Thank you for the resumption of thoughtful articles.
I have a question on your distinction of temporals and spatials. Is it the same as the dichotomy of people from somewhere versus people from anywhere ? The latter distinction was en vogue a few years ago before vanishing.
The real issue in pluralism is the synchronisation of a set of values and behaviours among all members of society that provides a levee against descent into violence. Normally this synchronisation is provided by religion. I distinguish several related notions:
- faith = inner set of beliefs about life, the supernatural world, and God or his absence
- cult = organised public manifestation and practice of faith
- sacred = separate domain in relation to the supernatural or God that usually inspires awe and respect
- religion = a cult is the religion of a group when it is shared by most if not all of its members.
Pluralism is a source of instability when several religions coexist in a territory or when the state adopts a religion that is not shared by most of the population. This is easy to see with the conflict between the various protestant, catholic and orthodox cults within Christianity. Currently most Western states have adopted a religion consisting of progress cum human rights, which is obviously not shared by many citizens.
In the 20th century the synchronisation was achieved independently of religion through radio and television. The population had few choices within a state and everyone ended up listening and watching to the same. The bureaucracy of the state determined the acceptable content. This created a shared culture that synchronised the values without resorting to religion. This mechanism was willingly dismantled.
Strong local autonomy, in the fashion of Swiss cantons, is a good way of establishing a pluralist society. What is needed against descent into conflict is a common religion or a common culture.
Hmm. I was in the middle of writing you a response and somehow the field disappeared, along with what I wrote – as far as I can see. So, if there’s any redundancy in my reply on your end, my apologies, Archangel.
So, on the first part: I haven’t read Goodhart’s book, but I’ve been told by some who have that there is indeed a good deal of overlap between the concepts. From the little I know about his model, that seems plausible to me.
As for the rest: it sounds like you begin using pluralism in the American sense, and end using it closer to the European sense. I use it exclusively in the latter sense. That is, I use pluralism to refer to legal and institutional polycentricity, not social diversity.
One of the virtues of pluralism would be for close-by groups with religious differences to maintain the integrity of those differences without feeling an existential need to conquer or destroy the other group. (Which is not to deny such aspirations may arise for other reasons.) Such pluralism would seem essential especially in a territorially constrained area, such as a large city. Though, I’m doubtful about how sustainable large cities would even be under time biased societies. But that’s another question.
And yes, I agree that the social binding effects (i.e., illusions of gemeinschaft) in space biased society has been maintained by the spatialist regime institutions – e.g., mass media and bureaucratic state.
And yes, I also agree, something like the Swiss cantons constitute a fascinating model for those who aspire to a renaissance of temporalist pluralism. I’ve discussed the Swiss model in the past and will be addressing it again (I’m pretty sure) in the current series on legal pluralism.
As always, thank you for your contribution to the comments section.
> pluralism does always pose the risk of civil war, but no more than that risk is present between states
Here is a thought (not well fleshed out, but here goes): human social interactions are mainly driven by love and fear. Love (mostly) toward those close to you and those you identify with. Fear of various forms of violence from (mostly) those far from you and your enemies. Vergesellschaftung, breaking natural social and community ties leads to less love. That void has to be compensated with more fear - more violence and threats of violence.
That strikes me as a perfectly good description of life as experienced by temporals. For spatials of course vergesellschaftung mitigates fear, and improves the conditions for love -- using your definition. Though, the "identity" entailed of course would be quite different.
Dear Evolved Psyché,
Thank you for the resumption of thoughtful articles.
I have a question on your distinction of temporals and spatials. Is it the same as the dichotomy of people from somewhere versus people from anywhere ? The latter distinction was en vogue a few years ago before vanishing.
The real issue in pluralism is the synchronisation of a set of values and behaviours among all members of society that provides a levee against descent into violence. Normally this synchronisation is provided by religion. I distinguish several related notions:
- faith = inner set of beliefs about life, the supernatural world, and God or his absence
- cult = organised public manifestation and practice of faith
- sacred = separate domain in relation to the supernatural or God that usually inspires awe and respect
- religion = a cult is the religion of a group when it is shared by most if not all of its members.
Pluralism is a source of instability when several religions coexist in a territory or when the state adopts a religion that is not shared by most of the population. This is easy to see with the conflict between the various protestant, catholic and orthodox cults within Christianity. Currently most Western states have adopted a religion consisting of progress cum human rights, which is obviously not shared by many citizens.
In the 20th century the synchronisation was achieved independently of religion through radio and television. The population had few choices within a state and everyone ended up listening and watching to the same. The bureaucracy of the state determined the acceptable content. This created a shared culture that synchronised the values without resorting to religion. This mechanism was willingly dismantled.
Strong local autonomy, in the fashion of Swiss cantons, is a good way of establishing a pluralist society. What is needed against descent into conflict is a common religion or a common culture.
Hmm. I was in the middle of writing you a response and somehow the field disappeared, along with what I wrote – as far as I can see. So, if there’s any redundancy in my reply on your end, my apologies, Archangel.
So, on the first part: I haven’t read Goodhart’s book, but I’ve been told by some who have that there is indeed a good deal of overlap between the concepts. From the little I know about his model, that seems plausible to me.
As for the rest: it sounds like you begin using pluralism in the American sense, and end using it closer to the European sense. I use it exclusively in the latter sense. That is, I use pluralism to refer to legal and institutional polycentricity, not social diversity.
One of the virtues of pluralism would be for close-by groups with religious differences to maintain the integrity of those differences without feeling an existential need to conquer or destroy the other group. (Which is not to deny such aspirations may arise for other reasons.) Such pluralism would seem essential especially in a territorially constrained area, such as a large city. Though, I’m doubtful about how sustainable large cities would even be under time biased societies. But that’s another question.
And yes, I agree that the social binding effects (i.e., illusions of gemeinschaft) in space biased society has been maintained by the spatialist regime institutions – e.g., mass media and bureaucratic state.
And yes, I also agree, something like the Swiss cantons constitute a fascinating model for those who aspire to a renaissance of temporalist pluralism. I’ve discussed the Swiss model in the past and will be addressing it again (I’m pretty sure) in the current series on legal pluralism.
As always, thank you for your contribution to the comments section.
> pluralism does always pose the risk of civil war, but no more than that risk is present between states
Here is a thought (not well fleshed out, but here goes): human social interactions are mainly driven by love and fear. Love (mostly) toward those close to you and those you identify with. Fear of various forms of violence from (mostly) those far from you and your enemies. Vergesellschaftung, breaking natural social and community ties leads to less love. That void has to be compensated with more fear - more violence and threats of violence.
That strikes me as a perfectly good description of life as experienced by temporals. For spatials of course vergesellschaftung mitigates fear, and improves the conditions for love -- using your definition. Though, the "identity" entailed of course would be quite different.
>Schmitt provides here ... a realistic conception of social powers’ configuration
>Schmitt is both describing what he sees as the extant condition of modern society
I think those "configuration of social powers" and "conditions of society" go at least as far back as Greek tragedy. See e. g. Antigone