I had an interesting chat with Chat GPT 4.0 the other day. I am interested to know if the everyday norms of politeness and civility which structure and lubricate social relations, especially in elite or middle class circles, are ideologically left-liberal. If so, this could explain why ‘be kind’ left-liberalism, what Jonathan Haidt would term the equality and care/harm moral foundations, have become so dominant in elite institutions and settings. What might have occurred is that the mind virus of woke left-liberalism was able to gain force by operating on the hospitable terrain of elite behavioural norms.

What the discussion pointed out is that those norms could also disadvantage various subaltern groups, such as women or minorities or the working class, if they break from convention, or what is expected of their group. I accept that elite norms may make it harder for some traditionally left-coded groups to succeed in elite settings.

But I also think this elite terrain gives an advantage to the cultural left that is resulting in overshoot and policy failure on subjects that touch on the woke trinity of race, gender and sexuality. That is, an Overton Window of restricted debate is damaging results around family policy and birth rates, immigration, crime, education, homelessness or recruitment to the military, police or other key services.

I asked Chat GPT: Are norms of status behaviour, or civilized behaviour, ideological?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

The question of whether norms of status behavior or civilized behavior are ideological depends on how you define "ideology" and the context in which these norms operate.

1. Norms of Status Behavior:

• Definition: These are the informal rules and expectations that govern how individuals behave according to their social rank or position. Examples include how people address each other, dress, or act in formal settings based on their status.

• Are They Ideological?

  • Yes, they can be ideological: Status norms often reflect and reinforce social hierarchies, power structures, and cultural values. For example, norms of deference to authority, or expectations of behavior based on class, gender, or race, can serve to justify or normalize unequal power relations. In this sense, they are ideological because they help maintain a particular worldview or social order.

  • No, they might not be explicitly ideological: In some cases, status norms might simply evolve as practical ways of maintaining social cohesion, without an explicit political agenda. While they reflect social structure, they are not necessarily driven by a coherent ideology aimed at shaping society.

2. Norms of Civilized Behavior:

• Definition: Civilized behavior refers to norms around politeness, decorum, and respectful interaction in society. These norms are generally seen as promoting order, civility, and cooperation.

• Are They Ideological?

  • Yes, they can be ideological: Civilized behavior norms are often used to define who belongs to a "civilized" group and who is considered "uncivilized." Historically, these norms have sometimes been used to justify exclusion, colonialism, or the superiority of certain cultures over others. For instance, the concept of "civilizing" non-Western peoples during colonialism was deeply ideological, tied to the notion of Western superiority.

  • No, they might not always be ideological: Many norms of civilized behavior—such as saying "please" and "thank you" or refraining from violence—are seen as basic social practices that help people get along. They may not always carry a political agenda or serve to reinforce a specific worldview. In this case, they may be seen as pragmatic rather than ideological.

3. What is Ideology?

• Ideology can be broadly defined as a system of ideas, beliefs, and values that explains and justifies particular social arrangements or political structures. Ideologies often serve to maintain power relations and social hierarchies, consciously or unconsciously.

• If norms (whether related to status or civilized behavior) are understood as serving a particular group’s interests, reinforcing social inequality, or promoting a specific worldview, they can be seen as ideological. If, however, these norms are understood as evolving organically to promote cooperation, they may not be considered ideological in the strict sense.

Conclusion:

• Status behavior norms are often ideological because they reflect and sustain social hierarchies and power relations.

• Civilized behavior norms can be ideological, especially when they are used to justify exclusion, hierarchy, or cultural superiority, but they can also be seen as non-ideological if they function to promote social harmony without an explicit political agenda.

Whether these norms are ideological ultimately depends on the specific social context and how the norms are used or interpreted. If they serve to promote or justify a particular worldview or power structure, they are likely ideological. If they function more neutrally to ensure social cohesion, they might be considered pragmatic or cultural rather than ideological.

I then responded:

Could they not also uphold left-liberal norms of being kind to groups judged to be disadvantaged? That is, favouring historically marginalized groups over historically advantaged in everyday decisions.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Yes, norms of status behavior and civilized behavior can indeed uphold left-liberal norms, such as being kind or giving preferential treatment to groups judged to be historically disadvantaged. In this case, these norms would reflect an ideological framework that favors equity or social justice principles, which prioritize helping historically marginalized groups as a way of correcting past injustices or systemic disadvantages.

