The Tyranny of Kindness, Pathocracy and Narcissism

[ArthurbellaScott]

https://unherd.com/2023/10/the-tyranny-of-pathological-kindness/

Interesting article and interview:

https://twitter.com/andrewdoyle_com/status/1726646891205824970

The article mentions several instances involving feminists and/or trans activists.

Can you just post the text or a summary of it.

Nobody wants to click links.

If it's too much effort to click a link then don't bother.

I agree it's an excellent article, @ArthurbellaScott, I shared it on another thread this morning.

"Acts of kindness bear witness to our shared suffering. But when kindness becomes pathological, it is cruel and divisive — as with these examples. And it is on the rise. In the West today, there are people whose suffering is deemed to be non-existent or of little value, and so judgement takes the place of understanding, punishment that of mercy. The result is a purity spiral whereby extreme kindness towards an in-group gives unlimited licence to act with cruelty towards an out-group."

Thanks for posting - really interesting interview.

The concept of kindness deserves a lot more thinking and scrutiny. It's not kind to demand others to be kind with or-else-their-will-be-consequences. It's not kind to only demand kindness from some people (mostly women)* and to hardly ever demand kindness towards those same people.

I think fairness must always be simultaneously considered when kindness is considered, because if it is not, then kindness can have its reverse side, i.e., by being kind to, say, a rapist, you end up being incredibly cruel to his victim.

*The campaigns seem to be aimed at women and often demand the relinquishing of women's rights but this is framed as kindness, and the expected levels of so-called kindness from women are set at higher levels than what is expected of men. This, then, makes a woman appear unkind when a man doing and saying the same thing would be deemed to be kind or at least neutral.

I completely agree, nepeta, I think it's much more important to aim to be fair.

I think if we're going to talk about kindness we need to talk about ethics.

It is clear by looking at the shape of the thing that, as the article puts it:

The result is a purity spiral whereby extreme kindness towards an in-group gives unlimited licence to act with cruelty towards an out-group.

That's clearly the motivation for a lot of it.

Reminds me of one of my other favourite recent insights (Shant Mesrobian on Twitter, Feb 2021):

The reason why so many extremely woke people turn out to have been bigoted in the past is because bigotry used to be the best way to bully and intimidate people, but now performative anti-bigotry is the best way to bully and intimidate people. An evolving toolset for sociopaths.

Now, I don't want to fall into the trap of just ascribing bad faith to people, as that's totally non-productive - you can't do that for individuals - you have to actually argue with the assumption of good faith.

But it is reasonable to do pattern recognition to see the shape of broader movements, particularly to be able to call out any sort of spin such as self-identification as "kind" or whatever. (It's a similar sort of sin to ascribe that sort of Goodness to yourself - make your argument, don't declare your moral virtue).

That's very well-expressed, Necessary.

Whether it's Lifton's Eight Criteria for Thought Reform or Snyder's consideration of language in On Tyranny, it all involves tyrannical restrictions on language and the policing of behaviour through the normalisation of harming.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/20/on-tyranny-twenty-lessons-from-twentieth-century-timothy-snyder-review

https://alexsager.com/2017/03/10/timothy-snyder-on-tyranny-twenty-lessons-from-the-twentieth-century-an-appreciation/

Collaborating, in secret, with a number of dissidents in post-war communist Poland, he sought to explain the “pathological inversion of a normal social hierarchy” in which “psychological deviants” take power and create a “pathocracy…wherein a small pathological minority takes control over a society of normal people”.

oh my god. I’ve been thinking for a while now about how the economy seems to be more and more dominated by demonstrations of value (signalling) rather than actually producing value. So people who optimise signalling over substance, e.g. narcissists, are getting an ever increasing share of wealth and power.

Under communist rule, Lobaczewski witnessed such people, riven with mediocrity and oblivious to their incompetence, become leading members of the party

I didn’t realise it had happened before. Welp. That’s the opposite of reassuring.

It's a coincidence that you should have posted that just now, Arthurbella, because I was just thinking about a book by Adam Phillips and Barbara Taylor which considers kindness in a philosophical/ethical framework.

https://www.karnacbooks.com/product/on-kindness/29618/

I haven't read it since it was first published but I think it was a million miles away from the 'be kind' cliche.

I happened to see Dr Hughes being interviewed by Andrew on Sunday so it’s great to have this article to read about his argument in greater detail, thanks OP 👍

That’s a really interesting article. Some of the examples are terrifying (the Stanford professor singling out Jewish students for punishment on the basis that Israel is a ‘coloniser’ in particular stood out).

In relation to kindness I keep thinking about how the concept is used as a disciplinary technique for children.

It’s used to teach them to behave in what we think is ‘the right way’. In doing so, ‘unkindness’ is positioned as something to be ashamed of and something that makes other people feel bad.

Now, with toddlers it is generally just part of the simplistic language used for everything. But kindness isn’t just restricted to ‘why we don’t hit’ into almost all aspects of behaviour. Not sitting still
on the carpet is ‘not kind’ to the teacher and the friend. And so on.

