Yantbom - claiming the right not to think

Last week, I was standing at the lights waiting for the Walk signal. A guy drove past, going way too fast for the built-up area. I could see the automatic 'SLOW DOWN' signal flash at him. He revved loudly and increased his speed.

I felt disconcerted by this reaction, one I notice more and more often. 

When I see people objecting to instructions to slow down, wear masks to combat Covid 19, use seatbelts or bike helmets, or ideas like restricting human access to some natural areas, changing the date of Australia day, allowing gay people to marry, ad infinitum, I am puzzled not so much by their opposition, but their intensity and anger. 

Rarely do they offer any specific reasoning for their objection.

Instead, resistance is often fiercely proclaimed as the vital defence of individual freedom. They might call themselves freedom fighters, freedom lovers, upholders of personal liberty, or sometimes libertarians.

But I don't think it's about freedom or liberty at all. 

I think what I'm seeing is just an adult tantrum in response to being asked to think and to self-reflect. And tantrums always look rather disconcerting in adults. 

This type of reaction needs a better name; a name that reflects what's really going on. 

Those who love freedom so much 

While people who loudly claim to 'love freedom' may have varying political beliefs, there is one ideology that purports to be all about freedom - Libertarianism. I'll use it to talk more broadly about the values of those who 'love freedom'. 

Libertarianism upholds individual liberty as its primary and core principle. In case there is any doubt, the name comes from the Latin libertas meaning 'freedom'. 

Libertarian thought has a long history and embraces a complex and contradictory bunch of ideas. It originated within the left-wing ideals of egalitarianism and limiting the power of rulers and governments over the people, typified by anti-authoritarian ideologies like anarchy. Now, left- and right-wing schools of thought jostle to fit within the ideology of Libertarianism. It all depends how you define freedom (and IF you define it!)

Somewhat bizarrely, the word Libertarian has recently been taken over by economic right-wing hardliners. Increasingly, in the US and Australia it is used to justify neoliberal 'free' markets as a method of structuring society. However, as the anarchists argue, this is no freedom at all for most people. Criticism of right Libertarianism focuses on its tendency to enforce hierarchical power and social relations. 

My concern is much deeper. I've long thought that both left and right Libertarianism are based on a fundamentally flawed idea of humans as separate and 'isolatable' units. That idea is only possible in theory; in reality, we are each part of a messy, interconnected, interdependent network of humans, other animals and natural systems. 

Adherents have to deny the role of other (not so free) people involved in the innumerable supports (e.g. libraries, food production, public parks), systems (e.g. air quality controls, small claims courts, the armed forces), and structures (e.g. sewerage, roads, bridges) that they personally benefit from. They have to maintain a stupendous ignorance about the natural world, especially the systems that support life. They have to ignore the pragmatic need for command and control for (some not free) individuals to cooperate to achieve something bigger (e.g. orchestras, disaster relief, movie production). They have to disregard the numerous other people who made them who they are, including, as David Graeber says, those who taught them what they believe and how to rebel against social conventions.

Libertarians, both left and right, rely on a fantasy of themselves as tough, self-sustaining individuals. They are unwilling to admit they are unavoidably and unequivocally interdependent participants within the intricate and delicate physical and social web of life. 

The need for a new political label - the Yantbom

Source

Interestingly, the 2014 American Pew Survey found 23% of self-described Libertarians didn't know what the word meant. Even among those who did know, few held opinions on the role of government, foreign policy, and social issues consistent with the ideology of libertarianism. In fact, the views of self-described libertarians did not differ much from those of the overall public.¹  

And yet, they must think it means something. 

I think Libertarianism and many other movements that fly the banner of 'personal freedom' have been completely stripped of any ideals of ensuring individual liberty for everyone. Upholding personal freedom is now more likely a cover for a defensive, selfish, self-serving, reactionary, egotistical approach to the world. 

And you can tell, because the 'freedom' lover's most frequent protest is, 'You can't tell me what to do', 'Don't tread on my feet', 'You can't make me do that'.

I think they need a more accurate label.

I call them the 'Yantboms' after their most emblematic of retorts: 'You Are Not The Boss Of Me!'

Why Yantbom and not Yanmb

The 1979 movie Norma Rae

As a language structure, 'You are not the boss of me!' is rather unusual.² 

Usually, to signify such relationships we would use the first person singular pronoun my as a possessive adjective, and say my boss, my doctor, my job, my house. We don't hear doctor of me, job of me, house of me, yet we do hear this strange boss of me. 

Interestingly, 'You are not my boss' and 'You are not the boss of me', have slightly different meanings. 

Both sentences are a response to someone trying to assert authority that is rejected. However, 'boss of me' gives much greater emphasis to the word 'me'. It highlights two important things: the identity and the agency³ of the speaker who is reacting against some uncalled for bossiness.

A great example is the 1979 movie Norma Rae (representing the real life Crystal Lee Sutton) who is fighting for workers and the right to unionise. Norma Rae argues that the boss's power does not include being able to push her around when she says, 'You may be the boss of this town, you may be the boss of this factory, you may be the boss of this shop, but you ain't the boss of me'. 

