Posts tagged politics

Inspired by this post, in which Stephen Colbert comments on Jason Richwine’s claim that “the average IQ of immigrants in the United States is substantially lower than that of the white native population, and the difference is likely to persist over several generations.” Putting aside Stephen Colbert’s hitting-the-nail-on-the-head-perfect response that white people are not the native population of the United States, I have some bones to pick with Richwine and those elements of the blogosphere that have defended him.

Much of the writing in defense of Richwine’s dissertation has focused on the over-politicization of academia, which is a legitimate phenomenon, but, to my mind, ancillary to the discussion at hand. Richwine and his associates made what they knew to be a radical and socially incendiary set of claims, for which they would need extremely persuasive and empirical evidence. Frankly, whether or not Richwine’s study reflected his claims is less important than the way in which he interpreted that data.

A group of people tested lower on IQ tests. What does this tell us? Does it tell us the objective intelligence level of test-takers? The cultural leanings of the test-takers or the exam itself? The data only supports the provocative conclusions if we take for granted the premise that IQ scores are capable of accurately reflecting the objective intelligence level of the test-takers, a premise which has already been undermined if not entirely disproven by previous, peer-reviewed, and scientifically sound studies. Richwine’s publication suggests that they controlled for language proficiency and cultural biases—and even if that were entirely possible to do with any guaranteed amount of accuracy (of which I’m not convinced), that still presumes that the IQ test is capable of objectively determining intelligence, with a definition of intelligence that is more or less universal and stable over time.

Yet several factors undermine this assumption, such as the fact that many individuals’ scores change vastly over time, or the fact that socioeconomic status often predicts IQ results. Many scientists, from paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould to psychologists Peter Schönemann and Denny Borsboom to cognitive scientist Reuven Feuerstein, have pointed out that the fundamental methodology of the IQ test is outdated. It ignores some of the most significant advances/expanded schools of thought within the fields of psychology and cognitive science in the past 50 years—structural cognitive modifiability, mediated learning experience theory, neuroplasticity, differential susceptibility, complexity neuroscience (conceiving the brain as a complex adaptive system), etc. And that’s not even going into the genetic and anthropological studies disproving the concept of race as a stable and biological trait, although that is obviously relevant in this case. 

So, long story…less long: yes, academia is politicized, and yes, un-PC claims get a lot of flak. But Richwine and like-minded academics can’t expect to make extreme claims without an extreme preponderance of evidence, and the very basis of Richwine’s study—the idea that IQ scores are accurate representations of objective, genetically-determined intelligence—is faulty. Don’t write provocatively and then complain when people are provoked; and above all, don’t use outdated methodologies to support outdated claims, and then cry “liberal witch hunt” when your peers and the public call your work, in a word, outdated.

What really bothers me about contemporary U.S. “libertarians,” besides almost everything they believe, is the fact that they call themselves “libertarians.” It’s a gross misappropriation of a concept and a movement that has existed for over two centuries—with a completely different agenda than that which U.S. “libertarians” espouse.

So what is libertarianism? It’s a political philosophy based on the idea that individual freedom is the single most important political goal. All other political stances and processes should serve this ultimate end. If you research the political beliefs of pseudo-libs, you will find that the two are actually mutually exclusive.

Those that believe in libertarianism would be in favor of the following:

• Marriage equality
• Legalization of marijuana
• Full reproductive rights, including birth control coverage
• Full disclosure of Miranda rights to all alleged lawbreakers
• Remedying institutionalized rape culture (supporting bodily autonomy)
• The separation of church and state

They would be against the following:

• Illegal search and seizure
• The use of unmanned drones by the federal government
• Military escalation
• Torture/”enhanced interrogation” techniques
• Warrantless surveillance
• Racial profiling
• Strict immigrations laws
• Capital punishment
• Trans*phobic legislation
• DADT and similar laws
• The “war on drugs”
• Imperialism/occupation
• Censorship

But, Enamoratrix, they say, these are ideals. Most people who identify as supporters of any given political movement/party actually support a more pragmatic version of those ideals because we live in a less-than-ideal world. Perhaps so. But what that argument fails to acknowledge is that the entire point of libertarianism is that it is not pragmatic. It is the idea that you have the right to do anything… right up until it infringes upon the rights of others. It is by nature and by design a radical philosophy.

Ultimately, this is about more than semantics. This is about an ultra-conservative movement co-opting the title and historical associations of a movement that is practically its opposite.

To call pseudo-libs libertarians is a bit like adopting Loki’s worldview from The Avengers: they offer a world made free… from freedom.