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/

I wonder what would happen if you went to one of these people and offered them one magic wish. Would they wish that everyone was perfectly pure and infinitely inclusive in every way in their community, or do they in fact want and need the conflict and competition it brings?

I think a huge problem comes when we import ideas about race and discrimination from the USA (which is happening more and more in the internet age). I think that they view race very differently, and often see things as being (no pun intended) black and white, when they really aren't.

A really interesting example of this outrage is when people tried to cancel Frozen because they believed it was an example of "whitewashing", and that the native Sami people shouldn't be blonde and blue-eyed. This didn't work out because, actually, the native Sami people are white. Does white privilege still apply in this context? The whole "cancel Frozen" campaign seemed to quietly disappear after this was pointed out.

In the country where I live, by far the most discriminated-against group are gypsies (I know some people consider that word to be a slur, and I apologise to those who find it offensive, but this is the direct translation). But they're white, and so they don't fit into this American idea of discrimination. Plus, they're a genuinely extremely disadvantaged group who have suffered from decades of neglect from the political class; 80% of their teenagers don't finish high school. I suspect that investment from the government would help them a lot more than me knitting in their direction.

I wonder what would happen if you went to one of these people and offered them one magic wish. Would they wish that everyone was perfectly pure and infinitely inclusive in every way in their community, or do they in fact want and need the conflict and competition it brings?

I think that being the first or the loudest to cancel someone else is a great way of making a name for yourself in these communities, unfortunately. A lot of it feels like bullying - I remember one blogger getting piled on for describing fabric as having a "tribal print".

I've just started reading this and realise this is exactly what's happened in the cloth sling community. Esp around trans and Labour.

Oh my gosh, I am having a sort of flashback to a breastfeeding group I used to belong to when my eldest was a baby. There was a similar phenomena o the purity spiral, where the women kept trying to outdo each other in how long they would nurse their babies, or how many they would tandem nurse, etc. I remember one woman who, in order to avoid any possible allergens before the baby's system was what she considered mature, was not going to introduce any food but breastmilk util age 2. (Too bad the medical advice on that changed, I've wondered how she made out.)

Are there examples of open hostility or an overt sense of being unwelcome in a knitting group that is predominantly white? From what little I know, members are usually falling over themselves to welcome those from any sort of minority background.

So this reminds me of a controversy that went on in my old neighbourhood. It had for many years been about 30% black, which is high here, and also poor. At a certain point the area began to gentrify and a lot of new businesses moved in, run by middle class white people. Most of them were also frequented by white hipsters and the staff was often white too.

There was something of a controversy in the papers where some members of the older community complained that these businesses were not welcoming to them or hiring local members of the black community. When the business owners were approached, most of them said that they had really tried to recruit local people and wanted local patrons, but they hadn't been successful, and that the diversity of the neighbourhood was why they liked it.
Where it gets interesting is that the response of the complainers was that they did not apply for the advertised jobs, or go into the shops, because they felt uncomfortable and didn't see any other black patrons there. One person interviewed said that when he went into a particular cafe, the staff were so happy to see him that he didn't like it and left.

Now, I have no doubt that they did feel uncomfortable, but even from a racism angle, there is only so much these shops could do to increase the diversity of their clients if the potential patrons simply refused to come.

What was very much missed in this series of articles though was the fact that the other 60% of the previous population, who were mainly white but increasingly Muslim, also were not going into these shops or working at them. And also that the shops that had perviously served the poor population, low cost diners, laundromats, etc, had been forced to leave due to rent increases.

But it really struck me that there seemed to be this expectation of feeling completely at ease. And I couldn't figure out what the solution was supposed to be, other than to not have so many white people living there , which seemed the wrong approach.

I really dislike the fawning mentality towards anything American... Whether rushing to lower regulatory standards to secure trade deals or importing ideologies wholesale like critical race theory, queer theory etc.
What works or might be relevant in one place doesn't necessarily mean it translates well in another place. And just because something has the appropriate moral label attached to it, doesn't make it automatically correct or beyond any criticism.

It seems like most of the moral posturing around racism these days seems to be about trying to show off that you are the most afflicted and jostling over who gets to sit at the top. It encourages people to squeeze out any sort of prejudiced interpretation from even the most benign things. The more offense and outrage you can drum up, the better.
There are still so many important racial issues to tackle and yet they are obscured and neglected because people are more upset and outraged by a book they have never read. Talk about having a sense of perspective.

