A while back I introduced the idea of the Double Revolution of the modern era. In my view this is a revolution in physics, from the mechanical model of the Newtonian era to the uncertainty model of the quantum era, and a revolution in economics from the mechanical supervisory model of the feudal era to the emergent price-driven economy of the post-industrial revolution.
And I said that, inevitably, there arose a reactionary movement opposing the Double Revolution, what we call the left. I called out the communist-socialist reaction as the example of this.
But this morning I was re-reading Jonathan Haidt on the current political divisions, his "Age of Outrage" in which he worries about the outrage culture on campus, and I clarified my thinking.
The reaction against the economic part of the Double Revolution comes in two flavors. The first is what I call "activism," a faith in politics as a form of salvation. This reactionary movement is best seen as neo-tribalism, as it uses the unconscious drives of the tribe against the threat of the Other to motivate and to inspire. The second is the hierarchical practice of the administrative state, the rule by educated expert and administrative bureaucracy which has precipitated into the modern welfare state. I consider this part of the reactionary movement to be a neo-feudalism.
There is nothing scandalous, nothing monstrous about this movement of reaction. It is what you would expect to happen in response to the utterly transformative Double Revolution in its economic manifestation. This is confirmed by the developmental psychologists and their epigones like the New Age philosopher Ken Wilber. When people are frightened and disoriented by trials and setbacks while living the higher levels of consciousness they turn to the tried and true of the old, lower, levels of consciousness. That is why Hitler was able to appeal to the German people, the most advanced country in the world but frightened by the post-World War I convulsions and failures, with a program of blood and soil.
Yes, of course the reactionary movement of "activism" appeals to tribalism. We are, as Jonathan Haidt writes, profoundly tribal.
The problem is that over the last 150 years the left has marched through the institutions and taught every Good Little Boy and Good Little Girl that "activism" is the highest way of life, so even though almost every Good Little Boy and Good Little Girl is really not cut out to be a Social Justice Warrior, everyone of them has a yearning to "get into activism."
I wrote a week or so ago in "Militarism vs. Activism: Ruling Class Culture Then and Now" that I thought that "activism" was just as harmful a culture as the "militarism" culture that led the leaders of 1914 into World War I. Too many people now are instinctive "activists" and don't really understand the awful consequences, just as too many people in 1914 were instinctive "militarists" and really did not understand the consequences.
Somehow, some way, some day we are going to have to lance the boil of modern "activism."
The other reactionary movement is the neo-feudalism of the welfare state and the administrative state. It is telling that in The Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels prophesied that capitalism would rehearse the subjection of peasant to lord with the subjection of proletarian to bourgeois capitalist. Only that is not what happened, because subordinate peasants and serfs were not particularly useful to the capitalists. They found that they needed responsible, resourceful employees not dumb-as-dirt peasants and slaves.
I am trying to think of a single word to describe the neo-feudalism movement, but it hasn't come yet. Serfism, subordinism, administratism, expertism, manorialism, patronism? I can't figure it out yet, but I will.
While the "activism" culture organizes humans into a permanent war of all against all, just like the old "militarism" of the dynastic monarchs and the tribalism of the hunter-gatherers, the neo-feudalism puts people into a permanent subjection to an administrative system that has significant powers over their lives but is usually unable to adjust to changing conditions. In other words, it promises security and safety but in fact cannot deliver them, because security and safety can only be delivered by reacting to dangers and threats, and the bureaucratic welfare state cannot do that, not until it is too late.
It is remarkable, but the model for how things ought to be in society are present daily in the life of the human body. Some of the larger, cruder things are directed by the brain and the central nervous system, but the moment-to-moment, day-to-day life of the body is conducted cell by cell in exquisite instinctive individual responses by each individual cell to the overall needs of the body according to chemical codes and operations that we barely understand.
That is what the modern economy and society asks of us: to respond to the prompts of prices of goods and the needs of other people that we can serve, each of us individually and without the clunking fist of some political or economic overlord telling us what to do and when, or the rage of tribalism inspiring us to fight to the last man against the hated Other.
And I said that, inevitably, there arose a reactionary movement opposing the Double Revolution, what we call the left. I called out the communist-socialist reaction as the example of this.
