General Discussion

TygrBright

(20,771 posts) Mon Oct 9, 2023, 08:19 PM Oct 2023

How "tu quoque" got us here, and why it will make things worse.

First, what is "tu quoque"?

From Wikipedia:

Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin Tū quoque, for "you also" ) is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack.

As a logical fallacy, "tu quoque" presumes that the other party in the discussion is hypocritical, and equates hypocrisy with invalidity. (essentially, "you're just as bad, why should I listen to you?" )

The moral high ground is tricky territory, because it stands on the swamp of history, wherein every atrocity was preceded by the perpetrators having been victimized by a previous atrocity of some sort, granting them the moral high ground, however briefly. From that height, they perpetrate another atrocity to redress the perceived imbalance, passing the moral high ground to the new set of victims.

And so it goes.

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, ultimately.

I am no friend of realpolitik - it has too often been used to justify action that ignores the necessity of a sacrificial balance between current and recent perpetrators of injustice and their victims, for the purposes of enriching or aggrandizing the already-privileged.

Nevertheless, I believe that only between the perilously unstable moral high ground and the foggy ambiguities of realpolitik will we ever be able to find the solutions to the most tragic bedevilments of modern conflict and the slaughter of the innocents.

"Tu quoque" is the argument of the moral high ground. "The end justifies the means" is the argument of realpolitik. Both are perilous, both perpetuate the cycle of horror and violence and tragedy.

What is left?

I can only offer something learned from successes in helping people who suffer because of addictive disease establish and maintain a stable recovery. (Please note the phrasing "suffer because of addictive disease", which includes not only the people with addiction but the family members and people who love them who are drawn into the cycles of dysfunctional survival-based behavior, sometimes for generations.)

For a long time, treatment methodologies assumed that addictive diseases proceeded from a "root cause" - adverse childhood events, generational trauma, early exposure, genetic loading, etcetera. And there is, indeed, some correlation between a variety of genetic load, genetic expression, and experiential events, and addictive disease. Where we went wrong was in assuming that for each individual, recovery would proceed from a thorough examination and understanding of their own "root cause."

Here's the harsh truth of recovery from addictive disease:

Regardless of the 'root cause', recovery can ONLY proceed from changing the behaviors of addiction FIRST.

Stop drinking. Stop using the drug. Stop making the dysfunctional choices.

The longer you can keep that up, the more your recovery will stabilize.

Does identifying your "root cause" help at all?

Sometimes. Especially if you can identify the sources of some of your dysfunctional choice-making: "My alcoholic parents convinced me that nothing I did would ever be good enough, so I continually strive to reach an unreal standard of perfectionism" may be a good insight and help you recognize what needs to be changed. But the change comes from the hard work of learning to recognize the damaging internal dialog, and develop a better internal dialog to replace it, and keep working on that over and over, lifelong.

Getting stuck on a "root cause" can be incredibly harmful, too. One person I know had established three years' worth of stable recovery, and decided it was time to get therapy to 'surface some family issues and deal with them.' The resulting, as memories of childhood abuse and trauma were carefully recalled in exquisitely painful detail and hashed over in months of bi-weekly therapy sessions, was a profound depression and, ultimately, relapse.

Does this relate to world politics and conflict?

Every person in active addiction can give you a dozen reasons why they're using the drug, engaging in the self-destructive behavior, etcetera, without even stopping to think. Sometimes the reasons are heart-rending, like the brilliantly promising concert pianist who entered a concert hall to practice just as a crew were replacing a clerestory window, and dropped the sheet of glass, slicing off the pianist's arm. That one was good for years of drinking, to the loss of family, friends, health, and very nearly their future as the physical effects of alcohol toxicity accumulated.

Then there was the woman in the abusive relationship with her alcoholic father, who kept her in a state of virtual slavery, controlling every aspect of her life, taking every paycheck from her for his own needs, destroying every tentative friendship, isolating her from other family, and slapping, punching, pushing her downstairs when he thought she was even thinking of "rebelling." But it was okay for her to drink, so she did. And eventually, she killed him in a drunken rage, and the neighbor who was trying to intervene, and the cop who was called, and ended up in prison. Where, ironically, she eventually achieved a stable recovery, and began to write poetry.

Do these lessons apply to conflicts between peoples or nations?

For a lot of people, recovery starts with an intervention, or intervention-like event, involving outside parties. Primarily, people who have been, almost invariably unintentionally, enabling the dysfunction of addictive disease. Sometimes, it's a formalized appointment with those who care about someone expressing concern while making a believable case for how they will stop doing the things that have enabled the dysfunction. Sometimes, it's waking up with a terrible hangover to find someone gone for good. Sometimes its the death of an enabler and no replacement on the horizon, piled upon the accumulated misery.

A lot of times, though, those formalized interventions fail, because the well-intentioned people either don't make a believable case for no longer enabling, or because the person who can't imagine living without their drug or compulsion manages to sidetrack them with "tu quoque" and derail the whole process. Or because someone who wanted to be part of the intervention has a stake in making it fail, for their own reasons, and no one was able to prevent that.

Is there an analog for this kind of failure in negotiations to end conflicts, by well-intentioned other parties?

Yes, yes, and yes.

It is not easy. But two things are essential:

First, kick "tu quoque" to the curb. Keep it OUT of the process. The moral high ground, as a place of consensus, will NEVER be attainable. Focus on what needs to change, going forward.

Second, identify the 'enabling behaviors' and STOP THEM.

Mercy must win out over justice.

sorrowfully,
Bright