Western culture celebrates the 'little person' sticking up to the greedy nasty boss, so we understand the personal moral claim Norma Rae is making.

'You are not the boss of me' is an idiom, an unusual saying used in certain contexts or by certain groups of people.

Yantbom with parents 

Linguist Benjamin Zimmer has traced the history of 'You are not the boss of me' and found that its main use is by children.

Source

The first type of example is when a young child starts to resist parental rules and requirements. Zimmer mentions a 1953 article in the Washington Post by The Gesell Institute, specialists in early childhood, suggesting that experts in the field already considered 'You're not the boss of me' to be a well-known reaction by children.

It can be a shock for an adult hearing their child say it for the first time. The defiance of the four-year-old shouting 'You're not the boss of me' makes no sense to the parent expecting the prepared lunch to be eaten, as the child has happily done before. 

The child might be called defiant or recalcitrant, but it's something else entirely.⁴  

When children say this to parents and others, it signals an important aspect of child development: an emerging sense of 'self' separate from other people, and their experimentation with impacting on the world. It signals frustration in the process of working out just what this 'self' can cause to happen. 

So, 'You are not the boss of me' is a statement the parent only has provisional authority over them. It's always said as a matter of some importance, in the same structure and the same tone of defiance.  

It is a moral claim and a demand for more independence. Parents hear it from youngsters to teens with each phase of testing parental limits. Here's a great song from They Might be Giants about pre-teens seeking more independence: 'You're not the boss of me now. You're not the boss of me now. You're not the boss of me now and you're not so big'.  

Yantbom with other children

The second type of example is when a child pushes back against bossiness by another child. Zimmer's oldest example is a children's story from 1883 published in As by Fire (The Church, New Series Vol. III, 1883, p. 70) in which a boy is fed up with his older sister's controlling behaviour and snaps: 'Let me alone; you are not the boss of me now, I tell you, and I'm going to do as I please.'

In sibling dynamics and in the school yard, the saying demonstrates a growing understanding of 'self' within the children's social structure, especially social power and the flux involved.

'You are not the boss of me' is a challenge that says, 'I do not recognise your authority over me'.

Children's folklore

Source

Idioms like 'You are not the boss of me' are part of children's folklore, sayings they learn from each other, not from adults. Children's folklore and culture is created by children, and passed on to other children over time.

Although dismissed by many, the culture of childhood is enormously rich and complex. Children's games and sayings are the 'tools' of their physical, psychological and moral development. With them, they manage their fears and their friendships, and navigate power relations with peers.

Other common idioms used by children are 'Finders keepers, losers weepers', 'Cheaters only hurt themselves', 'He who smelt it, dealt it', 'Sticks and stones may hurt my bones, but words will never hurt me'. Children use these sayings to ward off trouble, to be combative, to taunt other children, or to make a moral claim.

The child annoyed at being pushed around says, 'You are not the boss of me' to make a moral statement that the other person is behaving wrongly, that it is inappropriate and violating of the speaker's agency for them to be so bossy. 

Whether said to parents or other children, it represents a claim for identity and for personal control by someone who is working to establish their sense of 'self'. 

Adults still in the school yard 

And for some reason, some people bring 'You are not the boss of me' into their adult lives. 

But instead of using it as a moral statement against the perceived misuse of power, most often it is used to communicate, 'I will do whatever I want, and you can't stop me.' 

It is used as a shield when someone feels their actions and beliefs are being challenged by opposing ideas or facts.

These are the Yantboms. 

Psychotherapist Peter Michaelson says people react this way because they use their beliefs about the world - their sense of truth - as a substitute for a strong emotional and psychological foundation for their sense of self. 

Somewhere in the process of becoming a 'self' that began in childhood, they became their beliefs. The Yantbom needs their beliefs to be true because they represent their sense of personal value and significance. Their personal development is still back in the school yard, so they interpret every new interaction as someone trying to push them around. They are still trying to establish a firm sense of 'self'. In Michaelson's words, they haven't fulfilled the human moral obligation to society to grow [up].

So, when a government or a progressive movement tries to implement change, there is no consideration of others' opinions and ideas. The Yantbom's thoughts run: I’ve figured out my beliefs for myself, and nobody’s so-called facts are going to take them away. Their emotions run: who am I, who will I be, without my beliefs? If my beliefs are not true, does that mean I don't matter? 

For the Yantbom, 'You are not the boss of me' works to repel the challenge to look at their insupportable beliefs, irrational ideas, and distorted understanding of the world (which we all have plenty of). They want to avoid being forced into any self-reflection. 

In particular, they do not want to have to examine their fantasy they are rugged, self-sustaining individuals.

Behind it all is fear of being insignificant or unworthy, of not mattering.

The right not to think

I've written before that humans work hard to avoid feeling the distress of cognitive dissonance or being overwhelmed by complexity. Our main strategy is to close our minds and refuse to acknowledge potentially conflicting facts. This produces an illusion of certainty, safety, and power. 

If government activities (e.g. mask mandates for Covid-19, taxation for pollution) or public debate about society (e.g. marriage laws, changing the date of Australia Day) threatens to shatter this illusion, it will be fearfully rejected, and interpreted as an attempt at personal oppression. Instead of discussion or compromise, the 'new' ideas are met with an angry resistance to a perceived threat to individual liberty.

When their worldview is challenged, Yantboms respond like children in the school yard trying to navigate a complicated new social world. They defiantly push back and shout 'You're not the boss of me'. Sometimes with placards.

From various social media sources

'You are not the boss of me' claims the moral right not to think.

Yantboms are a politician's delight

This reactivity makes Yantboms very easily exploitable. Conservative politicians, like John Howard and Ronald Reagan, and populists, like Scott Morrison and Donald Trump, make the most of this reactionary response to being told what to do by 'inner-city, latte-sipping, lunatic lefties' (viz, anyone proposing change). To cover the ugliness of their politics, they resort to whipping up a jingoistic frenzy for 'freedom' and personal liberty.

'Hey, look over there! Some [insert insult here] person wants to take away your personal freedom!'

The Yantbom rarely knows history or international politics and rarely asks questions to understand issues better. But they'll immediately become outraged in the name of their personal 'freedom'. 

I doubt they ever think about what freedom means, particularly what it means for humanity as a whole, while they respond to the dog whistles of conservative and populist politicians to 'defend' it.  

This strategy is incredibly successful in ensuring the public does not pay attention to the hardline conservatives' anti-egalitarian and anti-liberty policies or the siphoning of public assets by their wealthy buddies - a genuine attack on personal freedom.

Yantbomism - a more accurate political label

So, there you have the Yantbom - people who call themselves Libertarian without even knowing what it means, and all the others who 'love freedom - but just for me'. Really it's just Yantbomism.

Source

The Yantboms don't necessarily care about the issues they protest, they just hate being told what to do. Or having to think... about anyone else but themselves. 'You're not the boss of ME, ME, ME!' 'Leave ME and MY beliefs alone!'

To safeguard their distorted view of the world and their fantasy of themselves as rugged individualists, they require a robust defence against inconvenient facts, and any possibility of self-reflection. 

Of course, there is a natural human drive to resist being oppressed. It is important to stand up against governments seeking to erode vital freedoms of speech, association, religion, and freedom of the press. Individual liberty is an important principle in the mix of any vibrant society.

But Yantboms have turned this idea of 'freedom' into a warped individualism and resistance to anything they don't feel like doing, or frankly, don't understand. Yantbomism is a defence for a person's psychological immaturity. It shields an unrealistic self-concept based primarily on an unwillingness to recognise that the interconnectedness of all lives and natural systems includes them. They don't want to acknowledge that this means their 'freedom' impacts other people. 

Yantbomism conflates personal freedom with resistance to other people's ideas.

It turns 'looking at reality as best we can' into a moral issue, and makes a moral claim that no one has the authority to make anyone else do it. 

Yantboms demand their right not to think. 

Footnotes 

1. The 2014 survey was the only one I could find with a discussion on what self-described libertarians think in such detail. A broader comment was made more recently in 2017: 'The typology, for instance, doesn’t find a libertarian group. As was the case in 2014, the unique combination of values associated with libertarianism doesn’t coalesce in a single group. Both New Era Enterprisers and Core Conservatives express some libertarian views, but each diverges from libertarianism in important ways. For example, New Era Enterprisers are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but they are more supportive of government regulation than are other Republican-leaning groups.'
2. In fact, it’s more often ‘You aren’t the boss of me’, ‘You’re not the boss of me’ or sometimes ‘You ain’t the boss of me’, but I decided to write it out in full for the creation of the acronym.  Read it as you prefer!
3. I wish I could find a more commonly used word than agency, one that wasn’t philosophical or psychological jargon, but I can’t. It’s such an important concept: Human agency refers to the ability to shape one's life and a few dimensions can be differentiated. Individual agency is reflected in individual choices and the ability to influence one's life conditions and chances.
4. This lovely article How to Deal with a Defiant Child (And Reduce Future Defiance!) at A Fine Parent recognises that while tired parents might see ‘defiance’, it’s important to look beyond that to understand what’s happening for the child. 

Images, used under Creative Commons Licenses

• Slow down sign http://www.freefoto.com/preview/41-04-58/Slow-Down-Sign [CC BY-NC-ND]
• Quote by Frank Fernandez created by the author using text from Cuban Anarchism. The History of a Movement. 2001
• Quote by David Graeber created by the author using text from Debt: The First 5,000 Years. 2011  
• You’re not the boss of me cat: Memegenerator.net [Used under terms]
• Norma Rae Union: https://mediaproxy.salon.com/width/1200/https://media.salon.com/2014/09/norma_rae.jpg [No use terms provided]
• The Gesell Institute quote created by the author using text from Benjamin Zimmer’s blog Language Log 
•  The Ryatts cartoon from Benjamin Zimmer’s blog Language Log [no terms provided, Fair dealing]
• Quote by Peter Michaelson created by the author using text from his blog Why we Suffer  
• We will not comply and other images snipped from social media [No source]
• Ralph Waldo Emerson quote snipped from social media [No source]
• You’re not the boss of me girl on phone memegenerator.com [Used under terms]