Next book: Biography of Galileo

I'm reading Galileo Galilei, the Tuscan Artist by Pietro Greco. Two quick thoughts:
1) I learned that before Galileo dropped out of med school he invented a simple proto-watch to improve pulse measurements.

2) I didn't realize how much of the 16th century medical curriculum was based on Arab authors. The "Western" canon was more diverse than I realized.

The conservatism of progressives

Related to yesterday's post, a recent media spectacle shows just how conservative the modern progressives are. Last week in Toronto, a woman was being interviewed on TV about her nonchalant attitude toward public wearing of masks [note: I do NOT endorse her views about masks! I repeat: I do NOT endorse her views about masks!] when a man suddenly came up and kissed her on camera.  The woman was apparently quite happy with what happened. Nonetheless, the television station faced substantial criticism for airing this incident, and subsequently issued an apology. Some of the reporting on the matter has even opened with a "trigger warning."

Now, let me start by saying that I do NOT encourage men to go up and spontaneously kiss women that they barely know.  I repeat: Do NOT kiss women that you barely know!

Oh, and just in case I wasn't clear, I should add that men should NOT go up and kiss women that they barely know!

That said, as inadvisable as his conduct was, I have to note that in subsequent interviews it turned out that they'd spent some time interacting earlier that day.  We don't know exactly what transpired in their interactions, but apparently there was some romantic chemistry there, and when he acted on that romantic chemistry it was reciprocated. He wasn't doing this blindly, he was following up on interactions, making judgments based on how she had responded to him thus far. In most cases his actions wouldn't be well-received, but the competent adult woman that he kissed responded positively to a kiss from a man that she'd been interacting with and was clearly interested in. I can't bring myself to condemn a kiss between two people who had already interacted with each other and developed some romantic chemistry. That has to mean something, that a real, live, and apparently* competent woman responded enthusiastically to a kiss from a guy that she'd been interacting with.

Nonetheless, because so much of the context was off-camera, it looks like something else, a kiss out of the blue with no interaction that would suggest it's welcome.  I get why that would be off-putting to people, and I get why they wouldn't want young people (especially young men) to see kisses like that without crucial context.  I get that it could send the wrong message.

I guess what I would say is that expressing disapproval of public sexual displays that lack crucial relationship context is a fundamentally conservative stance.  And there's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with being conservative. There are many situations in life where I think a conservative approach is good, just as there are situations in which I think a liberal or progressive approach is good. Frankly, I think it's good to be conservative when it comes to telling young men to get consent (if not verbal consent then very strong non-verbal cues) before kissing. But let us not fool ourselves: Lamenting a media portrayal of a kiss that "sends the wrong message" is a conservative stance.

I harp on this because we need to get past the idea that nominal progressives are the heirs of 1968. They aren't.  Maybe that's a good thing. I mean, I wasn't around (or even conceived) in 1968, I have no stake in defending that year. But we need to get past the idea that the people we call progressives are heirs of an older counterculture. They aren't. Maybe they are wise to reject that counterculture. Or maybe not. But, wise or foolish, there is nothing counter-cultural about a cultural faction that can get a TV station to apologize for erring a spontaneous kiss without the prelude of a romantic relationship.

Yes, at this point somebody will say that the issue is consent, and I will say that consent also requires context, and emotional preludes are the appropriate context for seeking consent. Suppose that a man briefly interacted with a woman, and that there was no emotional or romantic chemistry in their interactions.  Suppose that he then formally, explicitly asked for consent to kiss. Even if he respected her inevitable "no", would anybody say "Yeah, this was an OK interaction"?  I think not.  Everybody would recognize that it is creepy and inappropriate to seek a kiss without strong signals of romantic interest. "Yes" may be the only thing that means "yes", but "yes" should not be sought out of the blue.

So, let us not kid ourselves: If we had seen the romantic prelude to this kiss, it's likely that many people would be less bothered by it, because they'd see an interaction with context that would make it seem plausibly consensual beforehand, not just afterward.

The woman and man in that video are the real bohemians. Maybe it's fine to be a bohemian. Or maybe they are playing with fire and unwittingly encouraging others to do likewise. Think of them as you will, but know that they are the bohemians, however good or bad you deem them to be. If you approve, well, maybe you're a bohemian. Or maybe you at least wish you were one. But if you disapprove, you are not a bohemian, no matter how outlandish the hairstyle that you wear while drafting codes of conduct.

