The Real Reason Hillary Should Not Be Veep

by: Pamela Gerloff

Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 13:14


(A dignitarian perspective from the co-author of Robert Fuller's new book, cross-posted from Huffington Post. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)

With all the talk of Hillary Clinton becoming Barack Obama's running mate, let's pause for a moment to push out the brain fog. Although I find Senator Clinton worthy of respect and admiration for her finer qualities of character and for what she has been able to accomplish in her political life, the sane truth is: she should not be vice president. Here's why:
Pamela Gerloff :: The Real Reason Hillary Should Not Be Veep
First, of course, are all the usual arguments against it, e.g., her Iraq war vote; her assassination comment; her old-style politics in a year when the presidential nominee will be running as the candidate of change; her party-ripping, politics-of-destruction campaign strategy in the primary; her "most hated politician" ranking in the polls; all the past Clinton scandals waiting to be dragged out of the closet, her husband's loose cannon-unpredictability, etc. Despite the advantages touted by Clinton supporters (If you don't pick her, we're going to make you lose the November election!), Hillary's baggage would end up being a distraction to the Obama campaign. In the end, Hillary in the VP slot on the ticket would do Obama and the Democratic Party more harm than good.

But all that aside, the real reason not to put Hillary in the VP position is because Obama has steadily and repeatedly shown that he is a dignitarian-defined as someone who values and chooses to live by principles of dignity for all-and he aims to run his campaign and his administration on such principles. Clinton, in contrast, has shown the opposite; what, in the parlance of dignity, would be termed rankist. Rankism is abuse of the power that comes with rank. It includes a wide range of behavior, such as: common snobbery, bullying, sexual harassment, verbal abuse, using political status for personal gain, segregation, torture, or pressuring smaller nations to serve the best interests of a larger nation. It is also the "ism" that encompasses all other "isms"-including racism, sexism, classism, and ageism, all of which have been present in this year's primary campaigns. Rankism is currently so pervasive in our culture-and so unrecognized as a concept-that it goes largely unnoticed. The way to unify the party and the country is to target rankism, thereby simultaneously addressing the other "isms" currently at play on the political scene.

One of the best ways to begin eradicating rankism, and build party and national unity, is to build a strong ethos of dignitarianism-respect for the dignity of all. This happens through our use of language, through aligning our own actions with principles of respect and dignity, and through the policies we implement in our institutions and governmental bodies.
Refusing to blame or label others; articulating a vision of dignity for all; and passing laws and policies that respect the rights and dignity of everyone, regardless of race, gender, economic class, social status, or political viewpoint, are all ways to build a culture of dignity.

I would suggest that of all the major presidential candidates this season, Obama has done these things most consistently. While all of us at times exhibit rankist attitudes, language, and behavior, some of us do it more than others. For those committed to dignity, there is a concerted effort to maintain higher standards, even in the rough and tumble of politics. Obama has demonstrated this commitment, many times refusing to retaliate with character assassination and personal attack when he easily could have, repeatedly lifting the discourse to encourage people to reach toward a dignitarian potential, and proposing policies that promise to honor the dignity of everyone by providing fair and just access to resources, from health care to college education to housing.

Senator Clinton, though well-intentioned and no doubt also concerned about dignity for the larger population, is nonetheless steeped in the politics of rankism. Old-style politics is built on rankist principles: "Old Boys' (or Girls') networks; you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours; if you do that I'll retaliate, and your political career will be ruined; destroy your enemies; win at all costs; use attack ads if it works; keep the powerful happy because you're likely to need them; don't worry about the truth, say what the people want to hear.

That's how old-style politics works. It is also the root of Hillary's willingness to engage in rankist behavior on the campaign trail. Just a few examples: "going negative" with campaign advertising and verbal innuendo that played on the primal fears of the populace; tearing down her opponent, instead of focusing on establishing meaningful differences in approach (which would have simultaneously preserved the unity of the party and helped build a reputation for herself as a dignitarian); blaming others for her own errors; changing the rules of engagement when they suited her purposes (now we should count the Florida and Michigan votes, even though I, my opponent, and the DNC all agreed not to; now we shouldn't count caucus states when calculating popular vote totals); playing loose with the truth (e.g., her Bosnia adventures and the probable impact of the gas tax).

Rankist behavior occurs routinely in politics, and old-guard politicians such as the Clintons are adept at it. The primary error in advocating Hillary for the VP slot is that it overlooks and excuses Hillary's rankist behavior during the primary and during her many years of experience playing insider, old-style, rankist politics.  And that misses the point of what the voters' deep hunger for change is fundamentally about. Voters this season are hungry for dignity. Voters recognize in Obama someone who is fundamentally respectful of the dignity of all people. To put Hillary on the ticket with him seriously undermines that stance. Whatever other qualities Obama's VP may need to have to "balance the ticket," rankist behavior is not one of them. The VP candidate must subscribe to dignitarian principles and must have a record of living by them, even in the world of politics. There can be no compromise on this point, because that is the fundamental change the Obama voters are seeking-and, in the end, it will be the change that will return Clinton supporters to the fold and unite the Democratic Party and the nation.

Pamela Gerloff is co-author, with Robert W. Fuller, of Dignity for All: How to Create a World without Rankism (forthcoming, June 2008, Berrett-Koehler Publishers).

Originally posted at Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The term "Vice" President implies/imposes rank (0.00 / 0)
and enscribes rankism at the very heart of our political system.  Remove rankism from US politics and our political system cannot survive because it will have no basis.

I'm not implying that it would be a BAD thing, it could be a very good thing for the human beings (and other beings, BTW) that inhabit the Earth and the US in particular, but what's left of our political system when rank has been removed?  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


Heirarchy vs. rankism (4.00 / 2)
You can have heirarchy -- somebody has to be empowered to make decisions -- without rankism.  