I heard the program and was horrified, I know little about knitting but could not believe the hysteria and bad feeling. The poor man tried to be nice and ‘inclusive’ And was distraught at the shitstorm that arose.

Best keep away from the crazies until the current woke nastiness goes out of fashion

People seem to conflate anything about minorities with racism, when I think on many issues it comes down to social and economic class first and foremost, and I think skin colour is secondary. There are no doubt specific issues with a racial angle, but gentrification is a growing problem everywhere, including Scotland.
Since most of the population in Scotland is white, it's not possible to feign outrage in terms of race. Yet, property prices and rents are pushed up and poorer people are pushed out. Businesses are very middle class and trendy. Pubs that used to serve as the hub for the community are shut down and reopened as bars for a very hipster clientele.
Like you say, things that would serve the poor population are removed and the original community becomes quite fragmented.

Where it gets interesting is that the response of the complainers was that they did not apply for the advertised jobs, or go into the shops, because they felt uncomfortable and didn't see any other black patrons there. One person interviewed said that when he went into a particular cafe, the staff were so happy to see him that he didn't like it and left.

.................

Just listened to it and found it very interesting. Also really fucking depressing.
I really wanted to like the ‘not believing in witches’ analogy but it didn’t quite work for me. Still trying to articulate to myself why not. Perhaps it didn’t really work as a resolution for me that the baddie is just imaginary, because IRL sometimes the baddie may not be imaginary, or the may not be 100% bad, or something.

I've also just listened. I thought it was an interesting programme which brought out how destructive and counter-productive online bullying and manufactured outrage is. It was telling that none of the knitting warriors were willing to appear on the programme. Prof Andrews, who did take part, basically seemed to say that all white people are white supremacists, which is probably the most racist thing I've heard on the radio for a long time. (He has form though for writing some pretty fact-free tripe in the Guardian so obviously enjoys the exposure.) The sort of mindset which leads to purity spirals so obviously takes us nowhere other than down a blind alley and helps nobody.

People seem to conflate anything about minorities with racism, when I think on many issues it comes down to social and economic class first and foremost, and I think skin colour is secondary.

I think this a factor in the U.K. When I was reading about the knitting wars and appropriation, it did get me thinking about the traditional knitting patterns of poor, rural fishing communities around the U.K. I don’t think they benefitted from the commercialisation of those patterns? It’s complicated...where is the line drawn between appropriation and cultural exchange?
Gentrification is a real problem in many areas - not helped by rising house prices pushing out essential workers.

Is the theory prof Andrews was touting actually a theory? It’s not disprovable, because any attempt to look at it is by definition racist and evidence of you being a white supremacist thus reinforcing the theory. So surely it isn’t a theory but a belief.

Yes, BackToBackTheyFaced it seems very convenient that any sweeping assertions and assumptions made as part of this race theory must be true because any critique implies you must be racist and supportive of white supremacy.

I was gobsmacked when he was asked how to tell the difference between genuine feelings of offense vs someone making a show of being outraged and upset. His answer was irrespective of whether the person taking offense was genuine or not, the person responsible for the supposed offense or wrongdoing should reflect on why they did what they did.
So any BAME person is automatically absolved of any bad behaviour or responsibility for their actions?! Wtf....

Really interesting thread, thank you.

It also gives me a really interesting context to some discussions that I’ve had with a knitting friend, which make a lot more sense with this background filled in.

That theory definitely has parallels to the hate incident vs hate crime case going on at the minute.

I didn't hear it as absolved of the offended parties own actions. I think it's probably natural to look at yourself when someone is offended or hurt by something you've done, but when in a purity spiral you are going to be in the wrong no matter if your action was hurtful or offensive because nothing will ever be good enough? To be honest, I thought Prof. Andrews was just arguing the point for the sake of argument rather than believing it, he didn't sound very convinced himself.

Nonny Mouse - I agree and it ties in very well with the witch hunting analogy where, once accused, there is no way to escape without punishment.

