Wisdom of the Capybara

This guardian article is making the rounds in the blogosphere:

If you look at history, you can see that there is essentially a blueprint for turning an open society into a dictatorship. That blueprint has been used again and again in more and less bloody, more and less terrifying ways. But it is always effective. It is very difficult and arduous to create and sustain a democracy – but history shows that closing one down is much simpler. You simply have to be willing to take the 10 steps.

As difficult as this is to contemplate, it is clear, if you are willing to look, that each of these 10 steps has already been initiated today in the United States by the Bush administration.

Intrigued? Read on.

I will admit that it is sort of scary that I don’t think the argument in this article is completely absurd. That said, I do have some problems with many of the points it makes.

First, as a related side note, the left seems to have two mutually contradictory narratives going about our president that I have always found perplexing. He is simultaneously characterized as a:

1) Megalomaniacal fascist bent on destroying our freedoms.
2) Incompetent imbecile.

I don’t really see how he can be both, though sometimes libs try to patch over this difference by arguing that Bush is an idiot, and Cheney is the evil genius pulling the strings. Of the two variants, I think there is more truth to #2.

To preempt potential straw men in the discussion thread, I am no “Bushie,” and I definitely think that the systematic erosion of many of our basic freedoms are not even close to worth the supposed boost in security. That doesn’t mean I think arguments like those in the Guardian article really hold water though.

For instance:

Private mercenary companies (e.g., Blackwater) = fascist brown shirts? Um, okay. Not positively ridiculous, but still a pretty big stretch.

Guantanamo = gulag? Guantanamo is a stupid idea for a whole host of reasons, but this equation ignores a lot of the legitimately difficult questions on how to classify enemy combatants that do not fit nicely into traditional categories.

Some of the other points are a bit more defensible, in my opinion. For instance, I was actually pretty shocked to hear about some of the arrests made by the NYPD in the lead up to the Republican National Convention.

In short, I think the article is alarmist and ultimately wrong in its assertions. That said, I think it is alway good to have articles like this reminding people of how easily democracies can descend into despotism… I just don’t think that is what is happening in America. Otherwise, why would most sober pundits be predicting a Democratic victory in ‘08, and why would Dictator Bush (or Devil Cheney, or whoever) have allowed a Democratic congressional landside this past year?

Imagine my surprise when I discovered there were legitimate historical reasons for the term “no good surrender monkeys.” I always thought it was just a stereotype.

The history of European Resistance movements is largely mythological, since (except to some extent in Germany itself) the legitimacy of post-war regimes and governments essentially rested on their Resistance record. France is the extreme case, because there the governments after Liberation lacked all real continuity with the French government of 1940, which had made peace and cooperated with the Germans, and because organized, let alone armed, resistance had been rather weak, and at any rate until 1944, and popular support for it had been patchy. Post-war France was rebuilt by General de Gaulle on the basis of the myth that, essentially, the eternal France had never accepted defeat.

- Hobsbawm, Age of Extremes

Elsewhere in the book France’s collapse is described as “ridiculously” fast, almost fatalistic.

I think it’s still okay to like Segolene Royal though…

Steven Colbert on Segolene Royal:

I’d like to control her means of production.

That’s right ladies, you can vote for John Edwards, we can vote for Royal, and we can have one big happy red hot communist revolution. And then no subsequent voting as the proletariat assumes dictatorship.

Empathy for working class mounting… must kill bourgeoisie…

Like many young professional women, I struggle (e.g. have anxiety attacks) with even the idea of trying to balance a career with a family. Thankfully, I have many years before I have to actually worry about this in practice, but it’s already in the back of my mind when I’m planning out my next steps and educational plans. So in light of that, you can imagine my shock at the Norwegian approach to balancing work, life and motherhood: a mandatory month of paternity leave and a full year of government-funded maternity leave, with the option of splitting it with the father. The only condition? That you legally work in Norway for the preceding 6 months. (And luckily for me, my job prospects here have just shot up dramatically with significant new government funding for global immunization research…)

