Passage
Imagine three kids running around a maypole, forming a chain with their arms. The innermost kid is holding the pole with one hand. The faster they run, the more centrifugal force there is tearing the chain apart. The tighter they grip, the more centripetal force there is holding the chain together. Eventually centrifugal force exceeds centripetal force and the chain breaks.
That’s essentially what is happening in this country, N.Y.U.’s Jonathan Haidt argued in a lecture delivered to the Manhattan Institute in November. He listed some of the reasons centrifugal forces may now exceed centripetal: the loss of the common enemies we had in World War II and the Cold War, an increasingly fragmented media, the radicalization of the Republican Party, and a new form of identity politics, especially on campus.
Haidt made the interesting point that identity politics per se is not the problem. Identity politics is just political mobilization around group characteristics. The problem is that identity politics has dropped its centripetal elements and become entirely centrifugal.
Martin Luther King described segregation and injustice as forces tearing us apart. He appealed to universal principles and our common humanity as ways to heal prejudice and unite the nation. He appealed to common religious principles, the creed of our founding fathers and a common language of love to drive out prejudice. King “framed our greatest moral failing as an opportunity for centripetal redemption,” Haidt observed.
From an identity politics that emphasized our common humanity, we’ve gone to an identity politics that emphasizes having a common enemy. On campus these days, current events are often depicted as pure power struggles — oppressors acting to preserve their privilege over the virtuous oppressed.
“A funny thing happens,” Haidt said, “when you take young human beings, whose minds evolved for tribal warfare and us/them thinking, and you fill those minds full of binary dimensions. You tell them that one side in each binary is good and the other is bad. You turn on their ancient tribal circuits, preparing them for battle. Many students find it thrilling; it floods them with a sense of meaning and purpose.”
The problem is that tribal common-enemy thinking tears a diverse nation apart. This pattern is not just on campus. Look at the negative polarization that marks our politics. Parties, too, are no longer bound together by creeds but by enemies.
In 1994, only 16 percent of Democrats had a “very unfavorable” view of the G.O.P. Now, 38 percent do. Then, only 17 percent of Republicans had a “very unfavorable” view of Democrats. Now, 43 percent do. When the Pew Research Center asked Democrats and Republicans to talk about each other, they tended to use the same words: closed-minded, dishonest, immoral, lazy, and unintelligent.
Furthermore, it won’t be easy to go back to the common-humanity form of politics. King was operating when there was high social trust. He could draw on a biblical metaphysic debated over 3,000 years. He could draw on an American civil religion that had been refined over 300 years.
Over the past two generations, however, excessive individualism and bad schooling have corroded both of those sources of cohesion.
In 1995, the French intellectual Pascal Bruckner published “The Temptation of Innocence,” in which he argued that excessive individualism paradoxically leads to in-group/out-group tribalism. Modern individualism releases each person from social obligation, but “being guided only by the lantern of his own understanding, the individual loses all assurance of a place, an order, a definition. He may have gained freedom, but he has lost security.”
In societies like ours, individuals are responsible for their own identity, happiness and success. “Everyone must sell himself as a person in order to be accepted,” Bruckner wrote. We all are constantly comparing ourselves to others and, of course, coming up short. The biggest anxiety is moral. We each have to write our own gospel that defines our own virtue.
The easiest way to do that is to tell a tribal oppressor/oppressed story and build your own innocence on your status as victim. Just about everybody can find a personal victim story. Once you’ve identified your herd’s oppressor — the neoliberal order, the media elite, white males, whatever — your goodness is secure. You have virtue without obligation. Nothing is your fault.
Question for 100 RCs for Practice Questions- 49
Try yourself:The writer uses the maypole example in order to …
Explanation
Paragraph 2 states – “That’s essentially what is happening in this country, ……some of the reasons centrifugal forces may now exceed centripetal: the loss of the common enemies we had in World War II and the Cold War, an increasingly fragmented media, the radicalization of the Republican Party, and a new form of identity politics, especially on campus.” The objective of using the maypole as an example was thus to lead to an understanding of these opposing forces playing out in the political landscape. Option 1 is incorrect. The example that occurs at the beginning of the essay is not used to literally explain what happens when the centrifugal force exceeds the centripetal force. Reject option 1. Option 2 is incorrect. The maypole example is used as a starting point to explain the ideas of forces that pull things apart and those that bring things together. It is clearly not meant to “resolve” any issues. Option 3 is correct. The maypole example leads to an understanding of how these centrifugal and centripetal forces can be seen to operate in the political lives of human beings. Thus option 3 correctly states that the example is used to correctly explain the current political scenario in which identity politics has overwhelmed the binding force of a sense of common humanity. Retain option 3. Option 4 is incorrect. The example is not meant to literally capture the notions of forces running around a centre point. Hence, [3].
Report a problem
Question for 100 RCs for Practice Questions- 49
Try yourself:According to the author, the ‘new form of identity politics on campuses’ is mainly a manifestation of which of the following?
