Q&A: Blind Loyalty to Rational People, and Manipulative Terminology
Blind Loyalty to Rational People, and Manipulative Terminology
Question
Hello Rabbi Michi,
First, I want to express my appreciation for your work; it adds a great deal that your whole enterprise exists.
I would like to ask a few questions:
- I have noticed from questions directed to you on the site that you have \"followers\" the way a Hasidic rebbe has followers; that is, they remain an \"ignorant mass,\" admiring critical thought, while continuing to live an uncritical life, and they direct many questions to you in which they ask for your opinion. In other words, standing before them is a smart and critical person, and now they will simply ask him for an opinion about someone, where he will not give a full essay and all the different sides, but will simply pronounce judgment on the matter brought before him—life or death, fit or unfit, disgraceful or not disgraceful. The questioners themselves, instead of having a Hasidic rebbe tell them all this, now have a philosopher-rabbi telling it to them. They continue to be influenced by emotions instead of conducting themselves through thought. \"Rabbi Michi said such-and-such about him.\" By that point it no longer has any intellectual weight for them, only purely emotional weight.
My question, then, is: a) do you agree with the claim I have made here? b) And if so, the obvious question follows: why do you cooperate with these questions, rather than confronting the questioners with the rational absurdity of their whole approach?
- I read your post about the Kav yeshivas from many years ago, and the comment thread from readers, and your replies to their comments. I join all those who protested the cheap and surprising demagoguery in that post, compared to your other posts. I saw that you continued to insist that you use cynicism and humor and contempt, and see nothing wrong with that (rationally wrong, apparently—that is, in your view you did not depart from conducting a substantive discussion).
So I would like to ask you, regarding what counts as substantive discussion: a) do you even acknowledge the existence of psychological manipulation in the presentation of ideas in a rational manner? That is, do you recognize the possibility that manipulations can creep into the supposedly \"substantive\" presentation of the speaker?
b) From a rational standpoint, in your view, is it proper to mix into rational expression phrases that appeal directly to the gut of the listeners, bypassing the barrier of the intellect that would allow them to process the matter fairly?
c) And based on this, would you agree that there exist quasi-definitions of a social and psychological kind that contain and carry within them a heavy weight of negative connotation (fundamentalism, cult, and the like), and therefore the use of such quasi-definitions should be defined as emotional manipulation of the listeners, since one cannot ignore the deadly psychological effect of the expression, unlike clean personal definitions without labels?
Best regards, Mordechai Stambler
Answer
Hello Mordechai.
In my poverty, I do not see this phenomenon (perhaps a person cannot see his own blemishes). True, from time to time there are such questions, and I do not think they are welcomed here in the way you described. Moreover, when I answer I try to give reasons, unless the matter is self-evident.
My post about the Kav yeshivas did not contain even a trace of demagoguery. There was indeed cynicism and irony. These are completely legitimate tools, so long as the arguments themselves are substantive. I certainly recognize the existence of manipulations—for example, your own words here. Seeing manipulation in what I wrote there is itself manipulation.
The expressions do not appeal to the gut. There are arguments there. The expressions are only the form in which they are presented. You are continuing the manipulation.
Fundamentalism and coerciveness are encyclopedic, substantive, and precise descriptions of what is happening there, and not at all tendentious expressions. If that is emotional manipulation, then once again you are engaging here in manipulations. And our sages have already spoken of one who disqualifies others by his own blemish.
All the best,
Discussion on Answer
Rabbi Michi, thank you for your answer.
I am asking about the very use of "encyclopedic, substantive, and precise descriptions." I claim that they suffer from a significant deficiency, insofar as they themselves are created from a very particular way of looking at reality.
Do you not think that many of the cult-like characteristics you wrote about can also be said about Western society?
At the head of them is the said fundamentalism, which you wrote is indeed the main component—do you not agree that every society is fundamentalist, insofar as every society organizes itself around some principle, and whoever denies that principle is met with hostility from the members of that society?
After all, if a certain person does not recognize Zionist symbols in the environment of a Zionist society—will not the attitude he receives fall into the same pattern as members of a cult persecuting someone who opposes the principles of the cult?
And the same applies to a person who opposes the foundations of liberalism in the environment of a liberal society.
I think the answer is yes, and that every society can embody this principle. I claim that in order to present the criticism of Har Hamor, there is no need to resort to definitions by which any human society can be defined—shaky definitions from a science still in its infancy.
One can simply say "what they do" at Har Hamor, instead of saying "into what box I am placing Har Hamor." That is, one can simply leave the whole long list of what you wrote happens in cults, without resorting to the word "cult." And afterward the observer can judge how many of the items on the list he can apply to any human society he knows around him.
Gabriel, indeed, one can see in my claim that words have great influence a similarity to the central claim of progressive terminology: that since there is no meaning and truth in life, words are everything. One can also use this claim against progressivism itself, which plays with words and their meanings in order to intimidate people and denounce anyone who does not fall in line with its dictates.
Section c, "social and psychological definitions that contain and carry within them a heavy weight of negative connotation…" is taken straight from progressive terminology and sounds like something I would expect to hear from a gender studies lecturer.