[ Parent ]
Rankism Is About The ABUSE Of Power (4.00 / 2)
Some systems of rank--male over female, black over white, etc., are inherently abusive.  Others are simply subject to abuse.

While we can certainly disagree about sepcific instances--and this is even a positive development, since it means we are taking such issues seriously--the principle of these two different categories should certainly be clear enough.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Rankism does NOT mean getting rid of rank (4.00 / 1)
To clarify: rank is perfectly fine. It is often necessary, and often good. It can be essential to effective functioning.

The problem is abuse of rank. That is rankism. Just because someone is in a role that gives them greater decision-making authority than someone else(e.g., president vs. vice president), that does not mean they have the right to abuse people of lower rank than themselves.

A president is in a position of high rank. To use it to infringe on the rights of those of lesser rank is rankism.

To take advantage of power and power positions and use that power to denigrate, humiliate, insult, or otherwise infringe on another person's dignity is rankism.

Pamela Gerloff


[ Parent ]
Thanks to all three of you for your responses (0.00 / 0)
I see the point you are making, its good to clarify up-front.

My point is a bit more subtle perhaps.  Because the system we employ to govern ourselves so dearly depends upon heirarchy and "connections", its very nature so augments and facilitates the "abuse" of the rank earned within it that working within the system will result in more rankism.

I don't believe this is a system to change from within because in order to gain enough "power", which is basically "rank" in a rankist system, to affect reform, one has to employ the very structures that one eschews.

So, looking to a presidential candidate from one of two major parties in the US to help eliminate rankism is like looking under rocks to find rainbows.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
By The Same Logic, We Should Still Have Slavery (4.00 / 1)
The problem with your reasoning is that it pretends the structures of power exist in isolation from the social forces around them.

They only wish!

It's still the same old story--the people lead, and the leaders follow.  Obama's a bit ahead of the curve in talking the talk in broad brush strokes, but he's obviously behind the curve when it comes down to brass tacks.  He's sort of like an upside LBJ that way.  But Presidents do have a role to play in this process, as do we all.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
I don't follow your logic (4.00 / 1)
concerning slavery. Maybe you mean that the very rankist nature of our society made it very likely that one group would exploit that system to enslave another, but if so, you are not subverting my argument.  You do realize that slavery still exists in the world and in the US, today, right?    

Yes, I do believe that the very structure of our political system is, in and of itself, given over to the explotation of rankism to such a degree that it is inconsistent with a rank-free mode of governance.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
You Are Making An Apriori Argument (0.00 / 0)
You aren't arguing from evidence.  You are arguing from tautological principles--a rankist system cannot promote anti-rankist attitudes, values and practices.

This sort of thinking seemed really sophisticated when I first encountered it in Plato at age 12 or so.  "Good comes only from the Good, yadda-yadda-yadda." But then I thought about it some, and concluded, not so much.

Well, by the same logic, the slavery-dominated US should never have abolished slavery.  But it did--difficult though that proved.  That's because life is not a tautological system of logic.

[Homer Simpson voice]: "D'oh!

And, yes, I know about modern-day slavery.  From the publisher's website for the revised edition of Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy:

"A gripping account of the major forms slavery takes around the world today, introducing enslaved people, their families, and entire social strata deprived of the most basic rights. Disposable People is an eloquent plea. Avoiding easy moralism and sensationalism alike, it discloses the daily soul-destroying brutality of slavery on our planet today."-Paul Rosenberg, The Christian Science Monitor


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
So insulting you are (0.00 / 0)
and yet, so defensive. A representative democracy creates ranks by transferring power from the bottom toward the top. Federalism does the same thing. That's not a priori.

[ Parent ]
You Still Don't Get The Concept Of Rankism (0.00 / 0)
That's both a priori, and quite mistaken.

It's a priori because it's an argument made on a definitional  basis before looking at any data whatsoever.  

It's mistaken because representative democracy transfers decisionmaking authority from the bottom toward the top.  The degree to which this devolves into transfer of power is not given in advance.

But you are not looking at what actually happens on a case-by-case or historical basis.  (The Iriquois Confederacy, one of the models for our government, appears to have been markedly more successful in avoiding the transfer of power, for example.) That is why I said that you are arguing on an a priori basis.

And, FWIW, you are no better at reading tone, attitude or minds than you are at reading words.

I'm more in the mode of wryly mocking your pretentiousness than anything else.

I mean, really, the Simpsons reference should have been a dead give-away.

Moral: Lighten up, dude!  It's FRIDAY!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
OK, then its a rejection (0.00 / 0)
of the concept that "authority" can be separated from "rank".  More authority = higher rank.

To believe that you've not relinquished power by accepting "representation" is unrealistic, at best.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Not sure the system rewards rankism so much as you assume (0.00 / 0)
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. I've worked in organizations that effectively punish rankism, and others where it was rampant. The former functioned better, and where there's competition, those organizations would succeed better than the latter ones. Think Toyota (non-rankist) and GM (rankist).

The same holds for political organizations. IMO, the Obama-Clinton race is a case in point. I've spent many hours around the Obama campaign and found it to be a particularly anti-rankist environment. I have less direct experience with the Clinton organization, but by many accounts it was top down and not particularly empowering.


[ Parent ]
rankism WILL be practised (0.00 / 0)
by a certain percentage of people in a given population.  How many does it take?  two percent? 5%? What percent of the population controls 95% of the world's finances?  What percent of the world's population is in positions of executive political power?

IF the goal is elimination of rankism,the current system must be changed, or it will be used (and IS being used) by a very small percentage of the population to subjugate (by any means possible) the rest.

Sure, Obama will be better than Mccain within the margins, but his politics (new, or otherwise) does not even pretend to transcend those margins.

This issue has nothing to do with the presidential election because both candidates play within the same margins of rankism, i.e. the same political system.

Advance will be accomplished by fundamental structural change, I suggest means to open the field to more parties, which will alter the field in a way that any thoughtful, adept, active political actor can take advantage.  If you concede to the current system, you accept a limited view of our democratic potential.  

