Additional downsides of refusing political allegiances and using morality instead:
1) "Politicizing" moral frameworks might be even worse. Since you're a utilitarian imagine what harm it could create if one group of people starts identifying themselves primarily as utilitarians. E.g. say the rationalist-sphere labels itself as utilitarians and now the bundle of things they disproportionately endorse: neoliberalism, animal welfare, race science, critical thinking, prediction markets, charity, billionaire philanthropy, all become part of this "utilitarianism tribe". Now if I want to argue in favor of animal welfare and critical thinking on utilitarian grounds I will get lumped in with other things I disagree with (like neoliberalism, race science etc), so I have a strong personal incentive to not endorse utilitarianism (or even animal welfare etc). Moral philosophy becomes not a pursuit of insights but a list of tribal markers.
2) Political ideologies are coordination mechanisms. Say we live in a world where labor gets systematically disadvantaged through taxation and other legal mechanisms while capital gets systematically privileged (let's call this world "planet earth"). Listing all the different ways takes too long, so maybe we should have a word that bundles them. To combat it laborers want to come together to start 'the labor movement' and create 'the labor party', which would allow them to quickly communicate and work together to push back against this unfairness. But wait, we shouldn't identify with political ideologies, so people don't put out signs, don't identify themselves with it, don't create the party etc. Less tribal identifiers makes the media/discussion landscape less vitriolic, yes, but the lessening of tribal coordination also privileges the status quo.
Potential middle ground. Instead of saying "I am a socialist" or "I identify as a capitalist" or "I'm staunchly conservative", we could say "I subscribe to socialist ideals" or "I endorse capitalism" or "I'm registered as a conservative". That way we keep the coordination mechanisms, but loosen it's grip on our identities, since it's something we're currently doing, and as such can stop doing.
Instead of using these labels to identify your “allegiance” I think there is tons of use for declaring your “nearest proximal ideological fit”.
For example, you walk into a big party and people ask “So what are you?” And you say “I’m closest to a Hayekian Classical Liberal or Geolibertarian”. Great, now if there are others in the group that feel similarly they can find you quickly and go chat nerdy LVT stuff with you. Or if someone tells you they’re anarcho socialists you can say “Wow, super fascinating, but I think the punchbowl needs me!”
I tend to lean towards: Practically speaking in any multiparty system you have to affiliate with a larger group to accomplish anything, since few if any people share your exact views. A big reason EA hasn’t gotten very far is they aren’t really palatable to the left or right. You can, of course, try to sway your chosen party in your direction.
Yes. Learning-working to be a more flexible thinker and responsible for the meanings that I make, means that I hold my identity lightly. Nicely written. Thanks!
I’m a liberal. Not because I care about a political party, but because I believe in specific policies and principles, that are informed by my philosophy, subject to revision. I don’t really think there are that many normal people who identify as liberal in the same way they do being a progressive or conservative.
It's just a quick way of pattern matching, like all language it might not perfectly map reality and that's ok. In conversation I tend to say what object level things I support, e.g. pro-immigration, public healthcare, welfare state etc. and then give reasons for why I support those things if asked.
As for empirical evidence consider who makes large scale societal changes? People who identify with a party or ideology (e.g. Nazis, Bolsheviks, Patriots/Whigs) or people who don't and just pick and choose worldviews? I'd say that in order to make any sort of large-scale societal change one needs to convince or force others to behave a certain way, convincing or forcing others requires an organization or group of some sort and therefore mass groups are a necessity to do politics.
Additional downsides of refusing political allegiances and using morality instead:
1) "Politicizing" moral frameworks might be even worse. Since you're a utilitarian imagine what harm it could create if one group of people starts identifying themselves primarily as utilitarians. E.g. say the rationalist-sphere labels itself as utilitarians and now the bundle of things they disproportionately endorse: neoliberalism, animal welfare, race science, critical thinking, prediction markets, charity, billionaire philanthropy, all become part of this "utilitarianism tribe". Now if I want to argue in favor of animal welfare and critical thinking on utilitarian grounds I will get lumped in with other things I disagree with (like neoliberalism, race science etc), so I have a strong personal incentive to not endorse utilitarianism (or even animal welfare etc). Moral philosophy becomes not a pursuit of insights but a list of tribal markers.
2) Political ideologies are coordination mechanisms. Say we live in a world where labor gets systematically disadvantaged through taxation and other legal mechanisms while capital gets systematically privileged (let's call this world "planet earth"). Listing all the different ways takes too long, so maybe we should have a word that bundles them. To combat it laborers want to come together to start 'the labor movement' and create 'the labor party', which would allow them to quickly communicate and work together to push back against this unfairness. But wait, we shouldn't identify with political ideologies, so people don't put out signs, don't identify themselves with it, don't create the party etc. Less tribal identifiers makes the media/discussion landscape less vitriolic, yes, but the lessening of tribal coordination also privileges the status quo.
Potential middle ground. Instead of saying "I am a socialist" or "I identify as a capitalist" or "I'm staunchly conservative", we could say "I subscribe to socialist ideals" or "I endorse capitalism" or "I'm registered as a conservative". That way we keep the coordination mechanisms, but loosen it's grip on our identities, since it's something we're currently doing, and as such can stop doing.
EDIT: I touched briefly on this idea above, but if you're interested in a much deeper and more detailed breakdown of point 2, Jessie Ewesmont just published her post here: https://jessieewesmont.substack.com/p/contra-mon0-on-political-allegiance
Wonderful Work ❤️More Please
Instead of using these labels to identify your “allegiance” I think there is tons of use for declaring your “nearest proximal ideological fit”.
For example, you walk into a big party and people ask “So what are you?” And you say “I’m closest to a Hayekian Classical Liberal or Geolibertarian”. Great, now if there are others in the group that feel similarly they can find you quickly and go chat nerdy LVT stuff with you. Or if someone tells you they’re anarcho socialists you can say “Wow, super fascinating, but I think the punchbowl needs me!”
Ms. Ewesmont wrote a nice response to this I think you’ve seen:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-162169245
I tend to lean towards: Practically speaking in any multiparty system you have to affiliate with a larger group to accomplish anything, since few if any people share your exact views. A big reason EA hasn’t gotten very far is they aren’t really palatable to the left or right. You can, of course, try to sway your chosen party in your direction.
Yes. Learning-working to be a more flexible thinker and responsible for the meanings that I make, means that I hold my identity lightly. Nicely written. Thanks!
I’m a liberal. Not because I care about a political party, but because I believe in specific policies and principles, that are informed by my philosophy, subject to revision. I don’t really think there are that many normal people who identify as liberal in the same way they do being a progressive or conservative.
It's just a quick way of pattern matching, like all language it might not perfectly map reality and that's ok. In conversation I tend to say what object level things I support, e.g. pro-immigration, public healthcare, welfare state etc. and then give reasons for why I support those things if asked.
As for empirical evidence consider who makes large scale societal changes? People who identify with a party or ideology (e.g. Nazis, Bolsheviks, Patriots/Whigs) or people who don't and just pick and choose worldviews? I'd say that in order to make any sort of large-scale societal change one needs to convince or force others to behave a certain way, convincing or forcing others requires an organization or group of some sort and therefore mass groups are a necessity to do politics.