Feeling Inferior

18/9/2018

Week 9, Semester 2

By Xavier Boffa

My mum frequently reminds me of Eleanor Roosevelt’s observation that ‘nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent’. Despite three years majoring in Philosophy, I’ll admit I’ve often felt I haven’t truly understood what she meant.

I’ve been thinking a lot about those words since Queensland Senator Fraser Anning delivered his widely criticised ‘first speech’. Anning’s speech was clearly designed to stir controversy in an attempt to cash in on free media attention and build the relatively unknown Senator’s public profile. It seems to have worked: in the days after, Senator Anning’s Facebook following grew by almost a quarter.

This lead me to wonder: did the cavalcade of critics play right into the Senator’s hand? Did they give him what he wanted? Was I doing the same by allowing his comments to occupy my mind? And is all of that such a bad thing, or a fair price to pay for calling out contemptible rhetoric?

I began to wonder if maybe Eleanor Roosevelt meant: nobody can make you feel inferior if you choose to ignore them?

The logic of this approach made a lot of sense. Demeaning another person for an arbitrary personal characteristic is bullying. A bully draws their power from the way we let them affect us. Ignoring them saps them of that power.

But this logic didn’t sit well with my experience. For the longest time, I’d told myself that I didn’t choose to be half-Chinese, so it couldn’t be my fault that people treated me differently. I was wrong to think like that.

It does take a great deal of courage to look a bully in the eye to tell them to rack off because their behaviour says more about them than you. It’s often simpler to grin and bear it: to pretend it doesn’t affect you. But while ignoring a bully might get them to leave you alone, it doesn’t really address the root of the injustice they commit.

I’ve always found persuasive Karl Popper’s observation that a tolerant society must refuse to tolerate intolerance. That’s why Senator Lucy Gichuhi struck a chord with me when she asked, in response to Senator Anning’s first speech: “[a]t what point are we going to say you are Australian?” In calling out the absurdity of the frequent marginalisation of migrant Australians, Senator Gichuhi gave a voice to more than 28% of Australians born overseas and took a stand against injustice.

In that moment, I was thankful that Senator Gichuhi was someone who had said something. I was glad she hadn’t simply turned the other cheek because migrant Australians – people like my mum and my Nonna – deserve to be treated with respect, not treated as inferior. They shouldn’t have to ignore injustice.

I was convinced Eleanor Roosevelt’s message could be better understood as: nobody can make you feel inferior if you’re prepared to stand up to them.

Then came Julia Banks’ announcement that she would leave politics in the wake of alleged bullying from both sides of politics. For me, this came with mixed emotions. Regret for what she’d endured, pride for her courage in standing up for herself, and inspiration at her decision not to let toxic forces rule her life.

One of the first lessons in philosophy is that if you have to resort to ‘playing the person’ to win an argument, you’ve already lost. You might say the same about the losers who try to belittle and demean others for sport. Some people just aren’t worth arguing with.

With the benefit of a little more maturity, I think that the real lesson is that nobody can make you feel inferior if you choose to feel good about who you are.

Clearly, a good attitude and stiff upper lip is far from enough to redress vast injustices to which many people, through no fault of their own, are subjected. But maybe, together, people of reason and good conscience can make a difference. At least that’s what I’d like to think.

As law students, few are better placed than we are to critically examine current affairs and shape a better world in so doing. We should be exercised by fundamental, philosophical questions concerning human reason, dignity and conscience because we are people who can actually make a difference.

I may never understand what exactly Eleanor Roosevelt meant, but that’s not the point.

I now know that I’m proud of my heritage and no amount of dog whistling about ‘Chinese carpetbaggers’ will change that. More than that, my experience of culture is deeply personal and doesn’t turn on what other people think.

I also know that I’ll keep thinking and talking about these issues – when I’m not day-dreaming about common intention theories of contract and Callinan J’s dissent in WorkChoices. If you have a view, feel free to share when you see me around.

Claire

18/9/2018 09:38:07 pm

Beautifully written !

Xavier Boffa

19/9/2018 09:03:16 am

Thanks! I really ummed and ahed about submitting anything, so it's nice to know that at least someone appreciated it!