Here's how this could work:

1. Norms Upholding Left-Liberal Values:

• Ideological Basis: In left-liberal ideology, there is a strong emphasis on fairness, equality, and correcting historical imbalances. This often translates into norms that prioritize compassion, inclusion, and support for disadvantaged groups (e.g., racial minorities, women, LGBTQ+ individuals). These norms may be expressed in expectations of behavior such as:

  • Showing deference or extra respect in interactions with members of historically marginalized groups.

  • Using inclusive language (e.g., respecting preferred pronouns, avoiding offensive terms).

  • Making decisions that favor these groups (e.g., giving them the benefit of the doubt in disputes or offering them opportunities to speak first in meetings).

• Everyday Decisions: In everyday situations, these norms can manifest in decisions that prioritize marginalized groups, sometimes over historically advantaged groups. For example:

  • Hiring decisions or promotions might favor candidates from underrepresented backgrounds in the name of diversity.

  • Acts of kindness or politeness might be more likely directed at marginalized individuals, due to a social awareness of historical disadvantage.

  • In schools, workplaces, or public settings, rules or accommodations might be put in place to ensure members of marginalized groups feel safer or more comfortable.

• Civilized Behavior in a Left-Liberal Context: What is considered "civilized" behavior might include a heightened sensitivity to social justice issues. Actions such as calling out microaggressions, practicing active listening with marginalized voices, or advocating for inclusivity and diversity could all be seen as part of this broader left-liberal framework of what "civilized" means.

2. Preference for Marginalized Groups Over Historically Advantaged Groups:

• Corrective Measures: Left-liberal norms often involve corrective measures that attempt to balance power relations. This can result in norms that favor historically disadvantaged groups in order to address their ongoing marginalization. Examples of this might include affirmative action, equity initiatives, or policies encouraging inclusivity.

• Moral Hierarchy of Compassion: In certain cases, these norms might create a moral hierarchy where historically disadvantaged groups are prioritized in decision-making, based on the perception that they need more support to achieve fairness. This is often seen as a form of positive discrimination or affirmative action, where the goal is to elevate marginalized groups in ways that offset historical inequalities.

• Everyday Impact: This moral hierarchy can affect how people behave in everyday decisions:

  • In conversations, someone might feel more inclined to listen and give deference to someone from a marginalized group.

  • In disputes or conflicts, there may be an expectation to side with the historically disadvantaged party, even if evidence or circumstances are more complex.

  • In media or public discourse, there can be a tendency to frame discussions in ways that center the needs and voices of historically marginalized groups, while downplaying those of historically advantaged ones.

3. Are These Norms Ideological?

• Yes, They Can Be Ideological: In this context, these norms clearly fit into an ideological framework, as they are informed by values of equity, social justice, and redistributive fairness. The idea is that society must actively work to correct systemic injustices by shifting social behavior to favor historically disadvantaged groups. This ideological stance sees inequality as a structural problem that needs to be addressed in both policy and personal interactions.

• Cultural Shift: Over time, this ideological framework can become embedded in social norms, influencing how people think and act. What is considered polite, fair, or civilized can shift in ways that prioritize disadvantaged groups, thus reflecting broader ideological changes in society.

4. Criticisms and Challenges:

• Pushback from Other Ideologies: Norms that favor historically marginalized groups can be critiqued by other ideological perspectives (e.g., conservatives or classical liberals), who may see such norms as unfair reverse discrimination or inequitable treatment of individuals based on their group identity. The argument here would be that behavior should be based on individual merit rather than group status, and that prioritizing any group based on historical disadvantage can itself become discriminatory.

• Potential for Overcorrection: Some may argue that overly favoring historically marginalized groups in everyday behavior can lead to overcorrection, where people from historically advantaged groups feel alienated, discriminated against, or unfairly treated. In these cases, the norms of equity might conflict with more traditional norms of equality or meritocracy.

Conclusion:

Norms of status behavior and civilized behavior can indeed uphold left-liberal values, particularly when they involve showing extra kindness, deference, or preference to historically marginalized groups. In these cases, the norms would reflect a particular ideological framework that prioritizes equity and social justice, seeking to balance historical inequalities by favoring those who have been disadvantaged. These norms are ideological because they promote a specific worldview—one that sees social relations through the lens of historical injustices and the need for ongoing corrective action.