Skip to main content

Condescension, that's all you've got.

I've been watching the reaction to the various Extinction Rebellion protests with a degree of interest over the last week or so. Not the protests themselves as such, though top marks for variety, more the chorus of voices predictably raised against them. When there are events of this sort, it's always instructive to watch the people criticising, and how they go about doing it. There's also a deal of innocent entertainment to be derived from wondering why. I should point out at this point that I'm talking exclusively of people who are paid to have reactions and opinions, I fully understand the disgruntlement of commuters and cabbies, of which, more later.

That the climate is changing is now undeniable, it has been for a number of years, it's just taken some people a lot longer to catch on than others; and now that the effects are visible with every record hot summer, every biggest typhoon ever, then the people who are going to be left with this world to live in are understandably a bit annoyed. You'll note that I've already fallen into the trap of characterising all the protestors as kids, when in reality they've run the gamut, age-wise, but characterising them all as young is one way to diminish the importance of the protests. See also the assumption that, as a sixteen year old, Greta Thunberg is too young to know what she's talking about (though interestingly, many of the same right-wing talking heads were certain that, at age fifteen, Shamima Begum was definitely old enough to know what she was doing). When it comes to dismissing views with which one doesn't agree (or can't agree for politically expedient purposes), then condescension is one of the most powerful tools in the middle-aged white guy's box, and it's been deployed liberally in response to the protests. It takes many forms:

So when you have Toby Young going "Anticapitalists buying Pret baguettes eh? What's all that about?" you have a prime example of overconfidence in one's own cleverness, the condescending self-own, if you will. Young has form in taking an obvious point that a sixth form debating society would dismiss as being embarrassingly simplistic and presenting it as though he's one of the great thinkers of the age. That he is not is evident. They need to eat. Food doesn't magically appear. We live in a capitalist society. Anti-capitalists still have to buy stuff. You're a moron. See also Piers Morgan going "Ah but you've got a telly so you're a hypocrite". This tired argument presupposes that unless you're the purest of the pure then you don't get to have an opinion about anything, which is of course patent nonsense, it's merely a way of shutting down debate (and it's also a bit rich coming from a bloke who hacked a dead girl's phone, but hey, it's Piers Morgan, so he's not going to let a little detail like that get in the way).

Likewise when you have Douglas Murray burbling on about privilege in the Mail on Sunday. I was going to type "thundering" because that's the tone these angry types always seem to want, but really it's become so tiresome that I'll stick with burbling. Frothing, maybe. But the accusation that XR is exclusively a white, middle-class thing is a powerful, divisive and toxic notion, again designed to marginalise and dismiss. That the accusation is being thrown by someone who is themselves, by any definition of the word, "privileged" does run rather counter to the Young / Morgan "hypocrisy" play, but that's by the by. "Privileged" here is a synonym for "out of touch", as if having a well-paid job causes one to lose the power of independent thought.

And then you have Boris Johnson, never a man to use one word when four will do, calling them "unco-operative crusties" with "hemp smelling bivouacs", thus displaying the classic Johnsonian knack of using slightly more florid language than is strictly necessary at the same time as being about thirty years out of date with his references, whilst simultaneously insulting a member of his own family into the bargain. Wait a second guys, they can't be crusties at the same time as being privileged.

All of these various denunciations (and the various angry hand-picked vox pops from tired and pissed-off commuters) betray one giant fear at their heart, and the fear is this: XR are right. Johnson knows it, Murray knows it, Morgan knows it, Young possibly doesn't, he really is quite dim. Despite all their protestations to the contrary they know, underneath the need to be inflammatory for clicks and likes, the need to be contrary to earn a living or the need to play to an aging constituency (who all know, too) that the planet is heading for catastrophe. But they can't be seen to agree, or can't bring themselves to.

And why can't they?

It's not for me to say whether or not certain members of "the establishment" (whatever that is in these days where everyone runs around accusing everyone else of being it) are in hock to the fossil fuel industry, though donations to Johnson are a matter of public record. What I think is happening, rather, is a form of denial, because the alternative is too much to consider. The reality of the situation calls for radical changes to people's lifestyles, and no politician wants to be the one that says: stop eating meat, stop using the car, stop getting on planes. We're in an uncomfortable space where people are dimly aware of what needs to happen, but haven't come round to accepting it yet. So they mock and dismiss, they ridicule and condescend, because it's far, far easier to make fun of the future than it is to face it.

(In a classic case of being overtaken by events, the bulk of this post was written prior to this week's ugly incident at Canning Town tube station, when XR activists were dragged from the roof of a train and given a kicking. Whilst I'm of the view that disrupting public transport, which everyone should be using more, is a pretty dim-witted move, proving that no side has a monopoly on shoddy thinking, the violence it was met with, and the online cheerleading of it, was ugly in the extreme).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A whole new world.

I appear to have moved into the pub. Now, I don't wish to give the impression that this has come as a complete surprise to me, we'be been planning to do so since shortly after I bought it, but still, it's sort of snuck up on me and now I'm waking up and thinking what happened? How come I'm here? The reason for this discombobulation is that this move was initially a temporary measure. Mrs Coastalblog had some relatives coming to stay, and it made sense to put them up in our house while we decamped to the flat. It's still a work in progress, but a mad week of cleaning and carting stuff around made it habitable. I had a suspicion that once we were in we'd be back and forth for a few weeks. As with many of my hunches, I was completely and utterly wrong. As it turned out, once we were here, we were here. Things moved at pace and, now our kitchen appliances have been installed, there's no going back, the old house is unusable. It's left me with slightly mi

Mad Dogs and Immigration Ministers

It is with no small degree of distress that I'm afraid to say I've been thinking about Robert Jenrick. I know, I know, in this beautiful world with its myriad of wonders, thetre are many other things about which I could think, the play of sunlight upon dappled water, the laughter of my children, the song thrush calling from the sycamore tree a few yards away from where I type this. Yet the shiny, faintly porcine features of the Minister for Immigration keep bubbling up into my consciousness. It's a pain in the arse, I tell you. A few years ago on here I wrote a piece entitled The cruelty is the point in which I argued that some policies are cruelty simply for the sake of it, pour decourager les autres . I was reminded of that recently when I listened to Jenrick defending his unpleasant, petty decision to order murals at a migrant children's centre to be painted over. You've probably heard the story already; deeming pictures of cartoon characters "too welcoming&

20

Huh. It turns out that this blog is, as of, well, roughly about now-ish, 20 years old. 20. I've been doing this (very intermittently) for twenty bloody years. And, I cannot help but note, still am, for some reason. I've done posts in the past, when this whole thing was comparatively blemish free and dewy-skinned looking back on its history and how it's changed down the years, there's not really a lot of point in doing that again. It's reflected what concerns me at the time, is, I think, the most charitable way of phrasing it (a  polite way of saying that it's been self-absorbed and solipsistic, but then, it's a blog, this should not come as a shock), it's interesting for me to look back over the lists of posts, but not so much for you, I imagine. Likewise, pondering how I've changed in the intervening years is also fairly pointless. It's painfully obvious that I was a very different person at 25 to 45, my experience of jobs and kids and marriage