Restoration projects

Myths=memes these days, don't they? Developing those seems like an independent sub-project, and one that probably has to come first.

---

You have a point, but I was thinking of what we could actually do now. We can create memes on twitter all day; we can't yet seize the state.

---

What I think we should do is keep showing that all desires imply absolutism for their fulfillment and that accepting absolutism means realizing that all desires will not be fulfilled and therefore are not all worthy of fulfillment.

I can see why the argument I (we) are making seems like it presupposes mass conversion. My own thinking has changed on this significantly over the past year or so. I used to assume that peoples' beliefs were deeply rooted, in habits, reasoning and background, and that changing people's beliefs would therefore be a long, involved process, involving sustained dialogue, refutations, new evidential frames, and so on. No doubt that's actually the case sometimes--I would like to think it's true for me, and I think that I could show that it is, so I'd have to assume it's true for others. But it's obviously not the case for many, probably most, people. I began, at a certain point, to notice when I spoke with leftists (or listened to them speak wth each other), that the things they said came directly out of that days outrage promoted by the NYT or WaPo. Not the general ideas, but the exact same topic, even words. And this was from intelligent people--they were obviously functioning as ideological "delivery systems." I can see from right wing blogs that the phenomenon is not exclusive to left-wingers--it's not exclusive to anyone. Not every media campaign works--I don't see any public panic over Russia, for example, although we still might--but in general the content providers do provide the content of most peoples' thought. I think the same process would work even more effectively in a reasonable, well ordered system where fake conflicts aren't constantly being instigated. Even now, it's easy to see that most people agree about most things regarding social arrangements most of the time. The divisive arguments are at the margins, and they are deliberately inflamed. Douse the fires, make it clear how they have been doused, and people will be much more resistant to attempts to generate fake controversy. That is, given a chance to focus on what is productive and beneficial in their social arrangements, they will be "fairly sophisticated and disciplined." You wouldn't need to find some way to educate them all in advance of the social transformation, which would anyway be impossible.

---

I don't see the neutering. A population intellectually and morally inoculated against liberalism depends upon an anti-liberal political structure. A well-organized social structure will promote clarity, thoughtfulness and immunity to slick forms of divisiveness. This can't happen in a divided society. The point is that clear hierarchies grounded in reciprocal relations, rather than individual autonomy, produces mature forms of consciousness.

---

Forms of consciousness are socially produced--perhaps we agree on that? This will be the case in an absolutist no less than a liberal system. People will always remain vulnerable to "top-down" messaging. The respective systems will produce different forms of consciousness. The preferability of absolutism in this regard can't be that it produces freer or more independent thinkers, who don't have messages imposed on them. A Christian population, imbued with knowledge of the gospels, an encompassing ritual structure, consistent, regular and intelligent preaching, will, all things being equal, be more resistant to scapegoating, vendettas and other forms of uncontrolled violence. That wouldn't make them any less "vulnerable" or make the content of their thinking any more "their own" than that of pagan, or communist, groups. It would make them more disciplined and their thinking more mature, though. I'm not sure if we disagree so far. Yes, the absolutist message wouldn't be divisive, because it has no reason to be divisive. (Which also means that there may be plenty of resentment in the sense of feeling your merit or value has gone unrecognized, but that kind of resentment can reinforce the authority you ask for recognition from; but political resentment based on some kind of innate, pre-social right being violated can be eliminated.)

Now, if zero people were equipped for and interested in an absolutist order, there would never be one; if everyone were equipped and interested, we'd already have one. So, clearly we are somewhere in between, much closer, no doubt, to zero than to everyone. We need more people to be equipped and ready--how many, no one can say. But a lot less than everyone. We are now commenting on a post claiming that we'd only need a "small group with resources." No doubt a vanguardism that would shock Lenin. By definition those ready to take power are in advance of those who are not participating. My own thinking is that more important than how many people are "oriented in such a way" is how profound the crisis is. For enough elites to throw their support behind a project that overturns centuries of political development, especially in a country like the US, the crisis would have to be deep indeed. In that case, a dictator who establishes order would indeed be something like a savior--plenty of people without a political thought in their heads would see how much better this is. There is also the possibility of an orderly transformation, maybe even one brought about through electoral means. We should leave no possibility unconsidered. In this latter case, the thinking of a large proportion of the people would have to be advanced, and in that case the leader might be less charismatic, maybe even a more technocratic type. The real question--in a way it was Lenin's question as well--is how the thinking of enough people would get advanced enough under a system that discourages such thinking so strongly? It's hard to answer, which is why I consider the crisis more likely; but it is possible that in a weakened state counter institutions (like the "Antiversity") could develop traditions that prepare for social transformation. A kind of more or less prolonged "dual power" (to return to Lenin) arrangement is imaginable.

---

Then we might as well sharpen and clarify the disagreement. Forms of consciousness are produced by the shared attempt to follow the ordering of goods dictated by the center. The primary relation is between margin and center, not among those on the margin. The center has both a "figure" and a 'locus." The figure is the sovereign; the locus is the reordering of reciprocities around the hierarchies established by the sovereign's displacement of the ritual center. Communal learning means bringing the locus and figure into closer accord--or, trying to understand the will of the sovereign as a will to order asymmetrical reciprocities.

---

Yes, this is useful. Let's see if I can reciprocate.

What is going on at the top, and why? Power centralizes, but it does so by simultaneously fragmenting. Why does it centralize--because it wants more or because it wants secure power? I think it makes more sense to think in terms of wanting power to manage the divisions, including, increasingly, the divisions created by the latest centralization. I say this because sheer power and wealth hunger would not generate the discourses needed to organize the low against the middle, and society in general--if the rulers genuinely want to solve problems and create more stability, we have a better explanation for the reasons they find useful (more equality will lessen destabilizing tensions, for example). This would also account for the "high" sharing broadly similar resentments as the "low." Ultimately, though, there is a more fundamental anthropological issue: we all want a secure center, and can't imagine anything else until we can imagine that.

Now, if we follow through on this notion of the "little absolutisms," in trying to secure power, which I see as securing or clarifying sovereignty, the "middle" the absolutist would rely on would be all those in favor of such absolutisms in social institutions. Absolutism would restore all them in restoring itself. Schools that want to prepare students for entrance into professions and disciplines, universities that are interested in inquiry, businesses interested in providing a good product and providing for their workforce, police interested in maintaining law and order, etc. The perversion of all those institutions means that restoration might require establishing dictatorships in many of them--giving a few "real" professors charge over the university, for example. In other cases, it might just be a question of turning the institutions back over to those running them, and letting them work naturally. So it's never a question of just guns and domination, because all of the institutions and traditions need to be brought in as participants. I would distinguish the ways in which a restorationist sovereign might have to confront politicized and demolished institutions from the social "acid" of the atomizing modern state.

---

Yes, I accept the account of modern power that RF derives from de Jouvenel. What the state and elites think they are doing is more complex--I assume they think they are stabilizing conflicts and potential conflicts by striking at what they see as the source of the conflicts--more traditional orders that make smooth social functioning more difficult. They let the politicians, media and academics to work out the details--they can fill in the language from the resentments elicited from the "lows."

Intelligent people can find a lot of meaning in quasi-theological discourses of victimization and white guilt. They can feel they are transcending inequality, prejudice, self-interest and other forms of nastiness.

I do think of absolutist politics as restorationist--not restoring a previous order so much as immanent orders. So, that's what I want. What do you want? We need some way of thinking about the relation of now and then. Or maybe you think we don't?

---

Yes

---

Is there something in particular in the book you think it would be productive to discuss?