Tips for Survival in a Negative World
In a recent article in First Things, Aaron Renn discussed three distinct stages of American secularization. Since 2014, he argues that American Christians have found themselves in the "Negative World." Renn argues that this happens when "Society has come to have a negative view of Christianity. Being known as a Christian is a social negative, particularly in the elite domains of society. Christian morality is expressly repudiated and seen as a threat to the public good and the new public moral order. Subscribing to Christian moral views or violating the secular moral order brings negative consequences." While Christians may have been in the "Positive World" or "Neutral World" in the past, he contends that any goodwill we might have had is no longer there. Renn also explains how the transition to the Negative World has been difficult for Christians who sought to be cultural engagers. He cites the example of Tim Keller, a pastor who has had plenty of mainstream appeal with publications in the New Yorker and the Atlantic and interviews in the New York Times. If anyone has had avenues to engage with secular culture, it would be Keller. Even a Christian with such accolades and respect in the secular world had an award stripped from him in 2017 by Princeton Seminary because he believes that only men should be ordained ministers and should be the head of the home. Keller's example should be a lesson for all; the Negative World does not have room for Christianity and sees it as a societal negative.
An interesting application of Renn's argument in the political realm came from an unlikely source recently. While his argument is obviously religious and not political, a similar dynamic of societal interactions in the Negative World can be seen in this arena. It can help us learn how to survive in a Negative World.
Oklahoma State representative Forrest Bennett, a pro-choice Democrat, proposed what he must have thought would be a kind of "poison pill" for Republicans who were supporting the state's imminent abortion ban once the Supreme Court likely overturns Roe v. Wade.
What Bennett did not realize was that his proposal misrepresented the entire pro-life movement. The pro-life movement does not exist to protect men from paying child support. The pro-life movement does not exist to shackle women financially. Instead, the pro-life movement exists because unborn children should not be murdered. Therefore, adding a condition that men should bear some of the financial responsibility for the life that they had a part in creating would certainly not be a dealbreaker in the pro-life community. Bennett's proposal, at minimum, was like saying that if you ban abortion, we will expand broadband. It is a separate idea. While some might be opposed to expanding broadband using state money, their opposition would be in no way tied to abortion. Even if some disagreed with Bennett, it would not be due to their support of abortion.
The even more ironic moment came when Bennett realized that many conservatives, myself included, would love to see is legislation passed. Far from being something that feels like a revenge bill for prohibiting abortion, it seems like the right thing to do to combat another societal problem: fatherlessness. It is not fair for a single mother to bear the entire financial burden for a child that two people had a part in creating. According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, nearly one in four children grow up in a house without a biological, step, or adoptive father. The research is clear that growing up without a father increases the probability of poverty, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, behavioral problems, imprisonment, and teenage pregnancy. By forcing financial responsibility, fathers may be more likely to stay with the family they have created, and having fathers with their families is a general societal good. There are horrible situations where fathers are abusive and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, this kind of legislation is not meant to allow the abuse to continue, as I am sure Bennett would agree. Rather, this piece of legislation would hopefully reduce the number of men who run from house to house and currently can avoid responsibility.
Bennett saw his proposal as revenge, a surefire way to get conservatives to back away from their abortion legislation because, of course, Republicans cannot want to hold men responsible. In fact, Bennett's legislation is not all that far off from varied voices within the conservative movement such as Marco Rubio, Larry Elder, Matt Walsh, and many more. Fatherlessness is a problem, and while it is ideal to obviously have the father in the family, at a minimum, the father should financially support the family that he had a hand in creating. While the legislation is not perfect, many conservatives would see it as a step in the right direction.
It is important to now consider the political landscape in the context of the Negative World. This proposal was put forward by a Democratic lawmaker who even identified as a Progressive in his Twitter bio. This proposal speaks to an issue that is very important to many conservatives and seems to be a way to help address fatherlessness in some capacity. This seems to be a recipe for legislative success. Both sides agree on a particular issue.
The story does not end there. Bennett has now retracted his bill after getting a great deal of pushback from his side and, predictably, much positive support from the conservative side of the aisle.
