and nothing has the potential to go into a self-destructive internal argument festival like a bunch of knitters (or crocheters - they're even worse when they explode) on the internet. Anyone who's seen online yarncraft communities will have seen it happen.

Think it's a combination in general of some very very woke individuals who are into the whole hand dyed, ethically sourced product, versus some very stereotypically right-wing American individuals that causes general friction, fuelled by the fact that the whole community is so social media centred in terms of sharing products and it all explodes periodically - either in a very right wing mode (there were pattern bans for any cat ear hats on various groups when the pink pussy hat protests against Trump were at their height) or in the woker-than-woke spiral described in the article.

You wouldn't think it but knitters and hookers can be bloody terrifying creatures (with sharp pointy sticks!)

As a knitter who watched all this unfold with horror, I’ll be listening.

In case you cant read the article there's a link at the bottom;

''The Purity Spiral airs on Sunday at 1.30pm, BBC Radio 4''
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000d70h

Imo purity spirals are a type of behaviour that demonstrates why people need specific goals, boundaries and rules, not vague statements of moral purity.

Purity spirals are an unintended consequence of a crowd following a set of rules that can be set in motion in a vague direction, but that don't have a set goal or purpose so there is no end point.

Events can be set in motion quite easily by key influencers; but once a crowd starts acting, they can be difficult to stop. Responsibility is diffused, everyone is responsible, anyone can join in. the rules are not clearly stated so the whole movement becomes an exercise in one upmanship.

It happens because the majority of people are afraid to go against the majority or stand out, and once it starts its pretty much impossible to stop. Just using 'reason' doesn't work, its read as an attempt to thwart good intentions and will provoke moral outrage.

Fantastic points in this article.
I've seen this kind of thing happen in a few subculture groups I've been involved with, but never to anywhere near such extremes. It just looked liked a tendency to be "more hip/radical/edgy/whathaveyou than thou."

Just read that article. Fascinating and horrifying. Will look out for the R4 programme.

Yes! That is EXACTLY what is happening. Thank you for linking - will listen with interest.

Ooh, I've been waiting for this to hear what Nathan Taylor says. Thanks!

You wouldn't think it but knitters and hookers can be bloody terrifying creatures (with sharp pointy sticks!)

That made me laugh! The crafters I know are all very... spiky?

I'm on a fabric upcycling fb page that is self combusting over cultural appropriation. I got a solemn warning for posting about the non Scottish origins of tartan!

They have tortured themselves over it for a year now. I have no idea what the correct the way to think about it is. But almost all of the theatre costumiers have left / been banned.

It isn't only the one group either. Another has had a group of Mods trying to make a set of rules about it for over a year....

What does he mean by no upper limit? No boundaries on how far they will go to prove their morality?

I think he means that with something like racism, there is no agreed point at which everyone says "This is not racist". So potentially anything can be deemed racist, however tenuous the connection to actual racism. Laurence Fox is racist for saying that white privilege doesn't exist. I'm racist for saying that the condemnation of Fox is excessive, even though I don't agree with him. Anyone who says they think I'm not a racist is also a racist. And so on.

That was a very interesting read. Thanks for sharing! I'll have to remind myself to listen to the broadcast.

It's scary how these kinds of group behaviour take on a life of its own. No one is immune to such pressures. Makes sense to regularly evaluate what sort of ideas we go along with in our social groups and whether we feel pressure to self-censor or join in to castigate people we disagree with.

The theory of "Spirals of Silence" is related and explains a lot of the complicity and collusion by people who disagree but do not voice dissent:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_of_silence

The concept of "Luxury Beliefs" has a bearing:

‘Luxury beliefs’ are the latest status symbol for rich Americans by Rob Henderson
nypost.com/2019/08/17/luxury-beliefs-are-the-latest-status-symbol-for-rich-americans/

(Earlier Mumsnet thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3787984-Victoria-Derbyshire-Luxury-Beliefs )

When "Conspicuous Consumption" is replaced by "Conspicuous Convictions" and "Status Spirals:

Thorstein Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class—A Status Update by Rob Henderson
quillette.com/2019/11/16/thorstein-veblens-theory-of-the-leisure-class-a-status-update/

That article ends:

Status Spirals

"The economist and social theorist Thomas Sowell once said that activism is “a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” The same could be said for luxury beliefs. They are similar to luxury goods, but present new problems. Attaching status to luxury goods or financial standing meant there were limits to how much harm the leisure class could do when it came to their conspicuous displays. For example, fashion is constrained by the speed with which people could adopt a new look. But with beliefs, this status cycle accelerates. A rich person flaunts her new belief. It then becomes fashionable among her peers, so she abandons it. Then a new stylish belief arises, while the old luxury belief trickles down the social hierarchy and wreaks havoc."