Jared

18/9/2018 09:53:03 pm

Enjoyed the article.

I would guess the difficulty lies in choosing to feel good about yourself while having someone attempt to make you feel inferior. Kind of a chicken and egg type conundrum there.

No one can make you feel inferior if you choose to feel good about who you are, but maintaining that choice in the face of adversity could become very difficult.

19/9/2018 08:47:29 am

You're spot on Jared, that is the real crux of it and really the reason I have been unsatisfied with simply ignoring/rationalising bullying. I think an important element of self-esteem is embracing one's own identity. In the context of racism, that can come from embracing culture - as an Australian born in Australia to first generation Italian-Australian and Chinese parents, that was a significant step for me (being proud of my heritage rather than trying to be more 'Australian'). Also choosing to value the opinions of people who accept you for who you are more than the opinions of people who don't. Supportive people are very important and we can all be that person to someone else.

Companion piece to article

18/9/2018 10:20:56 pm

https://www.smh.com.au/national/young-liberals-fight-causes-young-woman-to-seek-intervention-order-from-police-20171012-gyzxen.html

Yikes

19/9/2018 08:14:58 am

19/9/2018 08:57:52 am

Assuming you're not in some way connected to the people responsible for spreading those mistruths about me in the first place (these people have been menacing me for the past 2 years, so I really couldn't rule it out), you seem to have actually missed the point of my article. I try not to spend my life obsessing about some baseless, politically-motivated, subsequently disproven accusations that were levelled against me, under the veil of anonymity, in one corner of the media because my self-esteem doesn't come from the opinions of strangers who aren't willing to take the time to understand the allegations and their context, and I know they've always been untrue to the nth degree. I would really hope law students at MLS would have greater regard for procedural fairness and the presumption of innocence - and would be open-minded enough to give a person the benefit of the doubt rather than pre-judging them (kind of the same as pre-judging a person because of their ethnicity).

Here are some relevant quotes you might like to reconsider:
- "One of the first lessons in philosophy is that if you have to resort to ‘playing the person’ to win an argument, you’ve already lost."
- "With the benefit of a little more maturity, I think that the real lesson is that nobody can make you feel inferior if you choose to feel good about who you are."
"- I now know that I’m proud of my heritage and no amount of dog whistling about ‘Chinese carpetbaggers’ will change that. More than that, my experience of culture is deeply personal and doesn’t turn on what other people think."

David

19/9/2018 10:30:00 am

[Directed at 'COMPANION PIECE TO ARTICLE']

Mate, whether you agree with Xav or not, there is no need to bring up an article with seemingly no relevance to what he has written here. Or, if you are going to pick at his past, do so without the veil of anonymity you coward.

Easy Pal

19/9/2018 02:57:51 pm

You seem to be implying that by removing the anonymity of the poster you will have a better chance of personally insulting or even harming her/him. Not sure if that's the most convincing way of removing this veil of anonymity.

And, by the way, I would prefer to know all the salient points about any author whom I am reading. This is not a court proceeding where strict rules of evidence should apply. I would like to form my own opinion on the credibility of the author.

I'm with Easy Pal.

20/9/2018 11:26:33 am

Read between the lines. There's matters in this article which directly relate to the content in the Age story. Note re especially Xavier's comments about bullying and intimidation in the Liberal party.

20/9/2018 01:19:54 pm

Putting aside the fact the allegations made against me were wholly disproven and there has always been a paucity of evidence to support them, I'm happy to acknowledge (as a general principle) that allegations of such a kind might be relevant to the way we assess the opinions a person might have. That said, I'd love to hear anyone actually explain what they think that relevance actually is in this instance.

In other words, what specifically about the allegations might invalidate my thesis (or parts thereof) in this article? I'm not sure I follow what that suggestion actually is, other than a general character smear. It's difficult for me to actually address any concerns readers might have without actually knowing the particulars of those concerns (if they indeed exist beyond the hypothetical).

These allegations are not something I've ever tried to hide from, but I'd like to think an innocent person who has nonetheless been accused of something can still hold and share a valid opinion. Furthermore, I'd like to think the better discussion my piece could prompt is one about the actual subject matter - self-esteem and how to respond to racism - rather than my character (which I think is a less interesting discussion for most people).