But this morning I was re-reading Jonathan Haidt on the current political divisions, his "Age of Outrage" in which he worries about the outrage culture on campus, and I clarified my thinking.
The reaction against the economic part of the Double Revolution comes in two flavors. The first is what I call "activism," a faith in politics as a form of salvation. This reactionary movement is best seen as neo-tribalism, as it uses the unconscious drives of the tribe against the threat of the Other to motivate and to inspire. The second is the hierarchical practice of the administrative state, the rule by educated expert and administrative bureaucracy which has precipitated into the modern welfare state. I consider this part of the reactionary movement to be a neo-feudalism.
There is nothing scandalous, nothing monstrous about this movement of reaction. It is what you would expect to happen in response to the utterly transformative Double Revolution in its economic manifestation. This is confirmed by the developmental psychologists and their epigones like the New Age philosopher Ken Wilber. When people are frightened and disoriented by trials and setbacks while living the higher levels of consciousness they turn to the tried and true of the old, lower, levels of consciousness. That is why Hitler was able to appeal to the German people, the most advanced country in the world but frightened by the post-World War I convulsions and failures, with a program of blood and soil.
Yes, of course the reactionary movement of "activism" appeals to tribalism. We are, as Jonathan Haidt writes, profoundly tribal.
We are exquisitely designed and adapted by evolution for life in small societies with intense, animistic religion and violent intergroup conflict over territory. We love tribal living so much that we invented sports, fraternities, street gangs, fan clubs, and tattoos. Tribalism is in our hearts and minds.Anyone that wants to bring humans together in any enterprise or project is going to appeal to their tribalism, for good or ill. The problem with tribalism is that it is designed to raise consciousness for the inevitable conflict with the neighboring tribe, for death or glory, and this is very seldom required in the modern economy and society where the fundamental requirement is for people to submit to the notion that they are obtaining their livelihood by serving others, not fighting others. The fight, if there is one, is between different businesses to see which one will win in the fight to serve the consumer.
The problem is that over the last 150 years the left has marched through the institutions and taught every Good Little Boy and Good Little Girl that "activism" is the highest way of life, so even though almost every Good Little Boy and Good Little Girl is really not cut out to be a Social Justice Warrior, everyone of them has a yearning to "get into activism."
I wrote a week or so ago in "Militarism vs. Activism: Ruling Class Culture Then and Now" that I thought that "activism" was just as harmful a culture as the "militarism" culture that led the leaders of 1914 into World War I. Too many people now are instinctive "activists" and don't really understand the awful consequences, just as too many people in 1914 were instinctive "militarists" and really did not understand the consequences.
Somehow, some way, some day we are going to have to lance the boil of modern "activism."
The other reactionary movement is the neo-feudalism of the welfare state and the administrative state. It is telling that in The Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels prophesied that capitalism would rehearse the subjection of peasant to lord with the subjection of proletarian to bourgeois capitalist. Only that is not what happened, because subordinate peasants and serfs were not particularly useful to the capitalists. They found that they needed responsible, resourceful employees not dumb-as-dirt peasants and slaves.
I am trying to think of a single word to describe the neo-feudalism movement, but it hasn't come yet. Serfism, subordinism, administratism, expertism, manorialism, patronism? I can't figure it out yet, but I will.
While the "activism" culture organizes humans into a permanent war of all against all, just like the old "militarism" of the dynastic monarchs and the tribalism of the hunter-gatherers, the neo-feudalism puts people into a permanent subjection to an administrative system that has significant powers over their lives but is usually unable to adjust to changing conditions. In other words, it promises security and safety but in fact cannot deliver them, because security and safety can only be delivered by reacting to dangers and threats, and the bureaucratic welfare state cannot do that, not until it is too late.
It is remarkable, but the model for how things ought to be in society are present daily in the life of the human body. Some of the larger, cruder things are directed by the brain and the central nervous system, but the moment-to-moment, day-to-day life of the body is conducted cell by cell in exquisite instinctive individual responses by each individual cell to the overall needs of the body according to chemical codes and operations that we barely understand.
That is what the modern economy and society asks of us: to respond to the prompts of prices of goods and the needs of other people that we can serve, each of us individually and without the clunking fist of some political or economic overlord telling us what to do and when, or the rage of tribalism inspiring us to fight to the last man against the hated Other.
No comments:
Post a Comment