But while racism has no current legitimacy, xenophobia can and I think has to be understood in evolutionary terms as originally quite natural and functional (strangers were rightly to be feared). We cannot simply dismiss racists as stupid, surely, or demand that every one instantly frees themselves from racism (which clearly doesn't happen anyway). Doesn't wisdom require us to understand the stubborn roots of racism, why it cannot easily be overturned but takes time, and why some suffer more from it than others of us who are apparently 'liberal-minded'? I know that evolutionary psychology often gets pretty grandiose and absurd but it often has a point - all present stubborn behaviours have roots and explanations. 

This line of thinking also partly helps to explain why patriarchy is so persistent and why, for example, we cannot simply reason ourselves free from obsessive-compulsive disorder, or for that matter from neurotic attachment to dysfunctional and irrational religion. Perhaps this, or something like it, can also help explain the stubbornness of toxic capitalism and the widespread attitude of denial regarding anthropogenic climate chance. It might also alert us to the unfortunate observation that any of us can be 'wise' (and free from prejudice) about certain matters but not others. In other words (in my view), all of us by rational standards fall into hypocrisy: we espouse wisdom but hang on (sometimes secretly) to all our hard-to-change neuroses and prejudices.   

I suspect the KKK was based on almost psychotic group fear and the BNP on something similar. And yes some political groups are clearly more rational or wise than others, at least at their inception. But James Lovelock argues that the green movement has become irrational and is associated with the promotion of many false messages that will hamper progress against global warming. While the BNP is clearly motivated by fearful hatred (and tends to be quite class and region specific), it may incidentally have a point that uncontrolled immigration will lead to an unstable and overpopulated UK. Things are not always straightforward.      

I'm not saying that any of this provides an 'answer' but that a concern for wisdom will presumably lead us to investigate all possible causes of problematic social attitudes and the nuances and complexities of why we are not (and may never become) wise!     
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Group concerned that academia should seek and promote wisdom [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karl Rogers
Sent: 20 April 2009 21:13
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Newsletter

I have yet to read Gray's book, but, as I my own perspective tends towards moral and 
political pessimism, I suspect that I will have a great deal of sympathy for his argument.

Having said that, I do think that political and moral inclusion is one direction where we do 
see progress in Western societies. Political participation in Western societies is no longer 
the exclusive privilege of property owning white men. Men and women have equal rights 
of political participation, regardless of their ethnicity. Men and women of all ethnicities 
are now also widely considered to be of equal moral worth. These are progressive 
features of Western civilisation.

Of course property owning white men still are very powerful and dominant in Western 
societies. Racism and sexism are still widespread and deeply entrenched. But what has 
changed is that prejudice is no longer politically or morally legitimate. Racism and sexism 
are now widely considered to be historically backward, symptoms of individual stupidity 
and ignorance, or as the products of propaganda and rhetoric designed to manipulate 
stupid and ignorant people. The Klu Klux Klan do not have a legitimate moral point of 
view. Nazis are not "entitled to their opinion". The British National Party do not have an 
equivalent moral weight as the Green Party or the Scottish National Party. Moral and 
political relativism has its limits. The movement towards universal political and moral 
inclusion and equality is, perhaps, as near to moral and political progress as we can hope 
for, and obstacles and resistance to that movement can be rejected as being immoral and 
politically illegitimate. Tolerance for value pluralism is progressive.

I intend to read Gray's book. If anyone wishes to review it for the next issue of the 
newsletter then please let me know. Perhaps we can obtain a review copy from the 
publisher.

May I suggest that FOW members might also consider continuing the discussion about 
pessimism and progress on the FOW forums.