EASY AGAIN

21/9/2018 03:32:38 am

Hey Xavier!

Can you first explain what the sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh have to do with his US Supreme Court nomination? In attempting to answer this question, you might find the connection between the allegations against you and the amount of trust to be placed in you.

In the case of Brett Kavanaugh, would it be fair to say that, even if the allegations turn out to be groundless, they should just not be considered at all? I don’t think so. The same is true for your case. This is not the same as 'guilty until proven innocent'. Rather, it's just a consideration to be kept in mind when considering your words.

Just to be clear, I admire all that you have said. This is particularly true given the contrast with other incendiary commentary surrounding recent De Minimis articles. But that doesn’t mean that one cannot think about what potential caveats might be lurking in the background.

By the way, that hyperlink to Popper’s paradox of tolerance does not actually mention it. It does begin with the following quote, though: “If our civilisation is to survive, we must break with the habit of deference to great men.” Ironic, isn’t it?

Thurd Egree Burns

22/9/2018 10:23:59 am

That shut him up pretty good.

Clearly something happened on which the media reported. But Xavier here thinks that outright denying everything multiple times will make it go away. It won't. All it does is make you look like you are committing something starting with 'h' and ending in 'ypocrisy'.

And dude lay off it. What you have written regarding bullying has direct relation to what you stand accused of. So it's natural that people talk about those allegations here.

Either man up and say sorry otherwise be prepared for people to confront you.

22/9/2018 01:23:05 pm

Thanks "THURD EGREE BURNS", you really showed me! Given you won't even put your name to your 'comment', I've no real reason to believe you're not one of the trolls who's been relentlessly harassing me for the last two years. Was it you who prank called me at 10:16 pm last Saturday night too? Irrespective, people like you are exactly what inspired me to write this article.

We have a finite amount of life to live. You can spend your time trying to make other people feel bad about themselves, or you can spend your time feeling good about yourself and making other people feel good about themselves. I'm confident in the way I've chosen to live my life.

"Easy", it seems I offended "THURD EGREE BURNS" by not replying to your comment more expediently (heaven forbid I have a life outside of the DM comments section).

Re Brett Kavanaugh, it really depends what you mean by 'considered'. Should they be considered by the legal system - absolutely. Should there be a trial by media or the court of public opinion that is divorced from process and driven by rumour and speculation? I firmly believe that justice demands there should not.

Our legal system is predicated on concepts of natural justice and procedural fairness that ensure that vexatious claims are swiftly resolved so that innocent people do not have their rights unduly impinged (this is a primary basis of our system of pre-trial termination of proceedings). Most claims will not be vexatious, but allowing even one innocent person to have their life ruined by a vindictive individual prepared to make a false accusation out of malice or in furtherance of an ulterior motive is, to my mind, too high a price to pay for justice in an open society.

That said, I think there is some danger in trying to draw a parallel between a sexual assault allegation and an allegation that a person raised their voice at someone who wouldn't get out of their personal space. I also continue to struggle to see what this has to do with racism.

Re Karl Popper, I agree with you (and him) that people should form their own opinions, rather than deferring to so-called 'great' individuals. That doesn't mean people should never agree, nor that we shouldn't acknowledge great ideas.

The link is to a review of his book 'The Open Society and Its Enemies', in which he defines the paradox of tolerance. The book itself is well worth reading if you're interested in political philosophy, but the discussion of tolerance is found in Chapter 7.

DR BURNS AGAIN

22/9/2018 03:28:32 pm

Dude I don't know you and you don't know me. It's still hilarious that you would try to find out in the DM comments who prank called you.

Also what's up with this rage against anonymity? For someone facing allegations of bullying you're awful keen to take names. It's not making me feel any more comfortable about you. I have a visceral hatred of bullies. That's why I want purported anti-bullying advocates to have a clean record. You don't sound at all like one who does.

Then you come up with a dog's balls of an explanation of yelling at someone in your personal space. For the sake of flying eff you are not even owning up to this much without adding bloody 'allegation' in there. It happened. Live with your actions and their consequences if you are that reluctant to repent.

