A couple of interesting articles this Sunday: One is an interview of Francis Fukuyama by Andrew Coyne and the other is a piece by Daniel Hannan. Both speak to a theme I have been picking up on, that the current malaise is tied to the loss of understanding of the importance of the Reformation and the subsequent Enlightenment. Personally I believe that is in large part due to the tendency of the Enlightened to be desirous of demonstrating their Tolerance by not criticizing those unfortunate enough to have not had the benefit of growing up in Enlightened Nations. Now we are back to where we started, believing that there are Truths that define our Liberal religion and not understanding that the Enlightenment was the explicit rejection of the existence of Truths.
Daniel Hannan:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2018/09/15/protected-challenged-students-have-turned-backs-enlightenment/.....We are turning our backs on the central idea of the Enlightenment. Over the past four centuries, at least in the West, we have absorbed a set of precepts that do not come naturally. We have taught ourselves that someone can disagree with us without being wicked; that people whose ways seem strange might yet possess wisdom; that we don’t know everything, and that listening to new ideas broadens our understanding.
This last idea – the recognition of our ignorance – is the foundation of modern science. For thousands of years, our ancestors believed that all truth was contained somewhere, usually in a sacred book. Only very recently have we reached the view that letting different ideas jostle is the best way to improve our knowledge.
In 1644, John Milton advanced a revolutionary argument: “A man may be a heretic in the truth, and if he believe things only because his pastor says so, or the assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.”
Milton would immediately have recognised what is happening in our leading universities. Certain ideas are sacralised, lifted out of the field of rational enquiry. Four hundred years ago, heresy meant challenging the teaching of the Church. Today, it means questioning the received dogmas on diversity and equality.
(Edit- And, I would argue, heresy applies equally in modern science with the demand for theories to be "settled".)
We are abandoning the empiricism and tolerance that underpin the Enlightenment, and returning to the older notion of judging an idea on the basis of whether the speaker is from our own tribe – though “tribe” is now defined by political and cultural affinities.
Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne:
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/victims-virtues-and-the-fight-for-liberal-democracy-andrew-coyne-in-conversation-with-francis-fukuyamaAndrew Coyne: The core insight of your book is that the identity politics of the left, the populist nationalism of the right, Islamism, even Trump himself, all are driven by a demand for dignity, a demand for recognition and respect. But why are all of these happening now?
Francis Fukuyama: I think these movements have been triggered by economic developments, globalization. This neo-liberal period of increasing flows of goods, services, trade, investment, has benefited a small number of people but left quite a few behind. But it’s not just de-industrialization and offshoring of jobs — I think it’s also the physical movement of people, really extraordinary levels of foreign-born people moving into Western Europe and the United States. I think a combination of the insecurity caused by economic disruption plus rather rapid cultural change is what’s triggered the demand for recognition. And that was there to be exploited by opportunistic politicians.
..... Fukuyama: identity politics can also lead to a kind of fragmentation, a challenge to some pretty basic Enlightenment values of the universality of human rights, of the individual as the building block of society.
It can. Here’s a concrete example: Martin Luther King basically said, “Black people are just like white people. We want the same rights. We don’t want anything special. We just want to be treated as Americans are supposed to be treated.” But in certain interpretations of the black power movement, that shifted over into saying, “No, actually black people are not just like white people. We have our own culture, we have our own values. We have a separate way of living. And that’s what we want to have respected.” Then it gets translated to a lot of different groups. The problem is that a lot of those groups are defined by biology, or characteristics you’re born with and you don’t have very much choice over — like the religion that you grew up in. So in a certain sense, that returns us to this pre-liberal notion that we’re actually all different from each other in fundamental ways.
Coyne: I’m struck by how often what’s called “diversity” is, on closer inspection, more about emphasizing the sameness of individuals within a group, about conformity.
Fukuyama: This is another problem with certain interpretations of identity politics. Where you say that, because you’re born into a certain group that experience then determines what you’re going to think about politics, about culture, about a whole range of things. That’s a misunderstanding about how people are, they are actually capable of rising above these given identities and thinking for themselves.
Coyne: You place a fairly heavy premium on the idea of rebuilding national identity. But you are referring to a particular type of national identity — what we often call civic nationalism, versus ethnic or cultural nationalism.
Fukuyama: Right. In Europe, you have a number of countries that define citizenship in ethnic terms. I don’t think that’s an acceptable way for a de facto multicultural society to think of itself. You need an identity that is not based on ethnicity, not based on religion, but is based on shared political values. So in the United States, this is a belief in the constitution, a belief in the rule of law, a belief in the principle of human equality. You’ve got to get that civic understanding of nationalism. (Edit - Values are beliefs - so shared political values are shared political beliefs - Party replaces Church - Politics becomes Religion - Funnily enough Religion became Politics)
Coyne: And yet you say that’s not enough (civic nationalism) , there’s got to be something more. What is the more you think is needed?
Fukuyama: I think the thicker cultures are, the more binding they are. So I think that there are other kinds of positive virtues that you need to cultivate. A sense of civic obligation, for example, which is why I’m in favor of something like national service — this idea that, as a citizen of a democratic society, you’re not just a rights bearer that is constantly getting stuff from the government, you’re also somebody that actively has to contribute.
Coyne: How do you manage the trick of of cultivating this kind of nationalism but not becoming exclusionary, or unwilling to cooperate with other countries — especially as so many of the issues we face are global.
Fukuyama: International cooperation still has to be based on nations. The nation still provides this one characteristic that is not shared by either sub-national or supranational organizations, which is that it can legitimately use force to uphold laws, to protect citizens. So it’s very important to hold on to that. But that doesn’t mean that nations can’t voluntarily cooperate with one another. In fact, the global economy wouldn’t work if it didn’t have this whole layer of all sorts of international agreements and organizations. I don’t think you have to give up vital aspects of sovereignty to deal with the kinds of problems created by globalization.
International: Between nations. You can't have international cooperation without nations.
Ultimately the discussion can be boiled down the issue of coercion.
The lazy man's solution to a problem is to efficiently impose a solution: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The efficient bureaucrat evaluating and deciding ability and need.
The liberal solution is to let the solution rise to the surface organically: The individual determines his own abilities and needs and acts accordingly. And that chaos frightens the heck out of the clerically inclined. It is not just that they might see themselves as being unnecessary. It is that the prospect of chaos is frightening.
Two cultures: one defined by the precise geometry of the Acropolis, the other defined by the fire and ice of Ragnarok.
Navy.ca Forums
MilPoints FAQ
