The worry with Comstock is that it will be relied on to enact a national abortion ban. Not only would it target the mailing of abortion care medication, it could prevent medical supplies related to abortion from being distributed, hamstringing the clinics still in operation.
The policing of others is a defining part of current legislation. The Wisconsin anti-nudity legislation's most concerning part to me was the clause that granted would-be reporters immunity from taking photos.
Hiomophobia and queer hostility is driven as political gains, too. Here, I am seeing more emphasis on it as an agenda item vs abortion because it's perceived to have less opposition. Aligning with someone's identity as a means to gain political power is common, but the danger created for people when the political promise is to ban existence is frightening and dangerous. Immigrants also fall into this category.
Hi Timothy - this is an excellent post that I read with rising fear. I live in England where much of what you describe as happening in the USA is still just over the Western horizon. My experience has been that it won't stay there...
Thanks as always for an excellent essay! I can see clearly the unifying thread you’ve identified of policing other people’s bodies - all the more frustrating when it is so common for the people doing the public policing to be themselves involved in all sorts of private activities they would never admit to, in other words, deeply rooted hypocrisy. Craven fears... thank you for pulling these urgencies together with the theme of panic.
You missed the granddaddy of all American moral panics: the Salem Witch Trials.
Moral panics don't happen without a Pan. There is always someone who presents as a leader and acquires greater power and resources to the degree that they can fan the flames. If the market for the panic is big enough, you can have a lot of leaders.
I believe that the possibility of a moral panic emerges from greater cultural shifts and the leaders are drawn to the opportunity. It isn't manufactured out of nothing. If there is a vague discontent in a section of the population, there are various mechanisms for a "leader" to crystalize that discontent..
But it is always the discontent which creates the leaders, not the other way around. Even if there are no nefarious characters looking for a way to make money and have power, there's concept known as "audience capture" (Please Google it!) where moderate influencers end up engaging an extreme they ordinarily would not have considered.
Two things have left us vulnerable to panic. One is the perception of rapid change, far more rapid than people can accommodate. The conservative elements in society have changed little since 1950. A pluralistic society allowed this. But while the "paleoconservative" segment hasn't change a bit, the "woke progressive" segment has roared to life, taking over many cultural, educational and political institutions. The incremental changes promoted by more moderate elements has been replaced by revolutionary fervor. Adaptation cannot happen fast enough, so each side become an existential threat to the other.
The other accelerant in our cultural self immolation is social media. It allows us to cluster in groups that were never possible before. That leads to the creation of echo chambers of tens of millions. Study after study has shown that even without algorithmic help, people with similar ideas will hang out together on line. Once that process begins we all start adjusting our opinions to better match those of the lead influencer and our fellow chamber inhabitants. Not only does this lead to uniformity and vicious rejection of alternate opinions, it tends to spiral upward in extremism. Holier than thou syndrome writ large.
This is instinctive and most people will do it even as they insist they retain their individuality. The powerful urge to belong, to conform and to "circle the wagons" against the other no doubt long predates modern humans. But we aren't groups of a dozens of hunter gatherers any more. There are a third of a billion in this country.
I am far more concerned about the survival of democracy, constitutional governance, rule of law, civil liberties, and the like than I am over any specific grievance. It is okay to be an imperfect country because a country that is still free can always improve. OTOH, another civil war is something we might not recover from. However the dynamic of the echo chamber is not one where negotiation or mutual subordination of local groups to the greater good is possible
The worry with Comstock is that it will be relied on to enact a national abortion ban. Not only would it target the mailing of abortion care medication, it could prevent medical supplies related to abortion from being distributed, hamstringing the clinics still in operation.
The policing of others is a defining part of current legislation. The Wisconsin anti-nudity legislation's most concerning part to me was the clause that granted would-be reporters immunity from taking photos.
Hiomophobia and queer hostility is driven as political gains, too. Here, I am seeing more emphasis on it as an agenda item vs abortion because it's perceived to have less opposition. Aligning with someone's identity as a means to gain political power is common, but the danger created for people when the political promise is to ban existence is frightening and dangerous. Immigrants also fall into this category.
Hi Timothy - this is an excellent post that I read with rising fear. I live in England where much of what you describe as happening in the USA is still just over the Western horizon. My experience has been that it won't stay there...
Thanks as always for an excellent essay! I can see clearly the unifying thread you’ve identified of policing other people’s bodies - all the more frustrating when it is so common for the people doing the public policing to be themselves involved in all sorts of private activities they would never admit to, in other words, deeply rooted hypocrisy. Craven fears... thank you for pulling these urgencies together with the theme of panic.
You missed the granddaddy of all American moral panics: the Salem Witch Trials.
Moral panics don't happen without a Pan. There is always someone who presents as a leader and acquires greater power and resources to the degree that they can fan the flames. If the market for the panic is big enough, you can have a lot of leaders.
I believe that the possibility of a moral panic emerges from greater cultural shifts and the leaders are drawn to the opportunity. It isn't manufactured out of nothing. If there is a vague discontent in a section of the population, there are various mechanisms for a "leader" to crystalize that discontent..
But it is always the discontent which creates the leaders, not the other way around. Even if there are no nefarious characters looking for a way to make money and have power, there's concept known as "audience capture" (Please Google it!) where moderate influencers end up engaging an extreme they ordinarily would not have considered.
Two things have left us vulnerable to panic. One is the perception of rapid change, far more rapid than people can accommodate. The conservative elements in society have changed little since 1950. A pluralistic society allowed this. But while the "paleoconservative" segment hasn't change a bit, the "woke progressive" segment has roared to life, taking over many cultural, educational and political institutions. The incremental changes promoted by more moderate elements has been replaced by revolutionary fervor. Adaptation cannot happen fast enough, so each side become an existential threat to the other.
The other accelerant in our cultural self immolation is social media. It allows us to cluster in groups that were never possible before. That leads to the creation of echo chambers of tens of millions. Study after study has shown that even without algorithmic help, people with similar ideas will hang out together on line. Once that process begins we all start adjusting our opinions to better match those of the lead influencer and our fellow chamber inhabitants. Not only does this lead to uniformity and vicious rejection of alternate opinions, it tends to spiral upward in extremism. Holier than thou syndrome writ large.
This is instinctive and most people will do it even as they insist they retain their individuality. The powerful urge to belong, to conform and to "circle the wagons" against the other no doubt long predates modern humans. But we aren't groups of a dozens of hunter gatherers any more. There are a third of a billion in this country.
I am far more concerned about the survival of democracy, constitutional governance, rule of law, civil liberties, and the like than I am over any specific grievance. It is okay to be an imperfect country because a country that is still free can always improve. OTOH, another civil war is something we might not recover from. However the dynamic of the echo chamber is not one where negotiation or mutual subordination of local groups to the greater good is possible