The Right Does See Structure: Responding to G. Watts

Areo Magazine, a liberal humanist publication helmed by Helen Pluckrose (of the Sokal Squared hoax), Iona Italia, and Gauri Hopkins, is one of several online sources of extended cultural commentary that have earned slots on my weekly blog crawl. Because it is explicitly pro-free-speech, Areo is one of the few places on the internet where broadly left-leaning writers are actually taking the right seriously and engaging with its ideas. These folks don't resort to the boring leftist tactic of calling us all -ists and -phobes, which I greatly appreciate. Every once in a while, though, I feel their interpretations of our positions are not quite correct; hence the reason for this particular post.

In "The Personal and the Political: Reconciling Right and Left Perspectives," Galen Watts addresses the tragic life trajectory of an unnamed first generation college student who feels financially stressed and culturally out of place and eventually turns to substance abuse to cope. After explaining the left-wing perspective on this particular story, Watts characterizes the right's position this way:

The young man made a number of poor choices that led to his eventual downfall. He ought not have turned to alcohol and drugs to cope with his problems, as they offered a far from sustainable solution. Conservatives would argue that he should have exhibited more self-control, and found healthier ways to adapt to his circumstances. Another problem from the conservative perspective might be the young man’s unwillingness to humbly accept his employment situation after graduating, or at least to recognize that going off the rails is likely to achieve nothing. Nevertheless, conservatives would probably have much more to say about this young man’s choices upon his descent into self-destruction. They would probably point out that he was foolish to show up to work drunk, demonstrated a lack of gratitude and responsibility in blaming his parents for his troubles, and had no excuse for hitting his girlfriend. My guess is that many conservatives would be glad to see this young man placed in a facility where he will be taught to take responsibility for his past actions and control his emotions (of course, some may wish to see him receive harsher treatment). Thus, rather than pay attention to social structures, conservatives would likely view this young man as in dire need of moral reform. They would probably contend that he requires a healthy dose of humility, gratitude and responsibility, and deserves condemnation for his unruly behaviour. Some might also argue that such values would be best fostered by a voluntary association (perhaps religious in nature), which could act as both a source of moral accountability and of the belonging and community which the young man sorely lacks. The details of the conservative take are bound to differ from person to person, but such a view would likely focus on how this young man failed to make good choices and take responsibility for his actions. In sum, a conservative take would identify personal problems and attendant personal solutions.

It is indeed true that we conservatives put a lot of emphasis on personal responsibility -- but systemic/political issues are not utterly absent from our analysis.

For example: Why is college so expensive? Why is its cost increasing faster than the rate of inflation? First, we on the right say that the government's underwriting of student loans has allowed universities to spend recklessly on their physical plants and administrations. We question the need for glitzy amenities, and we wonder just how many deans/provosts/etc. with six-figure salaries are actually required to ensure students are properly educated. Second, our analysis also addresses the demand side of the equation: our popular culture has sold a college education as the ticket to a comfortable middle-class life, but it turns out that not all college educations are created equal. What did this young gentleman major in? Was he told the truth about his future job prospects in his chosen major, or did his counselor blow a cloud of smoke up his butt about "communication and critical thinking skills"?

For example: Why do students from disadvantaged backgrounds feel out of place on elite university campuses? We on the right say that universities' misguided efforts to foster "diversity, inclusion and equity" have instead resulted in balkanization and academic mismatch. We believe admitting students to programs for which they are manifestly not prepared is a terrible means to address achievement disparities -- that instead, the focus should lie on improving education at the K-12 level so that incoming university students of all backgrounds will be able to meet the same standards before enrollment. We also believe that deemphasizing subjective admissions requirements in favor of objective measures of academic performance will allow poor students a fighting chance to compete against more affluent peers who've amassed sparkling resumes. And lastly, we believe schools should scrap their diversity programs - which enhance consciousness of our differences - in favor of programs that highlight our common humanity and focus on developing a unified institutional identity.

For example: Why are we facing a substance abuse crisis? We on the right say that the emptying of the intermediary space between the government and the individual has resulted in alienation and a loss of meaning. Watts mentions voluntary associations as an afterthought, but such associations are in fact central to the conservative view of the world. To explain: We see the individual as a central matryoshka doll. He is enclosed first by his immediate family, which is supposed to serve as a place of physical and emotional security and as the primary site for moral formation. Then comes his extended family, his church, his local community, his state or province, and - at the very end - his nation. Unfortunately, in the right's view, popular culture and public policy have removed the family, the church, and the community from the set, leaving our poor little central matryoshka doll rattling around in a big empty space and getting damaged along the way. And sometimes, this damage leads to self-destructive decision making.

Notice what the last three paragraphs did not do? They did not say that Watts' young man should stop complaining, take responsibility, and pull himself up by his bootstraps. We on the right do believe in holding people accountable for their poor choices -- but that doesn't mean we believe people can succeed without support, and that doesn't mean we don't bring structural analyses to bear on complex social problems. Our structural analyses simply differ from those produced by the left.