The Upside of Stigma: Stigma Makes Generosity Feasible

[roo_ster]

Charles Murray is a "datanaut," a man who swims through data and tries to learn from it.  Sometimes he brings more reality than out PC elites want to deal with and has caused them great consternation.



http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWE5ZTIwODEwYzIwYjQ3Yzk5NTkwMjQ1MDk2NjNhZmQ=

What's Stigmata with You?   [Jonah Goldberg]

In the wake of the NY Times story the other day on food stamps, there's been lots of discussion about stigma in the Corner and elsewhere (See here, here and here. Bonus post by Mickey Kaus here). Charles Murray had a really excellent post on the value of such stigma the other day. He writes (emphasis mine):

    Stigma is the only way that a free society can be generous, whether through private help or government programs. The dilemma is as old as charity: how to give help without creating a cycle in which more people need help. Stigma is the way out. Stigma does three things.

    First, stigma leads people to socialize their children in ways that minimize the chance that they’ll need help as they grow up. When children are taught that accepting charity is a disgrace, they also tend to be taught the kinds of things they should and shouldn’t do to avoid that disgrace.

    Second, stigma encourages the right kind of self-selection. People in need are not usually in a binary yes-no situation. Instead, they are usually somewhere on a continuum from “I’m desperate” to “Gee, a little help would be kind of nice.” Stigma makes people ask whether the help is really that essential. That’s good—for the affordability of giving help, and for the resourcefulness of the potential recipients.

    Third, stigma discourages dependence—it induces people to do everything they can to get out of the situation that put them in need of help.

    All of these benefits of stigma reflect tendencies. Of course there are lots of exceptions. But large-scale assistance is shaped by tendencies. The European model says that people should look upon assistance as a right. Once you say that, the tendencies you create commit you to a cradle-to-grave system of government-decided support systems and corresponding limits on the ability of people to make choices for themselves.

The role of stigma in a free society is one of the least appreciated topics in modern discourse, I think.

Stigma is what keeps a society free without descending into the bad sort of anarchy (and such anarchy breeds a natural desire for a unhealthily powerful state to impose order).

I know lots of smart folks who want decriminalize drugs (including at this magazine). I know far fewer (which is not to say none) who want to destigmatize drug use. This is the bargain free societies make when they legalize bad things. Take prostitution. You can make a strong case that it should be legalized. You cannot make a strong case it should be respected as just another career choice.  This is one of the areas where many cultural libertarians, of the left and the right, really fall down. They too often conflate the case for legalization with the case for acceptance.

Murray's point is really important and profound. Just because the state can or should be blind to something bad, doesn't mean everyone else should be. The legalization of gambling doesn't require us to refrain from judging chronic gamblers. If, God forbid, heroin is legalized in the United States I hope it wouldn't mean that everyone must view being a junky (on Food Stamps!) as just another lifestyle. I'm against legalized prostitution, but if it is legalized one hopes that local communities would still be reluctant to elect a hooker to the PTA.

I'm increasingly libertarian on lots of issues, but I'm also for the sort of cultural conservatism that makes libertarianism something more than a cultural suicide pact. If you take the stigma out of all sorts of things, including the dole, you foster a client-master relationship between the individual and the state, where the healthy correctives of culture and community are delegitimized.

In short, when you stigmatize stigma you empower the state.

[drewtam]

Interesting article, a topic not very often discussed.

My first reaction...
Stigma is only as powerful as the culture that supports it. And when the economic incentives are set up against stigma, then it will degrade to nothing. Or if philosophical underpinnings of stigma are remove (religion, and lack thereof) the imperative of the stigma also fades to nothing.

There are also limits to the power of stigma. Some people learn to have no shame.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Coupla thoughts:

First, stigma is not the only reason people give to charity.  Many of us do because we believe it to be the right thing to do, because compassion compels us, or what have you.  Many of us give anonymously, rather than to avoid stigma.  (I don't think that's what he meant when he said stigma is the only way we can be generous, but it jumped out at me that way.)

