More great reading, David. Reminds me of a young student I once had from Cameroon, who explained to me that back home, folks treat money very differently than in western society. What he described sounded a lot like your cohesive social network of neighbours and family. In his case, he explained that personally-lent money is not expected to be paid back (certainly not with interest). Apparently, many returned home for this reason.
There's an overlap here with my own recent observations regarding selfism and how our society views individuals as motivated by selfishness, which implies self-loathing as well... and the upshot is that folks feel obligated to act selfishly or be presumed fools.
Which brings us to the crux of the subject: the war on love. No doubt this is the most critical element to keep an eye on. I'm glad to see you put your finger on this issue.
But how does it end? It seems to me that the history of the West since the decline of the Roman Empire has been the growth of ever more effective states engaged in a Darwinian struggle for survival and expansion. I see no evidence that these states have ever reformed themselves or are capable of doing so. Only an internal collapse or an external attack is going to do that.
And we could even argue (come on, let's be crazy!) that if humanity managed to live in harmony with natural law (to make natural law a path of life), it would manage to do without the " State" ; and then the social cement would be (almost) perfect.
An excellent discussion of Xenophon’s Hiero and the pursuit of 'excellent tyranny', David. It remains something of a shock to me when those who purport to represent human rights agreements show that they do not understand them at all... but these promises, as we know, are broken, and in their place is Human Rights 2.0, in which we are no longer placing limits upon what States can do to people and instead placing demands on States to do whatever it is the unrightful fancy doing.
I disagree with you about Thatcher and the arc of British life since World War II... I think perhaps this story is too complex to summarised, but I contend that there is a transition in the 1980s that has less to do with the welfare state and more to do with a decisive acceleration of the switch from citizen politics to money politics (the same happened in the US with Reagan in the same interval). Thatcher was brought in to end an era of rampant striking, and part of the way this was managed was to sharpen the realpolitik skill of ignoring what the people are asking for. Thatcher was notorious for eliminating anyone who disagreed with her from her immediate circle... Blair built his playbook from her methods. Politics, as what happens in the space of dissensus, ceased. Perhaps this is all part of the tale of 'excellent tyranny' after all...
It's certainly very complicated and hard to untangle from the story of technological development. No account of our social atomisation would be complete without an acknowledgement that atomisation is now simply much easier than it once was.
'Technological development' is one of those phrases that sounds as if it ought to be a positive concept... I have been suspicious of 'development' for some time, and suspicious of 'technology' too - both offer ways of framing problematic issues as necessarily positive, and thus concealing the ways both trends undermine convivial society. Future historians are going to have an incredible time with our era!
More great reading, David. Reminds me of a young student I once had from Cameroon, who explained to me that back home, folks treat money very differently than in western society. What he described sounded a lot like your cohesive social network of neighbours and family. In his case, he explained that personally-lent money is not expected to be paid back (certainly not with interest). Apparently, many returned home for this reason.
There's an overlap here with my own recent observations regarding selfism and how our society views individuals as motivated by selfishness, which implies self-loathing as well... and the upshot is that folks feel obligated to act selfishly or be presumed fools.
Which brings us to the crux of the subject: the war on love. No doubt this is the most critical element to keep an eye on. I'm glad to see you put your finger on this issue.
Yes, the war on love is real, and I completely concur with you.
"Which brings us to the crux of the subject: the war on love"
I even think that's the only big question.
No doubt. We will see the hatred for love accelerate, I think.
An excellent and well written piece, thank you 🙏
But how does it end? It seems to me that the history of the West since the decline of the Roman Empire has been the growth of ever more effective states engaged in a Darwinian struggle for survival and expansion. I see no evidence that these states have ever reformed themselves or are capable of doing so. Only an internal collapse or an external attack is going to do that.
My money is on internal collapse.
And we could even argue (come on, let's be crazy!) that if humanity managed to live in harmony with natural law (to make natural law a path of life), it would manage to do without the " State" ; and then the social cement would be (almost) perfect.
It's a sweet dream (probably because I'm a woman)
Brilliant analysis. Thank you.
An excellent discussion of Xenophon’s Hiero and the pursuit of 'excellent tyranny', David. It remains something of a shock to me when those who purport to represent human rights agreements show that they do not understand them at all... but these promises, as we know, are broken, and in their place is Human Rights 2.0, in which we are no longer placing limits upon what States can do to people and instead placing demands on States to do whatever it is the unrightful fancy doing.
I disagree with you about Thatcher and the arc of British life since World War II... I think perhaps this story is too complex to summarised, but I contend that there is a transition in the 1980s that has less to do with the welfare state and more to do with a decisive acceleration of the switch from citizen politics to money politics (the same happened in the US with Reagan in the same interval). Thatcher was brought in to end an era of rampant striking, and part of the way this was managed was to sharpen the realpolitik skill of ignoring what the people are asking for. Thatcher was notorious for eliminating anyone who disagreed with her from her immediate circle... Blair built his playbook from her methods. Politics, as what happens in the space of dissensus, ceased. Perhaps this is all part of the tale of 'excellent tyranny' after all...
It's certainly very complicated and hard to untangle from the story of technological development. No account of our social atomisation would be complete without an acknowledgement that atomisation is now simply much easier than it once was.
'Technological development' is one of those phrases that sounds as if it ought to be a positive concept... I have been suspicious of 'development' for some time, and suspicious of 'technology' too - both offer ways of framing problematic issues as necessarily positive, and thus concealing the ways both trends undermine convivial society. Future historians are going to have an incredible time with our era!
Right over the target. You might like Make Us Dream, a biography of Steven Gerrard and the tight community he came from.