For example: A restructuring of the voting system (along the lines of IRV, or some other mechanism) will in effect "de-rank" the two party dominance, thus providing a less "rankist" system.  Such a structural change will then serve to provide a novel political context in which to develop such movements as are hinted at on these pages.

From what I've read here, and happen to agree with, the best way for Democrats to win a GE is to move toward the Left, rather than the nebulous "middle", which is basically a media construct anyway. One way to diffuse the "Nader Vote" would be to embrace it.  To the extent that you think of the "Left" in the US, you should realize that it is not fully comprised of the "progressive wing" of the Democratic party.

So, pick an issue, like voting reform, like a restoration of balance between the Congress and Executive with regard to Declaration of War, something that explicitly DEGRADES the power of the two party system, and/or the unitary executive and make a stand on this issue. You'll activate your "fundamentalist" base, AND strengthen your hand in the long run.  

PS: This is not off topic, because it is the inherent "rankism" of the two-party system that diminishes my political power and expression.

Thank you all for the space in which to state that such is the case.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Strategy for Unity ticket (4.00 / 3)
Ask Hillary to join the 3 person baord vetting candidates.  That way, any VP candidate has the more direct endorsement of Clinton.

John McCain won't insure children

Cheney moment in the making... (4.00 / 4)
I can imagine the recommendation from Clinton would probably be herself. =)

[ Parent ]
Yeah, well... (0.00 / 0)
Although, it still would be Obama's decision.  

John McCain won't insure children

[ Parent ]
It's A Good Idea (4.00 / 1)
but leshrac55 immediately spotted the Achilles Heel.

(Cheney, OTOH, was nobody's heel but his own.)

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Rankism? (4.00 / 3)
I thought rankism was something along the lines of:

"abusive, discriminatory, or exploitative behavior towards people who have less power because of their lower rank in a particular hierarchy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

In your world, it apparently means, "something that I don't like, whether it occurred or not."

Most of the sins you have listed, real of imagined - going negative on an (equal) opponent, blaming others, adopting inconsistent positions on Fl and MI, promoting a policy you disagree with, or lying - have nothing to do with rankism.  They may be related to honesty, kindness, ruthlessness, but not rankism.  The most ridiculous example you provide is the Bosnia story, which had absolutely nothing to do with rank or even a abuse of power.

Thanks for reminding me why I don't go to huffpo much anymore.


Re: Rankism? (4.00 / 1)
Rankism also has a number of other definitions and manifestations, including "damaging assertion of rank"--as in a mugging. A mugger asserts his or her rank in a way that is damaging to the other person, though you could argue that the two people involved are "equal" in rank.
  It can also be "when the personal interests of rankholders are placed above those they serve."
  Or when the legitimate interests of "somebodies" are given prioriy over the legitimate interests of "nobodies"; "the presumption of superiority; "using the power of position to secure unwarranted advantages or benefits for onself"; "self-aggrandizement"; "inflicting indignity on others". (These are taken from the forthcoming book Dignity for All: How to Create a World without Rankism).
  The behaviors I listed on Hillary's part do fall into the various "alternative definitions" and manifestations of rankism originally outlined by Robert Fuller.
   Not telling the truth to voters is a way of indignifying them.
  And if you read thru the list, I would be surprised if you didn't agree that the pattern created is one of treating an opponent and voters with indignity. I think they indicate lack of respect and dignity, in comparison to the kind of dignitarian politics and government I hope we will one day have.

Pamela Gerloff

[ Parent ]
Absurd (4.00 / 4)
A mugger isn't using rank to get your money, he's using force, or the threat of force. Someone who puts their personal interests above those they serve isn't being rankist, they're being corrupt. Someone who delineates between "somebodies" and "nobodies" is being elitist. Not telling the truth to voters isn't rankism, it's lying. And if I read through your list, I see your filtered version of reality which may or may not coincide with my view of the race and how it was run.

I don't mean to be a jerk, but I think this is a buzzword in search of a problem to solve, and it doesn't solve anything to be parsing the campaign through yet another warped lens. If your only tool is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail; if your only tool is a concept of "rankism", then you begin to see the entire world in those terms.

And please, is the name Robert Fuller supposed to be familiar? Who is this guy whose name you mention in every comment?


[ Parent ]
He was the star of "Wagon Train" (0.00 / 0)
in the 1960s.  He killed lots of Indians, all the while managing not to "indignify" them.

[ Parent ]
Are You This Openminded With Every New Idea? (4.00 / 1)
If so, I wonder what makes you a progressive.

Do you downgrade every new idea to mere "buzzword" status?

Rather than assume you know know what you're talking about, it might be a good idea to make sure first.  Instead, "it can't be," try a little "I don't understand how..."

Who knows? You might even learn something.

Such as:  Robert Fuller is the author of several books, the man who coined the term "rankism," and someone who's posted here before, and whom I've referred to repeatedly in various diaries and comments.

"I'm Bart Simpson, who the hell are you?" is kinda cute, coming from Bart Simpson.  But there's a reason he makes the big bucks.  You're not him.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
I'm not openminded with most ideas (4.00 / 1)
..new or otherwise, and this one doesn't seem particularly new to me. It's basically "some people don't treat others with respect, and that's bad". Which I suppose it is, but it's a stretch to take such an intellectual construct and apply it to the praxis of our current situation. It's a nice idea in theory, but don't mistake theory for practice. Hillary Clinton might be described as running a rankist campaign, but don't use rankism as a justification for a nuts-and-bolts decision. It's precisely this sort of ism thinking that Obama is trying to transcend when he talks about doing away with the "old politics" of identity.

I'm not trying to be cute, if I were I'd post my picture. And how do you know I'm not Bart Simpson? I'd never heard of Robert Fuller, I asked who he was, and you told me. Learn something new every day.

