N.W. writes:

I have been following the conversation on cultural relations at your site with great interest. It is heartening to see people discussing the matter in an honest straight-forward fashion. Perhaps we will prove Mr. Holder wrong after all.

I believe part of the problem in coming to terms with this issue is the common tendency to skip over the concrete particulars and instead firmly ground oneself in the cloudy abstracts. I may be tilting at windmills, granted, but nonetheless I shall begin my campaign against that stalwart bastion of the Enlightenment “the imperative to love all of humanity.” Now, this is a tall and dark fortress with innumerable passages, corridors and gates from which sally forth many a foolish knave, crying their challenge, “Halt foe, dost not thou love all and equally so?” to which I reply with a quixotic “How? How are we to love all of humanity?”

To which the Knight errant replies, “Why, methinks thee are daft. Forsooth, thee must do so with actions and thoughts indisciminating! Hast thou not heard? Back then, if thou shalt not, banish thyself to dark nasty places in yon hinterland.” To which I reply, “No, you have not answered my inquiry, how am I to love all equally and indiscriminately? How is a woman in Timbuktu as dear to me as my mother? How is an anonymous bureaucrat in a distant capitol more authoritative than my father? How is a dark man in the southlands as close to me as my brother?” The foe angrily brandishes his spear, shreiks, “YamuddawazzaLizad!” and retreats within the bastion of universal brotherly love.

But that is the thing of it. How are we called to abstractly love all of humanity? If we are to love all mankind equally what becomes of the love of the particular, the love for one’s mother and father, the loyalty between brothers, the protection shown towards our sisters? If we do not love the particular, love itself becomes impersonal. It is only through coming to know and accept those around us in the particular that we begin to understand what it is to love.

This love of the particular starts in the home, and then slowly expands to include the community, and from the love of the community it expands to encompass a love of one’s people, and gradually emanates out to encompass a love of all creation. But there is a limit. The depth of our love deepens as we come to know that which is loved more fully. If we ignore a thing we cannot truly love it.

Now, it must be admitted that it is a curious situation that arises when an individual would abandon all that is close and familiar for the love of an outlander. What is represented in this action? How can a person ignore who they are and who their people are? Why would one abandon a thousand year tradition for the love of a stranger? What is so appealing in the outlandish character of another that couldn’t be found amoungst ones own people? Is this love between these two individuals so strong that it obliterates historical traditions of millenia? What kind of love is that destructive?

Laura writes:

That’s beautifully said. Thank you.

It’s not just that we are unrealistically expected to love abstractions under radical egalitarianism and the religion of humanitarianism, but we are called to scorn the spiritual dimension of the physical.

 (See my comments on this body-self dualism at the end of the previous post).

 N.W. writes:

It’s all in [Gerard Manley] Hopkins. As T.S. Eliot said at one of his readings where no one was paying attention, “Read poetry, its the only thing that matters!” and then ran off stage.

Laura writes:

Or as Robert Frost said, “If I could have said it any other way, I would have.”

Jeff writes:

When I saw the title “The Love of the Particular,” I thought the perception would be expressed is that the particular individual whom one marries is more important than the abstraction of what that person represents. I was surprised to find the idea that interracial marriages are destructive. The point doesn’t seem to be that such a marriage is destructive because an “inferior” is accepted into the family. (Maybe that’s an unstated assumption, but if so, isn’t the mixed marriage beneficial to the person who escapes the “inferior” line?) No, the perceived problem seems to be that the other person is inappropriate because that person is from another … “race,” regardless of the mixture. How about a Norwegian man and a Chinese woman, both of whom are athletes, Nobel Laureates, and devout Christians? You must admit (I think you must) that there is variety in good human decisions, or at least special cases. But maybe I misunderstand everything. I had the sense that one woman yesterday half wondered if marriages across different stocks — Italian and Swedish, I think it was — are suspect.

