"Politeness" means the police: what Americans are really like, and why

The United States is almost uniquely a policed and policing society. It is more so than the UK, itself, along with its Anglosphere former settler colonies, more repressive socially than France and much of Continental Europe. Because the US is a democracy, it is largely self-policing, and the fabric of everyday social life is heavily marked thereby. We are a democratic capitalist society and people take this very seriously; it's what most Americans want. We get this through what I call the sports team mentality, which is to say the little corporate enterprise in which everyone is expected to play their part. The culture is practical and not theoretical, so people don't usually say what they mean.

We are "menteurs" (liars) we Americans, mostly. In European culture, you can say things like this because people "insult" each other all the time and little is thought of it, but Americans are outraged if you are not "polite" to them, even though, certainly, the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu was right to say that "the concession of politeness is always a political concession." In America people all mostly expect to be shown "respect," as if we were all chevaliers who had better not be shown any slight to our honor lest it call for a duel. In institutional contexts, the person is simply threatened with being fired or, if they are an institutional client, such as a hospital patient, especially if they are poor, and if they are not, you will be treated as if you are engaged in a criminal assault. Americans are nasty people and you have to show them that you basically are good naturedly "friendly" (which obviously is not friendship, in fact it is the opposite of friendship) and have a good "attitude." This is not class-specific (though it is of a class origin, and was historically used against workers, the poor, and foreigners).

In America, when someone articulates a "constative" proposition (asserting that some state of affairs is the case or "true" in the world) the main or sole meaning is performative; usually that they want you to recognize their claim to authority over you (which is that of "us," the team) and what you are supposed to do. You don't argue with the boss, whose authority is absolute (and for most Americans, analogized and backed by "God," which for them just means: Boss of It All, which is not exactly the traditional idea of God in Jewish, Muslim, and Christian theology, in fact, but it is the basic idea in American Protestantism and in American society). Instead, you do what "we" expect of you ("conformity," otherwise you are not "cool") or what the boss tells you to do (and these are generally the same thing of course, the boss coming into play especially if you don't "get it" and do what you were supposed to do). Otherwise, Americans may hurt you. They won't like you at all. In an organization with a hierarchy where someone has power over you, you will be subjected to punishments that may be very nasty indeed. And to psychological judgment. Rarely is anything ever contested among Americans either in the fabric of social life (that is the sole province of art, although few artists and fewer audiences ever discuss this, as it is at best taken for granted,, while artists pursue excellence and audiences enjoyment), nor in the way things are being done "here" (any here). Religion enforces this, as do schools, and the immense, and immensely profitable, psychological, therapeutic, "spiritual," and business self-help industries (and these are forms of the same thing essentially). All of this is rather uniquely American in its extreme character.

Feminism, both "liberal" and "radical" (wanting equality and hating men, who at the extreme are all "rapists" perhaps with "micro" aggressions, which cannot be tolerated), did not change this but made the enforcement much heavier.

Identity politics also did, because it meant anyone who is criticized or disagreed with in any way is being assaulted, which Americans generally believe, or, in the liberal ideology, oppressed by speech and attitude ("Are you looking at me?"; "Don't stand so close to me, it's a threat!", etc.) by way of their politically privileged (because theoretically unprivileged) identity.

(Zionism is also part of this. It is Jewish identity politics. It's important to realize that there was no such thing until quite recently (since the 1890's). American Jews when they identify as "Jewish" are the more conservative among Americans whose culture, but not religion, nor necessarily identity, is Jewish in some part of set of ways. Notably, culture and its influence like personality is hard to pin down as it intrinsically lacks spatial or temporal boundaries. The spatial and temporal boundaries of a self are the body and one's experiences, but these are not singular in the way that identities are, and it is also perhaps worth remarking in this context that in Jewish theological traditions, unlike Christian ones, "God" does not really have an identity, as Maimonidean "negative" theology certainly is clear about. So if we followed the "imitation of God" we might want to be in a certain way but without saying "I am this" and defending it.)

Left wing feminism is something else because it wants to educate people and change the culture, and not rely on mechanisms of enforcement and punishment. Left wing feminists exist, but not as part of the mainstream culture. It should be little surprise if you work for any organization: there has to be enforcement of social norms when people are engaged in any cooperative activity. A liberal society does this through the market and the state, both of which use sanctions (you're fired, or you're punished; you're made to leave or you're kept in confinement until you are reformed into a more compliant worker. A radically democratic society would not be enforcing given norms so much as constantly engaged in their discussion and reformulation; perhaps this is only possible during a revolutionary movement of some kind. The liberal utopia is a society that enforces good or right social norms of justice. The workers movement in its heyday was heavily anarchist, and anarchists don't want to enforce any social norms, because they don't believe in coercion. There are very feminist anarchists, fewer black or other oppressed minority ones, though there could be, and it quite possible that the agendas of these movements would achieve more that way. But such people have never had much power anywhere, at least not in this country. Another way to put this is: most of what passes for the left is not left. It is capitalist liberalism, it is a politics for the corporate middle class. Those are the people who are most of the "progressives" you meet at elite universities.

Is this likely to change soon? Fascism can be "liberal" in many ways, and this is not sufficiently well understood. Pinochet, whose regime, engineered by the US, did much to introduce "neoliberalism" as we know it, instituted fascism in the name of liberalism.

Americans do not understand this because our political traditions are overwhelmingly oriented to liberty and not democracy. These are very different. In a democracy, speech can be contestational, and often is. In America, that is considered assault.

Disagreement is "violence" in American culture, and disaffection is "mental illness." Unhappiness is considered a social problem to be cured by professionals. It is not tolerated. Why would anyone be unhappy? Poverty? Work that sucks? No, the general line goes, any social disorder is caused by a "sickness" of those who suffer from or would complain about it.

None of this new. If this fascism, we've been living with it for decades. Our new government's boss is the name of a state that is openly repressive and violent, in place of the liberal hypocrisy that claims not to be, on the grounds that state authority has violent "abuse" as an extreme that can be checked through moderation.

The liberal or "libertarian" right has for more than four decades been opposing some of the liberal nonsense in rhetoric (and which we on the left properly so called know is nonsense, and admit this at least to ourselves, though many on the left are reluctant to do so, I think in order to keep up their support base), though not in fact. What happens is that the right can speak more freely, and the left is attacked.

Fascist thugs march on the capitol and are eventually prosecuted while their champions, including once again Mr. Trump, advocate the open killing of people on the left. Zionists will protest that Jews are unsafe, reporting loudly a few incidents, and this is used as a drumbeat for war.

Much of the left is driven to more extreme postures in atmospheres of state repression. The repression is a principal cause, but is presented as the solution to the problem it provoked, and wanted.

Politics is a realm of commitment to things people very much want or do not want, and therefore love or hate.

Liberals say "don't hate anyone," be moderate. But then the right hates them and they lose because they are trying to make peace with people who want war. I know what I don't like.