Explanation
Option 1 is incorrect. The writer states that “The easiest way to do that is to tell a tribal oppressor/oppressed story and build your own innocence on your status as victim. Just about everybody can find a personal victim story”. However, it is incorrect to say that this is the result of a deliberate attempt to radicalize the youth – nothing in the passage can lead to this conclusion. Option 2 is correct. The sixth paragraph states that “….when you take young human beings, whose minds evolved for tribal warfare and us/them thinking, and you fill those minds full of binary dimensions. You tell them that one side in each binary is good and the other is bad. You turn on their ancient tribal circuits, preparing them for battle. Many students find it thrilling; it floods them with a sense of meaning and purpose.”
Therefore option 2 is correct when it states that “The youth find it easy to identify with a certain tribe or group as humans have evolved to view things from the perspective of tribalism.”.Option 3 is incorrect. There is no such reference to feelings of inferiority or superiority in the passage. Option 4 is incorrect. The passage states that the minds of youth, that have evolved with tribal instincts, are filled ‘full of binary dimensions’ on campus. It does not state or imply that the youth are only capable of ‘seeing situations in a binary form’.
Report a problem
Question for 100 RCs for Practice Questions- 49
Try yourself:According to the passage, in terms of the political situation, what are the two forces that are of a centripetal nature?
Explanation
Option 1 is correct. Refer to paragraph 4: “King was operating when there was high social trust. He could draw on a biblical metaphysic debated over 3,000 years. He could draw on an American civil religion that had been refined over 300 years.” Option 1 refers to this when it talks of ‘Abstract religious notions that have been debated for thousands of years and national identities honed over hundreds of years’. These two aspects are seen as the two “forces of social cohesion” or centripetal forces. This is implied in the next line which says – “Over the past two generations, however, excessive individualism and bad schooling have corroded both of those sources of cohesion”. Option 2 is incorrect. Humanitarian values and individual morality are not referred to in the passage as two centripetal or cohesive forces. Option 3 is incorrect. Democratic and legal institutions are also not stated in the passage as two forces of social cohesion. Option 4 is incorrect. Political identities and recourse to the law are not stated to be centripetal forces in the passage.
Report a problem
Question for 100 RCs for Practice Questions- 49
Try yourself:One may infer from the passage that according to Pascal Bruckner, the individualist reverts to tribalism essentially because
Explanation
Towards the end of the passage the writer states, “In 1995, the French intellectual Pascal Bruckner published “The Temptation of Innocence,” in which he argued that excessive individualism paradoxically leads to in-group/out-group tribalism. Modern individualism releases each person from social obligation, but “being guided only by the lantern of his own understanding, the individual loses all assurance of a place, an order, a definition. He may have gained freedom, but he has lost security”. Thus, Bruckner concludes that the individual is insecure and from this one can infer that it is the loss of security that pushes him towards tribalism. Option 1 is incorrect. “Conflicting thoughts”, as option 1 suggests, are not the reason for the return to tribalism. Option 2 is correct. Because of “the lack of assurance of a place”, Bruckner states that while the individual gains freedom, he loses security. And given what is said earlier about the natural urge of humans to identify with a tribe, one can correctly infer that this insecurity acts as a trigger to tribalism in the person who believes in individualism. Option 3 is incorrect. Bruckner is quoted as saying that the individual today “has to sell himself in order to be accepted”. However the question as to why the individualist reverts to tribalism is answered by the quote earlier in the passage which explains the individualist’s insecurity arising from his reliance only on himself. Thus the reason the individualist moves to tribalism is because of insecurity and not because he has to sell himself as a person. Option 4 is incorrect. The individual is “insecure” because of the absence of a base and not because he is “uncertain of his own individual self”.
Report a problem
Question for 100 RCs for Practice Questions- 49
Try yourself:Who does the writer refer to when he says - You have virtue without obligation – in the last paragraph.
Explanation
Option 1 is incorrect. Refer the last paragraph where it states: “The easiest way to do that is to tell a tribal oppressor/oppressed story and build your own innocence on your status as victim. Just about everybody can find a personal victim story. Once you’ve identified your herd’s oppressor — the neoliberal order, the media elite, white males, whatever — your goodness is secure. You have virtue without obligation. Nothing is your fault.” The writer sarcastically suggests that one must “build your own innocence on your status as victim”. Therefore the person who has virtue without obligation is not actually the innocent victim. Option 2 is correct. As the last paragraph states, the person who has a tribal oppressor/oppressed story to tell, and has identified his own victimhood as well as his herd’s oppressor can go ahead and “have virtue without obligation”. Option 3 is incorrect. There is no reference to fitting in with those who are better than oneself. Option 4 is incorrect. The passage doesn’t imply that “the person decides to be a victim of circumstances” or that he is then clear about any future course of action.
Report a problem