Isn’t a biological benefit of sexual reproduction that it mixes genes, providing a combination so different that, across many cases, some of the new combinations are better able to respond to the environment? Are you so sure that mixing races or stocks isn’t part of God’s plan? People often disdain the idea of marrying people raised in close quarters. I assume that no one is suggesting that everyone marry their childhood friends or second cousins. And, on the other hand, people are often more excited by people seen as different. Is relative boredom a price we must pay for a society of greater day-to-day cohesion and even integrity?

There’s a period of first encounter between one genetic stock and another, in which individuals “hunker down” and feel alienated from the seemingly broken community. And over time, the peoples merge. Similarly for the encounters between different cultures, so long as the cultures are compatible. That latter caveat is one reason that Western acceptance of Islamic immigration is so foolish.

Mixed genes are not the problem in modern America. Mixed meaning is. That’s why assimilation is so important. Of course, assimilation also has an elastic meaning, depending on the speaker; that is, which traditions must be defended? But let me return to the original point. I don’t quite know what people think the marital limits are or should be. To what extent is the perceived issue genetic, to what extent cultural? And are the limits different for people (for example, older couples) who would never raise a family?

Laura writes:

Jeff raises a number of issues. Let me address his points one by one.

When I saw the title “The Love of the Particular,” I thought the perception would be expressed is that the particular individual whom one marries is more important than the abstraction of what that person represents.

But it’s you who seems to be referring to an abstraction here. When you saw “love of the particular,” you thought it meant love of the “individual,” the self stripped of any kind of racial or ethnic context, in other words abstract and disembodied. Perhaps abstract is not a good word for it. Immaterial would be more precise. You seem to be suggesting that it is only the immaterial self that is important. Whereas what N.W. was referring to, at least in part, is the love of all particulars – physical and abstract – and that includes the human environment, the racial features of people and the physical particulars of customs, habits and traditions.

 I’m not sure why Jeff refers to race as an abstraction. It is, at least in part, the most particular and concrete of things.

I was surprised to find the idea that interracial marriages are destructive. The point doesn’t seem to be that such a marriage is destructive because an “inferior” is accepted into the family. (Maybe that’s an unstated assumption, but if so, isn’t the mixed marriage beneficial to the person who escapes the “inferior” line?) No, the perceived problem seems to be that the other person is inappropriate because that person is from another … “race,” regardless of the mixture. How about a Norwegian man and a Chinese woman, both of whom are athletes, Nobel Laureates, and devout Christians? You must admit (I think you must) that there is variety in good human decisions, or at least special cases. But maybe I misunderstand everything. I had the sense that one woman yesterday half wondered if marriages across different stocks — Italian and Swedish, I think it was — are suspect.

Maybe Jeff can find where in this discussion the overall inferiority of certain races was postulated. If one is discussing interracial marriage and its merits or disadvantages, whether a Norwegian man and Chinese woman were both athletes or Nobel Laureates or homeless bums wouldn’t be pertinent. We’re not talking about scientific breeding.

Historically, ethnic groups with strong cohesion have discouraged marriage outside the group. It’s not the outlandish idea Jeff presents it to be. I don’t think the Swedish are too upset if some Italians prefer not to form families with them.

Isn’t a biological benefit of sexual reproduction that it mixes genes, providing a combination so different that, across many cases, some of the new combinations are better able to respond to the environment?

We’ve been talking about the preservation of cultural and racial distinctions not conscious genetic breeding. Nevertheless, the evolutionary drive for the mixing of genes is probably reflected in the male proclivity for mates of other races. At the same time, there seems to be an equally powerful drive against the mixing of genes. Men seem to instinctively resist the  mating of racially compatible women with outsiders. Jeff mentioned before that this drive is personally foreign to him, but it appears to be quite common.

Are you so sure that mixing of races or stocks isn’t part of God’s plan?

He never revealed it.

People often disdain the idea of marrying people raised in close quarters. I assume that no one is suggesting that everyone marry their childhood friends or second cousins. And, on the other hand, people are often more excited by people seen as different. Is relative boredom a price we must pay for a society of greater day-to-day cohesion and even integrity?

Incest is stigmatized for good reason. Many people marry their childhood friends, but in this case “the particular” meant particular traits not necessarily particular people.

