Links to Consider, 5/4

Cynthia Haven on Girard; Louise Perry on girl culture; Rob Henderson on growing gender differences; Aaron Renn on Emmanuel Todd's new book

Cynthia Haven writes,

Girard did not live to see the rise of a profession that epitomizes his theory—that is, the social media “influencer,” whose sole purpose is to provoke mimetic desire in others.

But that desire is just part one of his theory. Part two is what our imitative cravings inspire: covetousness and competition as we come to desire what others cannot or will not share. This creates conflict. Even as we insist that we are ineradicably different, we become more alike as we fight—using the same weapons, trading the same insults, inflicting the same injuries against the demonized “other.” 

Girard comes across as immersed in the dark side of human nature.

He wrote, “More than ever, I am convinced that history has meaning, and that its meaning is terrifying.” 

Louise Perry writes,

When it comes to most of the major psychological sex differences, I am typical of my sex. I am more agreeable, risk averse, and neurotic than the average man, and I also have a restricted sociosexual orientation (or, colloquially, I like being monogamous and vanilla). I’m generally more interested in people than in things. I regard spending time with my children as more important than my career, and have turned down a lot of professional opportunities as a result (one of the causes of the gender pay gap). I cry easily, particularly in response to the suffering of vulnerable people and animals. I enjoy sewing, interior design magazines, and cooking. I have no interest in watching sports. 

But on one crucial point, I am abnormal. When behavioural scientist Cory Clark appeared on my podcast earlier this year, she spoke of the tendency for women to prioritise being kind over being truthful – a tendency that I don’t share. A tendency that I regard, in fact, as very bad and very stupid, which apparently makes me unusual for a woman. 

Pointer from Ed West, who quotes more from Perry:

the cultural changes we’ve seen in academia over the last few decades are primarily a consequence of the influx of women into the profession, bringing with them their female-typical preferences and perspectives. Some of those effects are good, like the fact that male academics are now less likely to get away with exploitative behaviour like offering students good marks in return for sexual favours. Other effects are bad, like the persecution of heterodox thinking within academia.

Long-time readers will recall that a few years ago I speculated about cultural change using Joyce Benenson’s Warriors and Worriers model.

On another topic, West speculates that

conservatives will lose the argument over immigration, for reasons of path dependency and class interests, but win on crime/disorder, and most societies will move towards a more Singapore model of law enforcement.

In the U.S., immigration is a crime/disorder issue. There are a lot of people who are in favor of immigration but who don’t like illegal border-crossing.

I think that President Biden’s problem is that he and his party are perceived as weak. Mass illegal immigration feeds that perception. The disruptive pro-Palestinian demonstrations feed that perception. The wars that have broken out under his watch feed that perception. West is correct to point out that many people yearn for a strong leader. Perhaps they are wise to do so, or perhaps they will end up getting what they want “good and hard,” in Mencken’s phrase.

Back to gender. Rob Henderson writes,

The [gender-equality] paradox is straightforward: Societies with higher levels of wealth, political equality, and women in the workforce show larger personal, social, and political differences between men and women. In other words, the wealthier and more egalitarian the country, the larger the gender differences.

Henderson now has a monthly column in the Boston Globe, where this essay appears. It is mildly gated (you can get six months’ access for $1). The essay includes:

In an interview in The Times of London, the psychologist Steve Stewart-Williams succinctly summarized the paradox: “Treating men and women the same makes them different, and treating them differently makes them the same.”

There are a variety of possible explanations for the gender-equality paradox, but one prevailing view is that as societies become relatively more prosperous and equal, people more fully express their underlying traits and preferences.

…The freer people are and the more fairly they are treated, the more differences tend to grow rather than shrink. Thus, we shouldn’t be surprised that Gen Z men and women are diverging along political lines to a greater extent than earlier generations did.

Aaron Renn writes,

There’s a copious amount of discussion about family structures in this book, but Todd adds to that an overlay of religion. He sees Protestantism, rather than the market, industry, or technology as the heart of the modern West. Its most critical impact was a drive for universal literacy, so that all the people could read the Bible in their own language. It also created the famed Protestant work ethic. An educated, industrious populous led to the takeoff of economic growth in Protestant countries. Indeed, Protestant countries were the most advanced industrial economies in Europe and basically remain the leaders. (Todd believes France benefitted from being adjacent to a band of Protestant nations).

substacks referenced above: @

Will the End of Protestantism Be the End of America?

@

Sunday West 50

@

Cancel Culture is Girl Culture

@

The Prophets: René Girard