Deneen contra monoculture

It is dangerous behavior to apply concepts of sustainable agriculture to things like human culture - one does not automatically apply to the other.

The issues surrounding agricultural monoculture are very real, and very specific to food sources/stablity of food source via bio-diversity. One famous gardener in Japan, not so well known in the West, is a fellow who practices a version of forest gardening, in which many different food sources are grown together. His gardens looks mess, but are extraordinarily productive, and require zero pesticides or fertilizer - i.e., a diverse, natural environment produces good harvests.

But we are talking about growing rice, squash, wheat and apples. Not people. When we start to apply gardening theory to human beings, well...I think our plow just ran off the south fourty and into the front lawn.

Maplewood has a valid objection... but I'm left wondering if it's because the question is badly phrased.

In a culture, what works is what has proven to contribute to the survival and growth of the culture. Culture that refuse to change when some aspect no longer fits that criterion is doomed, because once that aspect goes from being redundant or neutral to a detriment, it is usually too late to make the appropriate change.

...what conservatives and traditionalists would like to see is more of a (Judeo-Christian) monoculture in morality -- because we believe that morality isn't relative, but expressive of a transcendent moral order -- but diversity in local customs and expressions of culture.

Rod, I find it somewhat disingenuous to put parentheses around "Judeo-Christian", and this sop to political correctness is a symptom of the problem you seek to remedy. My objection is not that some people want the "transcendent moral order", but that they want it only on their terms, thus obviating any meaningful diversity on any level.

My suggestion: consensus. Pay more attention to the fact that the Judeo-Christian transcendent moral order is agreed to by people from traditions as old or older, and that there is no benefit to that agreement when non-Christians remain suspicious of ulterior motives. That, good sir, is why secular law and government is so important, and why the semantic removal of religion from law is (if you'll forgive me) a moral imperative.

We are intolerant of people who want to make everyone like themselves and we repress them.

Yes. Because we want them to be like us.

What we trads object to, it seems, is a market-based libertarian monoculture that offers a simulacrum of diversity while really working to kick out the foundations for any kind of stable culture that dissents from its foundational precepts.

I pretty much agree with you here, Rod, except that I'd insist that our current monoculture, at least when it comes to food, is hardly "market-based" or "libertarian": instead, it's very much the product of governmental poking and prodding - subsidizing certain products while regulating others out of existence, and so on. I'm not an inveterate free-marketeer by any means, but I do think it's worth considering the possibility that a more market-based system - that's to say, one characterized by less government intervention and more libertarianism - would work against hegemony rather than for it.

Anyone claiming that the current dominant culture is based on "autonomous individualism" is simply not dealing with the real world. (Sorry, Rod, but this means YOU.)

Our political culture is national-socialist; a powerful central government of perhaps 1,000 families (supported by centrally-run bureaucracies) establishes the rules to maintain themselves in office. Their power and tenure in office is based on massive taxation (40-50 % of GNP, including regulatory costs) to support "entitlement" programs that are essentially systems of organized bribery. "Voters" give their support to the politicians in exchange for publicly-funded "benefits". The individual subject has no more control over any aspect of this system--or even an effective way of communicating with it---than he does over the weather. (Try to set up a personal appointment with the President, a policy-making-level bureaucrat, a Federal judge or senior member of Congress WITHOUT being a major campaign contributor.)

On a practical level, just consider this: the overwhelming majority of American commoners were vehemently opposed to the immigration "reform" proposals that dominated the "public debate" last year----to the tune of 70-80 percent---and yet the elite cadres of Washington were caught utterly off-guard by the response to the said proposals.

Also consider this: during election "campaigns", the sole contact the candidates for President have with the voting commonoriate, outside of their carefully orchestrated publicity appearances, is through television. Television ads make up the largest expense in any campaign for national-level or large-state-wide level office (governor, Senator).

Our economic culture is corporate-consumerist: a system of large organizations interlocked with the central- and provincial-State apparatus (those 1,000 families again) designed to goad the populace into a high level of ongoing indebtedness (to a level that would be described by the standards of earlier times as debt-peonage) through the mass eliciting of consumption. The consumption, of course, is designed to maintain the positions and tenure in office of the major stockholders and senior corporate managers. Said stockholders/managers (who are NOT the same people) have virtually no contact with anyone who is in the "middle" or "working" classes who is not an employee or other subordinate.

Consider this: marketing and publicity campaigns for new products are focussed not on individual consumers, but on ZIP CODES. The theory is that these zip codes can be used to sort and classify groups of consumers into "market segments" which can then be targeted for advertisement.

To the managers and senior supervisors of the elite class, individuality is not only unsettling, it is downright dangerous. Treating the members of non-elite groups as abstractions is much easier and far less morally unsettling than to actually consider that their actions affect actual, real people. It's easier to manipulate someone you can't see or talk to directly---and who can't punch you in the mouth if you insult him.

A society that really was based on respect for "autonomous individuality" would scare the living bejeezus out of the current elites. It would run counter to their entire worldview.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Herr Evans @ 3:44:

I won't argue about the numbers. They take second place to the underlying principle involved. As Pareto pointed out, all societies have elites, greater and lesser "nobility", no matter what they are called. And yes, they do intermix, or try to.

The primary differences, it seems to me, between the social structure of the American Empire and those of, say, pre-WWI Britain or Austria are these: size and technology. The absolute size of the modern "elite" classes, combined with the insulating effect of modern technology (both for communications and transportation) make it very easy for decision-makers to avoid thinking about their subjects as Human beings.

A British lord or German noble had more and closer contact with commoners than a modern corporate bureaucrat or high government official ever will. There was a lot less room for the "abstraction" of a medieval lord's tenants or serfs when the lord lived a mile down the road than there is when a modern corporate CEO's employees--or a Congressman's "constituents"--live on the other side of the continent. (For a good fictional treatment illustrating this, see Michael Flynn's novel "Eifelheim".) If nothing else, the villeins or serfs could go march on the lord's castle with torches if sufficiently provoked. The CEO of Disney--or the head of your state's DMV---probably doesn't worry about such things all that much. :-)

Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea if they did have to a little. Just a thought....

Your servant,

Lord Karth

To sound one of my favorite themes, perhaps the answer is to combine the prevailing "market-based libertarian monoculture" -- which has much to recommend it, both on principle and in practice -- with a strong denial of moral relativism. Giving people the ability to make choices does NOT necessarily mean that one is indifferent to virtuous outcomes. Encourage virtue, incentivize virtue, remember that government exists in part "for the praise of them that do well" (1 Peter 2:14); but for crying out loud don't try to mandate virtue, because that doesn't work.

I know you tradcons aren't fond of modernity, but I think it's foolish to root for its demise. Postmodernism is worse. (If I'm right about that last point, it's a reason that conservatives should prefer Clinton to Obama, btw.)

ditto Lord Karth and Franklin Evans.

Here's my 5 cents worth in defense of a personalist praaxeology of liberty:

Deneen's trifecta (politics, economics and sciences) indicates his ivory tower biases, but I can work with it for sake of Rod's invitation to analysis. May I liken his points to three arrows? I consider the shaft of these arrows the scholastic path flown in time by the projectiles of human thought, som eon target some less so. What is the target? And what elements of construction along the shaft ensure the arrowhead is obedient to the archers aim? Thus

"In politics, thinkers like Hobbes and Locke articulate the first universal and anti-cultural theory of politics, obliterating considerations of local culture, history and tradition in the name of a _singular_and_monolithic_ conception of political ...

... so far so good, shaft takes aim for pinning blame on...

"... l.e.g.i.t.i.m.a.c.y ... " uh????

What's wrong with one standard for justice, especially if one is a monotheist?
Absolute truth demands no less: that there is a correct answer to a question, that we can know error by its mismatch with beauty. This arrow misses its target, Deneen Dud #1.

"In economics, thinkers such as Adam Smith introduce a world-transforming economic theory that renders the entire globe subject to the logic of the ..."

... so far so good, shaft takes aim for pinning blame on...

"... m.a.r.k.e.t ... " uh????

What's wrong with a public location for exchanging the products of human creativity? Bartering valuables directly or trading for such valuables with tokens of indirect worth (Native Americans used nature's bounty of handsome seashells, we use more a prosaic tool called money), especially if one is an aesthete? Freedom to pursue the things that please one the most?
Human dignity demands no less: self-directed agency in pursuit of fit-for-purposeness of sustaining ones human life. That we can avoid death.
This arrow misses target, Deneen Dud #2.

"In In the sciences, thinkers like Bacon, Descartes and Spinoza introduce a method that renders all local knowledge irrelevant to the specialized knowledge of the expert...

... so far so good, shaft takes aim for pinning blame on...

"... the universally valid findings of science ..." uh????

What's wrong with peer review? For unless we have those who can confirm a new fact of life as certain, the most prudent course of action for the rest of us doofuses is to play devil's advocate and assume a humble uncertainty (we cannot know what we have not encountered). Last and final arrow misses target, Deneen Dud #3.

Deneen's fallacy is his own blinkered bias - the scholar "thinks" therefore he is... Mr homo sapiens and his glorified "mens".

