Is there one direction in history?

I recently listened to a Free Thought podcast titled “Is There a Purpose to History?” The question at hand was historicism. I found their discussion lacking in two ways. First, they made an incorrect implication of methodological individualism. Second, they fail to consider what I think is a very strong argument for there being a direction to history.

They imply that methodological individualism means theories of group conflict are incorrect because they are not based on individual action. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy discusses this precise problem in the section on methodological individualism.

When discussing social phenomena, we often talk about various “social collectivities, such as states, associations, business corporations, foundations, as if they were individual persons”(Weber 1968, 13). Thus we talk about them having plans, performing actions, suffering losses, and so forth. The doctrine of methodological individualism does not take issue with these ordinary ways of speaking, it merely stipulates that “in sociological work these collectivities must be treated as solely the resultants and modes of organization of the particular acts of individual persons, since these alone can be treated as agents in a course of subjectively understandable action” (Weber 1968, 13).

They use the rejection of group conflict to reject Marx. While there are many reasons to reject Marx, his theory of group conflict is not one of them. First, Marx’s class theory strongly resembles libertarian class theory, only exploitation is defined by Marx as labor and by libertarians as theft.

Modern political economy has embraced, correctly in my view, class theories and class struggles as central. In their recent book, Why Nations Fail, Acemoglu and Robinson argue that the ruling elite often seek to exploit the general population through exclusive institutions. Only by creating inclusive institutions and getting rid of privileged classes of people can there be widespread economic prosperity.

(more…)

The rise of science-based faith

Science is often compared with, unfavorably or favorably depending on who you ask, religion. While religion is closed, science is open. Religion is unempirical while science seeks to understand the natural world. Religion requires faith while science requires evidence. Science is, of course, immensely important to modern life. Unfortunately, the popularization of science is undermining some of the very values which make science so useful.

Science has become a buzzword. You can buy t-shirts with the phrase “because science.” By itself, this is not objectionable. It reflects wonder at our understanding of the laws of nature which govern our existence. However, it also reflects more disturbing trends. The idea that science reveals Truths, with a capital T. Science is no longer about the process of discovery, but rather the forced acceptance of certain facts. Rejection of those facts implies anti-thesis to science.

I don’t mean to science should never be used to inform the ignorant. Vaccines are a perfect example of established science being ignored with deadly consequences. GMOs are another example. However, too often the certainty of the hard sciences is applied where no such certainty exists.

Bill Nye embodies some of the less admirable qualities of the trend. As a popularizer of science, he displays a confidence in some of his beliefs far above the degree warranted. For example, he claims it is a myth that “we give money to Africa and nothing changes.” Then he summarizes data showing that infant mortality has improved. While not technically false, he shows a basic misunderstanding of the complexity of economics. The fact that infant mortality improved as aid was being given hardly proves that aid itself improves infant mortality. Further, economists have reached a consensus that foreign aid, while able to improve lives, cannot spark economic growth.

(more…)

Sacred Harp 47b: ‘Idumea’

From the 1982 Holly Springs Sacred Harp Convention, filmed by Lomax and crew, much of which can be found here. The words are by Charles Wesley:

And am I born to die? / To lay this body down!
And must my trembling spirit fly / Into a world unknown?

A land of deepest shade, / Unpierced by human thought;
The dreary regions of the dead, / Where all things are forgot!

Soon as from earth I go, / What will become of me?
Eternal happiness or woe / Must then my portion be!

Waked by the trumpet sound, / I from my grave shall rise;
And see the Judge with glory crowned, / And see the flaming skies!

There are a lot of versions of this online, including from the “Cold Mountain” soundtrack, which somebody set to clips from Battlestar Galactica to pretty awesome effect. The one from the 2012 Irish convention is the loudest, but I already posted a video from it. Sufjan Stevens did a version on one of his Christmas albums.

The real stakes of the Asia-Pacific pivot

The most important geo-political change of the last few years is not the resurgence of Russian aggression, nor the Arab spring; it is the American pivot to East Asia. The U.S. is shifting its focus from the Middle East to contain China, strengthening regional alliances to curb Chinese attempts to expand their sphere of influence.

While much ink has been spilled over the strategy, few seem to actually understand the basic tradeoff. America can limit Chinese sphere of influence by (slightly) raising the possibility of war. We can imagine a circle around China; the larger the circle, the lower the probability of war. However, the countries inside the circle are less likely to have democracy and open markets.