And, on the other hand, people are often more excited by people seen as different. Is relative boredom a price we must pay for a society of greater day-to-day cohesion and even integrity?

This sort of sexual excitement is probably a passing thing. We’ve been talking about the formation of families and marriages. Is Jeff saying it’s impossible to find an interesting mate within one’s own race?

There’s a period of first encounter between one genetic stock and another, in which individuals “hunker down” and feel alienated from the seemingly broken community. And over time, the peoples merge. Similarly for the encounters between different cultures, so long as the cultures are compatible. That latter caveat is one reason that Western acceptance of Islamic immigration is so foolish.

White genes are recessive. If white culture – both in its particulars and its abstractions – is meaningless then this merging is insignificant.

Mixed genes are not the problem in modern America. Mixed meaning is. That’s why assimilation is so important. Of course, assimilation also has an elastic meaning, depending on the speaker; that is, which traditions must be defended? But let me return to the original point. I don’t quite know what people think the marital limits are or should be. To what extent is the perceived issue genetic, to what extent cultural? And are the limits different for people (for example, older couples) who would never raise a family?

Racial genes, in part, determine culture. They are not the entirety of culture, but they are a necessary aspect of it. The genetic make-up of race is reflected in culture. If the Chinese had discovered America, it would be an entirely different place.

Marital customs embrace older couples as well.  A society cannot enforce norms without consistency.

N.W. writes:

I would remind Jeff that no where in my post did I make mention of race or skin tone in relation to mixed marriages. I merely inquired how it was beneficial to society at large for individuals to abandon their historic peoples and traditions to marry someone from a completely different culture. Outside of platitudes of Omnia Amor Vincit, I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

Laura writes:

Yes, it was me, not N.W., who brought up the issue of the physical particulars of racial feaures. N.W. referred to the particulars of culture.

Jeff writes:

You are making big leaps in logic. Those leaps may have more to do with your preferences — what you want to be true — than what is.

We have evidence, scientific and personal, that genetics is important for abilities and behaviors. But you may be making way too much of your next step — that genetics is important to cultural patterns; or to cultural patterns that count politically; for example, the development of a functional democracy. If Chinese Americans conquered a new land, the result would be far different from Chinese Chinese doing so.

“Ah,” you might say, “what about sex drive? Couldn’t that affect the political culture differentially; for example, in relation to the stability of marriages?” Hmmm… a lot of questions lead from that.

Also, the statement “white genes are recessive” seems extremely broad. First is the complexity of the genetic process — I gather that our high school Mendelian genetics is a bare beginning to the overlays of chromosomes, the interactions of multiple genes, and even the use of both alleles as a kind of two-temperature faucet, where the water comes out as a combination of hot and cold. Second…. it strikes me as extraordinarily unlikely that each gene set controlling a “race”-tied ability or behavior is recessive in people from northern europe. If race or stock is really, really important, we are speaking of many, many alleles. How can all of them — or even the huge majority of them — have the same recessive/dominant relationship?

You say, “Why do you refer to race as an abstraction? It is the most particular and concrete of things.”

Laura writes:

The leap from the discovery of genetically-determined abilities and behaviors to the conclusion that these characterize genetically-similar racial groups is not illogical at all. We cannot go back and analyse the genes of distant ancestors, but there is historical evidence of cultural consistency in the races over time. Again, if genes affect personality they would affect culture as well.

Both Chinese Americans and “Chinese Chinese” would be racially distinct from European Caucasians and the society they created recognizably different.

I don’t follow Jeff’s point about the sex drive affecting political culture.

Race is complex, which is why I had edited that sentence to read, “It is, at least in part, the most particular and concrete of things.” Certain aspects of race are so simple and straightforward they are hard to ignore.

I am not a geneticist, but Jeff is right it doesn’t make sense that all “white genes” are recessive. Those affecting appearance are recessive, for reasons I don’t understand, to a noticeable degree. I acknowledged the significance of appearance, but I am not fretting about people looking different. Cultural distinctiveness is the more important issue. Interracial marriages are such a relatively small percentage of families now they do not threaten to physically destroy any racial group. But the belief that the issue is of no significance and that white culture is not distinct or worthy of preservation does threaten cultural transformation. Much of this transformation has already occurred. I realize Jeff considers this to be a relief from deadly boredom.

