I heard a great podcast interview with Martha Nussbaum done through the Philosophy Department at the University of Chicago. The interview is based on her new book From Disgust to Humanity: Sexual Orientation and Constitutional Law .
What strikes me as most interesting in her work is the distinction she draws between disgust and indignation, the former being based on a visceral impulse to distance oneself from an object and the latter based on the violation of abstract principles like human dignity. Nussbaum notes that every culture seems to label an “other” as worthy of disgust.
This distinction is important for understanding contemporary politics. A few weeks back, Jimmy Carter made news for suggesting that much of the “tea party” opposition to President Obama was based on racist beliefs towards him, not on ideology. If true, this would seem to be political action motivated by disgust rather than indignation. Indignation would be if opponents truly viewed him as a socialist and weren’t simply masking their visceral disgust for him with a more socially acceptable ideological argument.
The problem is that it is immensely difficult to tease out the difference. How do we know if opposition is truly rooted in racism? Perhaps a combination of disgust and indignation drives opposition to Obama. How much was opposition to Bush driven by digust? How much by indignation?
It’s an important question because disgust can’t be reasoned with. Logical arguments do not make spoiled milk smell better. True racism can be “un-learned,” but how much of that un-learning takes place through reasoning? I’m not sure.
Comments 4
rkatclu — October 16, 2009
I have a couple of objections to Carter's statement(s).
Sure, people who nominally object to one thing are often really objecting to something else. But, in practical terms, if you can't distinguish then you can't refute. It ends up like Freudian psychology - suggestive but not substantive. This doesn't really bring much value to the table.
For example, if the Other applies to race, why wouldn't it apply to other social constructs such as politics? How do we know that pundits on the left aren't criticizing tea parties out of disgust rather than indignation? More Allegation. Less Substance. (That should be a slogan somewhere...)
WRT tea parties, my guess would be that most of it can be attributed to angry people expressing themselves badly. I really don't think comparisons to primates, Hitler, or socialism/fascism in this context are motivated by racism (Cf. GWB). Rather, angry, inarticulate people resort to our cultural repertoire of pejoratives and slurs. Insofar as racism is still part of the repertoire, this is where it enters the mix. Contextually, saying "Barack Hussein Obama" is probably the result of political anger finding a racist outlet rather than racist anger finding a political outlet.
WRT Prof. Nussbaum, "indignation" can also be reflexive - plenty of people are convinced that something violates their principles without being able to articulate how or why this is the case. If I understand the distinction, "indignation" can be inchoate but is ultimately capable of rational justification whereas "disgust" is based on primitive neurological responses (e.g. arachnophobia) which cannot be justified.
Kenneth M. Kambara — October 18, 2009
Interesting. Do you think both can be dimensionalized? Can we be attracted to something that we are indignant about?
The beetroot lesson – the politics of disgust « Fourcultures — November 7, 2009
[...] the connections between visceral feelings of disgust and more abstract responses of indignation. As one commentator put it: ‘disgust can’t be reasoned with. Logical arguments do not make spoiled milk smell [...]
Fourcultures — November 7, 2009
Thanks - very interesting. There is a logical argument to make spoiled milk smell better: it's sour cream. See more at the Fourcultures website.