An significant factor resulting in our society failing to make necessary change involves how we misunderstand the effects of our institutions and social-economic system. We continually mistake behavior resulting from our primitive institutions as indicative of our true human nature.
Historically, when we feel social-economic pressure the general population turns to populist politics in which a particular group i.e.: blacks, native Americans, Jews, Muslims, Mexicans, queer, non-gender conforming people, and occasionally, elites are characterized as the true source of everybody’s problems. The populist tradition of designating a scapegoat takes the place of systemic analysis.
Populist politics redirect dissatisfaction that people have with our social-economic system and institutions. The common belief is that if the groups or individuals identified as problematic were removed or defeated, then whatever is wrong would be fixed. In reality our institutions make us who we are. If all of the “problem people” were to disappear today, our institutions would quickly repopulate every vacancy.
Another aspect of populist misconception involves the way we attack the messenger rather the message. In online social forums and in the media it is common to see individuals being condemned for comments that may be ignorant, sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or considered insulting to a marginalized group. Although attacking the moral character of the commenter may be gratifying for those who already agree, such a tact has a very limited chance of persuading anyone else. A more influential discussion might be possible if, instead of focusing on the commenter’s moral status, what was being challenged was limited to the statement in question.
The Naturalistic Humanist non-blaming approach towards considering social-political issues avoids the problem of dissatisfaction being misdirected to scapegoated individuals or groups. Without groups or individuals to blame, we can redirect our attention towards the problems inherent to the social-economic system itself.
Seeing socio-economic problems as primarily institutional, rather than personal, is part of what separates progressives from conservatives. A progressive might view the impoverishment of a black family as a result of unjust governmental policies and social practices including a long history of discrimination in vital areas of life including employment, housing, getting a mortgage, access to good schools, in combination with abusive policing and other iniquitous practices – including slavery with generations of torture enforced involuntary labor.
Conservative Americans tend to focus on the extent that discriminatory practices have in recent decades been ameliorated, if not fully eliminated. They regard blaming institutions as an excuse in order to avoid taking personal responsibility.
Rather than regarding the disproportionate impoverishment of black Americans as the collateral damage of racist institutional policies, conservatives are more likely to regard an impoverished black family as people who are simply failing to make good personal choices and take steps available to them to improve their lives. They justify this view by pointing to a relative few outliers that did manage to escape their poverty, claiming “if they can do it anyone can, you just have to want to.”