N.W. writes:

Jeff wrote: “And, on the other hand, people are often more excited by people seen as different. Is relative boredom a price we must pay for a society of greater day-to-day cohesion and even integrity?” 

Jeff’s inherent pessimism concerning the possibility of a culture to be both heterogeneous and culturally rich is rather depressing. I am reminded of the drunken frat boys wearing T-shirts with such witty aphorisms as “Beer, Helping White Guys Dance Since 1842,” as they lay down and accept the commonly held position that “white guys can’t dance.” I would answer this charge by directing my interlocutor to this .

Now, while I can appreciate the talent and coordination demonstrated by the dancers here. I do not think traditional European culture is necessarily enriched by people acting like this .

Jeff writes:

N.W. writes:

I would remind Jeff that nowhere in my post did I make mention of race or skin tone in relation to mixed marriages. I merely inquired how it was beneficial to society at large for individuals to abandon their historic peoples and traditions to marry someone from a completely different culture. Outside of platitudes of Omnia Amor Vincit, I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

Do I use platitudes? E pluribus unum to you, too.

A person’s inclusion in a different culture is beneficial if the person who joins it is ripped from an enemy culture (and so does not add there) or is adding, by his differentness, a way of being, a set of perceptions, or a set of skills that makes the joined culture more competitive or happier. Muslim apostates or non-Muslim Arabs with special language skills are now quite useful to the West, and a community (including the family of the new, blond-haired wives) might find them exotic, hard-working, and willing to partake of the traditions… (I’m sorry, I’m not sure what traditions are included in your list of what defines the culture that accepted these people. Let’s assume that these men are not polygamous, for example.)

But NW, I’m not sure I previously said that cultural cross-polination is beneficial. In thinking of the last days’ conversations, I focused on this idea: genetic stock leads to cultural differences. I find the idea odd. Mountains lead to cultural differences; they tend to force the inhabitants to be more self-reliant. [Laura writes: Mountains are not analagous to genetic changes. Jeff appears to be saying any genetic changes involved in intermarriage should be embraced because they will necessarily make for a better culture. But, we’re not talking about environmental changes to which humans can adapt.]

Laura asked me to give examples of non-white cultures that created democracies (or, I suppose, republics). It occurred to me to mention the non-democratic but worthy example of Chinese Confucianism, which had real-world effects. Is not the same, but is suggestive of a high ideal. [Laura writes: I never suggested other cultures do not have worthy ideals.] Are Jews non-whites? In the Babylonian Talmud, different ideas are juxtaposed one against the other, and the Rabbis let the differences of opinion be expressed, evidencing a democratic impulse. As a child, I read a book on African empires. Even if I did the research now and found a worthy culture there, I don’t know whether the text would be true or just politically correct.  Was there nothing like democracy in the history of Southeast Asia? Was pre-invasion Tibet a place of relative goodness and some form of democracy? [Laura writes: I never suggested there wasn’t “goodness” in other cultures.]

 In short, I have no answer for Laura. An interesting question: To what extent do genetic differences explain the origins of complex cultural patterns?

Laura writes:

This is a vast subject and I’m not going to explore it fully now. I strongly recommend Samuel Francis’ essay, written under the pseudonym of Edwin Clark, “The Roots of the White Man,” in which he looks at the connection between genes and culture. It is available in the excellent book, Essential Writings on Race. 

I take it as fundamental that genes influence personality and culture in complex but discernible ways. If genes had nothing to do with cultural differences, this entire conversation would be trivial. If intermarriage only changed the skin color and physique of a people, who cares? Also, I take it as fundamental that whatever genetic changes may be introduced through intermarriage, the people created through these unions are fully human and not morally inferior; that these people are superior in some traits to their predecessors of different races;  and that the cultures created by them possess worthy attributes and some forms of excellence.

Please follow and like us: