Unsayable ideas and moral fashions are beliefs, opinions, or statements that are widely accepted or strongly prohibited within a particular society or era, often without critical examination - ideas which can be dangerous to question or express differing views about.
These are fashion because they are often invisible to those within the prevailing mode, only becoming apparent as ridiculous or arbitrary when viewed from a distance in time or from another cultural perspective.
However, unlike clothing fashion, which can merely lead to embarrassment if one adheres to outdated styles, violating moral fashions or expressing unsayable ideas can have severe consequences, including being laughed at, fired, ostracised, imprisoned, or even killed.
Historically, it appears to be a constant that in every period, people have held beliefs that future generations would find ridiculous, and dissent from these beliefs could lead to significant trouble.
It would be remarkably coincidental if the present era were the first to have gotten everything "just right," implying that contemporary society also holds beliefs that people in the future will find ridiculous or considers certain true things "unsayable".
Identifying Unsayable Ideas in One's Own Time
There are ways to discover these hidden Taboos or moral fashions in the present day:
The Conformist Test:
The Conformity involves examining one's own opinions. If one has no opinions that they would be reluctant to express in front of their peers, it might indicate a lack of independent thought and simply believing what one is "supposed to believe".
Believing everything currently considered acceptable could be analogous to making the same deliberate mistakes mapmakers include to detect copies, suggesting the ideas were adopted rather than independently arrived at.
Looking for Trouble:
Ideas that are potentially unsayable can often be identified by observing what statements or opinions cause people to get into trouble. Statements that make people mad are often those they worry might be believed or, more intensely, might be true. Unlike obviously false statements (2 + 2 = 5), which might be dismissed as jokes or insanity, statements that challenge prevailing views and hold a possibility of truth are more likely to provoke anger and repercussions.
Following the Labels:
Historically, certain Labels have been used to shut down statements before their truth could be evaluated, such as Blasphemy, Sacrilege, indecent, improper, and un-American. These labels lose their sting over time but are potent weapons in their era. In any period, these labels can be identified by looking at what people call ideas they disagree with, besides calling them untrue.
Modern examples include inappropriate, divisive, and attacking statements as racially insensitive instead of arguing they are false. Taking such a label ("sexist") and considering ideas that would be called by that label, and then asking if any of them might be true, can reveal potential taboos. The first ideas that come to mind are often the most plausible and may be heretical thoughts already mostly formed, requiring only temporary self-censorship to be turned off.
Time and Space (Diffing):
Looking into the past is suggested as a way to gain distance and see what used to be acceptable but is now unthinkable. While changes can represent progress (as in hard sciences), in social questions, many changes are simply fashion.
Comparing present ideas against those of various past cultures ("diffing") can yield ideas considered shocking now but potentially true. Similarly, comparing present ideas with those of different contemporary societies can highlight taboos. Any idea considered harmless in a significant percentage of times and places but taboo in one's own is a candidate for something the current society might be mistaken about. An example being the Harvard brochure suggesting it was inappropriate to compliment a colleague or student's clothes, a principle described as rare among world cultures, past or present.
Looking for Prigs:
A Prig = a self-righteously moralistic person who behaves as if they are superior to others.
The minds of children, particularly well-behaved teenagers, are described as repositories of societal taboos in a "mint condition" state because they are largely untainted by experience.
Adults deliberately provide a sanitised and sometimes inaccurate view of the world to children, reflecting what they think kids "ought to think". By comparing the worldview of someone with extensive, varied real-world experience (like a fictional character who has seen a lot) with that of a well-behaved teenager from the suburbs, one might identify ideas that would shock the teenager, representing current taboos.
Mechanism of Taboo Creation:
Understanding _how_ moral fashions and taboos arise can help identify them. Unlike ordinary fashions (which might stem from imitating influential people), moral fashions often appear to be created deliberately by groups who wish to suppress certain ideas.
Prohibitions are strongest when a group is "nervous". A group must be powerful enough to enforce a taboo but also weak enough to need it for protection; confident groups don't need taboos. The biggest source of moral taboos is suspected to be power struggles where one side only barely has the upper hand. Such struggles are often framed as conflicts between competing ideas, and the ideas of the winning side are considered to have triumphed.
The adoption of Moral Fashions is described as potentially following a similar mechanism to ordinary fashion adoption: early adopters driven by ambition to distinguish themselves, followed by a larger group driven by fear of standing out.
