I am hearing a lot of talk of “common sense” from the MAGA movement these days. The gist of the argument is that the consensus of those with cultural privilege provides a kind of measuring rod of all sane thought. Because the voices of the poor or marginalized people seems strange to the privileged majority they are considered divisive almost by definition. The voice of those excluded are seen as a kind of assault on the majority because they disrupt the consensus of the privileged group to which one happens to belong.
Einstein had to fight “common sense” dismissal of his new theories. They made no sense within the old consensus and, therefore, violated the assumptions people already had. He concluded, “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”
Rene Descartes, who some describe as European philosophy’s bridge into modern thought, also had to struggle against dismissal by lesser minds:
“Common sense is the most widely shared commodity in the world, for everyone is convinced they are well supplied with it.”
It seems to me the ancient philosophic opiate of “common sense” is being used to shut down any justice claims for the poor, for LGBTQ persons, or even for the inconvenient truths of science. If new ideas violate the consensus of the people who count as real Americans, they can and should be disregarded.
“Common sense” arguments often propose a privileged group whose experiences count, and an outside group whose claims can be ignored in the name of unity. We need to ask ourselves a question, “what does the word “unity” mean in a time of injustice?”
It seems to me that many of us who live in comfortable privilege desire a unity where we all get along, and where no one brings up discrepancies of power and possession. To that end, books must be removed from public schools if they cause a disturbance in the “common sense” arguments MAGA people have inherited from their patriarchal, white supremacist and capitalist roots.
Because such a consensus cannot actually stand before the light of reason, it must be protected under the suffocating shade of the term “common sense.”
I want unity as much as anyone. By nature, I am conflict avoidant, but I think it is important to stand with anyone being bullied. The wounded feelings of the privileged do not belong on the same ethical scale as the broken hopes and bodies of the oppressed.
Can there be true unity without justice? Should the enslaver and the enslaved “just get along” or does the enslaved have rights that transcend the “common sense” logic of any unfair political or economic system? Can there be true unity in a patriarchal or Gay bashing nation, or must justice proceed any legitimate concept of unity?
I am quite aware of my biases and limitations, which is precisely why I say we must insist on a common standard of human rights that transcends personal, sectarian or economic standards. I believe we ALL need to decide which human rights are essential for human beings to live lives of dignity, and then I believe we must offer those same rights to everyone with no exceptions.
Furthermore, I believe we people of privilege need to leave the echo chambers of our numb consensus and listen to the cries of those crushed under the tonnage of the self righteous indifference many label as “common sense.”