'Culture' Is Real; It Matters
All arguments ‘logically structured and coherent’, certified by Grok
In Haaretz today there was published a report that the IDF was ‘shooting to kill’ starving people, lining up for relief. For arguments sake, let’s say it really happened as written, that the IDF actually ‘shot to kill’ starving people, lining up for relief.
The reaction of almost everyone in Israel, including Netanyahu himself, was firm denial. He said it was a ‘blood libel’ on the IDF, ‘the most moral army in the world’.
Even if we know the ‘truth’, nonetheless Netanyahu was saying that Israel rejects the notion and the action. It is not our culture. I would term it ‘cultural-dystonic’ if Israel were to say that the IDF would even think to do such a deed, much less to order it. (This new word is a play on ‘ego-dystonic’ — from my days of psychoanalytic training — as to whether ideas or actions of the patient were ‘ego-dystonic’ or the opposite, ‘ego-syntonic’.)
Of course, Netanyahu’s denial can easily be challenged: ‘What utter hypocrisy; in fact it is the opposite of moral!’ (This challenge alone reduces the disagreement to a ‘your word against mine’ argument, and hence unprovable ever.)
Let’s apply the same formulation from Israel to her sworn enemies.
In Haaretz after October 7th, there were reports that Hamas swarmed across the border, perpetrating a pogrom that slaughtered a thousand innocent people.
The reaction of almost everyone in Gaza, Iran and the associated resistance axis was not to deny it, but rather proclaim it as a wonderful victory, even congratulating themselves.
Essentially Hamas was saying that the activity reflects our culture. There is nothing to deny — (hence, nothing to challenge!) Rather, what is reflected is pride.
We accept ‘ego’, the concept that there is an ‘I’ or self, that prefers A over B, or likes to think of themself as alpha rather than beta — or vice versa.
A ‘culture’ likewise has preferences. I conceive of ‘culture’ as merely the sum of all those egos from a particular grouping. From the sums can be extracted the ‘mean’, with its associated variability. Like any bell-shaped curve, there are outliers at either end. However, these outliers are of limited weight, compared to the influence of the mean’s impact.
That is what I wish to convey by use of the word ‘culture’. I am using a statistical way of looking at the world. ‘Culture’ is something real; measurable; and comparable, one grouping to another.
Applied to the above, ‘shooting to kill’ at innocents is culture-dystonic to Israel, and ‘shooting to kill’ at innocents is culture-syntonic to Hamas and its supporters.
—————
Grok evaluated my article to this point and proclaimed it ‘logically structured and coherent’, which was all I wanted. You are free to read Grok’s entire analysis if you are looking for a boring reread. As always your choice.
—————
That’s it for the moment. All future Substacks referable to the topic of ‘culture’ must depend on the reader accepting the logic of my argument.
To be continued.
I am reproducing here an email I received in response to this Substack. This individual (001), will never be identified further. 001 sent me the following by email:
— — —
Arnie,
Deploying fancy terms does not enhance their validity.
I am suggesting that Grok forgot to distinguish between stated norms and actual behavior, or tolerated aberrations.
If a presidential candidate declares proudly that he did not pay taxes and calls openly for the beating up of political opponents, and if he then gets elected by a majority of the voters, how do I read this? Is it now cultural-dystonic or is it cultural-syntonic to lie and cheat, and to physically threaten opponents?
Evidently the fact that said individual was elected risks invalidating your favorite argument about the hump of the bell curve and its outliers.
I had a friend who died in a war because he tried to capture a prisoner who supposedly surrendered while using it is a faint to kill. I am fully aware of the complexity of acting morally during what is by definition an amoral context, namely a war.
In any case, regardless of whether deplorable behavior is or is not cultural-syntonic, your own sanity requires you to not lower yourself to the gutter of your opponent, if he prefers to dwell there. It is not only a question of whether a particular killing is required, or may be tolerated, or maybe encouraged, or maybe officially denied while not frowned upon, or whether it is really disdained, and may be punished. I like to also look at the impact of inhumane acts on the actors.
I like to assume that you, as an analyst, must be particularly attuned to the deleterious impact of criminal behavior on the soul of the actor and his/her surrounding. Particularly if such behavior is not typically cultural-syntonic.
No need to reply.
I think it would be more precise to say: All future Substacks referable to the topic of ‘culture’ must assume that the reader 'entertains as possibly accurate' the logic of my argument.