cum hoc ergo propter hoc

I've been considering working these words into a tattoo for about a year now. Cum Hoc and Post Hoc are logical fallacies of causation: roughly, that correlation suggests or constitutes causation. There are philosophers that go so far as to argue that causation itself is a logical fallacy, based on our unproved assumption that the future models the past. I don't know if I'd go that far, but I find deep questioning of our collective reliance on causal thinking appealing. Causation allows us to wrap things up neatly, to feel we understand how the world works, to believe negative outcomes can be easily fixed or avoided.

This is especially damaging when dealing with issues of privilege. In a thousand small ways, we harbor the belief that good things happen to good people, and conversely, that those who suffer brought it on themselves. This allows for an enormous degree of indifference and cruelty, especially toward the poor, the sick and disabled, the fat... any group in which membership should be morally neutral, attributed to chance and circumstance, rather than some underlying moral turpitude.

One of the major arts in education groups here in New York released results from a study that found a strong correlation between arts education and increased high school graduation rates. I think most readers would find this utterly unsurprising. The surprising part was that, despite presenting absolutely no evidence of a causal link, this group made recommendations to increase arts funding in order to increase graduation rates.

Why might schools with good arts programs have high graduation rates? Because they are better funded. Because they have a better staff to student ratio. Because parents who have time and energy to advocate for arts are likely to be operating with a high level of privilege across many categories, and have more time to support their children's education. You know what? I might even believe that arts programs act as incentives to come to school, and allow challenged students to shine, helping them stick it out through graduation. But the survey didn't prove it.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could correct our utter failure of an education system by throwing a few million dollars at the arts? Wouldn't that fit right in with our liberal priorities, our notions of well-rounded education? It's certainly more convenient than addressing the massive economic and power imbalances in public school education. It's easier than tackling poverty.

This is still just a jumble of thoughts, I guess. I just wonder if there's an underlying theme here, some sort of connection between causal thinking and privilege that I'm not yet capable of articulating. I do know that it helps me to think reasonably when I'm asking big questions about why bad things happen. The answer is always multi-faceted, always bigger than a simple trigger and heap. To ignore confounding factors, systemic inequality and plain old chance is to enforce dangerous notions of Personal Accountability as the ultimate truth. Maybe: To think progressively is to challenge convenient notions of causation.