James Comey, and the complexity of values

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 22 April 2018

I don’t know whether to admire former FBI director James Comey or feel sorry for him.

Last June I sat glued watching Mr. Comey testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee. It inspired me to write an essay about what was going on, revealed by his testimony.

This essay is more about Mr. Comey as he morphs, unwittingly, into “committing sociology” (a derogatory phrase originated by columnist George Will). Mr. Comey’s remarks, ahead of the release of his book, make many sociological claims about American values.

Here is just a brief part of an interview that captures what Mr. Comey has been saying recently:

STEVE INSKEEP, NPR: Why have you focused in some of your comments on what you view as the moral fitness of the president to be president?

JAMES COMEY: Because I'm very worried that — and one of the ways I hope to be useful is having people realize that there's something above our normal fights. We fight like crazy in this country about guns and about social issues and taxes and immigration. And that's as it should be, and it's always been that way. But there's something we all have in common, which is a core set of values that is us as America — right? — freedom of expression, freedom of religion, rule of law, equal protection of the laws, the truth. We hold these truths to be self-evident. It's the fourth word of that sentence.

My initial reactions to Mr. Comey were: is he just now realizing this; has he been living in a cloister? And, he sounds like a conservative.

So, what about Mr. Comey’s sociology? He is asserting that a society must have in common a core set of values, a kind of glue, that holds a society together; a common sociological view, from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th century.

As research into societal values continued there were some inconvenient findings that posed a serious problem for Mr. Comey’s view of the necessity for a “core set of values.” And that finding and reality is that whatever core set of values one might identify for a society, individual members of that society do not necessarily hold them. They might hold one or two, or even the entire core, but individuals differ from each other in terms of their values and from the “societal core set.”

We sociologists also know that individual values are reflective of the company folks keep and are around. So, significant social groups have individuals that share (some) similar values. Religious folks share some values that non-religious folks do not. Catholics share values different from Protestants. Liberals share values different than conservatives. But, even within those groups, there are differences. See how conservative Catholics are responding to the liberal Pope Francis.

What are values? Sociologically, values are broad abstract principles that we internalize and then guide our decisions about what is good or not. So, one American value is freedom. Whatever increases freedom is usually a good thing among Americans. But so is security. We value security in our homes and so forth but those values actually conflict. Conflicting values is not unusual either.

Also from 19th century sociology we come to a different understanding of “deviance” or behavior that violates the norms and values of a group. It’s deviance from those norms and values that is shaking Mr. Comey. Deviance can play a very positive role in reasserting societal values. Why? Because our response to the deviance can reinforce the rightness and goodness of those values. So, if Mr. Comey were one of my students, I’d point out that President Trump is not so much a threat to our values, but he is a deviant to them (truth, justice, and the American way). As far as a threat, however, if Americans don’t respond to punish the deviant (punishment for President Trump might be to ignore him) that suggests those are not strongly held or important values.

In short, deviants are not the threat but an opportunity for us to reassert “our” values. The threat lies with non-response to the deviant. Or, it’s an indication that the values are not perhaps widely held (or held anymore). And that Mr. Trump is not viewed as a deviant and not violating closely held societal values.

One value that I do think is quite American is “winning.” And that is not enshrined in our Constitution, but no question, America likes winners and punishes losers.

Demographic shifts disrupt majority-minority status

Previously published 7 April 2018 by the Terre Haute Tribune Star

Over the last month or so, I have read and heard stories about the changing demographics of the United States. The term “minority-majority” is common in those reports. Even Wikipedia has an entry for majority-minority: “A majority–minority or minority–majority area is a term used in the United States to refer to a jurisdiction in which one or more racial and/or ethnic minorities (relative to the whole country's population) make up a majority of the local population.”

A search of the term produces many reports, especially over the last two years with headlines such as “10 percent of U.S. counties now majority-minority,” “US to be majority-minority by 2044,” “post-recession generation to be majority-minority.”

I guess it makes for good headlines to use such terms but it certainly isn’t helpful as the United States’ demographics change. Indeed, it is this kind of headline and framing that drives the uneasiness that is driving so much of the reactionary policies of our current politics.

In a racist society that constructs in-groups and out-groups based on physical or cultural differences, the dominant group, which may be a numerical majority as in the United States, will predictably be unnerved and feel threatened as “minority” groups gain more equal status, including numerically. For such groups, “equality” feels like discrimination.

My issue with the use of “majority-minority” is that it encourages that fear of greater equality.

Think about what the use of “majority-minority” assumes; it assumes that any white person has more in common with any other white person than any person of “minority” status. This line of thinking reduces all white folks to essentially the same things just as it also reduces others to the same-but essentially different than white folks. Indeed, constructing things in that way, makes it even harder for individuals to rise above the simplistic, inherently racist categories to create meaningful and positive human relationships, or for those who must see some kind of economic value in everything “social capital.”

The use of “minority-majority” also assumes that all “minorities” are the same, too. Adopting this usage forces the assumption that all minorities are the same. African-Americans are not the same as Latin/a Americans nor are they the same as Chinese Americans. The paradox is that using minority-majority actually pushes minority members to view each other as more similar than to the majority.

If demographic patterns hold out, whites will go from a majority to the plurality. Whites will still be the largest single racial/cultural group. To the extent that “white” preferences for foods, entertainment, fashion, and so forth are homogeneous, their market power will continue to dominate, because the “minority” is indeed not homogeneous in their preferences. Many share similar preferences that white folks do.

I suspect this is not the first time in our history that “whites” faced a similar demographic situation. (Of course we did not have the 24/7 media coverage of such things then.) From 1820 to 1860 the U.S. population almost doubled, and that doubling came from immigration. 31 million people immigrated to the U.S. in that 40-year period. And, given who was considered “white” then, many of the people who today are considered white were not then — the Irish, Eastern Europeans, Greeks, Italians and others.

Over time, however, definitions changed and they became “white.” Don’t be surprised if current racial definitions change and these trends change. Of course that means those currently “white” will be joined by some who are not considered “white” now. This, too, is predictable when such racial/cultural classifications signify inequalities individuals will look to “move” up into the dominant groups.

It is up to us. For me, the “dominant” group in the United States are its citizens. It’s too bad that is a minority viewpoint.