I understand if you don't appreciate me poking at your guest, Paul, but beneath the bluster I really feel that post-structuralist social theory has done great damage to the political status of the left, and continuing or extending identity-based politics won't win elections, pass legislation, or solve any of the enormous problems we have to solve.


[ Parent ]
Good Lord! (0.00 / 0)
This has nothing to do with post-structuralist social theory.

But I guess if you see everything through that lens, it must be pretty hard to understand something this simple and direct.

"Rankism" is the answer to the question, "What do racism, sexism, imperialism and bullying have in common?"

No theory needed, really.  Just a bit of observation will do, at least to get things off the ground.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Actually, no (0.00 / 0)
There is another, much more basic answer to that question, one that's been around for ages and predates the concept of empire and of race.

But if you don't already know what that is, I can't explain it to you. And I mean that in earnest.


[ Parent ]
Well, Yes (4.00 / 1)
The concept of fundamental human dignity is a very ancient one.  We evolved as small group social animals with very flat and fluid hierarchies.  This rankism stuff is just a passing phase.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Sorry if this "indignifies" you (4.00 / 1)
but your definition is tripe.  Demeaning or discounting people who happen to be lower than you in status is vile conduct. It is one thing to recognize that every act of violence, every insult, and many dishonest statements occur in the framework of people struggling in a hierarchy, and that people generally want to move up in whatever hierarchy they inhabit.  It is another to subsume all human evil into a single subcategory of evil - that is, some sort of class or power struggle.

The mugging is a perfect example.  The mugger mugs the wealthy executive to assert his dignity and some momentary superiority over him, but his larger aim is money.  The mugger does not assume that he is gaining social rank on the business executive.  Mugging is an act of greed or desperation, and violence that occurs in a hierarchy.  That makes it exactly that - not an instance of rankism.

BTW, is it rankism if one influential person demeans or "indignifies" (what an inspid new word) someone of equal or greater status, expressly to help someone of lower status?

 


[ Parent ]
How convenient (4.00 / 4)
that you happen to have written a book on the very idea you're trying to push here -- that the REAL reason why Clinton shouldn't be VP is not any of the stuff identified by anyone else, but it just happens to be explained perfectly by this brand new concept you're offering for sale soon in bookstores near me. Yet another brand new "-ism" that explains everything, and introduces yet another identity division into our already crowded bullpen of identities that have chopped up the Democratic party into a thousand little pieces. That's what we really need now, is a whole lot of our leaders going around pointing fingers at each other calling each other "rankist"! That will solve climate change, right the economy, and end the Iraq war for sure!

re: Pointing Fingers (0.00 / 0)
I agree that we don't need "a whole lot of our leaders going around pointing fingers at each other, calling each other rankist!" But we do need to disallow rankism. Rankism is as harmful and as dysfunctional as racism, sexism, classism, ageism, and any other ism. Until we begin to acknowledge it as a reality in our society, we will not be able to make full progress in eradicating the other isms. That's the usefulness of the concept of rankism. If a black man treats another black man with indignity, it's not racism. So what is it? There may be some variation, depending on the context, it is often an assertion of rank--a way to make oneself feel like a somebody by making someone else feel like or appear to be a nobody.

I do agree that pointing fingers is not usually helpful. That's why it's beneficial for each of us to look at our own rankism at the same time we identify it in others and our society. But we do have to begin to talk about it and identify it so that it can be counteracted.

The concept of rankism is not exactly new--Fuller has been working on it for many years. He has already written two books on the subject. (The most recent book is a more practical handbook about how to counteract and prevent rankism, and it's been in the works for awhile. It was not specifically timed for the political season, but it is relevant, because a big part of the change that many of us want to see now is a change toward greater respect and dignity for all--as manifested in many different ways, including through legislation and public policy, in and how political campaigns are run.)


Pamela Gerloff


[ Parent ]
Focus on Dignity (0.00 / 0)
I want to also add that one way to not "go around pointing fingers" and name-calling other people "rankist" is to focus on dignity. I think that's really the best way to create a more dignitarian society. Recognize dignitarian behavior when it is there, reward it, and keep building on it.

But the concept of rankism can sometimes make it easier to identify dignitarianism, by contrast. And it makes it possible to disallow the damaging behavior.

Also, everyone has felt the sting and the damaging effects of rankism. And we've all dished it out. None of us is immune. So it's a concept and an experience we can all identify with (which should make it easier for people to empathize with victims of other isms like sexism or racism).

Obama is not immune from rankist behavior either. (So I'll also reply to the person who noted some of his rankism, below).

Pamela Gerloff


[ Parent ]
The Same Stupid BS People Throw At David Sirota (4.00 / 1)
Why shouldn't progressive book authors write diaries on progressive blogs?

Should we all be permanently inept at reaching out to people with new ideas?

The logic of such complaints utterly escapes me.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
I don't understand your criticism of Pamela's post (4.00 / 1)
I had my own problems, which you can read below.

But the reason someone writes a book (like Sirota, or Fuller and Gerloff) is because they believe they have a new intellectual tool or framework for understanding the world. This one, which I like (though you may not) views everyone as deserving a sort of basic dignity, and tries to understand and combat the major obstacles to that. Sirota's, obviously, views American politics through the framework of a new type of populist uprising, which leads him to different analysis and conclusions.

You object to analyzing the current presidential race through this framework, but that seems wrong to me. The point of this type of intellectual framework is to facilitate real-world analysis. If it didn't give us a way to understand the current presidential race, it wouldn't be valuable at all.

Finally, I want to disagree with your point that rankism will further divide us. Rankism should be understood as the abuse of any sort of power you have over another. That includes gender, race, class, education, and many others. The point is to understand all of these divisions, which we often look at distinctly, as coming from a common human inclination that we need to combat. But looking at this as one common thread through all discrimination, it brings people together and hopefully diminishes the sort of infighting and traded accusations of sexism and racism that we've seen in this race.