"Our legal system is predicated on concepts of natural justice and procedural fairness"

Oh yeah? Tell that to the asylum seekers. They have news for you.

Although I didn't originally raise this point but again find very concerning the hints you are dropping about Brett Kavanaugh. The guy might well overturn Roe v Wade (women's rights issue), has questionable conduct to answer for (another women's rights issue) and you are harping on about the court of public opinion. I suppose this would be the same court of public opinion that allowed you appear on The Bolt Report and wank away to the tune of: "Ermagawd! Melbourne Uni is a Marxist producing factory!" But I suppose that comment should be permissible since your holiness made it.

Don't give me your self-righteous, condescending spiel and stop masquerading as Father Xavier of the Holier Than Thou Church. Good bye!

22/9/2018 04:38:51 pm

Thanks for your comments "Dr Burns". Have a nice life.

Nice

19/9/2018 10:26:08 pm

A beautifully written piece. I hope you hold onto that ability to reflect, empathise and take pride in your culture and identity, and appreciate the culture, identity and experience of others.

20/9/2018 01:22:57 pm

Thank you for the very kind words. I certainly aspire to be and to be more empathetic to the culture and identity of others and know that this will be a constant learning experience!

Ying

20/9/2018 01:29:48 pm

Thank you for this piece, Xavier. The points you make about personal attacks are couldn't be more relevant than at present; I just wish everyone had read it before commenting anonymously on the articles re: the lunch saga. Helps to keep things in perspective.

22/9/2018 12:41:00 pm

Thanks Ying! I agree that the discussion in the comments on some of the recent articles leaves a lot to be desired, but well done for having the courage to put your name to a very well-written article that said a lot of things that needed to be said!

JUST A BYSTANDER

22/9/2018 09:35:06 pm

Hi Xavier. I was very impressed after reading your article. I thought it raised excellent points. But I have also been following some of the comments here. Then I googled your name. This has made me a bit conflicted. I have noticed that you respond to individual comments. I wanted to hear from you one more time before forming my own conclusions. That’s why I want to ask you four questions.

1. I have just watched your 5 to 6-minute interview with Mr Bolt. I have to say that I cringed a little. It seemed a bit propagandistic. I consider myself fairly conservative, but I couldn’t agree with the portrait that you painted there. Is that really your opinion?

2. In one of your replies (to EASY) you said that you can’t see what raising your voice has anything to do with racism. I presume you mean racism in the context of bullying. While you do mention bullying in your article, I couldn’t find any mention of racism. That’s why I took your article to mean bullying in all contexts - whether it was because of your race or otherwise. Did I interpret this incorrectly?

3. I asked Q 2 because as far as I can tell the allegations against you have to do with (non-racist) bullying and sexism. If I interpreted your article correctly (i.e. bullying in all contexts) then I think the allegations against you are relevant to this article. I recall Asia Argento’s role in the Me Too movement. Although what she advocated for was not wrong, her past conduct (which directly contradicted her current advocacy) severely undermined her credibility. Do you not think your situation is similar?

4. I know that the anonymity in DM comments can be a double-edged sword. Having said that, it isn’t anything unusual on the internet. Current affairs websites usually don’t require your real name if you want to post a comment. That makes me wonder, like some others have mentioned, you don’t need to keep asking for people’s real names. Can’t you simply refute the substance of their comment? Otherwise it does sound like you are out to get them (not literally, but still).

23/9/2018 04:33:28 pm

Hi 'Bystander', thanks for raising some fair questions in a civil manner and thanks for taking the time to reach out.

Before coming to each of your question, I think it's worth stating that my view on the discussion in the comments is that it 1. actually misses the point of the thesis advanced by the article (that we should all try to spend more time being positive forces in life, rather than focusing on negative forces), and 2. actually does a disservice to that thesis by being a distinctly negative, at times uncivil, conversation about whether my opinion can be valid because of who I am rather than because of its content (I have no control over what other people think of me, just as I have no control over how I was born). As I said before, I'd much rather people engage with the thesis than put my character on trial, not because I have anything to be ashamed of, but because I wrote the article in the hope it might be of some value to other people who've shared similar experiences.