Policy preferences are going to depend on the relative weights placed on the alternatives. If you believe the probability of war is slight, or you discount the cost of war, you will prefer a more aggressive containment strategy. On the other hand, if you think China will allow relatively open markets, or think the cost of war is high, you will allow China to peacefully expand.

People on both sides of the debate will deny these terms. Neocons will argue the probability of war is so close to zero it can be ignored. Noninterventionists will ignore the unfree markets that China imposes on its neighbors. However, as it is probable this tension will continue for at least a decade, it is worth understanding the tradeoffs being faced.

The limits of the center-right consensus

Every so often, David Brooks comes very close to getting it, but he’s never quite willing to take his arguments to their logical conclusion. Like back in March, he wrote that “The real power in the world is not military or political. It is the power of individuals to withdraw their consent.” Or this week:

The answer is to use Lee Kuan Yew means to achieve Jeffersonian ends — to become less democratic at the national level in order to become more democratic at the local level. At the national level, American politics has become neurotically democratic. Politicians are campaigning all the time and can scarcely think beyond the news cycle. Legislators are terrified of offending this or that industry lobby, activist group or donor faction. Unrepresentative groups have disproportionate power in primary elections.

The quickest way around all this is to use elite Simpson-Bowles-type commissions to push populist reforms.

This is an obvious contradiction, and Larison calls him out for it:

Brooks doesn’t explain how making the federal government even less responsive and accountable than it is now will improve or strengthen local government. It’s just supposed to happen. If Brooks’ idea were ever put into practice, it would likely to generate even stronger resentment of the entire political system, and it would produce a backlash against the concentration of power at the federal level.

 *****

On Tuesday evening Mark and I caught a think-tank salon double feature, starting at AEI to see Economist editors John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge talking about their new book The Fourth Revolution: The Global Race to Reinvent the State (not to be confused with Herr Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory), followed by F.H. Buckley on his new book about the “rise of crown government in America.”

In a sense the two were polar opposites of one another; in person the two Economist editors had the same eternal optimism that characterizes the magazine’s editorial voice, whereas Buckley’s talk consisted mostly of gloomy aphorisms. On a conceptual level too, though all were deeply concerned about structural deficits and entitlement sustainability, the two Brits’ contention was essentially that Reagans and Thatchers eventually come along to fix these things.

And yet, if the postwar West demonstrates anything, it’s the ability of democracies to decay resiliently. In the Q&A Mark raised the possibility that America could easily muddle on with high inflation and unemployment for years; there isn’t some sort of Reagan kill switch to flip when things get especially bad, and the exigencies of our quadrennial presidential elections mean that the right man for the job could take several cycles to come around.

They claim the challenge for the West — to “get fit,” as they put it, for a competition with Chinese authoritarian capitalism that represents a “much more profound” challenge than the Soviet Union ever did — is an existential one. They pointed, somewhat suspiciously, toward Indian PM-elect Narendra Modi’s stated desire to emulate Chinese growth, as indicating the stakes involved. Shinzo Abe is also concerned.

The trouble is that eventually social-democratic turpitude gets so bad that the inevitable reaction is too immoderate for good classical liberals like Micklethwait and Wooldridge to support — witness the Economist’s hostility to Modi. They’re also somewhat hostile to decentralization in general — during the talk, Micklethwait expressed doubts about the scalability of Singapore-style public services.

So, we seem to have reached an impasse. We are told to wait for a budget-cutting savior — somehow put in power by an electorate that gets more economically left-wing every election — at which time, pace David Brooks, a cadre of expert technocrats will balance the budget, enact populist tax reforms, and deign to grant the states some token of decentralization. Maybe they can set their own drinking ages again, or something.

Does this strike you as a wise course of action? Does it make any sense at all?