Second, we really, really need to re-stigmatize accepting government handouts.  Most of us understand the problems of having a welfare state government taking money form those who earn it to give to those who haven't.  None of us are willing to deal with the other half of the equation, the many people willing to accept money they haven't earned because government is giving it.  At some point we need to hold the recipients of welfare accountable for their actions.  Anything we can do to make living on the dole less acceptable or comfortable would help our situation.  

People need to want to not take other peoples' money, else there will always be politicians trying to give other peoples' money away in exchange for power.

[MechAg94]

To me it is also another reason to say that a lot of the cultural values that liberals have tried to destroy were good things. 

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

Bring back the social stigma about welfare. Make people who are on welfare bow their heads in the checkout line. I'm all for it.

I am also for helping people in need. If you need assistance from a government program, well the government will provide you with assistance and you provide he government with your assistance in the roads that need repaving, the bridges that need painting, the trash that needs picked up , etc.

No free ride. Anyone getting any kind if welfare should be made to work
doing something to earn their keep. Also anyone on the govt teat should be drug
tested, everyone not random test, every person. If you test hot. No more assistance, ever. I'm tired of subsidizing folks so they can buy better cars, TVs or what ever. If you can save money for that next pack of cigs, that next ignorant tat for you tramp stamp or that bottle of booze, you can budget money for rent, groceries and such like the rest of us.

DM

[MicroBalrog]

This is the bargain free societies make when they legalize bad things. Take prostitution. You can make a strong case that it should be legalized. You cannot make a strong case it should be respected as just another career choice.

Clearly Mr. Goldberg does not get out much. There are many career choices (legal to boot!) I respect  less than those of prostitutes or drug dealers. I will not list them here, because I don't know where people who reading this work, but they exist.

The problem with social stigma as a tool of social control is simply this:

If there is a law against something, then a decent society has pre-established instruments with which this law can be abolished, and the item in question legalized. You establish public debate and you sue in the courts, and you either win or you lose, but you get a stand-up fight.

How the hell do you fight against a social stigma? You can't box with a shadow. Oh, if you're a socialist you can use the state education system (and if you're using the state education system to promote your values you are a socialist), but if you're a libertarian... what, precisely?

True, there exist opt-outs.

The modern economy, decentralized as it is, encourages the creation of niche markets – and therefore subcultures and sub-fashions[1]. It's not a coincidence that modern capitalism has given us furries, gun nuts, hikikomori – and allowed, for the first time, for people to set their own rules. Had I lived in New York, 1929[2], for all its freedom, I would have to go to work every day in a suit, a tie, and a hat. Living as I do in Ashdod in 2009, I work from home and I don't even know what my employer looks like – hell, I could work naked if I so choose, or download Bible Black to my work computer.

But in general, a stigma-friendly environment is constricting – after all, the whole point of social stigma is to get people to avoid doing stuff you think is bad. In Israel, people are used to the idea that “children need frameworks”, and therefore homeschooling is looked upon as some form of disgusting child abuse. The Zionists have worked for years to impress upon gullible parents that the school system is the only place to send the children, and people now have accepted it to the point that you can hear radio hosts insulting a caller who admits her four-year-old isn't in a kindergarten yet - “You're a terrible mother!”

The whole reason a lot of people are libertarian – apart for the moral arguments in favor of freedom – is that they want to do something and the state is not letting them. You know it and I know it.

Your argument is: “Fine, we're not going to arrest you if you or your loved ones do the stuff we don't like, but we're going to suppress them with social ridicule and exclusion to the best of our ability, and restrain them from positions of social success and generally ensure they don't get anywhere in life.”

Now, granted, this is miles better than what we have now, but do you genuinely expect libertarians to go for it?

[1]Gilles Lipovetzky, “The Empire of Fashion”, Princeton, 1993.
[2]Frederick Lewis Allen, “Only Yesterday”, New York, 1964

[Jamisjockey]

Just to nitpick your commentary:  Most true libertarians are against food stamps.  
Want to be a junky?  I'm not supporting your lifestyle.
Alot less governmental compassion would help thin the herd, for sure.

[BMacklem]

Governmental compassion is just fine and dandy, but government apathy towards abuse and fraud of that compassion is NOT.