Cameron Hardwick makes an interesting argument for "Piety Contest" being a better description for what is often called "Virtue Signalling". He also suggests that "Piety Contests" are much the same as "Purity Spirals":

Worry About Piety Contests, Not ‘Virtue Signaling’
quillette.com/2017/12/12/worry-piety-contests-not-virtue-signaling/

The bottom line, as ever, follow the money . . .

THE CREATION OF DEVIANCE by Jason Manning
victimhoodculture.com/index.php/2018/11/16/the-creation-of-deviance/

"The way institutions define right and wrong has more impact on the rest of us than what Crazy Bill the local barfly thinks about things. For one, the opinions of organizations and their experts carry more weight"

(Article ends - my bolding)

" . . . when an institution identifies something as offensive, it will tend to lead to more people taking offense, whether genuinely or cynically. We would thus expect to see broader change in conflict and social control.

A final point of interest for those who study deviance and social control: As sociologist Kai Erikson observed, the agencies charged with preventing or policing deviance can be the very ones that create it. To give an extreme example, the witch-hunters of Renaissance Europe were quite good at creating witches — by torturing accused witches into both confessing and then naming accomplices, the witch-hunters created an epidemic of witchcraft accusations, and thus a need for witch-hunters. Witch hunts are an extreme example, where the offensive conduct is imagined whole-cloth. But milder versions of the same phenomenon might happen wherever those charged with combatting deviance engage in campaigns to ensure that everyone agrees with their mission, or to expand the range of deviance they’re in charge of controlling. The activities of university administrators may also fit a larger pattern, one in which agents of social control readily create the need for their own services."

I am sure we can all think of examples of public funds being showered on organisations eager to exercise social control, along with dedicated funding for the policing of "non-crimes" (while at the same time a massively depleted police force lacks the resources to deal with actual crimes).

Very interesting, I'll be listening in on Sunday.

You can see this happening on twitter and it's always scary.

Great to have a term to call it out when we see it happening.

Interesting thought experiment - do we do similar on here? Ostracise anyone who doesn't agree with the GC viewpoint?

How do you stop it happening?

I feel we mostly have robust discussion here but it's always hard to analyse situations you are in.

Will actually read the article now, not just responses!

It isn't only the one group either. Another has had a group of Mods trying to make a set of rules about it for over a year....

Of course, because anyone who knows anything at all about culture knows that it is all "appropriated". It's in its nature to be appropriated, that's what it's for.

What these people fail to realise is the concept of "owning" ideas is a product of capitalism.

Interesting thought experiment - do we do similar on here? Ostracise anyone who doesn't agree with the GC viewpoint?

I thin at times people are all to ready to accuse people of not having the right credentials, or believing the right things, rather than engaging with what they are saying. For all there have been some really amazing discussions of the problems involved in certain types of analysis or discourse, you often see the same techniques used in other discussions.

I think at times people are all too ready

is what that should say

What does he mean by no upper limit? No boundaries on how far they will go to prove their morality?

More that there is no absolute measure for who is perfectly or completely moral. Someone could seemingly be perfect in every moral test, and then someone else will add a new test, a new requirement to prove you are really a believer. Now you not only need to recycle, or have a picture of MLK on your laptop, you also need to adopt some new language, or buy only fair trade products, wherever.

Similarly interesting article in the Guardian, it feels like people are beginning to question how we actually get balance in discussions.
I think the writer has realised that "woke" can be questioned.

The ‘anti-woke’ backlash is no joke – and progressives are going to lose if they don’t wise up
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/30/anti-woke-backlash-liberalism-laurence-fox?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

That Guardian article though, she basically says people questioning are old, white, homeowners who were always really right wing anyway. Talk about zero insight into why people get ticked off.

Yes, that Guardian article illustrates the problem nicely, in fact. It's Ellie Mae O'Hagan who is the wokest of the woke. She hasn't grasped that people don't like being lectured about how racist/transphobic/xenophobic they are and if keep hectoring them they eventually get pissed off and turn into the thing you accuse them of being.

I think the writer has realised that "woke" can be questioned

I don't think she got it at all. I don't think she has the slightest understanding of the intolerance of the left or why it should be challenged.