In America, what seems clear is that getting out of our social-democratic morass requires a withdrawal of consent at the state level, where political power still lies with the Republicans. The tea party seems to be coming to the conclusion that an Article V convention is the best way to accomplish that, though the devil is in the details (wording of the petitions, exactly what amendments will be up for debate, etc). For what it’s worth, here are some that have been debated; I’m much more enthusiastic about the first four than the last two:

  • Repeal the 17th Amendment to make senators accountable to their states, not parties and special interests.
  • Repeal the Apportionment Act and bring the size of Congress more in line with a country of 300 million people. If progressives object that this would be unruly, that’s simply a reason for them to meet less often.
  • An amendment to allow a majority of state legislatures to veto tax increases.
  • Some sort of repeal amendment, to make sure there is some state-level recourse for things like Obamacare, which has a somewhat dubious provenance.
  • A Niskanen/Amash-style balanced budget amendment that allows some countercyclical spending.
  • Repeal the 26th Amendment — States should be able to set their own voting ages, because screw you kids.

Micklethwait and Wooldridge suggest to today’s right-thinking progressive that today’s overburdened social democracies raise the question of, ‘what is the state for?’ In other words, what is the minimum amount of services we expect it to provide for people. This is inherently threatening to the sort of person whose answer is always ‘more’ and ‘by any means necessary.’ And in a country as notoriously moderate and deliberative as the U.K., maybe that conversation is possible, but neither American party seems interested in having it.

The Article V-ers are asking a very different, nomocratic question: How can we arrange the structure of American government to produce better outcomes in the long-run, and mitigate the short-term bias problems of democracy? I’m not sure our center-right thought leaders are quite as serious. To the extent that those in power aren’t willing to talk about this kind of structural reform, extraconstitutional means of withdrawing consent do start to become more attractive.

Some thoughts on marriage, gay marriage, and a simple proposition

I’ve often remarked, about male friends of mine with whom I share deep emotional bonds, that I would happily “gay-marry” them.  Some people take this statement for what it is: an act that, in a way that sex and reproduction only manage to celebrate, amounts to the magic of two individuals becoming one, that I and this or that friend are “like this,” just on that level.  In comparison, I’m extremely sparing with such words for any of my female friends, precisely because I respect them too much, to assume that much knowledge of our possible emotional compatibility (note for the nitpicky: this is not to imply that difference in physical sex or gender identity implies obstacles to emotional connection, but rather that the passion and mystery of romance in any form comes from the diverse inner conflicts which sex can bring to a relationship).

That said, I’m not being flip about the beauty and sanctity of a thing like gay marriage, just because I have no substantial romantic feelings for these men. I’m describing an ideal state where cohabitation is effortless, harmonious and generative, where people’s needs are compatible because they’re essentially the same,  (again, not to imply that the experience of all homosexuals is somehow a narcissistic cop-out like my own affection for my familiars, highlighting rather that these friends of mine and I have no “growing into each other” left to do).  That said, I have no experience of the very real struggles of those involved in romantic relationships which could only flourish naturally under the institution of gay marriage, legally prohibited in a shocking majority of 32 states.

There may be some who share my understanding first stated above, of the beauty and mystery preserved in the hallowed institution of Traditional Marriage, who feel altogether threatened by this kind of talk. By way of a clarification of terms, I think we can bring these opponents of gay marriage into the fold and achieve some mutual understanding. There appears to be a serious misunderstanding among some valiant defenders of Traditional Marriage, about what exactly happens when any two people who are not, strictly speaking, one man and one woman, engage in the apotheosis of mutual boundary dissolution which is so reliably facilitated by sacred cohabitation. That is to say, the experience of ritual union is completely the same. The perceived depravity of a sex act which is not reproductive is not a legitimate fear on the part of this particular brand of conservatives. It holds up to be no more than a straw man when we recognize the motivation behind this fear could not possibly be disgust. Dominion over nature implies all variety of “unnatural” modifications, however slight, to the “natural order” of which human sexual reproduction makes a comparatively small part. Not only then, do reproductive choices on the part of humans fall effectively outside of the umbrella of the evaluation of “nature” and its “order” distinct from society (a distinction fondly maintained by this same line of thinking), but when we see the natural occurrence of homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom, the entire pretense to an essential, natural-moral disgust which runs any deeper than a fear which must be socially ingrained, falls apart completely.

The problem, as I see it, lies elsewhere, and has its origins in a fundamental misunderstanding. There is the spiritual union which occurs between two individuals, and the biological. The sex act is a physical image, of an essential merging which takes place outside of space and time. By the same token, the production of another human organism, a miracle of nature as it may be, is still a miracle of nature, the most elaborate allegory in the entire created universe for what is produced, on a spiritual plane, when two individuals come together. Moreover, neither physical image, when mechanically reproduced, is a guarantee of these special effects. When these effects do occur, they can result in (appear to the slow-witted, to stem from) prolonged physical contact and mutual stimulation; forms of ritual union, however, exist as a social sanctuary for individuals who are compelled, through a constant recapitulation of these genuine spiritual connections, to pursue their physical expressions to their logical conclusion.

