Thread: Cold War between US and Russia (again)?

[British philosopher Roger] Scruton uses the term "oikophobia" as the antithesis of xenophobia.^[11] In his book, Roger Scruton: Philosopher on Dover Beach, Mark Dooley describes oikophobia as centered within the Western academic establishment on "both the common culture of the West, and the old educational curriculum that sought to transmit its humane values." This disposition has grown out of, for example, the writings of Jacques Derrida and of Michel Foucault's "assault on 'bourgeois' society result[ing] in an 'anti-culture' that took direct aim at holy and sacred things, condemning and repudiating them as oppressive and power-ridden."^[12]

Derrida is a classic oikophobe in so far as he repudiates the longing for home that the Western theological, legal, and literary traditions satisfy. . . . Derrida's deconstruction seeks to block the path to this 'core experience' of membership, preferring instead a rootless existence founded 'upon nothing.'^[13]

An extreme aversion to the sacred and the thwarting of the connection of the sacred to the culture of the West is described as the underlying motif of oikophobia; and not the substitution of Judeo-Christianity by another coherent system of belief. The paradox of the oikophobe seems to be that any opposition directed at the theological and cultural tradition of the West is to be encouraged even if it is "significantly more parochial, exclusivist, patriarchal, and ethnocentric."^[14] Scruton described "a chronic form of oikophobia [which] has spread through the American universities, in the guise of political correctness."

I absolutely do NOT think that all self-criticism of America (or the West) by Americans (or Westerners) is "oikophobic" -- nor do I mean to accuse anyone on this thread of "oikophobia." Vigorous criticism of oneself or "one's own" can be healthy. But I think it's worth remembering that xenophobia -- which is an irrational degree of contempt for the strange and foreign -- sometimes does have an exact opposite, namely an irrational contempt for the people next door.

And I agree with the famous writer "Anne Onymous", who famously said that "A hatred of the bourgeoisie is totally bourgeois."

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

I absolutely do NOT think that all self-criticism of America (or the West) by Americans (or Westerners) is "oikophobic" -- nor do I mean to accuse anyone on this thread of "oikophobia." Vigorous criticism of oneself or "one's own" can be healthy. But I think it's worth remembering that xenophobia -- which is an irrational degree of contempt for the strange and foreign -- sometimes does have an exact opposite, namely an irrational contempt for the people next door.

And I agree with the famous writer "Anne Onymous", who famously said that "A hatred of the bourgeoisie is totally bourgeois."

Maybe you misinterpret my frustration for "hate."

Originally Posted by Deborski

Maybe you misinterpret my frustration for "hate."

Well, maybe I did misinterpret.

But I'd point out that "brainwashed" is a decidedly loaded and pejorative term -- no one ever says it about someone whose point-of-view they agree with!

You coulda said, more neutrally, "a lot of Americans are more influenced by mass media than they realize" or "corporate messages play a historically unprecedented role in the socialization and enculturation of modern Americans," or whatever.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Well, maybe I did misinterpret.

But I'd point out that "brainwashed" is a decidedly loaded and pejorative term -- no one ever says it about someone whose point-of-view they agree with!

You coulda said, more neutrally, "a lot of Americans are more influenced by mass media than they realize" or "corporate messages play a historically unprecedented role in the socialization and enculturation of modern Americans," or whatever.

To be fair, in both cases you cited, I was replying to another person's comment.
Neverthless, point taken.
Though I must add that I am not sure why I am the one singled out to be upbraided for a word several others have also employed.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

But I'd point out that "brainwashed" is a decidedly loaded and pejorative term -- no one ever says it about someone whose point-of-view they agree with!

Yes, most people use that word as a strong synonym of "wrong". I prefer different treatment though. "Brainwashed" is a person who takes some statement as a dogma and is unable to consider it critically. Any opposition, non-canonical treatment of even formulation of that statement switches a reflex of a brainwashed person and makes it not only ignore the point of the whole message but even enrages. Basically "brainwashed" person has not a point-of-view but only an illusion. For me it is extremely disgusting no matter of the side taken. In a discussion the support from the brainwashed "ally" can ruin any position if accepted.

"Brainwashed" effect mostly is not (only) the effect of state (or whatever) propaganda but the result of the intellectual laziness plus active position. A person enjoys the feeling that they have a point-of-view but does not want to work to make it.

The effect is widespread everywhere but can be dangerous only in certain configurations. Namely "brainwashed" external politics (1) of the powerful (2) democratic (3) state is a dangerous combination.

democratic (3) - brainwashed people can actually influence real decisions
powerful (2) - decisions can be of a really high stakes and can actually be implemented
external politics (1) - "brainwashed" people can easily ignore the actual consequences of implementing the decisions because they don't suffer from the results. Other people suffer.

If compared USA to Russia the latter is way not so powerful and way not so democratic even if in the same way obsessed with external politics. That's why "brainwashing" in Russia is not the phenomenon of the same danger level as "brainwashing" in USA.

Summary: more power should bring more responsibility.