Hope that helps.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.


[ Parent ]
Let me try a little harder (0.00 / 0)
I understand that this is part of the intellectual process, and I'm helping in a way -- I'm articulating an oblique critique and Pamela has responded thoughtfully (and Paul's gotten pissed off, which is an oblique to my oblique). That's how these things get hammered out.

What I object to, I guess, is the idea that analyzing the current race through any intellectual framework facilitates real-world analysis. What it does is create a frame (in the Lakoffian sense) that limits the ways in which it's possible to view something and encourages a reductive analysis: everything in terms of framework X. That kind of thinking is more limiting than it is useful.

Furthermore, I think we have more to gain as a society from eliminating the distinction between "you" and "another". We won't abuse rank, class, race, gender, or anything else if we perceive the other side to be the same as us. It's a bit much to ask that the distinction vanish, but we can at least see it as an artificial one that's constructed by concepts like rank, class, race, and so on.


[ Parent ]
Curiouser And Curiouser (0.00 / 0)
What I object to, I guess, is the idea that analyzing the current race through any intellectual framework facilitates real-world analysis. What it does is create a frame (in the Lakoffian sense) that limits the ways in which it's possible to view something and encourages a reductive analysis: everything in terms of framework X. That kind of thinking is more limiting than it is useful.

Since when does looking at something from one angle prevent us from walking five feet and taking another look at another angle?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Nothing at all (0.00 / 0)
And you can take five steps and look from another angle, and another, and another, and still not see the whole picture. Try to do away with the concept of "angle". Try to do away with the concept. I'm saying this as plainly as I can.

[ Parent ]
In defense of corax (4.00 / 1)
I appreciate both sides of the issue here and would like to comment.

Frameworks can be helpful. And I agree with the idea that they are not much use if you can't apply them to real-life. I think the dignity/rankism framework can be a helpful lens through which to look at this season's political campaign and future political questions.

However, frameworks are limited. They do tend to reinforce themselves and the one angle/interpretation through which you are seeing and understanding phenomena. i.e., they can also blind us to broader perspectives.

The trick is to recognize that this is one lens. It's useful for what it is useful for. For what it not useful for, don't use it.

As to corax's "furthermore"--I have to say, you sound like a person after my own heart. This is kind of a long story, but I came upon the phenomenon of rankism as a child (though I didn't call it rankism, of course--the word wasn't even around then)--and I puzzled and puzzled about it, trying to get at the root of the human propensity to always find someone else or some group to put down. Couldn't we all just stop labeling each other, and just treat everyone as if they were reasonably equal and worthy?

Well, I came to what I think corax is getting at. The root of the problem seemed to be the belief that we are separate from one another. To me, that may get more at the root of the issue than the word "rankism" does (perhaps not)--but rankism is an important construct, I believe, because it allows us to operationalize a way of counteracting this tendency to separate ourselves from one another--this seeming need to differentiate ourselves as somebodies and nobodies vis-a-vis one another.

If we did not see ourselves as separate from one another, in some fundamental way, we would not see ourselves as superior or inferior, and there would be no rankism. The quest to release, more and more, feelings of separation from one another, is, I would say, primarily a spiritual quest (though you may not see it that way--it could also be viewed as a political approach). The concept of rankism allows us to address this problem in the real world without having to see ourselves as "not separate"--all we have to do is recognize that we are all inherently worthy of dignity, and it is an essential human need. We don't have to go into the issue of separate/not separate. That's useful, I believe, at this point in history.

Pamela Gerloff


[ Parent ]
What kind of tool? (0.00 / 0)
I went over to Fuller's site, and saw his little video promoting his last book.  He mentioned that there wasn't a word "sexism" at one time, but once the word was coined, men had a tool with which to examine their behavior.

"Sexism" is both a useful and a problematic concept, as is "racism."  Academics and laypeople disagree on the meaning of the terms (see, for example, the debate in the primary over labelling certain statements or tactics racist or sexist).  But both have a basic, understandable meaning, which is rooted in an observable reality - that is, women and minorities have been historically oppressed, and there are specific social structures and sterotypes that can be identified as harmful.

But "rankism" isn't at all similar.  I can be rankist to people below me, and suffer rankism from those above me.  In fact, it appears that even people of the same social rank can be rankist towards each other (if that's the right new word).  You can't point to specific structures or policies that are harmful, because the wrong seems to be the abuse of any power conferred by social status.  Unlike racism and sexism, the definitional problems are overwhelming, as shown by what has already occurred in this thread.

The first objection I have to this sort of meaningless buzzword "analysis" in liberal thought is that it discredits legitimate concepts.  It makes liberals sound like a bunch of Stuart Smalley types, devoid of anything but ineffectual good intentions.

The second objection I have is that this is already more than sufficiently covered by existing ideas.  Economic oppression, class struggle, etc. are distinct from sexism, which is distinct from unsportsmanlike conduct at a football game (which is as much rankism, under these definitions, as a mugging, certainly).  It is a tool of propaganda, not analysis - it is meaningless, and can be used to demonize whoever the speaker doesn't like.  As such, it can only divide people - it doesn't have another use.


[ Parent ]
Thank you! (0.00 / 0)
Please take all of my comments from this thread and replace them with this one from kanzeon. Gassho.

[ Parent ]
I'd like to focus on your last paragraph (4.00 / 1)
As I think it illustrates part of our disagreement very well.
Economic oppression, class struggle, etc. are distinct from sexism, which is distinct from unsportsmanlike conduct at a football game (which is as much rankism, under these definitions, as a mugging, certainly).

Those who study race, class and gender would largely take offense to the ideas that these are "distinct." They aren't because they are interconnected, they drive eachother, they cannot be eliminated one at a time, and most importantly because they all come from a common human tendency to establish and abuse divisions between people. Rankism, as I understand it, is an attempt to classify the general human tendency to abuse privilege, no matter where it is derived from.

