Kathleen Stock on kindness

[DomesticatedZombie]

Another interesting and thoughtful essay- here on political kindness and it's possible alternatives.

I'm not sure that I agree that kindness maps so strongly onto pity as Stock suggests, but I think it's undeniable that it's a potentially highly problematic value.

Kindness sounds undeniably a Good Thing. That undeniableness itself risks being a thought stopping cliche.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9

Real kindness can be complex and difficult - it isn't acquiescence or pandering or enabling.

kathleenstock.substack.com/p/the-pity-party-on-the-left?r=956zy&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

An interesting piece, and thought provoking. I will come back to this thread when I have stewed my thoughts a little.

Kindness does not mean the same thing to everybody. And kindness only works as a social strategy when it is reciprocal. Not in the sense of an exchange, but in the recognition that the people being kind need kindness, and that the people receiving kindness need to be also be kind.

Kindness has now become one of those meaningless terms like ‘love is love‘ It’s undefined, sounds great but is actually quite dangerous. I dislike it and refuse to use it.

I think the implied power differential is interesting. We can only offer kindness within either an equal relationship or from a position of power, can't we? Ukraine can't meet Russia with kindness. A woman in an abusive relationship will not get far with kindness.

I'm mostly a centre leftist and have long regarded some of my genuinely kind, helpful friends as a bit naive at times. (I guess I'm not that kind). I mean the people you feel you shouldn't criticise because it would be like kicking a puppy, but at the same time you feel a bit frustrated by their willingness to only see good in people.

Sometimes helping means giving, but other times it means challenging, understanding and problem solving. Saying "be kind" doesn't help addiction, feed the starving, prevent violence or end structural inequality.

The left is at its best when it uses its compassion to solve problems.

Slogans solve nothing.

Ah, I refer to this all the time! About how really "be kind" means "feel kindly". A great piece.

It's focussing directives on emotions, rather than action- not 'help people ' or 'take action to improve things' but a vague feely feel. It does seem to operate more on 'don't be unkind' than do anything positive.

Maybe it's just not a useful political concept.

They are useful distinctions. Like the difference between 'Love thy neighbour as thyself' and 'Do unto others as you would be done by'. Feelings V deeds.

A really thought provoking piece, thanks for sharing. I'm going to stew on it a while.

I have initial thoughts about the tendency of the left to eschew pragmatics for idealism that may be linked to (or pre-date) this drive for kindness but can't quite put my finger on it.

@MoltenLasagne

A really thought provoking piece, thanks for sharing. I'm going to stew on it a while.

I have initial thoughts about the tendency of the left to eschew pragmatics for idealism that may be linked to (or pre-date) this drive for kindness but can't quite put my finger on it.

Doctrinaire thinking leads to coercion in order to enforce the doctrine.

@MoltenLasagne

A really thought provoking piece, thanks for sharing. I'm going to stew on it a while.

I have initial thoughts about the tendency of the left to eschew pragmatics for idealism that may be linked to (or pre-date) this drive for kindness but can't quite put my finger on it.

I've been thinking this morning about 'progressivism' and the left. Started a thread on it, too, but don't know enough about history/politics/philosophy to link it all together.

I thought the point about Romanticism (in terms of French Revolution, but I'm wondering if this also ties into Enlightenment more generally) was really interesting - does Romanticism and Classicism connect to broadly 'left' and 'right' ideals?

I do not like performative politics. It gets nothing done, and wastes time. But then the cynic in me says it's useful for folk precisely because it means you don't have to actually do anything.

It's just another version of spin, but on a grander scale.

Gosh, that Roger Scrunton article she mentions doesn't pull any punches:

spectator.org/40477_totalitarian-sentimentality/

Fairness is a better thing to aim for, including to oneself.

"Be kind" now is about controlling the narrative and nothing to do with committing a kind act. It basically means shut the fuck up unless you are going to simper with loads of love heart emojis, deny the patent truth and not ask difficult questions.
Ironically a lot of "be kind" types are more than happy to bully others who are "not being kind." I suppose it must be a special type of high: being nasty to others while believing you are maintaining the moral highground.

[quote MangyInseam]Gosh, that Roger Scrunton article she mentions doesn't pull any punches:

spectator.org/40477_totalitarian-sentimentality/[/quote]
Thanks for linking! Another interesting viewpoint. I think a conservative view often considers itself highly rational and misses the fact that the values driving it are as emotive as those of liberals.

I did hunt for the Arendt essay mentioned, but couldn't find it ...