The government knows full well that there are hundreds of thousands of cases of fraud and abuse of nearly all government programs that equate out to a welfare type, or subsidy. The government really needs to "reform" all sorts of handouts instead of health-care, and that would take care of any budgetary shortfalls right there.

Problem is we all know this, but those people who make using government assistance a lifestyle would be up in arms now that they've gotten too entrenched and dependant on those systems.
And the politicians would never go for any such reform as those people are the ones who elect them.

Why do I feel like I'm preaching to the choir here?

[Balog]

Your argument is: “Fine, we're not going to arrest you if you or your loved ones do the stuff we don't like, but we're going to suppress them with social ridicule and exclusion to the best of our ability, and restrain them from positions of social success and generally ensure they don't get anywhere in life.”

Now, granted, this is miles better than what we have now, but do you genuinely expect libertarians to go for it?

And we care about the opinion of that relatively small and ineffective subset because...?

[MicroBalrog]

Small? Maybe. Ineffective? Not so. More importantly, it's clearly cultural and political libertarians that the entire article is aimed at. So Goldberg clearly cares/

[Balog]

Small? Maybe. Ineffective? Not so. More importantly, it's clearly cultural and political libertarians that the entire article is aimed at. So Goldberg clearly cares/

Right, that's why I celebrated the abolishment of the progressive income tax by strolling down to the grocery store and buying some marijuana. Oh wait...

[MicroBalrog]

Libertarians are effective beyond their numbers.

Not achieving all your goals =/= ineffective.

Making progress towards your goals and increasing te scope of your movement = effective even if no immediate progress is visible.

Besides, don't worry. The welfare state will die soon.

[makattak]

The problem with social stigma as a tool of social control is simply this:

If there is a law against something, then a decent society has pre-established instruments with which this law can be abolished, and the item in question legalized. You establish public debate and you sue in the courts, and you either win or you lose, but you get a stand-up fight.

How the hell do you fight against a social stigma? You can't box with a shadow. Oh, if you're a socialist you can use the state education system (and if you're using the state education system to promote your values you are a socialist), but if you're a libertarian... what, precisely?

True, there exist opt-outs.

That's quite an aside you made there.

THAT is the answer. Social stigma is a useful and helpful tool. I am very much against laws against immoral acts, but VERY MUCH in favor of social stigma.

Don't want to be stigmatized? You have two options: don't do it or go somewhere else.

You talk of niche markets. Such "niches" will also represent "societies" to which you can flee. You want to light up, sex up, drink up, shoot up, etc... but don't want people to look down on you for doing so? Go join with those who approve of it.

Your argument is: “Fine, we're not going to arrest you if you or your loved ones do the stuff we don't like, but we're going to suppress them with social ridicule and exclusion to the best of our ability, and restrain them from positions of social success and generally ensure they don't get anywhere in life.”

Yes. No one has any right to my approval. If you dislike the fact that society disapproves of what you are doing, you can leave.

I find it strange that libertarians want individuals to be free to act, but not to act in ways they disapprove of...

Libertarian fascism?

[MicroBalrog]

To extend that you have the right to criticize social mores, can I not, in return, criticize your criticism?

If you have the right to advocate a society of prudes, can I not advocate a society of libertines?

The article argues that freedom cannot work if society at large does not adopt Jonah Goldberg's values. I think that is false.

[makattak]

To extend that you have the right to criticize social mores, can I not, in return, criticize your criticism?

If you have the right to advocate a society of prudes, can I not advocate a society of libertines?

The article argues that freedom cannot work if society at large does not adopt Jonah Goldberg's values. I think that is false.

You have every right to criticize social mores. However, criticizing social mores by saying no one has a right to criticize people's choices seems rather odd...

[MicroBalrog]

I've never said such a thing.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

<choke>

You criticize mores all the time Micro, most often by saying nobody should criticize other peoples' mores.

[makattak]

I've never said such a thing.

Then how do you propose to stop people from using social disapprobation? Are you going to outlaw it or shun them for using it?