Most of the rest of us humans beings are more readily satisified with becoming all we can be with all our heart, mind and strength. We rejoice to be
blessed with a human family, whose currency of exchange fit-for-purpose is caritas. And yet while we strive to thrive to attain such blessings, we are glad to be human individuals in original solitude, whose currency of exchange in encounters with other human individuals in original solitude are our personal deposit of values defended in heart, mind and strength. Existential destiny with Mother nature being a fickle fate, sustaining life is a precarious enterprise and thus human individuals in original solitude may endeavour to associate with others in one of two ways: isolating exploitation (piracy, plunder and rape) or mutual cooperation (collaborative communities)
with the currency of exchange identifying the virtue or vice of assocation: cultural assets such as division of labor and specialized artisanal tools, bricks and mortar accomplishments, accumulated capital goods bely an entrepreneurial spirit of liberty and respect for human genius, a lack of same a sign of the depravity of the power structures among societies of individual homo sapiens.

Our nature universe builds on very important monocultures, consider this Benedict option (French Jew Benoit Mandelbrot) Rod: a mathematics pattern repetition predicts a basis for wildly diverse plant forms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set#Image_gallery_of_a_zoom_sequence

Indeed the basic unit of human social organization, the family is pretty monocultish the world over, right?

I propose that Deneen Duds #1, #2 and #3 could be redeemed if -- instead of his gnostic dualism that diminishes the unique place of human action in the redemption of Mankind (relegating our efficacy to a faculty for separating ourselves from the worst figments of our own imagination, putative "enemies" with which we battle in unending anxious combat) -- we consider monoculture as an authentic expression of human existence vulnerable to corruption by evil - the Deceiver who would have us believe his empty promises, flattering us into believing we ourselves are the power behind our PSYCHE, INTELLECT, and WILL. That the "cause" of our existence need not concern us... death comes in the end after all, who cares what life is all about?

Our saving grace is our aesthetic sense, indeed, Rod's "diversification of "taste" provides the material for an arrowhead sharp and true:
If we "aesthetes" devote some time to choosing certain rewards for our endeavors by determining a selfawareness of personal preferences, we practice SELF-CONTROL, and secure such time where we may encounter God. If as we become "brights" we would pursue diversification of "thought"
we acquire KNOWLEDGE, and secure opportunities to know God. And if we are gifted with the longevity and health of a Gandalf the Grey, we "wizards" may attain diversification of "action" choosing to LOVE, surrendering our time on earth to become like Him.

The philosophy of a phenomenological personalism that 20th century European scholars such as Edith Stein and Karol Wojtyla advocate is an arrow fit-for-purpose for the challenges we face, however the illiteracy in our ivory towers will need a few generations of remedial education to recover the proficiency of practise required for application in to the political sphere. I beleive the public square of media and blogosphere will be the place for debate until the professors and dozents catch up.

Thanks to Rod and his employer DMN we have this means to promote justice, peace and love, God Bless America!

Wouldn't it be better to post responses over at Prof. Deneen's blog?

So far, I'm at a loss to coherently express my reactions to your excellent post, Clare. I'll share one general thought.

"Monoculture", as used in this context, seems to implicitly exclude a similar label: monolithic culture. The latter seems to me to be closer to the concept of diversity and the issues being raised.

Looking back at our early history (the US, that is), I observe a loosely-defined culture struggling with internal conflicts, but with a kicker: an implicit value given to diversity, at least as it resides in the hearts of individuals. I submit that the Bill of Rights (amongst other writings) is the protector of diversity, and as evidence I point to the various periods in which diversity was viewed as an evil, and the concurrent declines in individual and civil liberties.

In the present, I don't see a culture that is much less "loosely" defined than the one 230 years ago. I see very similar tensions and conflicts. Indeed, my gut reaction to the whole notion of monoculture is that any given group will in fact be striving for just such a goal, and their complaints are motivated by their being thwarted by the Bill of Rights.

I acknowledge that I'm being simplistic. ;-)

My present quite successful career and our ability to wax poetic on the vagaries of human nature for all to see, were made possible by a scientific endeavor that was constantly under threat of cessation of funding, constantly questioned as to its value present or future: the manned spaceflight program. Their innovations gave birth to personal computers. (And Tang, a most vile beverage. ;-D )

It is the recognition of Crichton's observation that is the key. The pessimist (that being the vast majority, sadly) takes it as proof that now is the most important moment. The optimist looks at examples like the one above and takes it as proof that risk is not the governing factor, because while we cannot know what fruit will result, we do know that we've benefitted from such unpredicted fruit every step of the way. That is the legacy of our founding fathers, and (should be) the focus of our gratitude towards them.

In my pagan universe, Clare, every human has the innate ability to recognize evil. The differences, and the source for all of our lasting stories and mythos, is in how each individual responds to that recognition.

I intellectually abhor the term "supernatural". In my experience, the natural is a given and the most appropriate qualifier is "rare".

Fraulein Kampusch is a heroine in the classical sense. She finds excrement and learns to make compost. She is an Everywoman, accessible to us because she is so familiar, and remains so despite her unfamiliar experiences.

Humans are just unrelentingly fascinating to watch, eh? ;-)