Moralism: Uses and Misuses
2.5 Minute Read
by Ken Barrios
Moralism is a tool for navigating politics. But if relied on exclusively or primarily, it can become toxic and divisive. So, what is moralism, and what are its appropriate and inappropriate uses?
Definition
Moralism is using one's own morals as the exclusive way of approaching political questions, without including facts on the ground.
Moralism can be applied in two ways:
- Analyzing the world
- Polarizing against an opponent
For anyone in politics, the initial analysis of an issue will usually boil down to the morality of the topic. The relativity of morals aside, whether an individual feels something is “just” or “unjust” will inform their initial position on a given matter.
Based on this initial application of moralism, if someone feels strongly about the topic, they will start to polarize around it. In creating polarization, it becomes possible to identify like-minded people, building a base of support to overwhelm the other side.
Uses
Both of these applications of moralism can be useful. Moralism is everyone’s entry point for politics. Everyone has their own moral compass which helps guide their politics. When having to make a quick and initial assessment of an issue, moralism can help guide an individual, laying the basis for a deeper analysis.
As a tool for polarization, moralism can also be the gateway for people to learn how to initiate struggle. It can help clarify where people stand in the “us versus them”, which is essential for organizing. The moralistic analysis and polarization are essentially what made Twitter such a popular place to “debate” politics.
But these elementary tools can become toxic if they are used too often or exclusively.
Misuses
By definition, a moralistic analysis is both relative and binary. When all analysis is boiled down to “right and wrong”, it becomes difficult to think strategically and instead opens the door to burnout and self-righteousness. Worse, everyone does not agree on identical sense of morality.
A strictly relative and binary analysis prevents people from factoring in strategy, capacity, winnability, and political relationships. If something is absolutely just/unjust, then these considerations are irrelevant because “something has to be done.” In other words, overreliance on moralism manufactures a false sense of urgency and, by extension, a need to pick every fight.
Picking every fight means polarizing at every opportunity, blurring the lines between allies and enemies. While it can be useful to polarize against the boss or an enemy politician, it can be toxic and self-defeating to polarize inside one’s own organization among comrades. This behavior can split organizations, defeating the purpose of uniting people into an organization.
To make this more concrete: the freedom to analyze and polarize without consequences, to self-righteously posture, was a major factor in the popularity and toxicity of Twitter.
Dialectical Materialism
If moralism is most people’s gateway into analysis and organizing, then the next plateau is learning to understand materialism and dialectics.
Materialism is simply taking in the facts on the ground, rooting strategy in an analysis of things like capacity, paths to victory, size of organized opposition, allies in motion, etc. A moralistic approach can inspire someone to take on a fight, but a materialist approach will guide them to victory, or to realize the fight is a poor use of time and resources.
Dialectics is sitting with the contradictions in a given situation. It means using the material analysis to think through how unfavorable conditions could be shifted through action into something favorable. A beloved, longtime incumbent could seem invincible. But if analysis shows enough organizations on the ground would commit to replacing them, a coherent campaign could turn an invincible incumbent into yesterday’s news.
Combined, these things are known as “dialectical materialism”.
Conclusion
Moralism can have its utility. But ultimately it can only be one aspect in overall analysis and strategy. Politics operates with real people in a material world, a world that is more complicated than relative and binary concepts of “right and wrong”. As such, anyone hoping to take politics seriously has to incorporate materialism and dialectics into their political approach.
Put another way, moralism will inspire people to pick every fight, including with allies, even if all they get out of it is the self-satisfaction of “having done the right thing.”
Dialectical materialism will help people learn how to pick their battles, build and defend relationships, and do so with an eye to winning, and building off of those wins to pick larger battles that are capable of pulling in wider layers of people.