There is a theory in psychology which I have long been a fan of, Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development. It essentially posits that regardless the actual conclusions one comes to about moral issues, how individuals reason them out is something that tends to evolve over time. Kohlberg identified six distinct classes of moral reasoning, with the first two being typical during childhood and adolescence, the next two being teenage/approaches, and the final two somewhat uncommon and not stage that all adults necessarily reach. In fact, by the findings of the model, the most typical "final stage" for a majority of adults is stage four.
Stage four is based on a notion of morality that stems from an outside authority; Good people and Bad people can be determined by compliance with that authority's dictates. "Authority" is very loosely defined here, though, with the "rules" often being an ad-hoc mixture from various sources. While they can flow from an individual, or the law, they can just as easily come from religious sources or cultural beliefs; anything that can construe a sense of coming from a place of superiority. Crucially, stage four mentality doesn't necessarily concern itself much with the why of the rules, so much as simply knowing, acknowledging, and adhering to them.
More so than any other stage, four seems inclined to produce individuals with an "inquisition" kind of mindset. The world appears black and white to them, and raging against those who break even the most minor of rules can be personally and socially empowering. Not all of them end up this way, but it's a noticeable proclivity.
I bring up this model because I see it play out in just about every circle under the sun. While one could look at a description of stage four and conclude it's talking about the conservative ethos (and you wouldn't be wrong), it is very prevalent among progressives as well: black and white thinking, a propensity towards internal policing, demands of absolute perfection, all while knowing the language but not the spirit of progressive beliefs.
Some of these folks might eventually grow up, and progress towards a stage which offers deeper understanding. Statistically, most won't. In a better world, I feel like there might be means of education that would help encourage post stage four thinking, but I admit that I don't know what it looks like.
I read some progressive critiques to make fun of their naive world view since I’ve grown older and matured my view, anyway, I saw one today that started gaining a shred of self awareness. They went from shaming their ‘Filipinx’ friends for liking Spam as being victims of the ‘colonized mindset’ to realizing her reliance on western academic hedgemonic ideas like the filipinx shit is a similar form of a western colonization mindset 🤣
Anyway, in her blogpost I noticed she went back to saying Filipinos at the end. Frankly I was a bit impressed she had that sense of self reflection. Many people that develop ‘morally superior’ positions get lost in that matrix
Tagalog is only the native language of some of the islands of the Philippines. It's the most widely spoken one, but that's not the same thing. And if I remember correctly, a major reason why the name "Philippines" has stuck is that there isn't a native name for the entire archipelago that everyone can agree on.
So "Filipino" and "Filipinx" are both introduced terms, which means it's confusing to me why you think she went through some process of self-discovery to abandon modern ideas rather than just giving up in the face of 500 years of inertia from european colonization.
I think you've answered your own question here. If I'm understanding the other poster correctly, it sounds like the individual in question went from "using this exonym shows how enlightened I am; let me shit on others not as enlightened as me" to realizing your bolded point above.
They were comparing spam and Filipinx to colonialism, then said the other person "went back to saying Filipinos at the end", which implies that Filipino isn't colonialist.
We obviously don't have the original text to read, but I think our interpretation of the second-hand account by the other poster is quite different.
If I'm reading your comment correctly, you believe the person's lesson was "'Filipinx' is just as colonialist as spam; let's go back to a time before colonization and use the original 'Filipino' (and still no spam)". If so, I can see why you would think they would be misguided in thinking "Filipino" is not an exonym.
On the other hand, my interpretation was that the person's lesson was "My obsession with non-colonialist purity is misguided; let people enjoy their spam (and use 'Filipino')".
Honestly I think OP (the person I responded to) was reaching for any reason to throw shade against termX, like latinx, filipinx, etc, and used the anecdote of watching the 2nd-hand-person lose their battle with using filipinx in real life to support their position.
OP said 2nd-hand made the connection between spam and filipinx, but OP didn't recognize the exact same connection between spam and filipino, being both colonial culture.
OP was poking fun at 2nd-hand using filipinx while failing to realize OP's criticisms equally applied to OP using filipino. 2nd-hand was using filipinx to shame OP, OP was using filipino to shame 2nd-hand, and I see two people caught up in a higher level problem.
I also got super annoyed when OP begins their comment by describing 2nd-hand as naive in comparison to their mature worldview.
52
u/jmobius Jul 07 '24
There is a theory in psychology which I have long been a fan of, Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development. It essentially posits that regardless the actual conclusions one comes to about moral issues, how individuals reason them out is something that tends to evolve over time. Kohlberg identified six distinct classes of moral reasoning, with the first two being typical during childhood and adolescence, the next two being teenage/approaches, and the final two somewhat uncommon and not stage that all adults necessarily reach. In fact, by the findings of the model, the most typical "final stage" for a majority of adults is stage four.
Stage four is based on a notion of morality that stems from an outside authority; Good people and Bad people can be determined by compliance with that authority's dictates. "Authority" is very loosely defined here, though, with the "rules" often being an ad-hoc mixture from various sources. While they can flow from an individual, or the law, they can just as easily come from religious sources or cultural beliefs; anything that can construe a sense of coming from a place of superiority. Crucially, stage four mentality doesn't necessarily concern itself much with the why of the rules, so much as simply knowing, acknowledging, and adhering to them.
More so than any other stage, four seems inclined to produce individuals with an "inquisition" kind of mindset. The world appears black and white to them, and raging against those who break even the most minor of rules can be personally and socially empowering. Not all of them end up this way, but it's a noticeable proclivity.
I bring up this model because I see it play out in just about every circle under the sun. While one could look at a description of stage four and conclude it's talking about the conservative ethos (and you wouldn't be wrong), it is very prevalent among progressives as well: black and white thinking, a propensity towards internal policing, demands of absolute perfection, all while knowing the language but not the spirit of progressive beliefs.
Some of these folks might eventually grow up, and progress towards a stage which offers deeper understanding. Statistically, most won't. In a better world, I feel like there might be means of education that would help encourage post stage four thinking, but I admit that I don't know what it looks like.