Rowdyness at a football game is a funny example. On the one hand, neither person likely is abusing their rank over the other, they're functionally equal. On the other handit's a situation in which two people who have a lot in common (the same race, likely both male, similar cultural background, share a passion for a sport) actually come to blows because of a distinction they've both chosen in terms of what sports team they like. The Nika riots that wrecked Constantinople were started over chariot racing teams. So don't discount the power of those types of chosen identities.

Anyway, we're a little off track. I basically disagree that we've somehow "sufficiently" analyzed every type of discrimination, and so now we can just all go around spotting them and criticizing them. This type of analysis that tries to bring them together and understand them for what they are is important. It provides a framework for viewing public policy and politics that doesn't rely on a sort of checklist of isms, but a more basic question. Is this promoting or undermining the common dignity that every human being is entitled to?

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.


[ Parent ]
the common dignity (4.00 / 1)
Yes!

--Is this promoting or undermining the common dignity that every human being is entitled to?--

Imagine what would happen if that were our guiding question--as individuals, families, groups and organizations, communities, and nations?

And if that were the question our political leaders and legislators asked?

Pamela Gerloff


[ Parent ]
Your points. (0.00 / 0)
1.  Whether racism, sexism, and classism are interconnected doesn't change the fact that they are also distinct.  I have no idea whether they could be eliminated serially, or whether there is or can be a culture that is, for example, not at all racist, but very sexist.  If you ever want to deal with them on a realistic level, you need to treat them distinctly.  A racist policy, for example, is differing sentences for crack and cocaine posession.  A sexist policy, for example, is a restrictive family leave law.  I can't imagine how to combat these distinct evils except largely separately.  I understand that they are historically and culturally connected, but that tells me very little about how to reduce them on a pratical level, other than some sort of universal sensitivity training, or teaching everyone to live the golden rule - something we haven't had good progress at for tens of thousands of years.

2.  Humans can be a mean species.  They use rocks, guns, insults, and social structures to take things from other humans.  You call it a "common human tendency to establish and abuse divisions between people," the Catholics call it original sin, and Bruce Springsteen said "there's a meanness in this world."  We can call it the will to power or the failure to respect the categorical imperative.  When you invent a phrase that includes all lying, mugging, conflicts at a football game, genocide, and slavery, you haven't created an "analytical" concept - you've only pointed to the philosophical mystery that includes much of human suffering.  


[ Parent ]
"I can't imagine how to combat these distinct evils except largely separately." (4.00 / 1)
I think this is where we differ. The fact that such a high percentage of black men are imprisoned takes a huge toll on women and children. Only "women" as a group don't really do much about them, because "women" and women's groups are dominated by white women who don't much care. In fact, the racist ideas that permeate our criminal justice system, are often concepts of masculinity and femininity that portray black men as a threat to white women; they are not just racist, they are also sexist.

Policies that benefit women in terms of work, reproductive rights, etc. aren't just worse in the South because people are more sexist there. The conservative hegemony there has largely relied on exploiting existing racial tensions.

Whether or not rankism is a good term we can disagree on, but the idea that you can confront these issues separately, either politically or in policy, is hugely misguided. The continuing belief that women's groups should focus on women and "Civil Rights Groups" should focus on blacks has been horribly divisive (look at the primary) and leaves certain groups (minority women and poor women, say) fundamentally out in the dust.

Finally, I just want to say I think part of your problem is that you're focusing on the rankism part of the equation, but not the dignitarian part. Rankism, meaning bigotry generally and the desire to exploit or abuse your power over others, violates the dignitarian framework. So while "fighting rankism" may not be as compelling as "fighting racism" the dignitarian framework gives you a positive political and policy guideline.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.


[ Parent ]
Well Put (0.00 / 0)
This is very much a holistic vision on Fuller's part.  For example, he writes a lot about modelling as a way of comprehending what a dignitarian organization or society would look like.

Trying to deal with the pieces misses the point, because the whole purpose of the framework is to provide a larger context for the pieces.  This is not to say that the pieces don't matter.  It's just that the concept is about the pattern they form.

Even if it were the case that there was no legal/public policy overlap between all the different forms that rankism takes, it would still be the case that there are common moral imperatives at the core of the dignitarian vision that apply across all the different form of rankism.  And that means a very straightforward Lakoffian argument would say that we ought to talk about the common moral reason that moves us to take action in all these different fields.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
The point hasn't been missied (0.00 / 0)
The point is that holistic visions should be treated with skepticism, because they are so often wrong since they can be supported selectively.

I'm reminded of a couple of ideas I found attractive.  I was fascinated by Dawkins' theory of memes.  I did some reading in memetics, and found that, the closer one looked at the concept, the more difficult it was to make sense of it.  Was the meme the stuff inside a person's head, or was it the observed behavior?  How do you define a "unit" of cultural information?  Was "replication" an apt concept?  Etc.

Similarly, I enjoyed Robert Wright's book NonZero, which argues tht cultural and biological evolution tend toward structures of greater complexity.  Then I read several very well-argued critiques, and found myself a skeptic.  I don't think either idea is wrong, or useless - I'm just much more skeptical, and unless there is a serious new twist on the thought, they are more or less at dead ends.

It occured to me that, just because it would be really neat and intellectually satisfying and even earth-shattering to find common threads between cultural and biological evolution, doesn't mean such common threads exist.  We know some things about biological evolution.  We know some things about cultural evolution.  There isn't any precisely definable benefit to tying the two, other than a desire for synthesis, or any reason to think they can be tied.

I didn't miss the point of memes or NonZero - and I haven't missed Fuller's point.  Some people think they can wish themselves into a miracle zone and be exempt from the laws of physics.  Others think they can wish broad theories of everything into existence, just because they want them.  I'm highly skeptical of both.  Great syntheses are rare and difficult; making up bullshit words and finding connections where you want them is commonplace.  