But we also use this quite infantalising language with adults and the extension of what can be covered by ‘kindness’ continues. It’s very clearly a tactic of making dissent or even discussion impossible - because who wants to be ‘unkind’?

"This impossibility of salvation makes sadism eternal".

Thanks @ArthurbellaScott really interesting read!

The points about de Sade were interesting and countered Angela Carter's view in 'The Sadean Woman' - to add another feminist angle. Boils down again to a libfem/radfem argument.

Thanks for the links, I’d like to read about this. I’m bored of hearing and seeing the word “kind” which seems to be everywhere since the pandemic. Usually it means “shut up and be a doormat”.

Thanks for sharing such an interesting article. Kindness is definitely distorted these days as a way to appease pathological behaviour, while punishing anyone deemed insufficiently compliant to such emotive manipulation.

It’s definitely shorthand for ‘shut up and do
as your told’.

But with a side order of ‘and apply your moral judgement to anyone who isn’t shutting up and doing what they’re told being kind too’.

'Kindness' is misused. It depends on context - sometimes it's kind to wring the neck of an injured bird.

I'd argue the vagueness is intentional to creating a vague sense that we ought to know what the Right Thing is and must do it, without ever exploring why. Passivity, generally. And as explorer in this board, kindness is applied differently to males and females, from a very young age.

The suggested sin of ever making anyone 'feel bad' also risks leaving us without moral corrective.

Excellent article, a lot of nail on the head moments. It is important to look at what this sweep of ideological nuttery permits people do DO and BE as opposed to what they say. What they say is largely scripted, parroted, words appropriated in the hope of them manipulating and coercing, and they're not understood nor related to any real concepts or values or thoughts - which is seen the moment you try to have a conversation or discuss said words.

There's nothing there. You move straight to insults, flouncing and rage that you are not doing what you're told. Which is to provide the wanted experience for the person wishing to use you.

We have, as a society, got to stop being so damn tolerant of abusive behaviour and to stop making excuses. To have equal opportunity zero tolerance for abusive, anti social behaviour, that identifies the behaviour without getting stuck on 'oh but it's an abusive person from THAT group and I show how lovely I am by being specially nice to That Group and make excuses'. It hasn't been lovely and nice to be nice, it's been fecking stupid. And its proved that lovely aspirations and kindness doesn't soften the heart of an abusive person with no interest beyond getting what they want out of you: it's just exploitable weakness. And boy has it been exploited. Including to the detriment and harm of those from Those Groups who are not abusive and anti social, but are entirely normal, appropriate people who do no harm. It is the behaviour, not the group. Otherwise the entire group ends up painted with the behaviour without their consent, because they too are being used. By one side to further their control and abuse of others, and by the other side to demonstrate how lovely and progressive they are to other lovely progressive people.

I don’t think that making someone feel bad is positioned as a blanket sin. It’s highly selective. The #bekind narrative is very much about hoping to ‘shame’ the people in the ‘wrong’ category. The aim is that they should feel bad because they’re not ‘kind’ (as defined by the ‘right side of history’ crowd).

you can’t disagree without being ‘a bad person’. Because thinking differently and not ‘validating’ the ideas and ‘identities’ of the in-group is to commit the sin of unkindness.

And the only reasonable way to counter that dreadful sin is to pillory the sinner. Or to ‘punch them in the face’.

It is utterly bonkers. And all very much in the long, puritanical history of interpreting ‘love’ and ‘kindness’ as punishing the heretics. Which may be why it’s been so popular in North America.

Quite. 'Be Kind' is the equivalent of 'God is Love' on the wall of the workhouses as people were beaten and starved.

Such a good article.

I agree with this in the comments section:
in my view, the issue isn’t so much a tolerance of speech as it is a hesitation or reluctance to respond when confronted with outlandish statements. Sometimes, I think the most effective form of resistance we need is simply more individuals bold enough to express their genuine thoughts, rather than conforming to expected narratives – that nothing more extreme than that is needed.

I basically don’t really give a shit what people think of me and will call out any ridiculousness. I simply don’t care if I’m deemed “unkind”. Luckily I don’t come across too many ridiculous people in my sphere - I get it would be difficult in a place of work depending on the atmosphere.

It is interesting to note though how very uncomfortable women become here, even GC women (as a shorthand term) when they feel other women are stating reality too bluntly, rejecting the illusions too harshly.

Lots of chat about how it should be possible to do this nicely and reasonably and try ..... well. More of what has wrecked women's rights and childsafeguarding over a decade. Nice and gentle and win-win.... has been destruction tested. Like the idea of 'let a few suffering men have a kind illusion and the sex class of men won't do any harm or exploit it'.

It’s very hard to overcome a long history of female socialisation that positions women as the custodians of everyone’s feelings. Censure because your tone or approach wasn’t ‘kind’ enough gets folded into it all and women are effectively forced to shut up and put up with things no one would expect from men.

So bloody depressing. Especially as embracing the nasty, unkind witch positioning only makes you even easier to dismiss. You are too easily positioned as a cautionary tale for young women, who must embrace the Maoist approach to the past in the name of progress. So those young women become especially enthusiastic #bekinders, always having to distinguish themselves from the witches and demonstrate that they can be worthy of love.