Motte-and-Bailey: The Academic Threat from ‘Lived Experience’

James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal ^ | April 2, 2021 | W. Alexander Bell

[karpov]

A few years ago, my friend Sheila recounted an incident of alleged racism she experienced at a café in California. While waiting in line to order a coffee, a barista took the order of an older white woman first. The barista didn’t refuse service to Sheila and was polite when she finally took her order. To my surprise, the only potential slight was that in a moment of uncertainty, the barista took a white woman’s order before my friend, who is African American.

It is possible that the barista was a racist, but it is equally plausible that the barista wasn’t sure who was first in line, and so deferred to the older woman. As I listened, it became obvious to me that this incident had multiple interpretations, but Sheila’s “lived experience” only allowed for one: racism. And who was I to disagree?

What this anecdote shows is how a reasonable interpretation can become unreasonable when interpreted through a framework that rejects alternative explanations and assumes epistemic authority based on one’s identity. Academic frameworks like critical race theory and intersectionality take anecdotes like the above and use them to stifle good-faith debate.

One way that happens is by using the motte-and-bailey fallacy. One modest and easy-to-defend position (the motte) is replaced by a much more controversial position (the bailey). A person will argue the bailey, but then replace it with the motte when questioned.

[PGR88]

While waiting in line to order a coffee, a barista took the order of an older white woman first.

We’ve moved from slavery and Auschwitz, to this.

[wny]

was the white women there first?

[.44 Special]

Sugercoat it anyway you want. Everything these days is simply revenge or wanton destruction for even the remotest of imagined slights. In 50 years the earth will revert to tribalism. The results will be interesting.

[caseinpoint]

My problem with “lived experience” is that those infected with grievance politics tend to treat every inconvenience, slight, thoughtless incident through the lens of grievance and ascribe the incident to personal prejudice or hatred. I have found that the vast majority of incidents where I might take personal offense were innocent: the person was not slighting me, in fact the person likely was not even thinking of me. They were just trying to get on with life.

[P.O.E.]

Just a new phrase to redefine “hostile attribution”

[libertylover]

It is possible that the barista was a racist, but it is equally plausible that the barista wasn’t sure who was first in line, and so deferred to the older woman.

I'd say much more plausible, but if the barista wasn't sure, she should've asked, "Who's next?"

One small peeve that I have is when a store opens a new cashier station. Sometimes, they'll say, "I'll take the next person in line", but usually they just open up the new lane and those who have been waiting the longest are stiffed.

[Organic Panic]

OR maybe Sheila is a GD liar.

[alternatives?]

Thanks for noting this term. It is much more easily understood. I will try to remember it. In researching it it is another form of cognitive bias.

This article was good in noting the fallback position of you are not white so you can’t know.

[alternatives?]

You are correct I believe the term used is dised, short for disrespected. We are making destruction justified and socially acceptable