But aside from my personal relocation preferences, I think that this also raises a more philosophical question about how pregnancy relates to job options, salary differentials and prospects for career advancement. From an employer’s perspective in the US, a woman in her thirties is a much riskier and more expensive job candidate than a man of the same age – so why shouldn’t he be compensated accordingly? That sort of overt gender discrimination is (thankfully!) on the decline, but working mothers are still at a disadvantage when it comes to promotions in competitive fields that demand 60+ hour work weeks; and those who try to take a few years off – or “off-ramp” as I hear it’s being called these days – find it quite difficult to even just pick up where they left off if and when they do eventually rejoin the workforce (while in the meantime their male colleagues have jumped ahead through several promotions). So within this context of maternity as a driver of gender inequality, what role – if any – should the government take on to level the playing field? What are the potential impacts of different maternity policies on national employment rates and economic growth? Would resulting increases in short-term fertility rates and the long-term labor supply (which are on the decline in much of Europe) offset the costs of generous maternity policies by supporting the over-burdened social security systems in countries with aging populations? Or is it simply a women’s rights issue, economics be damned?

And Capy, how do you feel about seafood, skiing, and fjords?

Apparently the South Korean ambassador to America as well as a US senator of Korean origin are apologizing and showing remorse for the Virginia Tech shootings. Coming Anarchy and the Marmot’s Hole have the details.

Should ethnic groups feel guilt for atrocities committed by others within their ethnicity? I think the obvious answer is pretty much the Marmot’s: “What the hell are you apologizing for?”

That said, what about atrocities on a much grander scale that certain parts of society are still reaping the benefits for?

Naturally, I am thinking slavery and the Indian genocide in America. A whole bunch of state legislatures now have apologies for Jim Crow laws and slavery on the table. Given that whites are in an advantaged position because of slavery, should they / we feel contrition for sins committed by an earlier generation? Should the government be issuing apologies for wrongdoings committed by none of its current members?

MarchHare touched on this issue a while back, arguing:

The U.S. has come forward to criticize Japan for not shelling out the money. My question for the US is, where is the monetary compensation for all those descended from slaves? I know there was an official apology, but where is the money?

The article I linked to above takes a different perspective, contending that not only should politicians not be issuing apologies, but doing so is actually bad for those the bills are trying to help.

Similarly, should Germans still feel bad about the Holocaust? Is there any reason to take a different position on guilt, apology, and reparations for Virginia Tech, slavery, and the Holocaust respectively?

I read some shocking figures on the #2 everyone loves to hate: Dick Cheney.

You might remember the fact, reported ad nauseam in the mainstream press last year, that Vice President Dick Cheney’s 2005 tax return showed he had a family income of $8.8 million. This was due in no small part from stock options from a variety of companies, including the much-vilified Halliburton Corp. This fact provoked howls of outrage from many of Mr. Cheney’s critics, who claimed it was evidence of what one syndicated columnist has called an “autocratic, plutocratic regime.”

Significantly less-frequently reported last year was this datum: Mr. and Mrs. Cheney gave 78% of their 2005 income to charity. That’s not a typo — the couple donated $6.9 million, including the proceeds from stock options and book royalties that Mrs. Cheney routinely gives away. Their giving went to three nonprofit causes in health, higher education and services for inner-city youth.

How does the current administration compare with the previous one? In 1999, the Clintons gave away a solid 9.4% of their income, while the Gores gave 5.1%. Two years earlier, however, the former vice president’s giving had earned some special attention. In 1997, the Gores only gave away $353 of their income of $197,729, or 0.18%.

- From Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Apr 18, 2007. pg. A.17

Of course, this is a bit beside the point in terms of any political criticisms of the Repubs. Still interesting to see which politicians are willing to put their own money where their mouth is rather than our tax dollars.

In the 8 months I lived in Minnesota before I moved to Japan, I got involved a little bit with the two new waves of immigrants to the Twin Cities; the Hmong and the Somalis.  I didn’t end up having time to do much before I left, but I did go to a few ESL training sessions at the local library, visited a bunch of restaurants in Loring Park area,  went to a bunch of concerts at the Cedar Cultural Center, planted some trees with a bunch of Hmong and Somali students and got to talk with a couple students on my bus route (I was a school bus driver).

It was enough to get me really interested in that scene within Minneapolis and I like to read about what is happening there now that I am far away.  This article was one of the better one’s I have read recently.  I think it also brings out some of the intricacies of the issue of genital mutilation and why it is difficult to judge an entire culture based on a single practice.