[ Parent ]
Yes, we differ. (0.00 / 0)
I don't really get much sense out of your persepctive, honestly.

"The fact that such a high percentage of black men are imprisoned takes a huge toll on women and children."

Every social ill that befalls men takes a toll on women and children.  War.  Unsafe working conditions.  Etc.  That makes them general ills - that is, harms that are evenly distributed regardless of sex or race.  War and unsafe working conditions aren't feminist issues because they don't harm women more than men.  Unsafe working conditions isn't a racist issue.  War can be a racist issue, depending on the conflict and who is recruited to fight.

"Only "women" as a group don't really do much about them, because "women" and women's groups are dominated by white women who don't much care."

I would guess that white women, as a group, are about as concerned about the black prison population as white men, or maybe a little more.  

"In fact, the racist ideas that permeate our criminal justice system, are often concepts of masculinity and femininity that portray black men as a threat to white women; they are not just racist, they are also sexist."

I'd say black men are portrayed as dangerous to all white people.  But, even granting your point on your terms, what exactly are you saying?  The idea that black men are out to rape white women is racist.  It isn't sexist.  Reforming the criminal justice system will help the black males who are imprisoned, and the women and children who care for them.  The benefits to white women and children are indirect, if they exist at all.  Whereas, supporting equal pay for women will do nothing for the black men in prison.  They are tangentially related, certainly. But no more than that.

"the dignitarian framework gives you a positive political and policy guideline."  

I've browsed the net for the "dignitarian framework."  Dignitarian.org has the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it has a bunch of stuff on using polite language and improving listening skills.  If you want to call human rights "dignitarian," fine, but I'd just as soon call them human rights.  Open communication skills are admirable, but they hardly qualify as anything more than good breeding.  What is the "dignitarian framework" and how is it anything other than a vague invocation of the golden rule?  


[ Parent ]
Neat Trick! (0.00 / 0)
The first objection I have to this sort of meaningless buzzword "analysis" in liberal thought is that it discredits legitimate concepts.  It makes liberals sound like a bunch of Stuart Smalley types, devoid of anything but ineffectual good intentions.

So first you misunderstand a new concept because your head is full of preconceptions, then you decided it's a "meaningless buzzword," and then you worry what people will think of us.  They might even call you bad names, or stick out their tounges.

So not impressed with this line of argument.

Ditto what Sam has said on the constructive analysis front. He's spot on.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Some things are self-evident. (0.00 / 0)
If the definition of "rankism" is the abuse of power by the powerful against the weak, then I have no problem with the word.  However, I would still question its usefulness as an analytical concept, because (among other things): 1. as any parent or boss knows, what is a proper exercise v. abuse of power can never be clearly defined; 2. such abuse is largely a matter of personal choice (certainly it is in the childish Clinton [Goofus] v. Obama [Gallant]storyline above) and not something that can be institutionally eliminated in the political process and; 3. talking about the generalized human tendency to mistreat one another by abusing power is about as useful as talking about original sin - it is discussing fundamental human mysteries in the vaguest way possible, as opposed to offering a useful analytical framework.  

But it is at least coherent, and my three objections would probably not be universally shared.  But use of the word wouldn't be self-parody.

However, claiming that lying about Bosnia is "rankism" because it "indignifies" the voter is self-evidently ridiculous, as is claiming that a mugger is practicing rankism.  Including conflicts among equals makes the term "rankism" badly chosen (it is, after all, a recently made up word - she might as well make up one that is suitably descriptive).

I don't think it's a matter of misunderstanding the concept.  I think that the concept, if one exists, has been expanded to the point of absurdity by the poster.


[ Parent ]
Does THIS count as "impressive" in your eyes? (0.00 / 0)
"I first became aware of this through Keith Varnum, a friend and colleague whose life is filled with miraculous occurrences. My sister and I had attended a seminar he gave, in which he had talked about entering into a state of awareness where anything is possible, dubbed "The Miracle Zone". Driving home, we ran into heavy traffic. Suddenly inspired, my sister blurted, "Let's go into The Miracle Zone!" "

http://www.themiraclezone.com/...

Publishing articles from this sort of charlatan on a political blog is a bad choice.  IMHO, anyway, not to "indignify" anyone.


[ Parent ]
This is an embarrasing post (4.00 / 3)
I'm with you. Rankism and hierarchy in general are very problematic. Combatting them wherever we can is important.

Your post relies on superficial criteria, weak "conventional wisdom" and meaningless impressions of the candidates. Barack Obama is a dignitarian? he told AIPAC this week that he wants an undivided Jerusalem and emphasized that he would attack Iran. He patronizingly called an adult female reporter "honey" to her face while dodging her question. He's above negative politics? How about his Harry and Luise mailers attacking Clinton's "coercive" health care plan that would create actual universal health care in the United States?

I voted for the guy, I like him, I even think he might well be more dignitarian than Clinton. But if all you have to go on is a bunch of right wing smears against Clinton and personality-based fluff about Obama, you really shouldn't bother posting at all.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.


This Is Part of An Ongoing Debate (0.00 / 0)
I've had with Robert Fuller, and mostly we agree, but express ourselves differently.  Pamela will have to speak for herself, as well.  But my view of Obama is that he has dignitarian instincts, but is inconsistent in articulating them, which is why I've repeatedly argued that he should articulate an explicit dignitarian framework for his campaign.

Obviously, his AIPAC speech is a vivid demonstration of why this would have been an excellent idea, and the dismal conquences of not doing it.

    "I and the public know/what all schoolchildren learn,
    Those to whom evil is done/do evil in return."
      --W.H. Auden, "September 1, 1939"


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
re: dignitarian instincts that need to be articulated (0.00 / 0)
I agree with everything Paul has said above, including the dismal consequences of Obama not having articulated an explicit dignitarian framework for his campaign.

