Attempting to debunk "man / product of his time" argument

[sasha_feather]

Saving my tweets on this as I think it through.

The "Man of his time" argument assumes that everyone in that time period felt the same way. Erases nuance and difference.

It also erases experiences of dissents and marginalized people. Those people existed even if history has forgotten them. (For example: I learned from Rachel Maddow tonight that Vince Lombardi was pro-gay and had a gay brother. He was a famous football coach that lived from 1913-1970).

Me and my friends don't hold the prevailing views of mainstream society. I don't think of us as "products of our time."

This argument also assumes that society progresses forward thru time, that people in the past were worse. Which is not true. (History does not go forward in a upward line. It's more like a sine wave maybe.)

We are all influenced by our time and society, but we can all think critically and listen to our consciences re right and wrong.

Saying that someone was "a product of their time" is usually just apologism for their bad behaviors.

If something is wrong today, it was wrong 100 years ago. (Ethical behaviors, possibly, have some standards across societies and times, even if morals are relative. Have to think on this more.)

Just because people in power endorsed it, doesn't make it OK for everyone else in society to do so.

Comments

[anotherslashfan]

(ETA: Ooops, I think I came across a bit harshly in this? Your thoughts on this topic are very inspiring! You do well in pointing out that the "a product of their time" argument is usually apologistic --- my approach in instances like this is usually to search for a way to break out of the confines that arguments like the one you're criticizing present.)

I think the inherent problem of the "product of their time" argument lies in its implied judgment of a person, and furthermore the idea that a person's actions as a whole can be integrated into what we perceive as their character. So what if it is hard to evaluate the moral standards a person shows in their actions - we can still talk about and evaluate the actions themselves - and yes, compare them to the actions contemporary people took. I totally understand (and share) the impulse to think about people in terms of good or bad (or progressive, or reactionary, whatever), but I feel that when it comes to problematic aspects, talking about concrete actions instead of trying to integrate them into our preconceived notion of what a "good" person is supposed to be like makes true discussion possible (or at least more feasible).

[sasha_feather]

Thanks for your comment! This seems to fall into line with ideas I've heard of "actions vs. identities" arguments.

[anotherslashfan]

Yeah, the argument is directly inspired by advice on addressing racist behavior: the "you're racist" vs. "what you did is racist" distinction. :)