The institution of Traditional Marriage, writ large, is defined by the loudest and therefore unsurpassed participants in the conversation today, as the union between one man and one woman. Radical proponents of this definition, however, have come under the impression that the mechanical reproduction of past instances which served as evidence of spiritual unity are not only necessary, but sufficient to bring about that unity. They see the institution of Traditional Marriage as the sole bastion and refuge of the secret to human happiness and inner freedom available to more than one person at once, in danger of contamination and being lost to history. There is a way in which they are mistaken, and a sense in which they are entirely correct. My reasoning follows:

  • Spiritual unification of at least two individuals is not only possible and desirable, but a moral imperative
  • Myriad forms of ritual practice have served to facilitate this throughout human history.
  • Fear threatens to tear people up on the inside; social institutions arise to ensure that it does so mostly on the outside; all to often, they tend to separate people from one another in the misguided fear of forcing an individual to face fear themselves (to recognize as only a threat, and nothing more without an individual’s participation in it).
  • The institution of Traditional Marriage has evolved around a complex historical network of socially ingrained fears in a valiant attempt to project them back into society, out of the fear that they may ultimately make unity  impossible (again conceiving individuals as non-agents on a double level, first assuming their inherent total susceptibility to fear, while also summarily attributing their spiritual unity to heterosexual reproductive union in faux-causal succession).
  • The institution of gay marriage, which some argue to be an offshoot of Christian monastic orders, (and unthinkably efficient when held to the standard of other esoteric orders, having survived and perhaps thrived, prior to our modern knowledge of its existence, perhaps in excess of a millennium in total secrecy, at least to the historical record) co-evolved with the institution of marriage as a fundamentally heterogeneous set of practices of spiritual unification in direct response to what certain individuals perceived to be unhealthy fixation on heterosexual reproduction becoming increasingly inhospitable to their existence as a category comprising one-tenth of the human population.

So we see, that the institution of marriage does not function in any exclusive way to facilitate the spiritual fulfillment of more than one person at a time. It exists precisely in distinction from other forms of union to allay the fears of individuals, who perceive those other forms of union as a threat.

Now this is all very complex stuff, so any radical camps in the debate, whether they want to destroy this last lifeline for the above-mentioned small populations of neurotics, or are just such neurotics, should be forgiven for any misunderstandings that have come about in our collective attempt to hash all this out. That said, I also think I may just be able to proffer up a few words that will clarify this whole matter once and for all.

The institution of Traditional Marriage exists first to preserve the happiness of a few very frightened individuals by strictly defining the terms by which, second, it helps certain individuals (certainly the ones with heavily preconceived notions about how such a thing is possible) become one. The institution of gay marriage exists as a completely separate institution to accommodate individuals excluded from the institution of Traditional Marriage. Much in the same fashion as Narcotics Anonymous was founded upon Alcoholics Anonymous’ core principles and 12 Steps due to the social unacceptability of heroin use compared to that of alcohol, gay marriage exists as completely distinct from marriage (depending on one’s acceptance of the exclusive truth claims of AA or marriage enthusiasts, this analogy holds varying amounts of water); though serving a similar purpose, and modeled upon Marriage, it serves a group of individuals whose identities do not revolve around the rejection of lifestyles unlike their own, and thus should be afforded equal dignity under the law and in public opinion.

As a point of clarification, this post originated as an attempt to explain to some raised eyebrows my repeated use of the verb “Gay-marry” (as opposed to just marry) to describe what I could totally do to Gabe. There’s no intolerance on my part in insisting that the distinction from Traditional Marriage be preserved; it is firmly my belief that, for the sake of clarity, any ritual union seeking, under ethically legitimate pretense, legal privilege, which does not befall one man and one woman, be heretofore referred to correctly as gay marriage. It is a separate institution of equal stature with equal dignity and equal promise to enrich the lives of a group of individuals who, as long as the institution of Traditional Marriage continues to retain political clout like a swollen joint, will be tragically perceived in however limited, conditional, or even empathetic public aspect, as separate from society.