Anyhow, this is a good read.  Enjoy!

 http://www.rakemag.com/stories/section_detail.aspx?itemID=27944&catID=146&SelectCatID=146

 Oh and here is a good take on why I love Duluth.

 http://www.rakemag.com/stories/section_detail.aspx?itemID=27956&catID=146&SelectCatID=146

My own kayaking adventures are going similarly.  I just about froze yesterday when I was practicing my roll.  I checked the temperature and realized that it was only 3 degrees C (37 degrees F).  I felt manly.  Then I wondered “When will summer get here?”

I was reading a series of interviews with your and my favorite anarchist intellectual Noam Chomsky, and I came across an interesting argument; namely that the US will never allow a freely elected Iraqi government to take power. His argument is roughly this:

1) A freely democratic Iraq would have a Shiite majority, so it would shore up relations with Iran, which also has a Shiite majority. There are also large numbers of Shiites in Saudi Arabia, and a Shiite majority in Iraq could lead to strong reactions and sympathizing in Saudi Arabia.

2) This means that the core of the worlds oil fields would be under the control or influence of an independent Shiite government, which the US would never allow.

3) Iraq would also, most likely, seek to regain its historic place as a leader in the region. What this would mean would be Iraq creating actual WMDs not only as a deterrent, but as a counter to its main rival in the region, Isreal. Again, this is something that the US would never allow to happen.

So, if you agree with the statements above, can we ever hope to have peace in Iraq. Will the people ever stand by and let a US controlled puppet regime control the country, a regime which is obviously not representative of the majority of the nation? I would argue that they will not.

The fighting has no chance of ending until the US realizes that by “liberating” Iraq, it has slipped from our pocket. Until it is allowed to direct its course for the future, the violence may never cease. It seems to be a catch-22: does the US keep its course and keep the fighting continuing in Iraq, or does it let the Iraqis determine their own future in a truely democratic fashion, which will most likely lead to Iraq becoming, again, somewhat of a rival to the US?

I think what we are talking about here is in some sense memetic social Darwinism under the idea that Darwin opposed the teleological connotations the term ”evolution” carried in his time.  Some of these connotations were the result of Bonnet’s humonculous theory of embryological development in the 18th century combined with the moral convictions of Victorian Britain.   

During Darwin’s time, the term “evolution” itself was used within the realm of science to refer to a theory of geology proposed by Charles Lyell, a theory which, ironically, denied the posibility of adaptation within species.  While Lyell’s theory influenced Darwin significantly, Darwin’s own theory obviously took issue with Lyell’s premise that adaptation within species was impossible. 

The underlying Darwinian theory (eventually conflated under the term more general term ”evolution”) incorporates the idea of “more and less” only in chronological terms (ie. at this point in history, this set of species was present and at this point of history this set of species was present).

On the other hand, the Victorian-derived term “evolution” incorporates the idea of “more and less” in culturally relative terms at a simultanious point in history (ie. British culture is “more evolved” relative to Indian culture and Indian culture is “more evolved” relative to uncolonized culture).

The Darwinian theory involves descent with modification. The Victorian idea of teleological social evolution involves the idea of progress toward an predefined end (governance based on a rationalization of behavior in the case of human beings, which were considered superior to all other forms of life).

Victorian teleological social evolutionists (colonialists) identified between primitive culture and civilized culture under the idea that culture was directly correlated with species; if we are of the same species, we are of the same culture.  Primitive culture was a “less” evolved form of civilized culture and savages were a “less” evolved form of the species of man. 

Said a different way: primitive culture was where civilized culture had come from.  Savages were men yet untamed to rationalized governance.

Teleological social evolution (often called Social Darwinism by people who have only read about Darwin and never read Darwin himself) really hit its stride in Nazi Germany at the beginning of an attempt to synthesize Mendelian genetics with the teleological misunderstanding of Darwinian evolution via the interpretation of Herbert Spencer (“survival of the fittest”).

After WW2 and the culmination of the modern evolutionary synthesis of Mendelian and properly understoond Darwinian thought, the combination of the terms “social” and “evolution” became a bit taboo because of the holocaust.  

During the holocaust, a poor understanding of human genetic make-up allowed for the secularization of the teleological idea of evolution, which, combined with the teleological idea of evolutionary progress, led to an attempt to rid the world of antiquated cultural traditions through the extermination of those people who practiced them.

