For readers who have not kept up with this blog of late, it
is presently reviewing a foundational construct offered by the conservative
writer, Jonah Goldberg.[1] That construct includes an explanation of the
creation of the Miracle – the economic upheaval that has resulted in the world’s
economic boom of the last, nearly three hundred years.
The last posting shared Goldberg’s
view of the pre-1700s’ ideas that governments used to justify their positions
of power. Basically, the justifications
were rationalizations that placed veneers over exploitive relationships between
governmental leadership (and the upper class it represented) and the rest of
the population that commonly lived in poverty.
But at some
basic level, this arrangement reflected the natural dispositions of
people. Natural humans are not
democratic people, nor are they law-abiding people – so Goldberg claims and
with which this writer tends to agree.
Taking natural “man/woman” to his/her nature, when he/she wants
something that someone else has, he/she will simply take it. How?
Usually by force, trickery, or some other underhanded strategy. This has several negative consequences.
One, it
creates losers. The basic act of stealing
has a win-lose outcome. For every
winner, there is a loser. Two, along
with a natural motivation to steal, there is a natural sense of being treated
unjustly when one is victimized – a loss, in this way, causes anger in that it
offends one’s natural sense of dignity, not to mention one’s viability. This is, in the words of the Declaration
of Independence, an un(in)alienable right in the natural state of
being.
At some level, humans must be
convinced an element of justice is involved with such a theft or he/she will probably
want some revenge. When the theft, left
unjustified, is the result of governmental policy, this is not the formula for
domestic peace. And domestic upheaval has
no positive results for either the general population or the dominant class, it
only leads to more repressive policies.
The only apparent solution is a
rationalization. And up to 1700s, most
successful governmental arrangements hit upon an explanation – a
rationalization – for the political or exploitive arrangement that was in place
and that made sense to people. In
Europe, that was the “natural rights of kings” explanation that, in turn, had
the advantage of being derived from the theology of Christianity, especially
that of the Roman Catholic Church.
That church instituted and maintained
a hierarchal structure which lent itself to supporting such a structure for
governmental rule. It promoted the idea
that what happens on earth reflects what God wants. If so and so family held unto the monarchy,
the local noble-ship, etc., then that is what God wanted. The Protestant Reformation, which began in
the sixteenth century, undermined this basic rationalization.
While a lot of the Reformation’s
motivating steam emanated from nationalistic fervor (a tribalistic emotion),
its effect shifted the focus toward the individual. Relatively, all of sudden, the individual was
to determine for him/herself what God had in mind. He/she was to read the Bible for him/herself
and interpret God’s intent (a practice practically forbidden by the Catholic
Church). The change caused serious
reevaluation of the ongoing rationalization.
It encouraged the populous toward questioning its explanation.
A newer rationalization was forming
and taking hold. Goldberg points out that
the newer construct emerging from this environment was liberalism. Not left of center, political liberalism, but
philosophic liberalism that promoted liberty, consent of the governed, and
equality before the law. In an extreme
form, this view can be what this blog has called the natural rights construct. Goldberg associates this newer view with the
writings of John Locke.
Economically, one can see the natural,
intellectual product of such thinking; that being capitalism. They – liberalism and capitalism – while one can
speak of them separately, are “joined at the hip” – one, liberalism, offers the
rationalization and the other, capitalism, has produced the wealth that
sustains the rationalization’s legitimacy.
Together, they – these ideas and adjoining
practices – created the Miracle. But one
should not lose sight, while this rationalization reflects the natural human,
in that it caters to one’s sense of self-importance, its demands – demanding
that one lives by rules and laws – are unnatural. Individuals need to be convinced of their
value.
Aha, the role for civics education is
revealed. That education, be it done by
parents, churches, other civic institutions, and/or by school systems, needs to
be instilled among the youth, for this rationalization to work. Those students need to accept its prudence
and ultimate value to the individual, to his/her family, to his/her tribe, or to
his/her neck of the woods.
Before moving on, Goldberg points out
another institution – that of money. The
invention of money allowed for efficient trade.
It joined the interests of those who otherwise have nothing to
share. It allows exchange between those
who would otherwise be antagonistic. It
lubricates a sense of “us” beyond what would naturally be its extent. It also sets up a win-win system of
exchange. Money allows a global
definition of common interest. These are
no small accomplishments.
And this leads to one more element,
the bourgeois revolution that further undermined the hierarchical model of
governance. That revolution reflected
the move toward individualism and furthered it.
It meant that the businessperson taking into his/her own hands, his/her own
fate. Putting at stake hard earned
capital and investing – gambling – it to seek profits, the individual put
him/herself in charge of his/her future – heady stuff.
Goldberg writes, “Capitalism is the
most cooperative system ever created for the peaceful improvement of peoples’
lives. It has only a single flaw: It doesn’t feel like it.”[2] It
feels like people are on their own and responsible especially if the outcome is
success. It helps generate a newer
rationalization, but that rationalization lacks important elements. For one, it lacks total truth – all
rationalizations do – but it also lacks an element most rationalizations have
and that is essential to its broader acceptance; it lacks a story.
This blog will soon criticize (pointing
out its strengths and weaknesses) Goldberg’s foundational construct, but for
now, a summary is in order. What seems
most important in his view includes:
·
one,
that humans by nature are selfish beings who naturally feel they are meant to
just take what they want;
·
two,
this initial bias is limited slightly by a “coalition instinct” that encourages
feelings of loyalty and being disposed to reciprocal arrangements but only with
people like themselves – members of their tribe;
·
three,
that by the 1700, Western European nations had been introduced to developments
that encouraged individualism such as the popularity of liberalism, capitalist
economic processes, and accompanying accumulation of property;
·
four,
the development of modern systems of money provided efficiencies to trade; and
·
five,
the scientific revolution, within the context of the Enlightenment, undermined
supernaturalism, what many began to consider superstitious beliefs.
To allow for humans to take advantage of the efficiencies
that broader social landscapes offer in conducting trade – going beyond the
tribe or redefining the tribe to include more peoples – humans needed to be
taught how and why one should be more inclusive.
This is a primary function that
civics education needs to fulfill for a society to advance and be
peaceful. Next posting will further
explain Goldberg’s treatment of the concept, tribalism, and set the blog toward
being able to evaluate his construct.
No comments:
Post a Comment