Functional Laziness

Functional laziness is a moral mindset intended to justify why we do not take an effort to learn a skill or acquire new knowledge. This attitude justifies light humanism, whereby the social studies do not need hard knowledge in order to be a practitioner, but create an ethics framework to justify what they’re not engaging in hard knowledge. It’s a moral framework that justifies inaction, but masks unwillingness to take an effort.

Examples of functional laziness include:

• Learning statistics is difficult. Thus, an anti-statistics frameworks dismiss statistics as oppressive, patriarchal, reductionist of social experience, and even full of prejudice.
• Learning a foreign language is difficult. Thus, a cultural-appropriation framework dismisses language learning as a form of stealing cultural heritage from marginalized cultures.
• Learning mechanics or construction work is difficult. Thus, a feminist critique dismisses certain jobs as toxic masculinity.
• Reading classic literature is difficult. Thus, they get banned as racist or mysoginistic.
• Philosophy and literary criticism is difficult. Thus, postcolonial criticism dismisses theoretical frameworks as dismissive of marginal voices.
• Learning indigenous languages and cultures is difficult. Through postcolonial criticism, every discussion at this respect may be criticized as stereotyping or lacking respect or violating uncategorized sensitivities
• Working with other cultures is difficult. Working with other cultures is criticized as white savior.
• Learning mathematics is difficult. Thus, mathematics is criticized as a white Western technique that displays the oppressive voice of the white male.
• Learning new technologies is difficult. Thus, it is criticized as the embodiment of violent capitalism and wild mercantilism.
• Learning the law is difficult. Thus, legal frameworks are criticized as oppressive.
• Learning history is difficult. Thus, you refrain yourself from discussing “sensitive” historical topics because that makes you uncomfortable.
• Learning politics is difficult. Thus, you refrain from reading multiple perspectives because it’s wrong to try to understand the “wrong” side of politics.

It is good not to know about everything or not to have every skill, but criticizing those who choose those paths should not be criticized as less moral. Shaming certain areas within humanities on the basis of a moral discourse is detrimental to the purpose of the humanities and the social studies. Light humanism is part of a larger program that seeks the disappearance of the humanities upon the graceful acceptance of its practitioners.