From WW2 on, there was a strong movement to prove that all human beings share a common biology, a near identical geneology, such that we might never again exterminate primitive cultural traditions by exterminating the human beings that practice those traditions.  Welcome, friends, to modernity, in which the world was judged by noble Americans fighting evil communists.

In modernity, an era that still incorporated the idea of Progress, whenever people wanted to talk about the Nazi idea of “social evolution” they made use of a different term; “development.” The modern idea of “development” differs from that of the Nazi idea of “social evolution” only in that it replaces the idea of “genetics” with that of “individual complete freedom of will.” 

Said a different way: the Nazi theory of genetics based-teleological social evolution says that some peoples are “more evolved” than other peoples and the reason is the genetic make-up of those peoples. 

On the other hand, the modern theory of “development” says that some cultures are “more evolved” than other cultures and the reason is that some people choose to be backwards based on false belief systems whereas others choose to join modernity.   

My Point: The modern theory of “development” was not exempt from being ethnocentrically teleological, despite its proponents’ claims to the contrary.

Then, a bunch of stuff happened: critics of modernity like Edward Said managed to make their point too well and the Soviet Union fell apart (not because of Said) and modernity ceased to make sense so we collectively decided to call it post-modernity, which is the era in which we currently live.  This era is defined by a single question “What the fuck is going on, eh?”

This is a question that we are beginning to be able to answer on a lot of fronts.  On the “development” front, a new concept is starting to come to the fore that seems to me to be likely to be to Darwin’s “Descent of Man” what the concept of gene has been to Darwin’s “Origin of Species.” 

In post-modernity, the term “development” is becoming less ethnocentrically teleological (within academia at least) and this change has given popularity to the new concept mentioned earlier in this paragraph.  Perhaps the post-modern conception of “development” will eventually form a new conceptual core around this concept. This concept is called the meme - an irreducible unit of cultural information ( whereas “gene” is an irreducable unit of species information). 

The concept of the meme was coined by Richard Dawkins in 1976 (The Selfish Gene), but was applied within the context of the modern theory of “development” and with the death of modernity, such application has ceased to make sense. 

In 2005, for example, the Journal of Memetics ceased publication and Richard Dawkins, still a die-hard modernist, has moved away from his own coinage.

So now that we are at the cutting edge of all this (assuming you can accept what I have written here), here are my questions for you, stated as strongly as possible to give you as much room to disagree as possible:  

@Marchy:  You use the word “tradition” (something that is passed down from generation to generation) in the context of getting rid of old ones and creating new ones; how often can we change a “tradition” before it becomes meaningless?  For example, if we create a “tradition” and our children throw it out, is it a “tradition”?  

@SM:   You don’t like culture and you want everyone to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.  Suppose you get your way, what then?  Or is it that you don’t want to get your way on a large scale, but rather be the person who causes culture to “descend with modification?”

@Capy:  I can imagine you reacting to the slander (libel? can never remember which is which) I wrote against the concept you hold dear; “development” is a noble cause.  And yet, you are troubled by its application in the real world… would you agree with me when I say that a great number of development projects can be classified under what I have termed “the modern theory of ‘development’.”  How specifically does what you believe differ from the modern theory of “development” (neo-colonialism)?  

@Ennui:  Finish teaching your class and take a position so I can ask you a question!  

@the rest of you:  Thoughts?

Glossary

Darwinian theory (post-Modern Synthesis): Genetic descent with modification in reaction to habitat.  Teleological end: survival of any given species in question.  

Victorian idea of social evolution: Colonialism (one world culture in different stages of evolution)

Nazi idea of social evolution: Culture is passed down through genetics, some cultures are superior to others, therefore, exterminate lesser races with inferior cultures

The modern theory of development:  Culture is passed down by choice due to ingorance of modernity.  Implement regimes that allow for modern education and people will choose modernity over culture.

Post-modernity:  What the fuck is going on, eh?

Post-modern reconception of “development”: ? memetic social Darwinism?  

Memetics:  The study of the modes of communication within a species through convention such as tradition, language, personal comunication, etc.

Memetic social Darwinism: memetic descent with modification in reaction to habitat. Teleological end: suvival of any given culture in question.