Identifying Identity Groups that are powerful but nervous, ideas they wish to suppress, ideas tainted by association with a losing side in a recent struggle, ideas self-consciously rejected by those seeking to differentiate themselves from older generations, and ideas conventional people are afraid of saying can help uncover unsayable thoughts.
The Purpose of Exploring Unsayable Ideas
The motivation for deliberately seeking out and considering potentially "nasty, disreputable ideas" is attributed to several reasons:
- Curiosity: A simple desire to see and decide for oneself, especially regarding forbidden topics.
- Avoiding Being Mistaken: If the current era holds beliefs that will later seem ridiculous, identifying them allows one to potentially avoid holding those mistaken beliefs.
- Training the Brain: Exploring unthinkable thoughts is seen as good for the brain, helping it go where it's not supposed to, which is essential for doing good work. Great work often arises from overlooked ideas, and no idea is more overlooked than one that is unthinkable.
- Questioning Assumptions: In fields like science and scholarship, questioning conventional wisdom and assumptions is crucial for discovery and developing new theories. Scientists are highlighted as being particularly willing to "look under rocks" and seek out problems with established ideas. There seems to be a correlation between intelligence and the willingness to consider shocking ideas; intelligent people may actively look for flaws in conventional thinking and may have less hold over them to begin with.
Considering unthinkable thoughts and questioning assumptions is argued to have advantages beyond the specific ideas themselves; it's like stretching before running, preparing the mind for smaller deviations from convention that are considered innovative.
Handling Unsayable Ideas: Thoughts vs. Speech
Once an unsayable idea is identified, the advice is generally not to say it openly, or at least to pick one's battles.
Expressing controversial ideas directly can lead to being labelled and drawn into distracting arguments. The most important thing is the ability to _think_ what one wants, not necessarily to say it. A sharp line should be drawn between thoughts, where anything is allowed and outrageous ideas should be encouraged, and speech, where discretion is advised. This aligns with the historical advice "i pensieri stretti & il viso sciolto" (closed thoughts & an open face). While keeping thoughts secret might seem cowardly, it allows one to focus on other work instead of being consumed by constant arguments.
However, keeping thoughts secret loses the advantages of discussion for developing ideas. Therefore, the optimal plan, if possible, is to have a few trusted friends with whom one can speak openly. These friends are also likely to be the most interesting to know.
Regarding public presentation ("viso sciolto"), it might be better to make it plain that one does not agree with the current zealotry but without being too specific about disagreements. When pressed (e.g., "are you with us or against us?"), answers like "neither" or "I haven't decided" can be effective, avoiding being forced to address the question on the zealots' terms.
Countering Taboos and Zealotry
If one decides to fight back against pervasive taboos or zealotry without directly expressing the forbidden ideas, several tactics are suggested:
- Raising the level of abstraction: Argue against censorship in general rather than defending a specific censored item, thus avoiding being accused of the heresy contained within it.
- Using meta-labels: Attack the use of labels to suppress discussion, for example, by using terms like "political correctness" to critique the phenomenon as a whole.
- Metaphor: Use stories or analogies that parallel the current situation without directly naming it, making it difficult for opponents to respond. Arthur Miller's play "The Crucible" is cited as an example, using the Salem witch trials to critique the House Un-American Activities Committee.
- Humour: Zealots reportedly lack a sense of humour and cannot effectively counter jokes. Treating zealotry or taboos as a joke can be a potent weapon, as suggested by the defeat of Victorian prudishness and its reincarnation as political correctness.
Seeing One's Own Moral Fashion
It is difficult to see the moral fashions or taboos of one's own time because fashion is inherently invisible to those within its grip; it simply feels like the "right thing to do". Time provides distance that makes past fashions visible as ridiculous.
To see present fashions, a conscious effort is needed to create distance by standing apart from the "mob" and observing its actions.
Paying attention when ideas are being suppressed is key. Labels used to dismiss statements besides calling them false (such as "x-ist" or "y-ic") are identified as a major external clue that something is wrong.
Hearing such labels should prompt the question "why?". It is also crucial to observe one's own thoughts from a distance, a skill analogous to an adult recognising their bad mood stems from tiredness, but applied to societal influences.
This conscious effort to discount the effects of moral fashions or society's "bad moods" is harder than discounting personal moods because it works against social customs. The only defence against being swept up in the wave of fashion is to always be questioning: "What can't you say? And why?"