Finally, since I didn't say it enough, men should NOT go up and kiss women that they barely know!

*I mean, I'm not a psychologist, I haven't conducted an interview and neurological exam to verify that she is of sound mind, but I'm going to make an assumption.

I am NOT a company man! I am an empowered creative with a non-conformist outlook that is valued in our diverse workspace!

This essay in American Affairs Journal is full of insights into how educated professionals conduct themselves as corporate bureaucrats while portraying themselves as non-conformists. For instance:

A key benefit of any prestige university is the social network. In order to take full advantage of this, students must participate in party culture without losing control of their appetites. Fiction often con­fronts open secrets, and The Secret History by Donna Tartt follows a group of eccentric college students who destroy their lives after taking their professors’ Dionysian stories too seriously. This might point to obvious truths about moderation: self-control accompanies success. Yet vices and virtues are not doled out equally, and when leadership training is done in a hyper-permissive atmosphere, we narrow the type of character who emerges.

When I think back to the rituals of certain honor societies in my senior year of college, I think about various rituals that involved long, sleepless nights, hard work and hard celebration, and the bonds that were forged.  And I get it. It's a balancing act of work and play reminiscent of Daniel Bell's observations in Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. Not everyone can pull it off, but it's a badge of honor for those who do.

Also, regarding why so many in the professional classes eat up the dumbest pop psychology like it's pita chips and humus from Trader Joe's:

Forty years ago, Christopher Lasch wrote that “modern industry condemns people to jobs that insult their intelligence,” and today employers rub this insult in workers’ faces with a hideously infantilizing work culture that turns the office into a permanent kindergarten classroom. Blue-chip companies reward their employees with balloons, stuffed animals, and gold stars, and an exposé detailing the stringent communication rules of the luxury brand Away Luggage revealed how many start-ups are just “live, laugh, love” sweatshops. This humiliating culture dominates America’s companies because few engage in truly productive or necessary work. Professional genre fiction, such as corporate feminism, is thus often told as a way to cope with the underwhelming reality of working a job that doesn’t con­tribute anything to the world.

There is another way to tell the story of the young career woman, however. Her commute includes inspiring podcasts about Ugandan entrepreneurs, but also a subway stranger breathing an egg sandwich into her face. Her job title is “Senior Analyst—Global Trends,” but her job is just copying and pasting between spreadsheets for ten hours. Despite all the “doing well by doing good” seminars, the closest thing she knows to a community is spin class, where a hundred similar women, and one intense man in sports goggles, listen to a spaz scream Hallmark card affirmations.

Regarding genuine non-conformity:

Trump’s antics are indicative of his different route to power. Forget everything else about him: how would you act if you never had a job outside a company with your name on the building? The world of the professional managerial class doesn’t contain many characters, and so they associate eccentricity with bohemianism or ineptitude. But it’s also reliably found somewhere else.

Indeed, the more ostensibly bohemian a professional pretends to be, the more adamant they are about the Code of Conduct. I can recall sitting in a seminar where a speaker with a distinctly "alternative" appearance was introduced, and the host made sure to mention that this speaker had been quite active in developing codes of conduct for professional organizations. I'm old enough to remember when this person would have been denouncing the Code of Conduct, not writing it. I have never been a hippie, punk, or bohemian, and the only time my skin gets pieced by metal is during medical procedures. Still, I miss the days when deviating substantially from some "normie" expectation meant a person was probably harder to offend, not easier to offend.

Now, to be sure, I think conservatives have lately drifted too far away from codes of conduct, as evidenced both by the Tweeter-in-Chief and also some chance encounters with conservatives. At the same time, I think there has to be a middle ground where we keep our hands to ourselves and avoid the dirty talk while at work, but also don't elevate the perpetually-offended to the highest moral pedestals.

I miss the days when it was the right-wingers who wanted the kids to turn down their music and stop watching those blasphemous movies. The other day I was watching Monty Python's Life of Brian, and partway through I realized that this movie would be roundly condemned for blasphemy today, but the condemnations would come from the left.  The right has (mostly) learned how to deal with jokes about religion.  Or, at least, they know they can't bankrupt a theater chain. But the left would go ballistic over the punching down, never mind that Monty Python also punched up, sideways, diagonally, and into the fifth dimension. And never mind that Eric Idle's Loretta character actually had her name and pronoun preferences respected, snide remarks from Reg not withstanding.