Gene: an irreducible unit of species information (please be kind… I am not a biologist and I realize that this definition sucks)

Meme: an irreducible unit of cultural information

For this post, I am going to pose two questions, and then give my response rather than be coy about what I actually think.

1) Is our socio-demographic group moving toward a-culturalism?
2) Is this a good or bad thing?

For starters, I realize Skeptical Mind and Wanderluster (formerly known as Tequila Socrates and the Zax) have discussed culture ad nauseum. In the context of this post, however, let’s just use the standard ambiguous-but-generally-agreed upon definition of the word.

One of the phenomenons of our generation that I find interesting is the rejection of tradition. (Here I am pretty specifically referring to the middle class, educated, socio-economic group. Most of my commentary does not really apply to, for instance, the South, but it does apply to almost everyone I know). We quickly evaluate tradition to be “pointless” and cease to engage in them. Very rarely is the rationalization “let’s practice this activity because we always have done it that way” good enough for us, and sometimes it is a reason to actively avoid practicing such “mindless” activity.

We have eliminated so many of these pointless traditions that it is difficult to even come up with them. The obvious one is church. People cease believing in God, and therefore see the ritual of attending weekly church as now pointless. But there are other little things as well. What about the tradition where the groom is not supposed to see the bride in her gown before the wedding? Traditions like that go out the window because the only point to them is the fact that they are tradition.

This is not the case in the rest of the world, generally speaking, and was certainly not the case historically. Group ritual has been an integral part of every society before ours (again, generally speaking). In the Middle East, for example, people get together five times today to talk to God which we strongly associate with religious belief, but the practice is at least as much about the shared experience as coming together as a community, and the intangible benefit of “tradition.” Likewise, historically Catholics came together for a mass that was given in Latin. No one understood what they were saying, but it was about the ritual and the tradition. These are just a few examples.

Within our socio-economic group, it is important to note a big exception: minorities of any kind. Because our culture strongly values individualism, I have noticed a trend among my peers that people will engage in tradition if it sets them apart from everyone else. For instance, someone with parents born in Estonia (insert any country, religion, etc.) but who was himself born in America and is pretty much completely Americanized will actively engage in Estonian rituals and traditions despite the trends I outlined above. Actually, I would argue this is more a product of American culture than Estonian – individualism.

This trend also comes out in self-identification. For instance, how many people do you know who lived in Canada (or insert any other country) for like 3 months in their youth or were born there, then spent the rest of their life in the US but introduce themselves as Canadian?

These are of course sweeping generalizations with lots of exceptions (there – I covered my ass), but generally speaking I think they are remarkably prevalent (which is an inane thing to remark because otherwise I wouldn’t be writing about this topic). So my answer to question number one would be, yes, within our particular socio-economic group, tradition does seem to be on the decline. And yes, I am aware that new traditions and new shared experiences are created in the face of this change (i.e., going to the movie theater), but I think the new ones are fleeting and not done because they are tradition, but for utilitarian reasons on an individual basis.

Which brings us to the second, more normative question raised here: does this loss matter? In training for my academic career, I have three answers.

Answer #1: I don’t know. I don’t know because I have never really participated in the sort of group ritual and tradition I have described here, at least not to the same extent that I have read about or observed elsewhere. I have experienced enough to be aware that it occurs, and on some level I mourn the loss, but really I don’t know what I am missing.

Answer #2: No. No because many old traditions I think are actively detrimental, and are gone for a good reason. For lack of a better example, the tradition of distinguishing women between Mrs. and Miss, but only having Mr. for men, was probably a good one to extinguish because it perpetuates inequality. There are plenty of other cultural conventions like this.

Answer #3: Yes. This does not mean that all traditions are malicious just because they “don’t have a point.” Just because we have been trained to observe and evaluate culture does not mean we have to throw our own culture out the window. I think meaningless traditions enrich life and make it more interesting. I don’t think “because it’s always been done that way” is a reason to do something, but nor do I think it is a reason to cease doing it.

In any case, I am the first to admit that these ideas are half baked, and I am interested to see what others think about the topic. Are there “meaningless” traditions that you miss (in quotes because it might well have personal meaning for you)? What sorts of new traditions have you created for yourselves? Did any of them start with a purpose, and end up turning into pure-ritual?