Dubious Standards

Outrage over "double standards" never goes out of style. Which is mostly a good thing, if the goal is to highlight the complicated way people make sense of their world. Perhaps calls for more reflection and less reflexion will have a humbling effect on the righteousness of our opinionizing.

We, human peoples, did not grasp how we occupy our own space. There is no clear consciousness, clear of some background system that allows us to understand the world around us. We see as we do because of our long experience of being ourselves, squeezing that experience inward through language. Language is not merely a tool used to interpret the world; the world exists because of language. We think in language. Since we enjoin with others in use of language, the world is common, though not identical. What we can not do is interpret our own use of that language; to do so requires us to think about ourselves without language. This, we can not do from ourselves. How can we not be who we are, such that we can experience who we are from outside our way of making sense of the world?

We either deal with this paradox or not. "or not" produces the shock, shock at double standards. Dealing with our unhappy consciousness (do we focus on the world out there? do we focus on how we experience that world?) produces a level of distance from naive experiencing, though it will not solve things. It can, at least, help us to understand why we have the standards we have for things (why I, for instance, do not mind as much when President Obama exercises the exact powers that President W did).

Politics is the skill of using our double reference system for personal gain. Double standards means, on one hand, "hypocrisy," and on the other, perspicuity. Until we commit to a turning inward, the binary keeps rocking, and false consciousness smokes out more rage against system.