My view is that if Obama were to explicitly articulate a dignitarian framework he would be able to identify more clearly for himself where he is inconsistently dignitarian (and sometimes rankist). It would also provide a firmer foundation for policy choices that may not always be popular, but would support dignity for all (e.g., for both Israelis and Palestinians).

Pamela Gerloff


[ Parent ]
And I agree (4.00 / 1)
I think that would be wonderful, though also absolutely won't happen. I also want to make clear that I don't really agree with the statements above criticizing the concept of "rankism"; I like it.

My problem is more with the tone and content of your post than the framework it uses. I think that you've (maybe rightly) decided that Obama would be a good candidate politically for pushing a dignitarian framework, while Clinton would not be.

But the reason your post was objectionably light on policy is because the policies he's proposing are at best marginally better. There's no massive foreign aid proposal to let everyone live a life of dignity. There's no dramatic restructuring of the criminal justice system or foreign policy complex towards dignitarian goals. There's just not much to go on.

That's likely why you rely on a bunch of anti-Clinton crap that's been pushed by the traditional media (and sadly, much of the new media) to support your argument. But to me, the post is both weekly argued and goes against the very principles you're espousing by relying on such personal and largely unfair criticisms of Clinton.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.


[ Parent ]
I am not convinced (4.00 / 2)
Not that I think Hillary would be Obama's best choice for VP--in fact I don't see why Hillary would even want the job.

But I think it's not a good idea for Obama supporters to push the argument that she doesn't deserve to be on the ticket because she lacks dignity. That kind of argument is alienating to the Democrats who preferred Hillary.

I also disagree with the claim that Obama's campaign didn't go negative.

I even more strongly disagree with the notion that Obama was simply speaking the truth rather than focusing on what people wanted to hear ("clean coal" anyone?).

More broadly, "You are the change you've been waiting for" was a lot more appealing for many than the Edwards message that "the system is rigged" in favor of powerful corporate interests. But which is a more accurate description of why we've gotten so far off track?  

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.


I agree . . . (0.00 / 0)
Obama's rhetoric is pretty conventional--same platitudes about change, bipartisanship, hope, etc. and the same strawmen who are, for some reason, against these.

And I'm not sure if misleading voters about not taking lobbyist money, for example, is especially "dignified."  Or that his policies, which are pretty much within the mainstream of the Democratic party, are more dignified than those of his primary opponents.


[ Parent ]
re: "the system is rigged" (4.00 / 1)
Institutionalized rankism is a major problem, which is what I think Edwards' message--which you've summarized as "the system is rigged"--points to.

"You are the change you've been waiting for" strikes me as a community organizer's response to the problem.

Which is to say: I don't think it's an either/or question, i.e., that one "is a more accurate description" than the other "of why we've gotten so far off track." Edwards and Obama are speaking from different angles/viewpoints, and both are valid--and should be harnessed to work together, in my view.

I think your other points are reasonably well-taken; I don't find Obama a "perfect dignitarian". And you are undoubtedly correct that avid Clinton supporters will not see Hillary as less dignitarian than Obama.

I'm not actually saying that Hillary doesn't "deserve" to be on the ticket or that she "lacks dignity." I believe it would be a mistake to put her on the ticket because--and probably Paul Rosenberg said this best, above--I believe Obama has dignitarian instincts; and I have the sense that Senator Clinton is too steeped in the old-style politics (which, as Spitball has mentioned above, is steeped in rankism; he also pointed out the challenge of working within a rankist system while trying to be dignitarian.)

Hillary may have dignitarian instincts deep-down. I think, however, that having played within the political system, as she has either been obliged to or has opted to play in it, those instincts have become more buried, and she has developed behaviors that are largely incompatible with the kind of dignitarian framework I believe Obama must adopt in order to deliver on his promise for change.

I do think Obama's overall behavior and language reveal a more consistently dignitarian orientation than Hillary's--you may disagree--and I believe that such an orientation is crucial for both people on the ticket to have.

Interestingly, the question occurs to me whether, if Obama were to articulate an explicitly dignitarian framework for his campaign and administration, Hillary might be more able to step into a dignitarian role within that--because she would have a "justification," so to speak, to re-orient her approach to politics (which I still see as more old-style than seeking to create a new, more dignitarian approach).

Pamela Gerloff


[ Parent ]
An Excellent Response, Pamela (0.00 / 0)
I think it would have helped everyone involved in Obama had articulated an explicitly dignitarian framework.

I am not a fan of Clinton's politics, but I do think I detect a stronger dignitarian undercurrent than you.  I think we're in pretty close agreement, however, about how much it's been buried.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
weather update (0.00 / 0)
I live in the midwest and we are getting tornadoes around us, so I may have to sign off for awhile. I want to say that I very much appreciate everyone's comments--pro and con. They are helping me to refine my thinking and approach! I will come back later and continue...

bye

Pamela Gerloff


[ Parent ]
What is dignitarian about addressing a female professional as "sweetie"? (4.00 / 2)
It struck me as blatant rankism, to use the terminology used by this diary.

To be clear: I agree that Clinton should not be VP, her talents are better used elsewhere.

But I found this diary self-serving, hypocritical and a bit offensive.  Actually, not just a bit.


That was my impression as well (0.00 / 0)
I agree with the fundamental concept, I just thought the analysis relied on the exact type of politics and personal humiliation that we're supposed to reject.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
This analysis, of course... (4.00 / 1)
is completely free of "rankism" and "old style politics."

I'm amazed that the intellectual community (aka "the left") is so quick to provide insight about what is wrong with (especially) Hillary Clinton by engaging in the same right-wing tactics and talking points they abhor.

It might sound good, feel good, read well, and momentarily massage egos, but it does absolutely nothing good and it reinforces - and strengthens - the walls between Clinton's supporters and Obama's supporters.

Using such descriptions and language is (to quote a good leftie friend of mine) intellectually lazy.


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search