Social Theory and Ideologies
lately, i've been having a discussion with someone online about social theory, millenialism, and a variety of other topics. recently, he equated (perhaps sloppily) democracy with bureaucracy, and my response was something that i wanted to put here for comment:
( Read more... )
( Read more... )
Hear, hear. While I admittedly fall prey to the occasional meme, it's (I hope) drowned in comparison to actual content. Hurrah for informed scholarly intellectual posts.
Regarding the social contract, as it were -- I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "it is not democracy, in itself, which is damaged by human nature, but the social impulse itself". Are you asserting that humans are both social and antisocial, or just that human nature, while social, is also profoundly self-interested, and that this plays a major role in influencing social interactions?
I agree that bureaucracy is not equivalent to democracy -- look at Imperial China for a great example of that. That may be (AFAIK) the longest-lived example of an extant bureaucracy, and was in no way shape or form democratic. (It's also not European, but hey.)
Where did you get the ancient Northern European theories of justice from? I may not have come across that, and it sounds really interesting. Weregild/Eric, or something else?
I sort of agree regarding modern Libertarianism. I like much of the ideology (small government, non-interference in many personal issues, separation of church and state by default), but there are many cases where you just need one bastard to screw something up for everyone (environmental issues, for example), and Libertarianism is often too permissive towards that bastard. Also, I am nowhere near as married to capitalism and property rights as most Libertarians. That factors into their ideology hugely, and creates an inherent tension with more collectivist approaches.
Reply
this option. that is one of those things that probably would have been caught in a re-write. also, this is an excellent formulation of the idea. would you mind if i appropriate it should i ever re-write this article?
northern European ideas of Justice include some fairly radical concepts that we take for granted. the idea, for instance, that social punishments exist for more reason than to enforce the rights of the powerful or to maintain social order - the idea that social punishment can serve to rectify social imbalance. so, yes, weregild is one example, but the basic theory behind many northern European legal systems is fairly unique in general. it seems as though much of that theory is being slowly lost in a trend toward a philosophy more resembling Chinese Legalism, but it is still held by many to be nearly axiomatic.
when i was younger, i was a fairly staunch Libertarian, and i still retain some of those ideals. however, i have come to realize that the purpose of a society is not to reward the powerful with more power, but to minimize the ability of the powerful to prey on those with less power. environmentalism is indeed one excellent example of a situation in which the Libertarian ideals are sorely lacking in value. i suppose i am just no longer able to believe in a simple ideology (and Libertarianism is simple in essence: "there is nothing more important than freedom").
the thing about Capitalism that bothers me is that there are no widely disseminated free-market economic structures that are not Capitalism. many people seem to accept Capitalism as the best option simply because they like the idea of a free-market system, but can't imagine that there may be alternatives to the rule of Capital. the Social Credit economy, for instance, is one option that has been presented, or the ideas of Milton Friedman.
but now i am leaving the original mandate of this article, and discussing economics, which, while closely related, is not the same as social structuring.
Reply
I agree that incredibly reductionist ideologies often fail to correctly guide one's encounters with a complex world. You dust me in economics, though -- that's one of my personal weaknesses, and something I've been working on. (Breadwinner with loose grasp on money bad. Fiscally responsible breadwinner good.)
Reply
===Have you looked at What Would Jefferson Do? : A Return to Democracy? It connects well to all this...
Reply
what do you think of the idea presented - basically, that a dynamic of Progressive and Conservative ideologies is better than any competing alternative, most of which can best be described as a breakdown of civilization?
Reply
===I think all properly functioning cultures have an experimental, exploring side and a a refining, cautious side. (Case in point, I do not think that we right now have a "conservative" side right now..."both" main groups are rather progressive in a direction that does not speak of refinement and actual tradition. They are both far more interpretive than "conserving", if we are looking at actual cultural practice..)
===(And yes, I realize I may be nit-picking terminology here...I tend to have a bit of a hyperlinked association with words.)
Reply
i mean, i'd hardly disqualify "Liberal" or "Democratic" simply because the Japanese Liberal Democratic party doesn't much resemble either concept.
my argument is precisely that of the first sentence of your second paragraph, that precisely that dialectic is the sign of a society which has not collapsed from whatever it is, something we might profitably term "civilization", or as you say, "properly functioning".
however, i'd disagree with your statement that we (i assume that you mean either the US specifically or Western Enlightenment Culture in general, either will do) don't have a Conservative side. it is precisely the bureaucracies which do the bulk of running our Western societies which acts as the Conservative element in the dialectic, while the ideological politics which drive the imaginations of the populace represent the Progressive element (whatever the specifics of those ideologies). however, we are in danger of losing that proper functioning, as some of the ideologies have been attempting to destroy that Conserving element - it's mostly "small-government" ideologies which tend to attack bureaucratics, but the tendency exists in other ideologies, as well.
Reply
Leave a comment