Further to your point:

The article argues that freedom cannot work if society at large does not adopt Jonah Goldberg's values. I think that is false.

I think libertarians and liberals alike are drawing upon the moral capital created by 2000 years of Judeo-Christian morality in the West. Without those underpinnings, I very much doubt you'd approve of society.

[MicroBalrog]

<choke>

You criticize mores all the time Micro, most often by saying nobody should criticize other peoples' mores.

I've never said nobody should criticize other people's mores in the sense you try and ascribe to me. I am not, and have not been since I was about 16 years old, an advocate for moral relativism.

Then how do you propose to stop people from using social disapprobation? Are you going to outlaw it or shun them for using it?

I don't believe we can 'stop' them in the sense that we cannot, obviously, press a button to stop it. But I do believe that each of us, as a citizen, has a right and a duty to promote his own value system. I believe the world would be a better place if more people worked harder to promote cultural libertarianism/libertinism than its opposite.

I think libertarians and liberals alike are drawing upon the moral capital created by 2000 years of Judeo-Christian morality in the West. Without those underpinnings, I very much doubt you'd approve of society.

I'm not sure I agree. Please elaborate on this.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I've never said nobody should criticize other people's mores in the sense you try and ascribe to me. I am not, and have not been since I was about 16 years old, an advocate for moral relativism.

What's moral relativism got to do with anything?

I've often said that people in society should regulate themselves by moderating their own behavior, and by not being tolerant of others who act inappropriately.  If we're able to moderate ourselves, there is less need for government to step in with laws and moderate our behavior by force.

Charles Murray is now saying something similar, albeit in a different and clearer way.

You're criticizing this idea, saying that we shouldn't be critical of others.  You have to admit, it seems odd and contradictory.

[MicroBalrog]

I think you misunderstand.

It's naturally true we should be critical of bad behavior. It's not clear to me how this is avoidable.

But Jonah Goldberg suggest a specific list of bad behaviors we should be critical of: drug use, prostitution, sexual depravity. In short, that we should use our instruments of social criticism to encourage a society that complies with what J. Goldberg thinks are traditional values.

I'm increasingly libertarian on lots of issues, but I'm also for the sort of cultural conservatism that makes libertarianism something more than a cultural suicide pact.

In short, Goldberg suggests that we must accept his values, or society will be destroyed.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I think you misunderstand.

It's naturally true we should be critical of bad behavior. It's not clear to me how this is avoidable.

But Jonah Goldberg suggest a specific list of bad behaviors we should be critical of: drug use, prostitution, sexual depravity. In short, that we should use our instruments of social criticism to encourage a society that complies with what J. Goldberg thinks are traditional values.

In short, Goldberg suggests that we must accept his values, or society will be destroyed.

So you agree that we should be critical of bad behavior?  That it's unavoidable?

Then what's your gripe with Goldberg and Murray?  They're merely suggesting that we should be critical of bad behavior, same as you.

I think you're right about me misunderstanding.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Hmm, having re-read the thread again, maybe it makes some more sense now.

I think our disconnect lies in the difference between the tool itself vs how the tool is used.

You have a problem with some of the specific ways stigma is used by society (homeschooling or drugs or whatever), and with the fact that you fnd it difficult to oppose those uses of stigma.  As a response you seem to be opposed to stigma itself.

You need to address the uses of the tool, rather than the tool itself.

[MicroBalrog]

I'm not sure how we can avoid being critical of bad behavior. Whenever I identify something as bad or evil, am I not being already critical of it by virtue of said identification?

[Jamisjockey]

Your argument is: “Fine, we're not going to arrest you if you or your loved ones do the stuff we don't like, but we're going to suppress them with social ridicule and exclusion to the best of our ability, and restrain them from positions of social success and generally ensure they don't get anywhere in life.”

Now, granted, this is miles better than what we have now, but do you genuinely expect libertarians to go for it?

Such is life.  My private property rights as a business owner should give me the right to refuse to employ or service someone who's doing something I don't agree with.  Whether I run a small business or a fortune 1bajillion business, my right to make decisions that suceed or fail shouldn't be infringed in the name of "diversity".  Discrimination is my right.