1. Props to you for going on such an extensive fact-finding mission about me, I guess. My previous comment about the ideas standing alone, and a general observation that the subject matter of that interview bears very little relation to anything discussed in this article, aside I'm not actually sure what the thrust of your question is. I guess I can say 1. I do think it was inappropriate for that first year politics lecturer to tell hundreds of students that he would turn them into Marxists in a compulsory class (I encourage you to read Popper to understand why someone whose Nonna and Nonno survived Fascism in Italy would think that), and 2. I do think it was inappropriate to joke about killing member of the Liberal Club, no matter how satirical (a Club of which I was President and whose members I care about deeply). I would like to think our discourse on campus could be more civil.

2. I don't think that's an accurate characterisation of my comment. I said I didn't see the connection between an allegation that I raised my voice in a single incident (the height of the allegation against me), and racism (which is a form of bullying that is particularly egregious because it preys upon an arbitrary trait the victim has no control over - and in fact has no reason to be ashamed of). Further, perhaps you should re-read these parts of the article, which are directly responsive to race:
- "I’ve been thinking a lot about those words since Queensland Senator Fraser Anning delivered his widely criticised ‘first speech’. Anning’s speech was clearly designed to stir controversy in an attempt to cash in on free media attention and build the relatively unknown Senator’s public profile."
- "But this logic didn’t sit well with my experience. For the longest time, I’d told myself that I didn’t choose to be half-Chinese, so it couldn’t be my fault that people treated me differently. I was wrong to think like that."
- "That’s why Senator Lucy Gichuhi struck a chord with me when she asked, in response to Senator Anning’s first speech: “[a]t what point are we going to say you are Australian?” In calling out the absurdity of the frequent marginalisation of migrant Australians, Senator Gichuhi gave a voice to more than 28% of Australians born overseas and took a stand against injustice."
- "I now know that I’m proud of my heritage and no amount of dog whistling about ‘Chinese carpetbaggers’ will change that. More than that, my experience of culture is deeply personal and doesn’t turn on what other people think."

I suppose you did correctly interpret that my thesis is not confined to racism, but I don't think it's correct to read the article divorced from the specific discussion of race and my experience of race (and the experiences of race that are shared by the primary intended audience).

3. I don't know nearly enough about Asia Argento and her circumstances to comment on her specifically, but I will say 1. even people who have been bullies, racists, etc. can have valid views about those subjects because we all have a capacity to grow and change and be redeemed for past wrongs, and 2. I was found to be innocent of the allegations and, as far as I'm concerned, I have never been the person I was accused of being.

4. I've actually never asked anyone tp provide their name. I've merely pointed out that I really can't discount the possibility that anonymous commenters aren't actually people with ulterior motives and axes to grind, because my lived experience is that of a person falsely accused by just those kinds of people (something I would never wish upon anyone). That said, I do find it ironic that people who want to reject my ideas on the basis of my character, don't want their own character subject to the same level of scrutiny (I mean, even you did do a thorough search about me, by your own admission). Shouldn't those comments be subject to the s

23/9/2018 04:46:00 pm

I think I might have exceeded some character limit on my previous reply, so here's the gist of the remainder of my comment.

Shouldn't those comments be subject to the same standard the seek to apply? I've not been engaging with comments to refute their claims (as you may have picked up from my article, I am okay with there being people out there who don't like me). My goal has always been to promote understanding.

Anyway, thanks for taking them time to engage. I hope my responses are of some value and insight.

BYSTANDER

23/9/2018 07:23:55 pm

Hey man! Thanks for responding. I almost thought that you wouldn't. I really do appreciate the detailed reply - it clears up a lot of the stuff. No further questions! :)

26/9/2018 02:54:36 pm

You're welcome! Glad to have exceeded your expectations haha :)

Oh, The Irony!

25/9/2018 09:00:16 am

Xavier Boffa talking about bullying is about as convincing as Hugh Hefner praising celibacy.

*Correction: ...is less convincing than...

The Victims of Boffa

1/10/2018 04:13:36 pm

Actually hysterical.

Everyone knows Xavier Boffa has driven more women away from politics than most.

This article is an amazing satirical piece. No one believes it!