Because of this apparent bipartisan appeal, Bennett had to retract to his base. This is consistent with recent research conducted by Christopher Bail in his book, Breaking the Social Media Prism. In explaining our behavior on social media, he writes, "Exposing people to views of the other side did not make participants more moderate. If anything, it reinforced their preexisting views." Sometimes we think that knowledge is power, but his research demonstrated that even moderately conservative people, for example, when consistently exposed to liberal media sources, actually became more conservative by the end of the study. The same phenomenon happened in the other direction when liberals viewed conservative media. While it may seem that those who are more moderate would be more likely to be convinced, the research indicates that even when they look across the narrow gap of the aisle from their current position to the other side, they ultimately tend to end up further apart.
Consider this phenomenon when combined with what Ezra Klein wrote in Why We're Polarized, "When a division exists inside a party, it gets addressed through suppression or compromise. Parties don't want to fight among themselves. But when a division exists between the parties, it gets addressed through conflict." This may seem to be a simple observation, but it is precisely what has played out with Representative Bennett. He expressed a position that aligned with the opposite party. He was putting forward a conservative position, even if he unknowingly did so. Therefore, it had to be addressed through conflict. Just reading through the Twitter responses to his original post can provide a small picture of the conflict he created.
After the conflict with his position, suppression emerges. He pulled away from his policy, making it disappear into oblivion. He takes responsibility for the withdrawal in his post, but it is pretty clear that he was reacting to those with whom he came into conflict. The sad part about this suppression is that his policy proposal was good. It deserved a conversation, but he had to get in line with his party. Even though he was critiquing the upcoming abortion legislation in Oklahoma, absolutely in line with his party, it was not enough because he then proposed a piece of legislation that appealed to the other side. Like Bail suggests, even a minor foray into a largely bipartisan policy discussion led Bennett to have to retract into a more liberal position than he originally started from.
Bennett's example is a clear illustration of political interaction using the construct of Renn's Negative World. However, rather than Christianity being the central topic, political compromise and bipartisanship serve as the issue at hand. Bennett proposed a policy supported by many conservatives. Presumably, his purpose was not to agree with conservatives. As soon as conservatives agreed with him, his idea was seen by members of his own party as destructive to societal good and had to be withdrawn immediately. It was certainly not positive, and it was not even neutral and deserving of a conversation. If something is on the wrong side in a Negative World, it is worthy of silencing and contempt rather than even the open public square that some of us still wish existed. Bipartisanship legislation is not seen as a virtue; it belongs to the Negative World.
This essay must close with a consideration of what to do when you find yourself living in a Negative World. You may be a politician who holds a position that finds you on the wrong side of your party. Like Renn's original example, you may be a Christian who finds yourself canceled like Tim Keller. You might be a college professor who holds an unorthodox view in your department and is disparaged because of it.
The first, relatively clear answer is that we should stand up for convictions. Bennett crumbled under the pressure. Perhaps he did not think about all of the implications of his position and maybe has genuine concerns about it now. His retraction feels like an athlete forced to apologize after being thrown out of a game. We do not want to have to find ourselves in that position. If you take a stand, actually believe in it. This is not to say that you can never admit you were wrong, but Bennett made the mistake of trying to take a cheap, political shot without thinking if his shot even came from a place he could support. While I think his proposal made a great deal of sense, I do not think he genuinely did. I think that he saw it as a way to slam dunk on conservatives, and it failed. If you do not say what you truly believe, you look silly, like Bennett does right now.
The second answer to living in a Negative World is recognizing that most people will not listen to you. You might be right in your position, but living in a Negative World is not popular. You need to take to heart what John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty, "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." Perhaps no one will listen to you, but you have to be willing to speak up anyway. Those in power may not listen to you, but they do not have to silence you, and you never know who else might be listening. You need to have the courage to speak.
Thirdly, living in a Negative World requires the creation of fellowship. It is hard to be a lonely warrior. I have argued for the creation of the Council of Orange on this website (part 1, 2, 3, 4), and I think that we all need to find those who can encourage us as we dive into these situations. Perhaps the world is so Negative that you indeed are alone, like in Mill's thought experiment, but most of the time, you will be able to find someone to work with.
Survival in the Negative World is not easy. It requires convictions, courage, and community. Without these three elements, the religious, political, vocational, or other challenges that I have alluded to above will be extraordinarily hard to endure. Consider the truth of Ecclesiastes 4:12, "And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him—a threefold cord is not quickly broken." You have to have the conviction to stand somewhere, the courage to face the one who is assaulting you, and the comrades to hold to up.