Kafkatrapping – Die Schuld ersetzt das Argument

Im englischen gibt es eine interessante Wortschöpfung, das „Kafkatrapping“. Es geht wohl auf diesen Artikel zurück:

One very notable pathology is a form of argument that, reduced to essence, runs like this: “Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…} confirms that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}.” I’ve been presented with enough instances of this recently that I’ve decided that it needs a name. I call this general style of argument “kafkatrapping”, and the above the Model A kafkatrap. (…)

My reference, of course, is to Franz Kafka’s “The Trial”, in which the protagonist Josef K. is accused of crimes the nature of which are never actually specified, and enmeshed in a process designed to degrade, humiliate, and destroy him whether or not he has in fact committed any crime at all. The only way out of the trap is for him to acquiesce in his own destruction; indeed, forcing him to that point of acquiescence and the collapse of his will to live as a free human being seems to be the only point of the process, if it has one at all.

This is almost exactly the way the kafkatrap operates in religious and political argument. Real crimes – actual transgressions against flesh-and-blood individuals – are generally not specified. The aim of the kafkatrap is to produce a kind of free-floating guilt in the subject, a conviction of sinfulness that can be manipulated by the operator to make the subject say and do things that are convenient to the operator’s personal, political, or religious goals. Ideally, the subject will then internalize these demands, and then become complicit in the kafkatrapping of others.

Es werden dann dort noch verschiedene Beispiele angeführt.

Wendy McElroy schreibt dazu:

The term „kafkatrapping“ describes a logical fallacy that is popular within gender feminism, racial politics and other ideologies of victimhood. It occurs when you are accused of a thought crime such as sexism, racism or homophobia. You respond with an honest denial, which is then used as further confirmation of your guilt. You are now trapped in a circular and unfalsifiable argument; no one who is accused can be innocent because the structure of kafkatrapping precludes that possibility.

Sie fasst die bereits im obigen Text angeführten Varianten noch einmal wie folgt zusammen:

Model A: The accuser states, „Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of (sin, racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression…) confirms that you are guilty of (sin, racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression…).“ Harking back to The Trial, Raymond explains how the novel’s plot parallels the structure and purpose of the accuser’s nonargument. No specific acts are named in the accusation, which makes the claim unfalsifiable. The vague charge constitutes a thought crime, which also makes it unfalsifiable. As with The Trial, the process seems designed to create guilt and to destroy resistance so that you become malleable. Indeed, „the only way out … is … to acquiesce in his own destruction.“ Even if you are innocent, the only path to redemption is for you to plead guilty and accept punishment. Ideally, for the accuser, you even come to believe in your own guilt.

Model C is a common variant on the same theme. You may not have done, felt or thought anything wrong but you are still guilty because you benefit from a position of privilege created by others. In other words, you are guilty because of your identification with a group such as „male,“ „white,“ or „heterosexual.“ The accusation makes you responsible for the actions of strangers whose behavior you cannot control and who may have died long ago. Raymond writes, „The aim … is to produce a kind of free-floating guilt … a conviction of sinfulness that can be manipulated by the operator [accuser] to make the subject say and do things that are convenient to the operator’s personal, political, or religious goals.“ To be redeemed, you must cease to disagree with your accuser and condemn your entire identity group.

Beide Varianten sind im modernen Feminismus gern gewählt. Auf die eigene Gruppe angewendet soll dies dann so verlaufen:

What happens when an accuser confronts someone in the same identity group to which he or she belongs? For example, one woman may question aspects of politically correct feminism being presented by another. An entirely different phenomenon occurs. Obviously, the questioner will not be encouraged to condemn herself for being a woman or to excoriate all women. Instead, she will be defined out of the group.

Ein Beispiel aus dem Feminismus wäre beispielsweise dieser Vorwurf an die Mädchenmannschaft, dem Patriarchat zuzuarbeiten. Outgrouping, wenn man die gewünschte Linie nicht hinreichend bedingungslos unterstützt, kommt aber natürlich in allen Ausrichtungen vor, beispielsweise über Formulierungen wie „feministisches U-boot“ oder andere Zuordnungen zum Feminismus im Maskulismus.

Und zu anderen Techniken, die in diese Richtung gehen:

Other techniques are often associated with kafkatrapping. (Note: For a tactic to be true kafkatrapping, it has to involve an unfalsifiable claim.) Associated techniques that prove your guilt could include:

  • Requesting a clear-cut definition of what you are charged with – for example, homophobia;
  • Pointing out an injustice committed by the accuser’s identity group;
  • Applying a single standard to everyone, e.g., refusing to accept that blacks cannot be racist;
  • Expressing skepticism about any aspect of the victimhood ideology, including the plausibility of anecdotal evidence;
  • Being ignorant of or uninterested in the subject;
  • Arguing against the ideology;
  • Saying „some of my best friends are X.“

Wer also darauf abstellt, dass er eine verbindliche Defintion von beispielsweise dem Patriarchat haben möchte, dem kann man vorwerfen, dass er damit das Patriarchat leugnet, es also unterstützt. Wer sagt, dass auch Schwarze Rassisten sein können, der zeigt nur, wie notwendig nach wie vor Intersektionalismus ist etc.

Die Folgen stellt sie wie folgt dar:

A movement becomes widespread because its voice is truth – at least, largely so – and its demand for justice is valid: For example, homosexuals have been hideously abused through much of history. When a movement discards the truth and justice that made it grow and favors abusive attacks instead, it is in decline. The abuse also quashes any productive discussion of real issues. Raymond observes, „[m]anipulative ways of controlling people tend to hollow out the causes for which they are employed, smothering whatever worthy goals they may have begun with and reducing them to vehicles for the attainment of power and privilege over others.“

Das ist ein Prozess, in dem sich der Feminismus für viele bereits befindet. Sie sehen ihn nicht mehr als Kampf für eine gerechte Sache, sondern als reine übertriebene Hetze und Identitätspolitik. Es macht auch gleichzeitig deutlich, warum Aufklärung so wichtig ist: Wenn man erkennt, dass es dem Feminismus egal ist, wie sich der Gender Pay Gap zusammensetzt oder das die „1 in 5“ Zahlen falsch sind, dann nimmt man auch die „Kaffkafalle“ wahr.

A separate problem arises if the accuser honestly believes the kafkatrapping. A woman who believes all men are oppressors is unlikely to cooperate with them in a good will attempt to solve social problems. She is more likely to seek a position of dominance over men, which she justifies in the name of self-defense or as a payback that is her due. This heightens tension between the sexes and obstructs sincere attempts to resolve problems. A kafkatrapper true believer becomes increasingly isolated from people who are seen as „the enemy“ because they disagree; the true believer becomes increasingly unable to even communicate with or have empathy for a broad spectrum of people. The kafkatrapper ‚wins‘ the argument but loses a shared humanity.

Auch das ein gut zu beobachtendes Phänomen in der Geschlechterdebate, sowohl im radikalen Feminismus als auch im radikalen Maskulismus. Wenn hinter allem das Patriarchat/der Staatsfeminismus/die Ausbeutung durch Frauen oder Männer steckt, dann kann es eben keine Zusammenarbeit mehr zwischen den Geschlechtern geben. Man entfernt sich damit von dem „normalen Menschen“, die nach wie vor an einer Zusammenarbeit von Männern und Frauen interessiert sind.