2/10/2018 10:06:22 am

Anyone wondering why people should, as a matter of personal integrity, put their real names to comments should look no further than this comment.

The imputations contained therein are blatantly untrue,totally unqualified and clearly defamatory. Please feel free to provide me with a means of contacting you or your solicitor if you would like to clarify the above statement - I certainly reserve my rights.

I have not driven anyone "away from politics", female or otherwise.

To the contrary, over my term as President elections were held for 3 casual vacancies and it is a matter of public record that I publicly endorsed and nominated 2 women and 1 man for those positions (and each of those 3 was elected). Those were the first opportunities each of those individuals had to serve as office bearers, and each has since gone on to serve in more senior executive offices.

By contrast, my political opponents (who claim that I don't support women in politics) nominated 6 men for those positions (none were elected). I wish they lived by the same standard they have sought to apply to me - politics would be far better for it.

As someone who myself was attacked by the same opponents for being "mixed race" and "non-white" in the lead up to my election as President, diversity in politics has always been an issue close to my heart. That's why I implemented significant reforms to the MULC Constitution to make the Club more inclusive and to expand opportunity for all.

As outgoing President I personally nominated 3 women and 3 men for committee positions (each of those 6 were elected to one of the 7 positions open for election).

As national President, I personally appointed 4 women and 1 man to co-opted positions. Over my term, I proactively created new appointments to ensure more opportunity for women to serve in higher office at a national level. It would be difficult to find another ALSF President who has done more to support women in the movement.

I'm very happy to be judged on my record. Ultimately, however, the truth is more important to me than what people assert about me without evidence or factual basis.

If you really are a former political opponent, my message is simple. I really think you should let past election losses be bygones and focus on building your own reputation and career. Furthermore, you'll be far more satisfied in life by focusing on doing good work, rather than continuing to attempt to tear me down - making your happiness contingent on past election losses isn't healthy. Accept the democratic outcomes and move on. Politics should never be so important that we allow it to rob us of human decency and compassion.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if this and other comments have been posted by the same individual(s) to attempt to provoke a response from me, or to make me feel bad about myself. If that's the case, I really am sorry that my successes affect you in such a way that you still feel the need to monitor my activity this closely and to exert this much energy trying to tear me down.

Best wishes,

Xavier

Hello Xavier!

5/10/2018 11:31:17 am

To a degree, I sympathise with you. It must be a thoroughly rotten experience to be treated badly.

That said, I have been reading these comments, and I can’t help but notice the belligerence in your own tone. To begin with, as someone has alluded to already, this is an online forum for ‘current affairs’ (as far as law students are concerned). Anonymity is no novelty here.

Above, you’ve asked, “Shouldn't those comments be subject to the same standard the [sic] seek to apply?”

The answer is an obvious “no”. The people who are rejecting your ideas, no matter how specious their grounds might be, are not themselves putting forth any explicit ideas. They might be implying certain beliefs or principles, but still you will be measured against a different yardstick.

In a sense you have the upper hand: you are taking the initiative and showing the courage to speak up. This is admirable. But your courage and tolerance are too limited in scope. Be the bigger person here. This is an excellent opportunity for that rather than responding with thinly veiled sarcasm and animosity.

Besides, clearly you have bigger political goals in sight - and I wish you all the best with that - but when you take your ideas to the electorate, you don’t get to subject each member of the public, who objects to your ideas, to the same standard they seek to apply. It just doesn’t work like that.

As a neutral third party, I can assure you that your tone in response to the comments, notwithstanding those comments themselves, has been off-putting. If you want to be recognised as the better person, then you must demonstrate that you are indeed the better person. Enumerating your own achievements in a dismissive tone to your detractors does not count, I’m afraid. I did not know you before this article, but your words (in spite of the wonderful article) has left behind a sour taste.

Also, I can’t help noticing that you had a wonderful opportunity above to say something positive about the whole Brett Kavanaugh situation. Sadly, the opportunity was wasted. You went on to praise “our” legal system and hinted at the possibility of the allegation being a “vexatious claim”. I’ll leave you with the following two articles from The Economist:

https://www.economist.com/node/21751635

https://www.economist.com/node/21752007

Comments are closed.