I think this a factor in the U.K. When I was reading about the knitting wars and appropriation, it did get me thinking about the traditional knitting patterns of poor, rural fishing communities around the U.K. I don’t think they benefitted from the commercialisation of those patterns? It’s complicated...where is the line drawn between appropriation and cultural exchange?

I think this makes a lot more sense if you think of it as a result or side effect of a particular facet of capitalism we have allowed.

If you think, where does this idea that someone or even a commuity should profit monetarily from some concept they have produced come from, it's revealing. Up until fairly recently in human history, if you had a great idea, you profited from the advantage it gave your community. A great knitting pattern might keep you warm, maybe at less cost or created more speedily, and maybe you enjoy the beauty of it too. You could of course sell the things you knit to people. If no one else knows how to make it you could charge a premium, but as soon as someone figures out how to do it, well, the idea also belongs to that person.

This was true of all concepts and innovations, be it technology, or a song, whatever. Someone else can build it, someone else can play it, and get the benefits of doing so.

This all changed once you had things like patents or copyrights. All of a sudden, it became possible to own an idea, and materially benefit from that ownership by selling access to rights to make it, or sell the items made, and no one else is legally allowed to do so. Part of the argument for this system was that it would allow people to capture the financial benefit of their labour, and connected to that, incentivise new ideas and technologies.

Even in this system though, it's recognised the the ownership of ideas is something of an artificiality, and so rights were limited, usually to approximately the lifetime of the creator. So if you write a great song, or develop an amazing drug, and you can benefit, but you can't pass down the ownership of the idea to your heirs.

So old knowledge or cultural knowledge, they just don't really fall under this system. And this is a good thing, though I have heard people argue that it should. But it's worthwhile to consider that we consistently see corporate interests in making the periods that they can benefit longer, and that is because the ownership of ideas, or information, in a capitalist society has the same effect of any other kind of ownership in capitalism - it tends to accrue to the already wealthy, more and more over time. Imagine if we really did try and figure out which cultures "owned" which ideas, or suddenly the decedents of Bach had to be sent funds whenever anyone played his music. While there might be some particular marginal communities who would benefit, overall the benefits would go to the communities and families who were already rich and power. And whoever ended up owning the most important ideas, they would be set up as elites for a very log time indeed.

I thought it was interesting that all the bad shouty voices in this programme were women’s voices. Whereas the moral centres (Nathan Taylor and Prof White Supremacist Guy) were men (the former being benign, the latter a witch finder). Obviously knitting is primarily a female thing but are we also to conclude that purity spirals can often happen among women (disempowered - attempting to please a male moral upholder?).

Obviously all the examples in history have men as the centres (Mao, McCarthy, Stalin) but might women be more likely to be vectors for it ? I’m not aware of this happening in football communities for example - there the negative dynamic results in aggressive ‘bantz’.

I just wondered if that was part of the mechanism.

Well, there is a sort of similarity to mean girls types of interactions. And IIRC there is some sociological evidence that women use these kind of social and language techniques to assert power among themselves more than men do - they are more likely to use violence or have overt hierarchies.

Yes that would make sense.

The women have been caught acting like people again. Shocking!

I remember reading the blog post that kicked things off, the Karen Templer one and I've just went back to check - tbf I'm assuming the gender based off the name and their style of writing on their own blog that's linked but I'm pretty sure the first comment that really got laid into her in the comments was from a man who went off on one about her "white woman tears".

The BBC interview also interviewed briefly Maria Tusken who first described the behaviour as bullying and got her business pretty much decimated for it before Nathan Taylor posted his poem so there was a female 'moral centre' too if they can be described as that.

I know. Women are very capable of being horrible. I just wondered if the programme had intended to represent the situation this way because it reflects a general truth (that women’s bullying takes this form rather than using fists or aggressive banter) or if it was just that these were female communities and male communities are just as prone to this.

I think he said early on that purity spirals happen in all sorts of settings but he’d intentionally set out to look at 2 settings which you’d expect to be gentle and even gentile places.

I wondered if the voices were matched to portray the 20 ppl would refused to take part.

*who refused

This is all very reminiscent of the thing that Mark Fisher wrote some years back in 2013. His phrase for it was 'The Vampires Castle' - the same thing as your purity spirals in essence - call out culture to the nth degree, po faced moralising totally divorced from class context.

www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vampire-castle/